LEV243 Here I propose to study a specific halakhic provision which illuminates Jewish law's relation to universal human moral judgment, namely the category hillul hashem insofar as it shapes Jewish duty in terms of gentile opinion. An inner theological dialectic lies behind the legal tension to be explored. God has given the Torah to one particular people, the Jews, and its rules distinguish between those who do and those who do not participate in the system. The same Torah indicates that God stands in a similar relationship, if a legally less demanding one, with all humankind, the children of Noah. Hence they may be said to have a legitimate basis for judging Jewish conduct. (See the admirable study by David Novak, The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism (New York: Edward Mellen, 1983). The potential tension between what the Torah permits to Jews and a harsh evaluation gentiles might make of it creates the subset of the laws of hillul hashem to be studied. While the term hillul hashem does not occur in the Bible, equivalents are found in several biblical books, with heavy concentrations in Leviticus and Ezekiel. The peshat of these texts may be classified as moving from concrete acts of profanation, to those which directly or indirectly cast aspersions on God, and finally to an abstract sense of hillul hashem. Since the book of Leviticus pays considerable attention to cultic acts which sanctify God --to the extent that various items can be called God's "holy things" -- so, by extension, mishandling them profanes God. (Thus Lev. 21:6, 22:2, 32; Mal. 1:12; and perhaps Ez. 20:39.) Idolatry--specifically, sacrificing one's child to Moloch --is a desecration (this verse), 20:13). Ezekiel accuses certain women prophets of equivalent sacrilege (Ezekiel 13:19). The theme also encompasses non-cultic violations, of which swearing falsely by God's name is a similarly direct profanation (Leviticus 19:12). And it includes unethical acts like a father and son having sexual relations with the same girl (Amos 2:7) and Jerusalemites reneging on their solemn path to free their Jewish slaves (Jeremiah 34:16). Ezekiel envisages this notion abstractly and four times, in consecutive verses, proclaims God's determination to sanctify the Divine name which the people of Israel has profaned through its sinfulness (Ez. 36:20-23). The social dimension of several of these acts of profanation deserves particular attention. The heinousness of the sacrilege derives as much from what the act says about God to others, a public, as from its intrinsic profanity. The biblical authors consider God's social, corporate acknowledgment even more important than the equally indispensable private faith of individuals. The political term, king, so often used to refer to God, testifies to this social understanding of God's reality. Hence acts which imply that there is no God or which as good as do the same by testifying falsely to God's nature or commands, profane God's "name," that is, our understanding of God or, equally, God's reputation. Much of rabbinic teaching in this area derives from the social context.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV245 The Torah clearly states its views about the act of homosexuality. Homosexuality, i.e., two men having sexual relations, is unmistakably prohibited [this verse]. The act is twice called a "To'aiva," an "abomination" and it is such a severe sin that it merits the death penalty in a Jewish court system (Leviticus 20:23). If not for the fact that homosexuality is prevalent and accepted in Western society today, there would be a little controversy about this Torah sin. It is clearly forbidden and never condoned anywhere in the Torah. The very context of the prohibition gives us an indication of the severity of the homosexual act (Leviticus 18:21-23). It is couched between the prohibitions of child sacrifice (to an idol) and bestiality (sexual relations with an animal). In almost every culture in the twenty-first century, these two acts are considered abhorrent, repugnant, and contrary to society's values. This attitude seems to reflect the Torah's attitude towards the act of homosexuality. It is only because homosexuality is relatively widespread and condoned by so many people today, a relatively new phenomenon, that it appears that the Torah is "out of step" with the real world. "Live and let live" concerning all sexual unions is a consensus that emerged only in the latter part the twentieth Century. This apparent conflict raises an important issue that has clear ramifications and will be discussed below. Although it is not specifically mentioned in the Torah, lesbianism was regarded by the Rabbis in the same manner as homosexuality -- i.e., as an unnatural sexual bond (Midrash, Sifra, Acharei Mot 8:8). They clearly forbade it in Jewish law as a Rabbinical violation without the classical punishment for sin (because no classical intercourse takes place) (Maimonides, Hilchot Isurei Bi'ah 21:8), but did suggest Rabbinic flogging as a punishment. The Code of Jewish Law adopts this view as well (Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha'er 20:2).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV244 … biblical interpreters [who] hold that homosexuals are being punished by aids for that homosexuality, [] might be surprised to find that the Hebrew Bible does not necessarily punish homosexuality with a plague but rather in (this verse) and verse 28 suggest exile as the appropriate punishment and verse 29, karet, which recent biblical scholarship tells us indicates that this person will not have any progeny or will be excommunicated from the group. (D.J. Wold, 1978, University of California, Berkeley, Unpublished Dissertation, "The Meaning of the Biblical Penalty Kareth;" Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, p. 121; Encyclopedia Miqrait, Vol. 4, pp. 330-2.) Additionally, among other crimes mentioned in the same chapters of Leviticus (punishable with karet) are included: 1. The offering of sacrifices without priestly authority (Leviticus 17:9), 2. The eating of blood of animals to be sacrificed to God (Leviticus 17:10), 3. Spirit or ghost consulting (Leviticus 20:6), 4. Cursing father or mother (Leviticus 20:9). In all of these cases, the specific crime and punishment is mentioned and they all share the same punishment with homosexuality. While many of these crimes in Western society have been circumvented, ignored or changed, homosexuality continues to be seen as biblically forbidden and punishable by divine action. The association between homosexuality and the punishment of "plague" is, however, incorrect according to the Bible. In addition, one would be hard-pressed to explain why other "sinners" guilty of equally heinous crimes (according to the Bible) do not contract aids or why IV drug users contract aids when there is no category similar to IV drug abuse in the Bible? The selective use of this category is, therefore, both potentially harmful and poor biblical scholarship and should not be used.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV248 Unlike general society, which may change its value system from generation to generation (fifty years ago, for example, nearly 100% of surveyed Americans thought homosexuality was immoral, while today the percentage is far less), Jewish values do not change from generation to generation, since they are divinely established and human nature remains the same, even as human values are ephemeral. The Torah clearly states that homosexual activity is morally wrong, calling it an abomination [this verse]. In addition, this sin is so severe that the penalty is death (Leviticus 20:13). It should be noted that one may not confuse the Jewish attitude toward homosexual behavior with a Jewish attitude to the homosexual. In Judaism, one can hate the sin but not the sinner (See chapter "Hate and Revenge"). As the Talmud notes according to one interpretation (Berachot 10a), based on the verse in Psalms (Psalms 104:35), one should pray for the end of sin, not for the end of perennial sinners. Sinners are still considered part of the Jewish community (Sanhedrin 44a)... In fact, if it can be proven in the future that specific homosexual behavior is due to a sickness and is uncontrollable, rather than is a tendency, urge, and a lifestyle made by choice, then those who engage in this type of homosexual behavior would be in the Jewish category of ones and would not be morally responsible. Similarly, a shoplifter who was a kleptomaniac and psychologically deemed not in control is not looked upon as a sinner unless the immoral act is made out of free choice. However, homosexuality has not yet been proven to be an illness.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV246 Do not commit sodomy. Hashem wants the world to be populated. For a man to lie carnally with another man runs counter to this goal, for such results in the destruction of the male seed and serves no positive purpose whatsoever. Hashem forbids this act also because it is perverted, vile and disgusting in His eyes, as it is in the eyes of anyone who has any sense. Each of us is created to serve Him and a person should not degrade himself with such a vile and ugly deed.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV247 The duty to ransom Jewish captives is perhaps the most graphic illustration of this thick sense of community. It is as if the body has been dismembered, and it cannot rest until the last member has been reattached. Jewish law gives priority to the legal requirement to ransom captives over everything else, a vivid illustration and a direct implication of Judaism’s extensive community. “Redeeming captives takes precedence over sustaining the poor and clothing them, and there is no commandment more important than redeeming captives. Therefore, for everything commanded for which the community collected money they may change its usage for the sake of redeeming captives. Even if they collected it for the sake of building a synagogue, and even if they bought the wood and stones and designated them for building the synagogue, such that it is forbidden to sell them for another commanded purpose, it is nevertheless permitted to sell them for the sake of redeeming captives. But if they built it already, they should not sell it... Every moment that one delays redeeming captives where it is possible to do so quickly, one is like a person who sheds blood (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 252:1, 3).” Following mishnaic and talmudic sources, the Shulchan Arukh (Yoreh De’ah 252:8) maintains that the community should redeem a woman before a man because even though both are in danger of torture or even death, the woman is also at risk for being raped by her male captors. On the other hand, if the captors are known to rape men as well, we must redeem men first because the Rabbis, who were all men, thought that as bad as rape of a woman is, rape of a man through forced anal sexual penetration was worse because it did not even follow the form of what in other circumstances is loving, consensual sex. (The Rabbis and--at least until recently--the rest of the Jewish tradition condemned anal penetration of one male by another as an “abomination,” following Leviticus 18:22.) This rule, with this exception, indicates that the one who is at greatest risk, and who therefore needs our help most, gets it. (Continued at [[LEV1070]] Leviticus 25:36 you DORFFWITO 135).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV249 Why does the Torah forbid homosexuality? Bearing in mind that reasons proffered for the various commitments are not to be accepted as determinative, but as human efforts to explain immutable divine law, the rabbis of the Talmud and later Talmudists t did offer a number of illuminating rationales for the law. As stated, the Torah condemns homosexuality as to'evah, an abomination. The Talmud records the interpretation of Bar Kapparah who, in a play on words, defined to'evah as to'eh attah bah. "You are going astray because of it" (Nedarim 51a). The exact meaning of this passage is unclear, and various explanations have been put forward. The Pesikta (Zutartra) explains the statement of Bar Kapparah as referring to the impossibility of such a sexual act resulting in procreation. One of the major functions (if not the major purpose) of sexuality is reproduction, and this reason for man's sexual endowment is frustrated by mishkav zakhur (so too Sefer ha-Hinnukh, no. 209). Another interpretation is that of Tosafot and R. Asher ben Jehiel (in their commentaries to Ned. 51a) which applies the "going astray" or wandering to the homosexual's abandoning his wife. In other words, the abomination consists of the danger that a married man with homosexual tendencies may disrupt his family life in order to indulge his perversions. Saadiah Gaon holds the rational basis of most of the Bible's moral legislation to be the preservation of the family structure (Emunot ve-De'ot 3:1: cf. Yoma 9a). (This argument assumes contemporary cogency in the light of the avowed aim of some gay militant to destroy the family, which they consider an "oppressive institution"). A third explanation is given by a modern scholar, Rabbi Baruch Ha-Levi Epstein (Torah Temimah to this verse), who emphasizes the unnaturalness of the homosexual liaison: "You are going astray from the foundations of the creation." Mishkav zakhur defies the very structure of the anatomy of the sexes, which quite obviously was designed for heterosexual relationships. It may be, however, that the very variety of interpretations of to'evah points to a far more fundamental meaning, namely, that an act characterized as an "abomination" is prima facie disgusting and cannot be further defined or explained. Certain acts are considered to'evah by the Torah, and there the matter rests. It is, as it were, a visceral reaction, an intuitive disqualification of the act, and we run the risk of distorting the biblical judgment if we rationalize it. To'evah constitutes a category of objectionableness sui generis: it is a primary phenomenon. "This lends additional force to Rabbi David Z. Hoffmann's contention that to'evah is used by the Torah to indicate the repulsiveness of a prescribed act, no matter how much it may be in vogue among advanced and sophisticated cultures: see his Sefer Va-yikra, II, p. 54.).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV250 The Torah [this verse] states, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination". In another verse (Leviticus 20:13), the Torah repeats the injunction, but specifies that "the two of them have done an abominable thing; they shall be put to death--their bloodguilt is upon them." Rabbinic and later halakhic sources generally interpret these verses to prohibit male same-sex relationships. Lesbian sexual activity is not mentioned in the Torah and is forbidden almost as an afterthought in later sources. Specifically, the Talmud describes female same-sex activity as "mere obscenity" that does not disqualify a woman from marrying a member of the priestly class (B. Yevamot 76a), and Maimonides states that though female same-sex sexual activity is technically forbidden, "there is no specific biblical prohibition, and it is not called 'intercourse' at all." [M.T. Laws of Forbidden Intercourse (Issurei Biah) 21:8]. In other words, though lesbians today must also contend with a discouraging textual tradition, the strength of the prohibitions against them are much lighter and easier to address from a legal standpoint than those regarding gay men. (By Danya Ruttenberg, "Jewish Sexual Ethics")

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV251 Bar Kappara asked Rabbi [Judah, President of the Sanhedrin]: What is the meaning of to’evah (abomination, as in Leviticus 18:22, the verse banning homosexual relations)? He then refuted every explanation offered by Rabbi. “Explain it yourself,” Rabbi then said. Bar Kappara replied: Thus the All Merciful One said: to’evah = to’eh ata bah [you go astray in respect to it. He is using a play on words, for this phrase in Hebrew sounds like the Hebrew word for abomination]. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 51a

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV252 See [[LEV842]] Leviticus 20:13 lies DORFF-RUTTENBERGSEX 116

SHOW FULL EXCERPT