Acharei Mot - 2021 - Vayikra 18

THE BASIC PRINCIPLE AND THE REASON: DON’T DO AS THE CANAANITES DO (18: 1– 5)

The distinction that concerns the writers in Leviticus 18 is that of Israel versus other nations: the people of Israel are not to behave like Egyptians or Canaanites.

Although the unit distinctly deals with prohibited sexual couplings, the issue here is one of geography and identity more than physicality. In this respect, the laws establish geographic and cultural borders between the people of Israel and the Egyptian empire, as well between Israel and the Canaanites among whom they live.

Israel is different, according to Leviticus, in not allowing the perverse couplings permitted among the other peoples. This does not prove that the sexual practices forbidden to the Israelites were ones actually practiced by the Egyptians or Canaanites; rather, these laws help to produce the categories of Israel and Other.

Geography is at stake because Israel’s most powerful memory is the exodus from Egypt. As for Canaan, in addition to divine promise, Israel’s land claim derives from the Canaanites’ having made the land odious by their practice, which requires the redemptive purification of Israelite settlement. By outlining the forbidden limits of Israelite sexuality, the priestly writers symbolically establish an ideal set of “geographic” borders that definitively separate Israel from other nations. -Eskenazi, Dr. Tamara Cohn. The Torah: A Women's Commentary

Beruriah the Scholar Teaches: The Torah forbids us to “COPY THE PRACTICES OF EGYPT” (18:2). It then lists in careful detail every sexual liaison forbidden to Israelite men, including incest, adultery, bestiality, male homosexuality, and sexual contact with a menstruating woman. The only taboo specifically addressed to women is sexual intercourse with a beast.

Our Daughters Ask: Why are these particular practices forbidden to the Israelites?

Hagar the Stranger Answers: Because it’s what their neighbors did! The pharaohs in my country, for instance, used to marry their own sisters and mothers. And in many pagan cults, wild sexual rites were performed, involving many of these forbidden couplings.

Lilith the Rebel Interjects: At least, that’s what the Torah says. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Israelites had some wild parties of their own!

Huldah the Preacher Interjects: Ever since it’s founding, Judaism has scrupulously regulated the sexual behavior of its followers. Living among so many different cultures, Jews have come to appreciate the costs and wages of sexual license and have chosen to pay a different piper.

Serakh Bat Asher the Historian Adds: Whereas the mighty ancient civilizations of Egypt, Babylonia, Canaan, Greece, and Rome have since gone bankrupt. -Frankel, The Five Books of Miriam

This statement is puzzling in a code dealing primarily with incest, since there is no explicit evidence that incest was widespread in Canaan or Egypt. At certain periods in the history of ancient Egypt, it was the custom among the royal class to encourage brother-sister marriages. This was not likely to be imitated by the common people of another culture. Some of the tangential prohibitions of chapter 18, however, such as homosexuality and bestiality, were apparently quite common in Canaanite culture. -Levine, JPS Torah Commentary

human beings shall live. The common thread through Leviticus 16– 18 concerns how to live and stay alive alongside the powerful Presence of the Divine. The priests prescribe a lifestyle in which upholding distinctions maintains purity while ritual practice sheds impurity.

The sexual laws, addressed to men as normative, begin with the prohibition of incest and sexual relations among close kin relations. Anthropologists maintain that prohibitions to establish distinctions in the familial realm are the very basis of culture. The prohibitions against incest— an act that effaces the difference between family members— are consistent with the priestly agenda of maintaining categories.

This section outlines who an Israelite man cannot have sexual relations with because they are too close, while at the same time it points out bodies that are forbidden because they are too far from being Israelite. The nuclear family, even step and half-members, is too close, while members of nations such as Egypt and Canaan are too far. Setting such internal and external borders carves out a sexual identity for Israel in the space between.

With the exception of the law forbidding coupling with animals (18: 23), this litany of sexual laws does not address women. Rather than subjects, women are objects to be or not be “uncovered.” One wonders how the laws might be different had they been addressed to women and men as equal sexual partners and also what unwritten codes determined the sexual practices of Israelite women. -Eskenazi, Dr. Tamara Cohn. The Torah: A Women's Commentary

None of you men. The overriding principle is that no man should pursue intimate relations with his family members. The family is thus defined in relation to a virile man positioned at the center. -Eskenazi, Dr. Tamara Cohn. The Torah: A Women's Commentary

Forbidden Wives and Partners

Beruriah the Scholar Teaches: Because men in ancient Israelite society were permitted multiple wives and concubines, the relational web of each family was more complex than in the simple nuclear family and therefore more likely to become tangled. This section of Leviticus lists all the female blood relatives who are considered sexually off-limits to an Israelite man. Forbidden are a man’s own mother and his father’s other wives; his sisters, half-sisters, and stepsisters; his granddaughters; his maternal and paternal aunts; his daughters-in-law and sisters-in-law; sexual relations with a woman and her daughter; marriage to two sisters. Curiously, the one blood relative who is not explicitly prohibited is a man’s own daughter (although it has been argued that such a ban must be assumed, given the closeness of this relationship).

Huldah the Preacher Comments: In setting these boundaries, the Torah here defines incest more broadly than some of its earlier narratives do. In Genesis, for instance, Abraham marries his half-sister Sarah, and Jacob marries two sisters. In Exodus, Moses’ father, Amram, marries his aunt Yokheved.

The Rabbis Explain: These marriages are permitted because they occurred before Moses received the Torah at Sinai.

The Sages In Our Own Time Counter: A rabbinic fairy tale! We suspect that either this levitical text was written much later than the Genesis stories (sexual mores having changed); or that the tales or the legal text – maybe even both – were based on constructed, not actual, reality. Since we have no other Israelite documents from biblical times (outside of comparative cultural documents), we don’t know for sure which laws were obeyed and which breached, which rules reflect common practice and which only the ideal of common practice.

Dinah the Wounded One Remarks: The Israelite family was clearly defined by its sexual boundaries. Such taboos were obviously meant to protect the women with the family from precisely those males who had easiest sexual access to them. In a society in which women had so little power and autonomy, such protection should have allowed them to sleep peacefully at night.

Our Mothers Muse: As blended families become more common in our society, we’re discovering that our own relational webs are becoming increasingly more complex. Maybe we should reexamine and revise our definition of incest – so our own daughters can sleep peacefully at night. -Frankel, The Five Books of Miriam

Our Daughters Ask: Why does the Torah include in its list of forbidden women not only a man’s female relatives but his wife’s relatives as well – her mother, sisters (while his wife is still alive), daughters, and granddaughters? As it is written: “THEY ARE KINDRED; IT IS DEPRAVITY (zimmah)” (18:17). In the case of two sisters, an additional reason is given: “DO NOT MARRY A WOMAN AS A RIVAL TO HER SISTER” (18:18).

Mother Rachel Teaches: In forbidding such marriages, our tradition displays admirable insight into human psychology. For by setting up these boundaries, the Torah protects a married woman’s precious sphere of female relationships, what we might today call her “support network” – that is, her intimate family. These relationships are to remain inviolate from sexual competition; once a woman is married, her female relatives are to serve her as allies, not rivals.

Leah Adds: If only Rachel and I had been so fortunate! -Frankel, The Five Books of Miriam

לא תקח לצרור, “you must not marry to become a rival;” the result would be that both these women (the sisters) would be widows in the house of their husbands while the husband is alive, as he is forbidden to have marital relations with either one of them. -Chizkuni

The Rabbis Teach: The seventh commandment – YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17) – is defined very specifically in the Torah and later Jewish law. In this parasha, we are told …

Lilith Interrupts: Speak for yourself!

The Rabbis Continue: It is written: “DO NOT HAVE CARNAL RELATIONS WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR’S WIFE” (18:20). Thus, to be considered adulterous, sex has to involve a married (or betrothed) woman. But if an unmarried woman sleeps with a man, whether married or not, neither is considered guilty of adultery. (In fact, at one time we considered such an act tantamount to betrothal.) This law is designed to ensure that a married woman’s children are legitimate, sprouted from the seed of her husband. Children born out of wedlock -- that is, to unmarried women – are not a threat to a man’s property or name. But children born illegitimately within wedlock – that is, to married women – are. Therefore the Jewish definition of bastard – mamzer – covers only children born of forbidden unions – adultery (as here defined), incest (as defined above), or prohibited marriages (such as that between a priest and a divorcée). Children born simply “without benefit of clergy” – to unmarried women, concubines, prostitutes, slaves, and captives – are not considered bastards, although they obviously have a lower social status.

Dinah the Wounded One Adds: One wonders whether that gives much solace to their mothers. –Frankel, The Five Books of Miriam

Molech is the name given to a deity worshiped by some of Israel’s ancient neighbors. According to 2 Kings 23:10, King Josiah destroyed a cult site in the environs of Jerusalem where children had been sacrificed to Molech during the earlier reign of Manasseh, king of Judah. The biblical evidence on the subject of the Molech cult is difficult to interpret clearly and has occasioned controversy among biblical scholars. These problems are explored in Excursus 7. -Levine, JPS Torah Commentary

The Torah and the History of the Ancient Near East

Hebrew mishkevei ‘ishshah means literally “after the manner of lying with a woman” by the introduction of the male member. Male homosexuality is associated with the ancient Canaanites, if we are to judge from biblical literature. Two biblical narratives highlight this theme, one about the men of Sodom in Genesis 19, and the other concerning the fate of the concubine at Gibeah in Judges 19. Although Gibeah was an Israelite town, the story clearly implies that Gibeah’s Israelite residents had descended to the abominable ways of the surrounding Canaanites.

Both of these accounts place the phenomenon of male homosexuality in a particular context: xenophobia. This extreme fear of strangers induces a community to attack visitors. In both of the stories cited here, the form of attack was homosexual assault. It is also thought that the pagan priests, called kedeshim, regularly engaged in homosexual acts. -Levine, JPS Torah Commentary

*****

Homosexuality and the Ideas of Our Mothers

Our Daughters Ask: Why does the Torah forbid male homosexuality and label it an “abomination” (to’evah)? As it is written: ‘DO NOT LIE WITH A MAN AS ONE LIES WITH A WOMAN” (18:22).

Lilith The Rebel Retorts: Perhaps because the Torah wants them to lie together “as one lies with a man”!

The Rabbis Answer: Men should not lie with men because that’s what the Canaanites do. Such behavior was practiced by the wicked men of Sodom, by sacred pagan male prostitutes, called kedeshim, and by common male prostitutes. In the Talmud, we provide three reasons for this taboo: such acts pervert nature, prevent procreation, and threaten family life by robbing women of their husbands.

Our Daughters Object: Don’t heterosexuals often choose not to have children?

The Rabbis Answer: Voluntary childlessness is not acceptable to us! But neither is the death penalty decreed here in the Torah for homosexual behavior. Therefore, in the Talmud, we lowered the penalty to flagellation, which in time changed to social censure and ostracism.

Our Mothers Continue: And in recent years, many liberal Jews, including many rabbis, have challenged Judaism’s traditionally hostile stance toward homosexuality. In America today, there are gay rabbis and a growing number of gay synagogues.

Our Daughters Ask: Why isn’t lesbianism mentioned anywhere in the Bible? Does Judaism permit sexual love between women?

The Rabbis Answer: Although the Torah doesn’t specifically mention lesbianism, we later included it within the general category of homosexuality.

Our Daughters Ask: But why does the Torah totally ignore the topic of sex between women? Was such behavior unheard of? Was it a secret restricted to women? Was it practiced but considered harmless? Or was it quietly condoned as necessary in a polygamous culture?

Mother Rachel Answers: What do men know about the love between women!

The Sages in Our Own Time Add: For the Bible and the Rabbis, what concerned them about sex was not who was sleeping with whom (although they obviously opposed illicit sexual behavior) but who was engendering whom. -Frankel, The Five Books of Miriam

*****

In the early 21st century, this is one of the most misinterpreted, abused, and decontextualized verses in the Torah. This verse, ripped from its place in the system of levitical laws, is often mobilized to justify discriminatory legislation and behavior against homosexuals and their families. While the act of anal intercourse would present a problem to the person who organized his life according to the levitical laws, it has no place in judicial systems not governed by the total system of Leviticus— and does not cohere with contemporary sexual notions of mutual consent and sexual preference.

In Leviticus, the priestly writers want to prevent the mixture of different types of fluid, as well as uphold distinctions. In terms of blending fluids, anal intercourse is problematic for the same reason as is intercourse with a menstruating woman: semen, an agent of life, potentially mixes with feces, a substance that symbolizes decay and death. This is similar to the mixture of semen and menstrual blood that indicates the absence of conception. In addition, the priestly writers want to avoid the blending of gender categories, as evident in their choice of language. They do not command “do not lie with a male,” but rather “do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman.” The problem arises when someone treats a male body like a female one. Indeed, such distinctions between engage in a fierce rivalry (Genesis 29)— although Jacob does not knowingly marry Leah or intend for her to be a rival to Rachel. -Eskenazi, Dr. Tamara Cohn. The Torah: A Women's Commentary

ואת זכר לא תשכב, “and you are not to indulge in homosexual relations with another male.” Nachmanides writes that the reason for the injunctions against sexual relations between males, and between man and beasts, are quite clear, seeing that G’d abhors such mismatching of His creatures. Such relations cannot contribute to the continued existence of the respective species, the only valid reason for indulging in the sexual act.

Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that the older daughter of Lot said to her younger sister (Genesis 19,34) “here I have slept with my father last night, etc.,” this is clear proof that the Torah views initiation of the act by the female of the species as on the same level as if the male initiates it, i.e. when a forbidden relationship is entered into both parties are equally culpable. Although the Torah uses the masculine לא תשכב in our verse, the same applies to the female of the spies, i.e. lesbianism is also prohibited.

Nachmanides criticizes Ibn Ezra, saying that if he were correct why was the woman not automatically included in the warning of ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך לטמאה בה, “you must not inject your seed into any female animal to lie with it carnally,” and mention separately immediately afterwards:ואשה לא תעמוד לפני בהמה לרבעה, “and a woman must not stand in front of an animal for the purpose of mating, etc,?” He therefore concludes that the verse quoted by Ibn Ezra from Genesis 19,34 means that Lot’s daughter drew attention to the fact that seeing that ejaculation of semen by the male normally occurs only as a result of physical activity by the male, something which in the case of the drunken Lot could hardly be expected, she told her sister that in order to secure the semen that both of them wanted, it was not enough to remain passive during the procedure, but they had to be physically active to arouse their father. - Tur HaAroch