EXOD1072 See [[GEN1466]] Genesis 37:32 examine FREUND 87-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV190 See [[LEV244]] Leviticus 18:22 abhorrence FREUND 281-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV191 See [[LEV244]] Leviticus 18:22 abhorrence FREUND 281-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV226 The Rabbis took (this verse) and interpreted it to mean that in cases of physical survival and observance of the Law, physical survival took precedence. "He shall live by them," the Rabbis interpreted to mean that no one should die as a result of observing the Law of God. Yoma 85b, Sanhedrin 74a. This rather open-ended leniency apparently was restricted in the case of idolatry, incest, and murder. Sanhedrin 74a. [However] ... The Rabbis opinions went from apparently favoring physical life over Law under all conditions, to limiting this preference of life over Law to only when one is forced into committing any breach of God's Law by unusual circumstance. If one lives in a time where the law of the regime forces Jews to breach all God's Law they should be martyred before allowing the regime to succeed in this endeavor. Other Rabbis took this further and said that even under unusual circumstances (not a regular rule of the regime) one should not allow any breach God's Law if it is to be practiced in public. Ibid, 74a-b.

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 (D.J. Wold, 1978, University of California, Berkeley, Unpublished Dissertation, "The Meaning of the Biblical Penalty Kareth;" Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, p. 121; Encyclopedia Miqrait, Vol. 4, pp. 330-2.)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

LEV324 There seems to be some type of disagreement over the applicability of agricultural biblical commandments in the outside of Palestine, because even in the Babylonian Talmud, some rabbis saw some of them as applicable in the Diaspora. Hullin 137b. This controversy eventually led to a metaphoric understanding of some of the biblical agricultural commandments and the rabbinic reinterpretation of ethical principles for an urban market economy. So, one finds, for example, that from the agricultural commandments concerning peah, (the leaving of the "corners" of the field for the poor--(this and preceding verse) provided the rabbis with a basis for establishing norms for the treatment and welfare of the poor. (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Matenot Aniyim, Chapters 1-10, especially chapter 7 where he diagrams the different methods of helping the poor.) The principles for the treatment and welfare of the poor established by Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah established norms for controlling the economic imbalances apparent in society as well as curbing the evil effects of this economic imbalance: i.e., total self-interest.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV737 In The Special Laws (3.46-50), Philo raises an argument which can be relevant in developing a Jewish bio-medical view "according to nature." Using the prohibition of (this verse) and Deuteronomy 22:9–11 against mixing diverse types of seeds/fabrics/animals as the basis for his discussion, Philo establishes the reason for this prohibition in three separate arguments. Each argument, however, is related to the basic "according to nature" view. First, one who mixes different species "will be punished as an offender against the decree of nature, who is careful to preserve the primary species without adulteration." Second, Philo relates this "mixing" as a biblical euphemism against "unlawful forms of intercourse" and to prohibit the introduction of "monsters of the kind that may be expected to spring from such abominations." Finally, Philo argues that "even people who care little for seemliness would not continue to use (these animals)… because they no longer will serve a purpose in life, their survival, even if it is turned to some account, is just a superfluity, 'cumbering the earth, as the poet puts it." Homer, The Odyssey, 20. 379. 46 This final reason unlike the first two raises a new consideration. To Philo nature has a purpose and creation is unique. Even if the purpose of the new "creation" is profit yielding, the creation must serve human life or be judged "clutter." Though Philo is speaking about a primitive bio-medical technique only vaguely similar to modern bio-medical technology, but (sic) the principle which he raises can be applied in bio-medical and modern scientific ethical consideration.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV828 See [[LEV244]] Leviticus 18:22 abhorrence FREUND 281-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV833 See [[LEV244]] Leviticus 18:22 abhorrence FREUND 281-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV838 … the fact that Leviticus 20 places the homosexuality prohibition (this verse) between the prohibitions against sexual relations between a man and his daughter-in-law (Leviticus 20:12) and a woman and her daughter (Leviticus 20:14) suggests that a more specific prohibition is hinted at rather than a more universal prohibition against homosexuality. Similarly, the only other legal prohibition against homosexuality found in Deuteronomy 23:18 refers only to ritual sodomy and its placement there suggests that it is a crime tantamount to other idolatrous acts and therefore "an abomination." (The existence of such ritual sodomy among the Hebrews is attested by the Bible itself; I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; II kings 23:7). Furthermore, the lack of any legislation against lesbianism in the Hebrew Bible leads one to conclude that a restricted homosexual prohibition may be the intention of these passages. Although homosexual relations are not seen by the Hebrew Bible as normative, it is difficult to say whether the Hebrew Bible wished to issue a universal ban on homosexuality or to prohibit it only when used as a part of pagan ritual. I Samuel 18 and 19 and II Samuel 1:26 use the same vocabulary to describe David and Jonathan's love as one finds in the case of heterosexual lovers. In addition, as we noted before, the Hebrew Bible, in general, does not contain detailed sexual legislation concerning either married or unmarried men, and the absence of any legislation concerning female homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible suggests that a general ban on homosexuality may not be the major issue in the legislation in Leviticus. (Since the Deuteronomy text is later than the Leviticus text we might assume that the Deuteronomy author is only reformulating the Leviticus prohibition.)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT