tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post114670406997699774..comments2023-12-27T03:40:39.548-05:00Comments on Mah Rabu מה רבו: Leviticus 18:22 according to Rabbi IshmaelBZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-53950156393046954042023-12-26T00:39:58.949-05:002023-12-26T00:39:58.949-05:00Found one! In today's daf yomi (Bava Kamma 54...Found one! In today's daf yomi (Bava Kamma 54b), there is a <i>klal ufrat uchlal</i> that spans multiple <b>books</b> of the Torah (involving the two versions of the Ten Commandments), albeit addressing the same mitzvah.BZhttps://mahrabu.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-91477389536234707872019-05-21T10:18:26.406-04:002019-05-21T10:18:26.406-04:00I just mean that my opinion is contrary to that of...I just mean that my opinion is contrary to that of the writer. Just an observation, in Lev 18:22 there is no mention of relationship as stated in previous verses, eg "Do not have sex with your father's sister, she is your aunt." It says "a male" and "a woman." So I don't know how one could come to that conclusion. DHardmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06306715463799273844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-40659141767140701172019-05-21T10:16:38.711-04:002019-05-21T10:16:38.711-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.DHardmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06306715463799273844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-66059626560190749982019-05-17T13:06:26.573-04:002019-05-17T13:06:26.573-04:00What do you mean by "I'm sorry"? Yo...What do you mean by "I'm sorry"? You don't sound sorry.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-6092055728599401282019-05-17T10:58:08.027-04:002019-05-17T10:58:08.027-04:00I'm sorry, but I will never accept that God co...I'm sorry, but I will never accept that God condones same-sex relationships. It sounds ludicrous! God created them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife (woman, wife, female).DHardmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06306715463799273844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-74864955335135726062019-05-15T20:57:04.685-04:002019-05-15T20:57:04.685-04:00Or adulterous.Or adulterous.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-77076555801624177202019-05-15T13:54:40.402-04:002019-05-15T13:54:40.402-04:00So, what I gather from your summary is that same-s...So, what I gather from your summary is that same-sex ralationship is permissible as long as it's not incestuous?DHardmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06306715463799273844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-49185608596421306272018-06-02T05:25:31.389-04:002018-06-02T05:25:31.389-04:00"Originally Leviticus 18 prohibited homosexua..."Originally Leviticus 18 prohibited homosexual incest with a man’s father (v. 7) and his uncle (v. 14). When the prohibition of male homosexual intercourse was added, the Torah modified the aforementioned laws and consequently changed the meaning of לגלות ערוה “to uncover nakedness.”[1]<br /><br />https://thetorah.com/how-the-prohibition-of-male-homosexual-intercourse-altered-the-laws-of-incest/Henric C. Jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09261015351645874184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-71252597211003303122018-06-02T05:20:15.261-04:002018-06-02T05:20:15.261-04:00Do you have a link to the piece by Rabbi Arthur Wa...Do you have a link to the piece by Rabbi Arthur Waskow? - I am collecting sources on the issue.Henric C. Jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09261015351645874184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-83827641968940803772014-12-30T18:37:10.400-05:002014-12-30T18:37:10.400-05:00I've recently been entertaining the idea that ...I've recently been entertaining the idea that this might be also referring to hermaphrodites; is there any evidence in the original Hebrew to back this up?blehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643494385375963611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-14829140272577958562012-11-22T10:21:46.540-05:002012-11-22T10:21:46.540-05:00I read your blog some time ago, but on rereading i...I read your blog some time ago, but on rereading it feel moved to say yasher koach. I believe creative exegesis, whether of Tanakh or Rabbinic texts, is just what we should be doing. Have you developed the idea any further, especially dealing with any of the finer points and technical issues raised by some of the responses?Rabbi Mark Solomonhttp://www.liberaljudaism.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-19755762899369593512012-04-30T19:02:12.338-04:002012-04-30T19:02:12.338-04:00I find this approach very interesting indeed. And ...I find this approach very interesting indeed. And the skillful use of R. Yishmael's principles to derive this reading is very good scholarship. However, my problem with trying to resolve the problem of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in this fashion is that, as far as I can tell, this kind of return to the wellspring of Mikra for a completely new reading is essentially operating as though we modern rabbis had Tannaitic authority. And I am deeply unconvinced that we do or should have such authority.<br /><br />I have thought for some time, and continue to think, that the best resolution for these verses that we can hope to achieve is to write and issue a takanah l'akor davar min ha-torah, which would essentially be a takanah l'shem tikun ha-olam. Since it is inconceivable that Hashem would give us a commandment that would permanently stigmatize and torment around 1/10 of the Jewish People simply because of how He created them, and nobody yet has been able to come up with a workable interpretation of them that is consistent with the authority we currently have, the best thing that we can do is to admit that we do not understand how the verses are to be utilized, and until Eliyahu Hanavi brings the moshiach to clarify everything and teach us what these verses really mean, we declare them to be in abeyance as sources for practical halachah. This is a radical approach, to be sure, but it is a solution with the bounds of post-Talmudic rabbinic authority.<br /><br />-AAAmitaihttp://rabbisadler.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1149657738627198442006-06-07T01:22:00.000-04:002006-06-07T01:22:00.000-04:00Just wanted to note a few points:1) Your conclusio...Just wanted to note a few points:<BR/><BR/>1) Your conclusion--though not your precise analysis--was already anticipated by a student of Jacob Milgrom's and is cited in his Volume II of his commentary on Leviticus. I find the substantive conclusion as to peshat offered there unconvincing, though. As pointed out by another scholar, Devarim's objection to cross-dressing clearly indicates a broader discomfort with gender crossing activities, not just a narrow objection to certain incestuous relationships.<BR/><BR/>2) I think your kelal uferat arguement is flawed in that the verse in question does not fall under the rubric of she'eir besaro--we are not dealing here with a relative of any sort. This prohibition, along with those of bestiality and Molekh worship are tacked on to that broader category. It is therefore not really a subset of the former category.<BR/><BR/>3) Though I don't have space to elaborate on this here, I think we would all be best served by acknowledging that, from the Torah's perspective, all homosexual encounters were deviant and forbidden and considered a boundary crossing activity of the worst kind. The claim made by those who see it differently today is essentially that there is a different category of person to whom the Torah's harsh proscription might not apply. To put it another way: though the Torah only imagined 2 genders, some claim that today there are at least 4 (male, female, gay and lesbian), if not more. This is not necessarily a zero-sum game. Opening up the possibility that this verse does not speak directly to gays need not necessarily say anything about its ongoing and forceful application to straights, assuming that those categories reflect some deep and accurate social truth.EMThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05785903047024077129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1147051602392682272006-05-07T21:26:00.000-04:002006-05-07T21:26:00.000-04:00As I said above, we disagree on basic axioms of Ju...As I said above, we disagree on basic axioms of Judaism.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1147051050521055912006-05-07T21:17:00.000-04:002006-05-07T21:17:00.000-04:00If one reads Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the way I d...<I>If one reads Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the way I do, then they aren't forbidden in all cases.</I><BR/><BR/>But if one does that, one is reading it in a way that has no validity within Judaism. That's not to say it has no validity, of course. But Judaism has rules, and those rules don't allow for your reading. Judaism isn't all roll-your-own.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18104724066252254654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1147042794809877362006-05-07T18:59:00.000-04:002006-05-07T18:59:00.000-04:00Lisa writes:Whatever your sense may be, the fact i...Lisa writes:<BR/><I>Whatever your sense may be, the fact is that the methodology by which the halakhic system works was given to us, part and parcel, with the rest of the Torah at Sinai.</I><BR/><BR/>"fact"<BR/><BR/><I>The formulizations of aspects of this methodology by Rabbis Akiva and Yishmael cannot be taken out of context. Certainly they cannot be used to permit something that is not only a Torah prohibition, but is a subset of the arayot, which one must die rather than violate.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, this begs the question. If one reads Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the way I do, then it's not a Torah prohibition in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Let's take a step back for a minute. JXG and Benjamin have raised interesting points about the internal logic of my post, and I'll have to go and study further before I can respond. Other people's comments boil down to the obvious fact that we disagree on basic axioms of Judaism, so it should be no surprise that we also disagree on the details.<BR/><BR/>I thought it was self-evident that my post does not provide a satisfactory interpretation for those who believe that a static Oral Torah was given at Sinai. I didn't begin the post by writing in big red letters "THIS POST IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ORTHODOX JURISPRUDENCE", because (a) that's self-evident from the fact that I provided an explanation for pesukim that departs completely from chaza"l's understanding of those pesukim, and (b) I believe that liberal Judaism shouldn't constantly be defining itself relative to Orthodox Judaism.<BR/><BR/>I'm not attempting to convince anyone who believes that chaza"l's understanding of Leviticus 18:22 was given on Sinai. As you've all pointed out, such an attempt has no chance of success. The primary audience of this post is those who believe in an evolving understanding of Torah, and who are committed to observing the mitzvot according to this evolving understanding, and who continue to faithfully read this verse every year (so we can't just say "the hell with Leviticus 18:22"). Though everyone's still welcome to stay here and hang out.<BR/><BR/><I>"Well sure, that's what you say, but then I see this blog entry on Mah Rabu, and it sure looks like anyone who isn't homophobic is actually anti-halakhic."</I><BR/><BR/>It's not really my job to keep silent to prevent anyone from making stupid generalizations. If you want to prove that there are non-homophobic people who share your understanding of halakha, then find people who fit this description and tell them to get their own blogs.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1147040661421874572006-05-07T18:24:00.000-04:002006-05-07T18:24:00.000-04:00JXG writes:Rabbi Yishmael is on record there as di...JXG writes:<BR/><I>Rabbi Yishmael is on record there as disagreeing with you, BTW.</I><BR/><BR/>This doesn't bother me. Mishnah Eduyot has a long list of cases where Beit Shammai disagreed with Shammai.<BR/><BR/>I'll check out the Rambam.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1147040014537824662006-05-07T18:13:00.000-04:002006-05-07T18:13:00.000-04:00Drew Kaplan writes:so wrong as male homosexual sex...Drew Kaplan writes:<BR/><I>so wrong as male homosexual sexual relationships are forbidden in all cases</I><BR/><BR/>This <A HREF="http://begthequestion.info/" REL="nofollow">begs the question</A>. If one reads Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the way I do, then they <B>aren't</B> forbidden in all cases.<BR/><BR/><I>Echoing Benjamin's second point of concern with BZ's read, how would BZ create holy incestuous relations?</I><BR/><BR/>That's easy. BZ wouldn't.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1147035318595000892006-05-07T16:55:00.000-04:002006-05-07T16:55:00.000-04:00With all due respect, Anna, you misapprehend the w...With all due respect, Anna, you misapprehend the way the Rishonim and Achronim operated. You have an incorrect impression of how the halakhic system works.<BR/><BR/><I>My sense is that being a good Jew requires an active engagement with our tradition and an assertion that we have a responsibility to take our own interpretations of the text seriously.</I><BR/><BR/>Whatever your sense may be, the fact is that the methodology by which the halakhic system works was given to us, part and parcel, with the rest of the Torah at Sinai.<BR/><BR/>The formulizations of <B>aspects</B> of this methodology by Rabbis Akiva and Yishmael cannot be taken out of context. Certainly they cannot be used to permit something that is not only a Torah prohibition, but is a subset of the <I>arayot</I>, which one must die rather than violate.<BR/><BR/>Anna, posts like bz's, as well intended as they may be, make life inestimably harder for those of us who are gay and who are committed to halakha. To give you an example, I can be talking with another Orthodox Jew, and be half way to convincing him (or her) that the homophobia in the frum community is unjustified by anything within halakha. And then they'll turn around and say, "Well, look at Steve Greenberg, who portrays himself as the first openly gay Orthodox rabbi, but then writes articles trying to bring intermarriage into the mainstream." Or, "Well sure, that's what you say, but then I see this blog entry on Mah Rabu, and it sure looks like anyone who isn't homophobic is actually anti-halakhic." And what can I say to that person? "Mah Rabu isn't representative." "Steve Greenberg isn't representative." How do you think that goes over?<BR/><BR/>It's incredibly frustrating. I mean, if you don't want to accept what the halakha says, then just say, "Screw it. The halakha ain't the boss of me!" But <I>please</I>, don't harm us with help like this.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18104724066252254654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1147022955492394062006-05-07T13:29:00.000-04:002006-05-07T13:29:00.000-04:00While I agree with you that the first kelal of Lev...While I agree with you that the first kelal of Lev. 18 is 6, I don't see why the perat should not extend through 23, with 24 being the latter kelal, and thus saying that 22 is not a kelal, but rather one of the peratim. Furthermore, when looking at ch. 20, it is evident that it is also used there in a sense of perat and kelal. <BR/><I>this sanctity applies to two people of the same sex who consecrate themselves to each other</I> so wrong as male homosexual sexual relationships are forbidden in all cases<BR/>I also second JXG's concerns. <BR/>Knitter of Shiny Things, the rabbis didn't (to my mind, but I should look again) really darshen the pluralness of "lyings of a woman", but the literal meaning is probably something along the lines of all sorts of forms of lying with women and not just strictly sex.<BR/>Echoing Benjamin's second point of concern with BZ's read, how would BZ create holy incestuous relations?<BR/>Irving Wiseman, to come correctly, Rabbi Ishmael lived 1900 years ago, most certainly did not live "in some small shtetl" and he was concerned with a great number of things.<BR/>Lisa totally has it down correctly about the parsing of the text....Drew Kaplanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08969020134924433950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1146988307184676882006-05-07T03:51:00.000-04:002006-05-07T03:51:00.000-04:00I should add that the Rambam (don'ts 350-352), fol...I should add that the Rambam (don'ts 350-352), following the gemara in Sanhedrin, says that relations with one's father or father's brother are separate mitzvot.<BR/><BR/>Rabbi Yishmael is on record there as disagreeing with you, BTW.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1146971454121500522006-05-06T23:10:00.000-04:002006-05-06T23:10:00.000-04:00I think that the idea of yeridat hadorot (please c...I think that the idea of yeridat hadorot (please correct me if I messed up the phrase)-- the idea that each generation is somehow less holy or less able to apprehend God's will than the previous generations-- is somewhat dangerous, because it leads to complacency. My sense is that being a good Jew requires an active engagement with our tradition and an assertion that we have a responsibility to take our own interpretations of the text seriously. What BZ has proposed is no more radical than some interpretive moves made by rishonim and achronim who were also responding to the tenor and needs of their times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1146871860119868122006-05-05T19:31:00.000-04:002006-05-05T19:31:00.000-04:00No, I'm not claiming that either. Ok, just checki...No, I'm not claiming that either. Ok, just checking.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1146871078465816362006-05-05T19:17:00.000-04:002006-05-05T19:17:00.000-04:00I'm not calling anyone Conservative. But surely y...I'm not calling anyone Conservative. But surely you aren't claiming that your analysis is according to Orthodox methodology, are you? It's exactly the kind of methodology that I was taught to use in the Conservative movement. That doesn't mean that you're Conservative. I'm simply making an observation.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18104724066252254654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-1146866949633138012006-05-05T18:09:00.000-04:002006-05-05T18:09:00.000-04:00Lisa, who are you calling Conservative?Lisa, who are you calling Conservative?BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.com