Core Lesson/Group Activity

Transcription

1 Core Lesson/Group Activity 4. Description: This three-part lesson is a set of text study and discussion activities that presents both historical and contemporary interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. The intention is to introduce students to different interpretive methods and to present textual readings by a number of contemporary scholars. Time: Part 1: Reading Leviticus: minutes Part 2: Svara Using Our Own Moral Reasoning: 30 minutes (may also be used as a take-home assignment, depending on the allotted time) Part 3: Contemporary Voices: 40 minutes Recommended Age Range: grades Objectives: n To understand how the verses in Leviticus that seem to prohibit male-to-male sexual intercourse have been interpreted over time. n To introduce students to svara, a traditional Jewish method of interpretation that privileges ethical and moral sensibilities as a means to understanding the application of biblical law. n To give students tools to explore their own understanding of Leviticus 18:22. n To introduce to students interpretations that do not understand Leviticus 18:22 to prohibit male-to-male sexual relations. Materials: n The words of Leviticus 18:22 posted on a board or large sheet of paper n Part 1: Reading Leviticus handout (one for each student) n Part 2: Svara handout (one for each student) n Part 3: Contemporary Voices handouts (Decide before the class starts which readings you will use and prepare enough copies of those readings so that every student has a copy of the text assigned to his/her small group.) Suggested Film Clips: Title Length Jewish and Gay 1:11 Shula and Rabbi Lehmann: Speaking to Power 2:17 Wrestling with Jewish Text and Values 3:59 An Evolving Tradition 1:05 Shula s Struggle Ends 0:27 Note to the Educator/Facilitator: It is important to combine Part 1 with either Part 2 or Part 3, so that students do not receive the impression that all interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 take a negative and prohibitive stance regarding homosexuality. If you have more than one class period to devote to this topic, we suggest doing all three parts. One option is to give students either the Svara handout (Part 2) or the Contemporary Voices handout (Part 3) as a take-home assignment to prepare for the second day. page 58

2 Part 1: Reading Leviticus Instructions: 1. Introduce the notion of textual interpretation to the students. Explain that interpreting Torah has always been an essential part of Jewish culture. Remind the students that in the film, Shulamit wants to reinterpret traditional Judaism to make room for gay and lesbian people. Is this really possible? Today we will consider this question. 2. Explain to students that Jewish law, or halakhah, is based on interpretations by the rabbis of the Talmud of the laws written in the Torah. The rabbis of the Talmud thought that every word, letter, and dot of the Torah was important and was intended to teach us something specific. To find the meaning of the laws in the Torah, they paid attention to the details of grammar and to the specific language used in each law, not just to the general content of that law. Sometimes they interpreted words in the Torah in ways we might find surprising or unexpected. Their interpretations were not necessarily literal. 3. Use the example of the two different mitzvot (commandments) found in the Torah about proper treatment of one s parents to examine how the rabbis of the Talmud interpreted biblical laws. Write the two biblical laws on the board: Honor your father and mother. exodus 20:11 and deuteronomy 5:15 A person shall fear his mother and father. leviticus 19:3 4. Ask students if they think these two mitzvot are different. Why or why not? What might some differences be? 5. Now explain that the rabbis of the Talmud interpreted the first mitzvah (commandment), Kabed/Honor your father and mother, to refer to positive laws about how to treat one s parents, such as bringing them a glass of water or helping them go from place to place. They interpreted, Fear one s mother and father, to refer to laws about how not to treat one s parents, such as the law not to sit in one s parent s seat or the law against contradicting one s parents in public. 6. Do these Talmudic interpretations match any of the differences that the students suggested? Ask the students if they think the biblical texts look like they include those ideas. (Most likely you will get a negative answer.) Explain that by paying close attention to the language of the Torah, the rabbis were able to find new meanings in the Torah beyond the literal translation of the words. Another example of the rabbis finding new meaning beyond the literal interpretation of the words of the Torah is the text, An eye for an eye, in which the Bible states that someone who damages another person s eye should have his or her own eye taken out. When the rabbis of the Talmud write that this statement refers to monetary compensation for the eye (rather than requiring that the person s own eye be taken out), they are overruling the physically punitive, more literal interpretation. page 59

3 7. Now explain that the class is going to look at Leviticus 18:22 and some traditional interpretations of this text. After reviewing the traditional interpretations, the students will explore alternative ways to interpret these words of Torah. Read the Hebrew and English words of Leviticus 18:22 with the class. Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination. leviticus 18:22 1. Ask students what the sentence means. They will probably tell you it means people are not allowed to be gay. 2. Respond by asking them what the sentence might mean, i.e. what do the words themselves actually say? The following questions may be helpful: What does the law say not to do? Does it say anything about being gay? What does as one lies with a woman mean? Whom does the law address? Does it say anything about women? Are we told why there is such a law? 3. Now give students the handout for Part 1 with the two traditional interpretations of the verses. 4. Either in small groups or as a class have the students respond to the following questions: What is the basis of these interpretations? What is added to the Torah text? How do these interpretations lead Jews to believe that all kinds of homosexuality are forbidden? 5. If there is time, you may want to ask students to read Leviticus, Chapter 18, to see the context of the biblical laws. How does the context affect the way you read the laws around homosexuality? page 60

4 Part 1: Reading Leviticus Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination. leviticus 18:22 Classical Interpretations: God wanted the world to be populated, and so He commanded us not to waste our seed through male sexual relations, in the manner of Gentile sexual practices. 1* For homosexual sexual relations are destructive of seed, and do not lead to offspring. sefer ha hinnukh 209 You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you, nor shall you follow their laws. (Leviticus. 18:3) What were the [laws]? A man would marry a man, and a woman would marry a woman, a man would marry a woman and her daughter, and a woman would marry two men. sifra, acharei mot 9:8 After reading these classical interpretations of Leviticus please discuss the following questions: 1. What are the bases of these interpretations? 2. What is added to the Torah text? 3. How do these interpretations lead Jews to believe that all kinds of homosexuality are forbidden? 1 In the full discussion of Leviticus 18:22 in Sefer Ha Hinnukh, male homosexual relations are identified with Gentile sexual and ritual practices. page 61

5 Part 2: Svara Using Our Own Moral Reasoning 1. Hand out the Svara article by Rabbi Benay Lappe and ask students to read it. Explain that they are going to learn about svara, a form of logical and moral reasoning used in the Talmud that allowed scholars to apply their own sense of right and wrong, or common sense, to a text. 2. After the students have read the article ask if they have any questions about the terms or concepts discussed in the article. Then ask students: a. How does Rabbi Lappe understand the concept of svara? b. What do you think about svara as a method of interpreting and understanding Biblical law? 3. To facilitate the conversation you can ask students to generate a list of laws that they think might have been interpreted by the rabbis using the svara method, where the rabbis may have reinterpreted the literal meaning of the text to align with their own logic or ethics. You can give examples such as: n An eye for an eye (discussed earlier, in the Instructions to Part 1, Reading Leviticus ). n The laws of honoring parents (also discussed in the Instructions to Part 1). n The laws of Shabbat (for example, the law prohibiting all work is very clear, but the rabbis determined that if one must break the laws of Shabbat in order to save a life, then not only can one do so, but one is obligated to do so.) n The changes in the treatment and status of deaf people (This was examined in Lesson 2, Looking at Change in Jewish Law. If you did that lesson with your students, remind them.) n The case of the rebellious son (this was examined in Lesson 3, Debating Change in Jewish Law. If you did that lesson with your students, remind them.) 4. Instruct the students to re-read the two rabbinic interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 that you looked at earlier. What svara are these authors using to understand the Torah? Why might they feel the way they do? Point out the title of Rabbi Lappe s article, Svara, Queers, and the Future of Rabbinic Judaism. Ask students: What do you think Rabbi Lappe is saying about the role our own moral and ethical beliefs should play in interpreting laws about homosexuality? Do you agree with her? Why or why not? page 62

6 Part 2: Svara Using Our Own Moral Reasoning Svara, Queers, and the Future of Rabbinic Judaism By Rabbi Benay Lappe After the destruction of the Second Temple, our founding Rabbis increased the number of places to which they could turn to discover God s will, that is, the sources of Jewish Law, from one to five. In addition to our old standby, a verse in the Torah, which they called kra (and which legal scholars call midrash), they added ma aseh (precedent), minhag (custom), takkanah (legislation) and last but not least, svara. Menachem Elon, the most prominent Jewish legal scholar of our generation and former Justice and Deputy President of the Israeli Supreme Court, defines svara as legal reasoning that penetrates into the essence of things and reflects a profound understanding of human nature [and involves] an appreciation of the characteristics of human beings in their social relationships, and a careful study of the real world and its manifestations. [From Elon, Mehachem, Jewish Law: Cases and Materials, New York: Mathew Bender, 1999, p. 97.] This is just a fancy way of saying: what your kishkes, and your intellect, and your experience of human nature and the world around you (which should be extensive), tell you about what s right and what s wrong. That a person s svara is a legitimate place to look to figure out what God wants of you is radical enough. But wait: As we all know, laws which the Rabbis derived from kra, or biblical verses, were given the status of d oraita, directly from Torah, transmitted directly from God to Moshe on Mount Sinai. And laws deriving from ma aseh (precedent), minhag (custom), or takkanah (legislation) were acknowledged as being of human derivation, a creation of the Rabbis themselves and were labeled merely d rabbanan (literally, from the rabbis ), a kind of second string as far as laws went. But get this, a law that the Rabbis created by means of svara was classified as, now put your seatbelts on for this one, d oraita. What comes from our kishkes, said the Rabbis, is really coming straight from God, from God to Moshe on Mt. Sinai to me. Svara, according to the Rabbis, had the same authority as the biblical text itself, and in many instances in the Talmud, svara trumps kra [Torah], kishkes trump a biblical verse. According to the late talmudic scholar Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, alav hashalom, A svara may be so convincing that it may compel one s conscience to suppress the plain meaning of a biblical injunction and force upon a verse in the Bible a meaning that it can hardly bear textually. [In addition,] svara may show that in certain areas the consequences of a generally prevailing law would be unacceptable and, therefore, that those cases must be exempted from the authority of that law. [From Berkovits, Eliezer, The Nature and Function of Jewish Law, in Essential Essays on Judaism, by Eliezer Berkovits, edited by David Hazony, Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2002, pg. 45.] These audacious claims, made by our Rabbis two thousand years ago, set the tone of rabbinic courage and activism that is our spiritual legacy to this day. They constitute the core principles responsible for the mechanisms that have allowed Jewish Law to become the most exalted blueprint for human dignity and world perfection in history, and the mandate to alleviate human suffering, particularly that caused by the Jewish tradition itself, in every generation. page 63

7 Part 3: Contemporary Voices Note to the Educator/Facilitator: The first four readings on the Contemporary Voices handout are short excerpts using different moral arguments for the inclusion of gay and lesbian Jews in the community. Readings five and six are longer examples of engagement with the Leviticus texts and an attempt to reinterpret the meaning of the texts themselves. We suggest that you focus either on the moral approaches of the first four authors or on the textual approaches of the last two. Alternatively, you could examine one set in class and assign the other set for homework. 1. Tell the class that you will now be discussing how some contemporary Jews have used their own logic, ethics, and skills as Biblical scholars to interpret verse 18:22 in Leviticus. Each of these scholars has approached the text with the question of how to reconcile the Biblical text as it has been traditionally interpreted with the desire to recognize and honor some forms of same sex relationships. (If you have not done Part Two of this lesson, take a few minutes to briefly explain the concept of svara as an interpretive method for understanding and applying Biblical law.) 2. Split the class into small groups and give each group one of the contemporary commentaries or interpretations of Leviticus that follow this page. Instruct students to use what you now know about svara and other aspects of interpretation to answer the following questions for the text you have been assigned. (The questions are reprinted on each handout.) Have each group assign one person to record the group s answers: a. Does the author make a good logical argument for his/her position? If yes, how? If no, why not? b. How does each author understand the changes that have taken place since the time of the Torah? c. How does living in the contemporary world affect the svara, or ethical logic, of each of these writers? d. Does the author of your piece directly address either or both of the issues presented by the two traditional interpretations of Leviticus that prohibit homosexuality? How? 3. If you have time, you may want to have each group briefly share the interpretation they studied with the rest of the class and present their answers to the study questions. 4. To close this activity, invite each student to share one thing s/he learned during this lesson and one question s/he wants to explore further. Optional Writing Assignment Either in class or as homework, invite students to write an essay with their own interpretation of the verse in Leviticus based on traditional or contemporary sources. Remind them that they should use their own svara as well as the ideas of others. In their essays, you are looking for the student to present clear logical and ethical arguments for their interpretations of the verse. page 64

8 Examine the text assigned to your group and discuss the following questions: 1. Does the author make a good logical argument for his/her position? If yes, how? If no, why not? 2. How does the author understand the changes that have taken place since the time of the Torah? 3. How does living in the contemporary world affect the svara, or ethical logic, of the writer? 4. Does the author of your piece directly address either or both of the issues presented by the two traditional interpretations of Leviticus that prohibit homosexuality? How? Part 3: Contemporary Voices Example 1 Rabbi Elliot Dorff examines the way the phrase is written: If a man lies with a man the way one lies with a woman The biblical text implies that people have a choice about whether they have sex with partners of the opposite sex or partners of the same sex. Rabbi Dorff suggests that since nowadays many people believe that sexual orientation is hard wired into people, earlier generations of Jews interpreting the text may have misunderstood what homosexuality is, and therefore, it is permissible to change the law. Our heterosexual or homosexual orientation seems to be hard-wired into us. That leads some to say that if sexual orientation is indeed not a choice, homosexuals should, in obedience to the Torah, remain celibate. That response, I think, is both cruel and un-jewish in character. It is cruel because it makes it impossible for a homosexual ever to have sexual relations, the pleasures that result from them, and the growth that comes from long-term, intimate relationships. It is un-jewish in character because the Jewish tradition does not generally ask us to deny our instincts altogether, but rather to channel them to good purpose. Hence asceticism is not applauded in the Jewish tradition, and we have scant historical instances of Jewish ascetics. My conclusion was then, and is now, that we should not see homosexuality as an abomination. Leviticus and all subsequent rabbinic literature assume that homosexuality is a choice; otherwise it would make no logical or legal sense to legislate against it, just as it would make no logical or legal sense to require people to stop breathing. We now know, primarily on the basis of what homosexuals tell us about their own experience, that the orientation is not a choice, and so we should revise our stance accordingly. excerpted from: dorff, rabbi elliot, learning about homosexuality and taking a new stand, aleph, the shalom center, spring page 65

9 Part 3: Contemporary Voices Example 2 Rabbi Bradley Artson looks at the words of the verse in context, and sees that the verse forbidding two men from lying together is part of a long list of relationships that are coercive or harmful, like incest and adultery. He interprets this to mean that the Torah did not know about loving relationships between people of the same sex, and that if the Torah did know about these relationships it would not have forbidden them. He makes his point in the following quote: The Torah was not speaking about the constitutional homosexual because it had no awareness of the possibility of such a person. Mention has already been made that sexual orientation is in part dependent upon cultural factors. The idea of two men or two women loving each other, living together, nurturing each other and in that context making love became a possible self-identity only with modernity. The Torah did not prohibit what it did not know.the Bible knows of homosexual acts, but not of homosexual orientation or persons. As such, its designation of a homosexual act as a to evah [ abomination ] may be understood as referring to a homosexual act outside of the context of the entire person. All sexual acts which are coercive, morally degrading, or violent were prohibited by the Torah. That prohibition has not changed at all.the differences between homosexuality (within the narrow range of a monogamous, loving, committed relationship) and the other prohibited sexual relationships flow immediately from the facts presented thus far. Modern science has determined that homosexuality is an orientation, not merely an action. Examine the text assigned to your group and discuss the following questions: 1. Does the author make a good logical argument for his/her position? If yes, how? If no, why not? 2. How does the author understand the changes that have taken place since the time of the Torah? 3. How does living in the contemporary world affect the svara, or ethical logic, of the writer? 4. Does the author of your piece directly address either or both of the issues presented by the two traditional interpretations of Leviticus that prohibit homosexuality? How? excerpted from: artson, rabbi bradley s., gay and lesbian jews: a teshuvah, jewish spectator, winter page 66

10 Examine the text assigned to your group and discuss the following questions: 1. Does the author make a good logical argument for his/her position? If yes, how? If no, why not? 2. How does the author understand the changes that have taken place since the time of the Torah? 3. How does living in the contemporary world affect the svara, or ethical logic, of the writer? 4. Does the author of your piece directly address either or both of the issues presented by the two traditional interpretations of Leviticus that prohibit homosexuality? How? Part 3: Contemporary Voices Example 3 Dr. Rachel Adler notes that the word abomination may be used in the Torah because same-sex couples are unable to conceive children. The spilling of seed is not looked upon with favor in the Bible. Dr. Adler argues that this disgust is outdated because gay couples can now reproduce, using modern medical procedures. Since gay couples can have children, she reasons, the prohibition should be lifted. Let us turn to the controversial verse, Leviticus 18:22: Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman, it is a to evah. What could that have meant in its earliest context? What ought it to mean to us now? One proposed rationale for the prohibition is the priestly concern with fertility. Homosexual intercourse wastes the precious fluid through which the divine promise is realized: I will make your seed as numerous as the stars of heaven (Gen. 22:17) [Yet] the rabbinic tradition permits sex when women are pregnant or menopausal, when male semen is insufficiently numerous or active to enable procreation, and, in certain cases, when procreation is intentionally prevented. Moreover, modern technologies such as artificial insemination and test-tube fertilization make it possible to procreate without engaging in heterosexual intercourse. Fertility, therefore, is not a credible reason for continuing to prohibit homosexual relations. excerpted from: adler, rachel, engendering judaism, jewish publication society, page 67

11 Part 3: Contemporary Voices Example 4 Thomas Herz points out that the word to evah, or abomination, is not only used to describe sex. In the Bible, it applies to many things, including practices of other religions (such as worshipping many gods) and practices such as eating pork or shellfish. Whether or not we observe these Torah laws, we may not be as repulsed today by those practices as earlier generations may have been. The fact that halakhah and values change with time and with shifts in perspective should spur us to engage in dialogue that challenges the meaning, significance, and force of Biblical abominations (to evot) in relation to other lasting Jewish principles that guide our communal morality. Those of us who eat non-kosher food commit an abomination on a daily basis and could be deemed in no position to render judgment on our fellow Jews. Likewise, idol worship is an abomination, and one could argue that the rampant fixation on and attention to money and its rapid accumulation in large quantities via stock market profits and prices, coupled with the neglect of family and personal matters that often accompanies this lifestyle, constitute a modern form of idolatry. Not only is this abomination tolerated, it is sanctioned, if not rewarded and glorified, in many quarters today. Examine the text assigned to your group and discuss the following questions: 1. Does the author make a good logical argument for his/her position? If yes, how? If no, why not? 2. How does the author understand the changes that have taken place since the time of the Torah? 3. How does living in the contemporary world affect the svara, or ethical logic, of the writer? 4. Does the author of your piece directly address either or both of the issues presented by the two traditional interpretations of Leviticus that prohibit homosexuality? How? excerpted from: herz, thomas, judaism and homosexuality: myth and emeth, page 68

12 Examine the text assigned to your group and discuss the following questions: 1. Does the author make a good logical argument for his/her position? If yes, how? If no, why not? 2. How does the author understand the changes that have taken place since the time of the Torah? 3. How does living in the contemporary world affect the svara, or ethical logic, of the writer? 4. Does the author of your piece directly address either or both of the issues presented by the two traditional interpretations of Leviticus that prohibit homosexuality? How? Part 3: Contemporary Voices Example 5 Rabbi Steven Greenberg presents an interpretation of Leviticus that focuses on the nature of the sexual relationship between two males. If the act is coercive, it is prohibited. If it is in the context of a loving, committed relationship, it is not. Read his commentary below. One of the best avenues for understanding the meaning of any law is an exploration of the stories that provide the law with narrative contexts Of course, the most overt biblical narrative depicting male-male sexual relations is the story of the destruction of Sodom. Surprisingly, neither the later prophets who use Sodom as a symbol of evil nor the rabbis of the Talmud portray Sodom as a den of sexual iniquity. The city is singled out instead for cruelty, for the refusal to care for the poor, for inhumanity to strangers, inhospitality, and violence. Sodom was no more about sexual license than were the humiliations of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib in our own time. The aim of the people of Sodom, according to the rabbis, was humiliation as punishment or sport, but not sexual fulfillment. Read in this way, the verse in Leviticus 18 might well be prohibiting sex as an expression of power and humiliation while leaving sex between committed and loving partners permitted. Moreover, this understanding of the verse actually fits the chapter well. The chapter is dominated by rules against incest, the violation of which makes the family a dangerous place. Incest is essentially experienced by its victims as a form of violence and abuse made utterly invisible to the outside world. Adultery violates stated commitments, and in pre-modern contexts typically led to violence. Intercourse with a menstruant woman has the look of violence, and the child sacrificial rituals of Molech were pure violence. Understood in this light, the verse in Leviticus 18 might reasonably be prohibiting the use of penetrative sex as a tool of humiliation and domination while leaving open the acceptance of a committed, loving relationship between two men My proposed, albeit radical, interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 is then: And a male you shall not sexually penetrate to humiliate; it is abhorrent. However, this interpretation of the prohibition poses a problem. If the text is condemning power-driven, humiliating, or violent sex then it should surely only punish the penetrating partner of such a dyad. The verse in Chapter 18 works well with this reading since it only prohibits the activity of the penetrating partner and says nothing about the penetrated partner. But Leviticus 20:13 holds both parties liable. If a man lies with a male the lyings of a woman, the two of them have done an abomination, they shall be put to death their bloodguilt is upon them. If in prison, for example, the strong and aggressive men take advantage of the weaker of their fellows and enforce sustained relationships of individual or gang rape, how is the victim to be blamed? Remarkably, it is the Talmud itself that asks this question. The rabbis read chapter 18 as the warning and chapter 20 as the punishment. So why, they ask, are both parties punished but only the penetrative party warned? The answer according to Rabbi Ishmael is found in the verse: There shall not be a kadesh among the children of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:18). There is considerable debate among biblical scholars as to what a kadesh is. Among the more common interpretations is that the male kadesh and the female kedeshah served as prostitutes in pagan temple rituals. According to Rabbi Ishmael, the kadesh is the receptive male who has sex with other males as a part of a pagan rite. Consequently, there are actually two separate prohibitions in regard to male male sex, one prohibiting aggressive violent power-driven penetrative intercourse and another prohibiting a pagan sexual practice of temple prostitution. page 69

13 What is left open and unlegislated by these verses then are the sort of sexual relations that occur without violence or humiliation and are not associated with the dramaturgy of pagan rites, but are marked instead by intimacy and love, care and commitment in other words, holiness. excerpted from: greenberg, rabbi steven, you shall be holy, an essay on aharei mot kedoshim (leviticus 16:1 20:27), may 6, 2006, jewish mosaic website, page 70

14 Examine the text assigned to your group and discuss the following questions: 1. Does the author make a good logical argument for his/her position? If yes, how? If no, why not? 2. How does the author understand the changes that have taken place since the time of the Torah? 3. How does living in the contemporary world affect the svara, or ethical logic, of the writer? 4. Does the author of your piece directly address either or both of the issues presented by the two traditional interpretations of Leviticus that prohibit homosexuality? How? Part 3: Contemporary Voices Example 6 Rabbi David Greenstein, Rosh Yeshivah of the Academy of Jewish Religion, presents a new interpretation that begins with the assumption that we are all, regardless of sexual identity, created in God s image and, as such, we are all invited to be part of the holy community. Beginning with this assumption, Rabbi Greenstein then examines Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and provides a radical interpretation based on a new reading of the Hebrew. What do you think of his arguments? How does the belief that we are all created in God s image and are all part of the holy community create an opening for new interpretation? How do we know whether we have been invited to enter the sphere of holiness or whether we are trespassing and defiling that sphere? Aharei Mot-Kedoshim is very much concerned with this problem. How does Aaron, or any subsequent High Priest, have the guts to enter the sacred sphere? The Torah answers, B zot yavo Aharon / Aaron shall enter with this (Leviticus 16:3). The text continues with a list of animals and sacrificial items. But our mystical tradition read the verse differently. Zot / This is a reference to the Shechinah, the Divine Presence. Aaron can enter to meet the Divine Presence because Aaron carries the Divine Presence with him already. Moreover, the word zot is considered an appropriate name for the Shechinah because it connotes indicative awareness. The Divine Presence dwells in our this-ness in who we actually are. We are commanded to enter the sacred sphere when we can carry that conviction with us. Subsequent tradition added more elements to this ceremony of Yom Kippur. The Mishnah tells us that the Priest would read from a Torah scroll to the people. He would read from this very portion, but he would conclude by saying: There is more written here than what I have read to you (Yoma 7:1). There is a double meaning here. One point is that there is more to the Torah than any one portion or any one verse (or two). But another meaning is that there is more to the Torah than the text as written. How we choose to read a story or a verse makes all the difference in the world. Which brings me to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the two verses which appear in this week s portions and that have been read for millennia as the Torah s condemnation of homosexuality. How should we read these verses as we enter the sacred sphere with zot, with our conviction that we carry the Divine Presence with us straight or queer as we are? I submit that we may read these verses in a new way, a way that removes them entirely from the topic of homosexuality. The verse in Leviticus (18:22) is comprised of three elements persons (V et Zachar), forbidden acts (lo tishkav mishkevei ishah), and a term of condemnation (to evah hi). Let us examine each element in reverse order. What does the Torah mean by the term to evah commonly translated as abomination? It is not necessary to account for all instances of the use of to evah through the Bible in order to offer a possible understanding of its use here. In the very first occurrence of the concept, the Torah tells of the meeting of Joseph and his brothers in Egypt. Joseph, Viceroy of Egypt, has ordered that his brothers (who do not as yet recognize him) shall dine with him. The Torah tells us: And they served him [Joseph] by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, who ate with him, by themselves; because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination [to evah] to the Egyptians (Genesis 43:32). page 71

15 What was the to evah for the Egyptians? We are presented with a situation in which all parties are expected to eat a meal. There is nothing offensive about that. What was offensive was the inclusion of alien elements into the acceptable group. Hebrews could eat by themselves without offending Egyptians. But they could not eat along with Egyptians. What was offensive was to ruin a situation that was innocuous in itself by introducing an unwelcome element. What are the acts that are deemed to evah by the verses in Leviticus? The strange term mishkevei ishah is used here the only time this term appears in the Torah. Until now, the term has been understood to refer to homosexual relations. Yet, we may note that in subsequent rabbinic literature, the term for homosexual intercourse is mishkav zachar. While the term mishkevei ishah occurs only once, the term mishkav zachar is found elsewhere in the Torah. Toward the end of Moses s life he is commanded by God to attack Midian in retribution for the plague that the Midianite women inflicted upon Israel by seducing them into idolatry. The army returns victorious, but Moses is angry. They have spared the Midianite women. Moses exclaims, Now therefore slay every male among the children, and slay also every woman who has known a man carnally. But spare every young woman, who has not had carnal relations with a man (Numbers 31:17 18). In these verses, the term mishkav zachar is used to refer to a woman having sexual relations with a man. If we return to our verses in Leviticus we may understand, by analogy, that the acts forbidden by the Torah are not homosexual acts at all. Rather, some situation involving a man having sexual relations with a woman is proscribed. What is that act? When we consider the first part of the verse, the part that mentions the persons involved in the forbidden act, we read the phrase And with a man / V et zachar. Now, the particle et may indicate the object of an action. Until now our verse in Leviticus has been read to mean that a male is prohibited to make another man the object of his sex act. But this word can have another meaning. The first place where it is unambiguous that the word et is being used in another way is in the verse, And Enoch walked with (et) the Almighty (Genesis 5:24). In that verse it is clear that the particle does not signify an object indication. Rather, it means along with. Now we may read the verse very differently: v et zachar lo tishkav mishkevei ishah to evah hi And along with another male you shall not lie in sexual intercourses with a woman it is an abomination. There is no prohibition of homosexual acts of any kind. Rather, the Torah prohibits two males from joining together to force intercourse upon a woman. This is a to evah because the introduction of the second man completely transforms the act from a potentially innocent act into a manipulation that degrades the act of intercourse and makes the woman subject to violence and objectification. Rabbi Steven Greenberg s intuition that what is meant here is some form of coercive sex act was correct. But the act is heterosexual, not homosexual. Thus, we can understand the verse in Leviticus. 20:13 in a simple way. The verse calls for the execution of both of them. If the verse were dealing with a man forcing himself upon another man, why would the victim be executed? But with our interpretation the law is clear. The death penalty prescribed by the Torah is for the two men who force themselves upon the woman. The perpetrators are guilty; not the victim. I wish to make clear that this reading does not claim to have uncovered the original intent of the verse. Instead it means to be a new reading, made possible only in our time, based on our newly won conviction that we carry the Divine Presence as we are. It is with this zot that I or anyone may dare enter the Holy of Holies. excerpted from: greenstein, rabbi david, on gaining access to the holy, a d var torah on aharei mot kedoshim (leviticus 16:1 20:27), april 28, 2007, jewish mosaic website, page 72