Original Torah: Ancient Words in a Modern Light

I’m a Jew not in search of an adjective -R’ A. J. Heschel

Wednesday, May 3, 2006

Reinterpreting Leviticus 18:6, 20:13

This pristine example of midrash halakha essentially argues with great erudition that the verses we normally understand to prohibit man on man sex actually prohibit both men and women from having incestuous, adulterous, or bestial relationships. It’s a brilliant exposition, yet it leaves me with two different problems.
  • One, is that this is probably not what the Torah meant, since it’s redundant. However, as the original meaning of the text was not paramount to the Rabbis, I can let it slide.
  • Two, BZ learns from the categories of the list that the topic is incestuous or adulterous relationships. However, the list also includes bestiality, sex with a menstruant, and leaves out the man’s daughter, nieces, and wife of his mother’s brother.
  • In context, the verse is bookended by prohibitions of being like the following nations 18:1-4 and 20:22-26. I would need to be convinced that the Torah approved of non-incestuous same-sex relationships. Whether this impacts on his midrash I have not yet decided.

In any case, bravo on a brilliant understanding of the text using classical methods.
Mah Rabu:

Likewise, Leviticus 18:22 (by way of the kelal ufrat uchlal that we have explained above) constructs the prototype that mishkevei ishah refers specifically the incestuous and adulterous relationships of the sort listed in Leviticus 18, so that Leviticus 20:13 can also be understood to refer only to these categories of same-sex relationships.

posted by OJ at 8:46 pm  

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress

Bad Behavior has blocked 1 access attempts in the last 7 days.