A Talmudic Exposition: Men in Black

Homosexuality most likely existed even in the ancient rabbinic communities. The rabbis were undoubtedly familiar with Greek  and Roman culture, where homosexuality was considered a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. [1]

Although the Sages worried about their students sexually acting out,  they pragmatically suggested that if one could not control one’s sexual “appetite,” he should wear dark clothes and go to a place where nobody knows him and do whatever his heart desires, “rather than profane the name of Heaven openly.”[2]

Traditional commentaries tend to think the rabbis are referring to heterosexual sex, but this assumption is unwarranted. How do we know that the rabbis were not also alluding to homosexual lay people, or perhaps more specifically–scholars?! A person’s sexual appetite surely is not limited to just those looking for heterosexual sex, and this point ought to be fairly obvious. In Talmudic times, the Sages knew they could not realistically micromanage their followers or especially their colleagues; they feared that the greater the scholar, the greater likelihood would be his disgrace.

It seems to me that the rabbis feared that a homosexual scholar might prove to be a source of embarrassment and scandal if he acted out his urges within the local community. Regardless of the specific context,  one thing seems fairly clear: there are people who cannot or will not control their libido–regardless of their sexual preferences.[3] For such people, the rabbis offered a practical way out so as to preserve their community’s dignity. Continue reading “A Talmudic Exposition: Men in Black”

Why is homosexuality described as an “abomination”?

I think within the Halachic world there has been a remarkable redefinition of many of the more traditional attitudes concerning the congenital homosexual. Traditionally, most biblical translations render  tôʿēbâ as “abomination.”

According to Etymology Online, the noun “abomination”  is a 14th term term that means: “feeling of disgust, hatred, loathing,” from O.Fr. abomination,which in turn derives from the  Latin word abominationem (nom. abominatio) “abomination,” from abominatus, pp. of abominari “shun as an ill omen,” from ab “off, away from” + omin-, stem of omen. Its meaning was intensified by the folk etymology derivation from L. ab homine “away from man,” hence rendering it as, “beastly.”

Thus, abomination is synonymous with  hatred, corruption, and depravity. The Latin root corresponds to the Hebrew term  tôʿēbâ derives from the Hebrew verb  tʿb “to hate” or “abhor,” but the original biblical text of Lev. 18:22  does not explain why homosexuality is so abhorrent.

Aside from its obvious association with homosexuality, tôʿēbâ also has a distinctly religious and idolatrous connotation as in Isa. 44:19, or even for a specific pagan deity, as in 2 Kgs. 23:13 where Milcom is called “the abomination of the Ammonites.” Until recently, it was supposed that homosexual behavior was associated with cultic prostitution. [1]

The distinguished British biblical scholar Gordon Wenham explains:

“Since male prostitutes were sometimes castrated and often took part in ceremonies flaunting their effeminacy, it may well be that aversion to homosexuality partially explains the ban on castrated men participating in the public assembly, or on wearing women’s clothes. The latter is described as ‘an abomination to the LORD’ (Deut. 23:1; 22:5). It could well be that the law is banning anything suggestive of homosexual practice  . . .” [2]

However, most modern biblical scholars doubt whether there cultic male prostitutes existed in ancient Israel. Despite the reticence of the modern scholars, given the carnivalesque quality of the ancient fertility rites, homosexual prostitutes most likely played a role alongside with the female prostitutes of antiquity. It seems doubtful their male counterparts would have been excluded.

If the Mesopotamian legal codes are of any relevance to the passage in Lev. 18:22, we may be able to decipher the Torah’s real meaning that the ban against homosexuality may well be referring to (a) father and son incest (as mentioned in the Hittite codes) (b) homosexual rape (as spelled out in the Middle Assyrian Codes), (c) male pedophilia, (d) castrating a male for sexual exploitation.

Bear in mind that ancient Israel was the only civilization to have formulated such a proscription against homosexuality. Indeed, the Talmud in BT Sanhedrin 54b interprets the word “zachor” to also include male child. The word “zachor” in the Bible frequently means “male child.” [3] Continue reading “Why is homosexuality described as an “abomination”?”

Where Moses differed from Aristotle . . .

Whenever examining the history of slavery in the Bible, it is always fascinating to contrast it with other views found in the ancient world. When we look specifically at the writings of Aristotle, in his Athenian Constitution and in his work on Politics, one discovers that the great Athenian philosopher believed that some people are only fit for subjugation, while others are naturally destined for dominance and rule.

Slavery, argues Aristotle, is fact of nature—regardless how  one wishes to rationalize it. The slave is nothing more than an animated tool, to be used or disposed of at the whim of the master, much like a ship captain uses a crew and the ships rudders.

And so it was in ancient Rome, where 4/5 of the population were considered, “slaves.”

When we look at the parsha this week, several aspects of biblical slavery strike the critical eye. To begin with the Hebrew slave is never the property of the owner. He is his own person. The master is entitled to benefit from his labor only for a period of six years. Moreover, according to the book of Deuteronomy, the slave is entitled to severance pay in the form of clothing, food, and money when he leaves. Slavery is far from an ideal; it is at best a temporary stop measure to help the Israelite slave repay debt to his creditors. The laws governing slaves also comes with numerous other limitations.

• It is forbidden to give an Israelite a demeaning jobs (“You shall not compel them to serve in menial work; you shall not rule him with rigor” (Lev.39, 46). A master must always respect the slave’s dignity as a human being.

• A slave’s physical needs must be addressed by his master “He has it good with you” (Deut. 15:12-15), which the Sages interpret to mean providing food, drink, and even conjugal relations. Even when a slave leaves, the master is required to provide him with the necessary means to make a new life so he will not return to his previous impoverished condition, “you shall weight him but shall weight him down with gifts from your flock and threshing floor and wine press, in proportion to the blessing the LORD, your God, has bestowed on you” (Deut.  15:12).

• One must be so attentive to a slave’s needs that if there is one pillow in the house it must be given to the slave, a point which led the Sages to say: whoever buys a slave has bought himself a master. The same applies no less to food; if the owner has white vs. dark bread, the slave always gets the superior quality bread. Subsequent halachic rulings insist that a master is obligated to even take care of the slave’s family, if he was married–at no extra cost to the slave. Continue reading “Where Moses differed from Aristotle . . .”