LEV831 See [[EXOD553]] Exodus 21:15 strikes CHINUCH 35

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV832 The Rabbis taught: I might think, since there is liability both for striking and for cursing, that just as there is liability for striking only in a lifetime of the parent, so there is liability for cursing only in his lifetime; it is, therefore, written: "He has cursed his father and his mother" -- even after death (Sanhedrin 85b)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

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

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV835 The exact opposite of loving, marital companionship is adultery. Adultery is prohibited by the seventh of the captain Commandments, and adultery and incest are together treated as one of the three prohibitions that, according to the Talmud, a person is not to violate even on pain of losing one's life. (45) indeed, the Torah prescribes the death penalty for both men and women involved in adultery; (46) and if for some reason that punishment is not carried out, the Talmud maintains that a woman who committed adultery is forbidden to both her husband and her Paramore--that is, she may not continue in her marriage and she may not marry her lover.) 47) test the Jewish tradition clearly for bad adultery in the strictest of terms. Even though I know of no conservative or orthodox rabbinic ruling that is reversed this time music stance, and practice rabbis often find ways to maintain that the adultery has not been legally established so that they can pursue efforts to have a couple reconcile, especially if the couple has young children. Sometimes these efforts are successful, and they certainly should be pursued. Divorce, as I discussed below, always brings with it pains of its own for both a couple and for any children involved.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV834 Illegitimate Children. Similar circumstances [referring to preceding section "Obligations of Society" apply to children conceived by rape. The circumstances of such a conception cannot have any bearing on the child's title to life, and in the absence of any well-grounded challenge to this title there cannot be any moral justification for an abortion. Once again, the burden rests with society to relieve an innocent mother (if she so desires) from the consequences of an unprovoked assault upon her virtue if the assailant cannot be found and forced to discharge this responsibility to his child. In the case of pregnancies resulting from incestuous, adulterers, or otherwise illegitimate relations (which the mother did not resist), there are additional considerations militating against any sanction of abortion. Jewish law not only puts an extreme penalty on incest and adultery, but also imposes fearful disabilities on the products of such unions. It brands these relations as capital crimes (Leviticus 20:10-20), and it debars children born under these conditions from marriage with anyone except their like. 1. The Deterrent Effect. -- Why exact such a price from innocent children for the sins of their parents? The answer is simple: to serve as a powerful deterrent to such hideous crimes. The word-be partners to any such illicit sexual relations are to be taught that their momentary pleasure would be fraught with the most disastrous consequences for any children they might conceive. Through this knowledge they are to recoil from the very thought of incest or adultery with the same horror as they would from contemplating murder as a means to enjoyment or personal benefit. Murder is comparatively rare in civilized societies for the very reason that the dreadful consequences have evoked this horror of the crime in the public conscience. Incest and adultery, in the Jewish few are no lesser crimes (compare the juxtaposition of murder and adultery in the Ten Commandments. Exodus 20:13), and they require the same horror as an effective deterrent. 2. Parental Responsibility. -- Why create this deterrent by visiting the sins of the parents on their innocent children? First, because there is no other way to expose an offense committed in private and usually beyond the chance of detection. But, above all, this responsibility of parents for the fate of their children is an inexorable necessity in the generation of human life; it is dictated by the law of nature no less than by the moral law. If a careless mother drops her baby and thereby causes a permanent brain injury to the child, or if he syphilitic father irresponsibly transmits his disease to his offspring before birth, or if parents are negligent in the education of the children, all these children may innocently suffer and for the rest of their lives expiate the sins of their parents. This is what must be if parental responsibility is to be taken seriously. The fear that such catastrophic consequences will ensure from a surrender to temptation or from carelessness will help prevent the conception of grossly disadvantaged children or their physical or mental mutilation after birth. ... Rigid abortion laws, ruling out the post facto "correction" of rash acts, compel people to think twice before they recklessly embark on illicit or irresponsible adventures liable to inflict lifelong suffering or infamy on their progeny. To illuminate the scourge of illegitimate children more self-discipline to prevent their conception is required, not more freedom to destroy them in the womb. For each illegitimate child born because the abortion laws are strict, there may be ten or more such children not conceived because these laws are strict. The exercise of man's procreative faculties, making him (in the phrase of the Talmud) "a partner with God in creation," is man's greatest privilege and greatest responsibility. The rights and obligations implicit in the generation of human life must be evenly balanced if man is not to degenerate into an addict of lust and a moral parasite infesting the moral organism of society. Liberal abortion laws would upset that balance by facilitating sexual indulgences without insisting on corresponding responsibilities.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV836 … it would be wrong to assume that Judaism's ancient criminal laws are always a perfect fit for today's society. Jewish laws on sexual offenses reflect the morality of the times in which they developed. Some sexual offenses in the Bible are punishable by death. [E.g., this verse]. By contrast, the trend today, even in those countries that retain the death penalty, is to not impose capital punishment for sexual offenses. Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008). Moreover Jewish law prohibits many sexual activities, including consensual acts with nonmarried partners, that today's secular laws may allow. The biblical laws on rape and sexual assault seem antiquated when they call upon women to resist their attackers, cry for help, and be amenable to "punishment" of the defendant by requiring him to marry the victim or pay a fine. (Deuteronomy 22:28-9) These ancient laws do not fit today's culture because they come from a time when women were often considered a type of property. So what do these laws teach about Judaism and the content of criminal justice? They teach us, first, that while Judaism offers some valuable lessons about the operation of a criminal justice system, it does not offer magic formulas for a peaceful and just society. The greatest value that Judaism offers for establishing a criminal justice system is not in the details of its individual prohibitions or exceptions. Rather, it is an ethics-based system that holds its laws out as representative of it ethical values. Within that system, the focus is as much on the needs of the victim as it is on society's need to punish the defendant. (By Laurie L. Levenson, "Judaism and CriminalJustice"

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV837 See [[GEN721]] Genesis 9:6 shed OXFORD 475-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV840 The most liberal Orthodox spokesman have drawn a distinction between homosexual persons who sin in the same manner as all Jews do and homosexual sexual activities, which are prohibited as an especially egregious sin, an "abomination" in the words of Leviticus (this verse). Such rabbis intend this distinction as a way to make room for homosexuals within the Orthodox community--but that welcome comes at the cost of having an integral part of the homosexual's identity and life branded as an abomination. Other Orthodox rabbis are less kind; and, in any case, Orthodox rabbis as a group, with maybe one or two exceptions, condemn homosexual sex. Conversely, as early as 1973 the Reform movement accepted into its synagogue organizations those synagogues with special outreach to gays and lesbians, and in 1990, the Reform rabbinical school, Hebrew Union College, officially adopted a policy opening admission to gays and lesbians on a par with heterosexuals. Thus while individual reform synagogues or persons may object to gay sex or to gays occupying positions of synagogue leadership, the official policy of the Reform movement does not support either of those stands, maintaining instead that homosexuals should be treated exactly as heterosexuals. It is thus only in the Conservative movement that heated discussions on this topic continue… The Conservative movement… as a movement, stands on record for full civil rights for gays and lesbians and for protection from attack and discrimination. It also officially welcomes gays and lesbians, as it welcomes all Jews, to conservative congregations. Serious disagreement continues within the movement, however, on two issues: admission of gays and lesbians to rabbinical and cantorial schools, and the advisability of creating and using some kind of commitment ceremony for gay or lesbian couples. [Note: This source was published in 2003; the Conservative movement subsequently issued further rulings on these issues - AJL].

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

LEV839 See [[LEV243]] Leviticus 18:21 profane LOC 20-21

SHOW FULL EXCERPT