It Is An Abhorrence Leviticus 18:22 Revisited

The Abhorrence In Leviticus 18:22

Leviticus 18:22
וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.

This verse has been used over millennia to refer to homosexual acts—and often individuals as well—as 'abhorrent' but is that what it really says? Let's look at it in context.

Every other sexual prohibition in this chapter, in verses 6-23, are all addressing heterosexual men, with women specifically added to the prohibition of having sex with an animal. There is no indication, in either the language or the structure of the verse, that verse 22 is any different.

If verse 22 is indeed addressing heterosexual men, what then is the act it would be referring to? Are there other Biblical passages that might offer us insight?

A careful read of the Sodom story in Genesis 19 (seen through the lens of Ezekiel 16:49) may be helpful.

Genesis 19:4
טֶרֶם֮ יִשְׁכָּבוּ֒ וְאַנְשֵׁ֨י הָעִ֜יר אַנְשֵׁ֤י סְדֹם֙ נָסַ֣בּוּ עַל־הַבַּ֔יִת מִנַּ֖עַר וְעַד־זָקֵ֑ן כָּל־הָעָ֖ם מִקָּצֶֽה׃
They had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the men of Sodom, young and old—all the people to the last man—gathered about the house.

This verse makes clear that every man, young and old, was in the crowd at Lot's door—including his heterosexual sons-in-law. Genesis 19:12,14 shows these sons-in-law were 'here, in this place' (Sodom). The fact this was a crowd of heterosexual men is also seen in Lot's offering them his virgin daughters in substitution for his guests.

If this is a crowd of heterosexual men, then why do they want to 'know' (a euphemism for sex here and elsewhere) Lot's male visitors? What's going on here?

In short, the men have come because Lot violated a social norm of Sodom and fed and sheltered poor travelers with nowhere to sleep (for a more detailed look at this, see my post "Confronting The Sin Of Sodom") The crowd was attempting to use sexual humiliation as a deterrent for the poor men to remain  as well as deterring other residents of the city who might emulate Lot's behavior.

This incident takes place during the time of Abraham, hundreds of years before our verse in Leviticus. However, we see this same use of 'sex as a deterrent to outsiders' displayed by the residents of Gibeah in Judges 19—after the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 were given (which specifically refers to them in 18:27 as things done by the inhabitants of the land before the Israelites came).

The story takes place throughout Judges 19, and has many parallels to the Sodom story, but the verses relevant to our inquiry are 22-25.

Judges 19:22-25
הֵמָּה֮ מֵיטִיבִ֣ים אֶת־לִבָּם֒ וְהִנֵּה֩ אַנְשֵׁ֨י הָעִ֜יר אַנְשֵׁ֣י בְנֵֽי־בְלִיַּ֗עַל נָסַ֙בּוּ֙ אֶת־הַבַּ֔יִת מִֽתְדַּפְּקִ֖ים עַל־הַדָּ֑לֶת וַיֹּאמְר֗וּ אֶל־הָ֠אִישׁ בַּ֣עַל הַבַּ֤יִת הַזָּקֵן֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר הוֹצֵ֗א אֶת־הָאִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֥א אֶל־בֵּיתְךָ֖ וְנֵדָעֶֽנּוּ׃
While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the town, a depraved lot, had gathered about the house and were pounding on the door. They called to the aged owner of the house, “Bring out the man who has come into your house, so that we can be intimate with him.”
וַיֵּצֵ֣א אֲלֵיהֶ֗ם הָאִישׁ֙ בַּ֣עַל הַבַּ֔יִת וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֔ם אַל־אַחַ֖י אַל־תָּרֵ֣עוּ נָ֑א אַ֠חֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֞א הָאִ֤ישׁ הַזֶּה֙ אַל־בֵּיתִ֔י אַֽל־תַּעֲשׂ֖וּ אֶת־הַנְּבָלָ֥ה הַזֹּֽאת׃
The owner of the house went out and said to them, “Please, my friends, do not commit such a wrong. Since this man has entered my house, do not perpetrate this outrage.
הִנֵּה֩ בִתִּ֨י הַבְּתוּלָ֜ה וּפִֽילַגְשֵׁ֗הוּ אוֹצִֽיאָה־נָּ֤א אוֹתָם֙ וְעַנּ֣וּ אוֹתָ֔ם וַעֲשׂ֣וּ לָהֶ֔ם הַטּ֖וֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶ֑ם וְלָאִ֤ישׁ הַזֶּה֙ לֹ֣א תַעֲשׂ֔וּ דְּבַ֖ר הַנְּבָלָ֥ה הַזֹּֽאת׃
Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. Let me bring them out to you. Have your pleasure of them, do what you like with them; but don’t do that outrageous thing to this man.”
וְלֹֽא־אָב֤וּ הָאֲנָשִׁים֙ לִשְׁמֹ֣עַֽ ל֔וֹ וַיַּחֲזֵ֤ק הָאִישׁ֙ בְּפִ֣ילַגְשׁ֔וֹ וַיֹּצֵ֥א אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם הַח֑וּץ וַיֵּדְע֣וּ א֠וֹתָהּ וַיִּֽתְעַלְּלוּ־בָ֤הּ כָּל־הַלַּ֙יְלָה֙ עַד־הַבֹּ֔קֶר וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֖וּהָ בעלות [כַּעֲל֥וֹת] הַשָּֽׁחַר׃
But the men would not listen to him, so the man seized his concubine and pushed her out to them. They raped her and abused her all night long until morning; and they let her go when dawn broke.

These verses, like those of Genesis 18, when read closely for context, are about heterosexual men using sex as a way to humiliate and keep away outsiders, not about homosexual sex or those who practice it with consent.

We see homosexual sex used as subjugation and humiliation in Rashi's reference to Amalek's behavior as hinted at by a word used in Deuteronomy 25:18.

Deuteronomy 25:18
אֲשֶׁ֨ר קָֽרְךָ֜ בַּדֶּ֗רֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּ֤ב בְּךָ֙ כָּל־הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִ֣ים אַֽחַרֶ֔יךָ וְאַתָּ֖ה עָיֵ֣ף וְיָגֵ֑עַ וְלֹ֥א יָרֵ֖א אֱלֹהִֽים׃
how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear.

Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:18 [relevant portion]
אשר קרך בדרך. דָּבָר אַחֵר — לְשׁוֹן קֶרִי וְטֻמְאָה שֶׁהָיָה מְטַמְּאָן בְּמִשְׁכַּב זְכוּר
Another explanation is: it is connected in meaning with the term קרי, nocturnal pollution and uncleanness, because he polluted them by pederasty.

Humiliation of enemies had milder forms as well, as seen in this story from the time of King David in 2 Samuel.

2 Samuel 10:3-5
וַיֹּאמְרוּ֩ שָׂרֵ֨י בְנֵֽי־עַמּ֜וֹן אֶל־חָנ֣וּן אֲדֹֽנֵיהֶ֗ם הַֽמְכַבֵּ֨ד דָּוִ֤ד אֶת־אָבִ֙יךָ֙ בְּעֵינֶ֔יךָ כִּֽי־שָׁלַ֥ח לְךָ֖ מְנַֽחֲמִ֑ים הֲ֠לוֹא בַּעֲב֞וּר חֲק֤וֹר אֶת־הָעִיר֙ וּלְרַגְּלָ֣הּ וּלְהָפְכָ֔הּ שָׁלַ֥ח דָּוִ֛ד אֶת־עֲבָדָ֖יו אֵלֶֽיךָ׃
the Ammonite officials said to their lord Hanun, “Do you think David is really honoring your father just because he sent you men with condolences? Why, David has sent his courtiers to you to explore and spy out the city, and to overthrow it.”
וַיִּקַּ֨ח חָנ֜וּן אֶת־עַבְדֵ֣י דָוִ֗ד וַיְגַלַּח֙ אֶת־חֲצִ֣י זְקָנָ֔ם וַיִּכְרֹ֧ת אֶת־מַדְוֵיהֶ֛ם בַּחֵ֖צִי עַ֣ד שְׁתֽוֹתֵיהֶ֑ם וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵֽם׃
So Hanun seized David’s courtiers, clipped off one side of their beards and cut away half of their garments at the buttocks, and sent them off.
וַיַּגִּ֤דוּ לְדָוִד֙ וַיִּשְׁלַ֣ח לִקְרָאתָ֔ם כִּֽי־הָי֥וּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים נִכְלָמִ֣ים מְאֹ֑ד וַיֹּ֤אמֶר הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ שְׁב֣וּ בִֽירֵח֔וֹ עַד־יְצַמַּ֥ח זְקַנְכֶ֖ם וְשַׁבְתֶּֽם׃
When David was told of it, he dispatched men to meet them, for the men were greatly embarrassed. And the king gave orders: “Stop in Jericho until your beards grow back; then you can return.”

Humiliating an enemy in a non-sexual way such as this would not be prohibited by Leviticus 18:22.

With these texts adding context to the verse, we can see that viewing the abominable act in Leviticus 18:22 as consensual homosexuality isn't the only, or most logical, read. Rather, we can read this verse in context with the following understanding:

"[Heterosexual man] Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman [to humiliate, subjugate or punish him]; it is an abhorrence [to use a sexual act for this purpose, as the nations before you did. Don't copy this practice!]."

Looking at the verse this way, we realize it means exactly what it says—just not what most people think it says.

Applying This Understanding To Leviticus 20:13


If we adopt the above understanding of Leviticus 18:22, then we need to also address Leviticus 20:13.

Leviticus 20:13

וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מ֥וֹת יוּמָ֖תוּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם׃

If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death—their bloodguilt is upon them.


Looking at this passage in the context of the surrounding verses, especially 10-16, there is no reason to believe it was written to anyone other than heterosexual men. The primary difference between 20:13 and 18:22 is that we see the death penalty imposed on both individuals in the former with no penalty being discussed in the latter. While today this might indicate that both parties had agency in the act, we can see from other places in Torah, as well as verses surrounding this one, that agency isn't a primary factor in who receives the death penalty for being part of an act that is in the category of 'abhorrent'—one done by those who lived in the land before Israel arrived.

First, let's look at the surrounding verses for context:

Verses 10-15 all begin with "if a man..." indicating that it is the man who is choosing to do this act. Nonetheless, even when he decides to engage in a forbidden act with an animal, both he and the animal are put to death. We can be certain the animal had no choice in the matter, yet because it was part of an 'abhorrent' activity it is put to death.

Verse 16 makes the same declaration for a woman lying with an animal. Both the woman and the animal, that had no choice in the matter, are to be put to death.

This pattern of punishing all who have been engaged in, or even possibly engaged in, 'abhorrent' sexual acts follows a pattern found in other places as well, including Numbers 31 where we see children and women killed regardless of their lack of ability to consent:

Numbers 31:17-18

וְעַתָּ֕ה הִרְג֥וּ כָל־זָכָ֖ר בַּטָּ֑ף וְכָל־אִשָּׁ֗ה יֹדַ֥עַת אִ֛ישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּ֥ב זָכָ֖ר הֲרֹֽגוּ׃

Now, therefore, slay every male among the children, and slay also every woman who has known a man carnally;

וְכֹל֙ הַטַּ֣ף בַּנָּשִׁ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־יָדְע֖וּ מִשְׁכַּ֣ב זָכָ֑ר הַחֲי֖וּ לָכֶֽם׃

but spare every young woman who has not had carnal relations with a man.


The sexual acts that this passage,  and others like it, judge worthy of death are not merely sexual impropriety, but rather, are those sexual acts that copy those done by the Canaanites who lived in the land before the Israelites. For sexual sins other than these, we see only consenting parties put to death.

With this pattern evident in Torah, and it appearing in a similar list of prohibitions related to forbidden acts done by the Canaanites, I can see no reason to believe that Leviticus 20:13 is referring to an act any different than that of Leviticus 18:22. The difference in detail may indicate that the two pieces were written separately but only later edited together. Or, this could simply be a case of repetition with more detail.

===========
With gratitude to Rabbi Ethan Tucker, whose shiur, “Toward An Halakhic Model Of Diversity In Sexualities” inspired me to look at Leviticus 18:22 deeper and differently. Rabbi Tucker's shiur may be found on the Hadar.org website here

The Leviticus 20:13 application was prompted by my friend Kaydan Jackson, whose Torah is a blessing.

All text translations from Sefaria.org

Photo from Wikimedia shared via the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Genericlicense.

Talmud: A Progressive Jewish Text

When I mention learning Talmud around progressive Jews, it's not uncommon for someone to ask, "Isn't Talmud about all that Jewish law stuff?" Most are surprised when I answer "No...not exactly."

Much like the written Torah with its stories and laws, the Talmud is comprised of both rabbinic stories (aggadah) and rabbinic legal debates (halakhah), but it's neither a storybook nor a law code. While Talmud is the source for all the Jewish law codes, including the ones foundational to today's halakhic Jewish movements, the Talmud itself isn't a law code. 

Personally, I don't believe the rabbis whose debates are recorded in the Talmud had creating a law code as their primary goal.

The Talmud, the written record of the 'oral Torah'—the traditional understanding of how to practically observe the written Torah, originally transmitted orally—was completed 500 years before the first formal law code, Sefer HaHalachot, and nearly 1000 before the Shulchan Aruch, the law code that forms the core of modern halakhic Judaism. If the Talmud's primary purpose was as a law code, why such a huge gap?

In ancient Israel, the Temple with it's sacrifices, rules and rituals provided a 'right way' for the Jewish community to do Judaism. Both exile—Diaspora—and the Temple's eventual destruction in 70 CE made that 'right way' impossible to observe.

Talmud is, among other things, about rabbis debating and creating new ways to do Judaism in changing times.

Much of the Jewish world studies Talmud through the lens of the law codes, tracing the development of modern Jewish observance through the Talmud's discussions and stories regarding observance. For many, this observance has replaced the Temple as the 'right way' to do Judaism.This is a valid way to view and study Talmud, however, it's not the only valid way to study Talmud.

I believe the rabbinic discussions, stories and laws in Talmud were memorized and recorded with a deeper purpose than creating a code, or a uniform version of Judaism.

I believe the Talmudic goal of the rabbis was, at its core, to create and transmit widely a set of communal values and beliefs that would unite the people whether in Israel or the Diaspora, whether in freedom or under the rule of others, whether religiously educated or simply doing what they knew.

There are many ways to effectively transmit values and no single way will work for everyone. Think of how we transmit our values to our children: fairy tales and storybooks, age-aporopriate chores, formal education, and family stories all transmit the values, beliefs and skills needed for children to become contributing adult members of the family; continuing it for another generation. 

So too, the rabbis used many different vehicles to transmit the values, skills and beliefs the Jewish people would need to continue from generation to generation. 

Rabbinic stories, whether told as real life or tall tales, are easy to remember, share and adapt to new generations. Rabbinic laws created a common set of practices and skills that would preserve a unique Jewish identity and belief system even very far away from the land of Israel. No matter where we are, we all light Shabbat candles, join in prayer, learn Torah and observe the Festivals in similar and recognizable ways thanks to the framework of these rabbinic rules that unite us. However, the Talmud also includes many rejected views and unresolved debates. Why?

All of these things: each story, law, alternative point of view and unresolved debate has a value at its core. These values are still powerful enough to unite and sustain us through changing times, providing wisdom for individuals and to connect and strengthen our communities.

Learning Talmud by looking for these shared Jewish values is another valid way to study the texts. Even if you have no interest in learning to do a particular ritual 'the right way' you can draw wisdom and strength from discovering the Jewish value(s) it's there to trsnsmit. You may even decide some of the rituals have meaning for you and enhance that Jewish value you've learned. You can add those to your Jewish life while simply adopting the values from other passages.

When we look at Talmud this way, as a vehicle for values that build community, we can see Talmud as a progressive Jewish text. This text is our heritage as much as it's the heritage of the traditional, Orthodox community. 

Talmud isn't a closed text, it's an ongoing conversation, and we've left our voices out for too long. For Talmud's texts to have a voice in each generation people need to come together, learn them and give them that voice. The only way a progressive view of Talmud gets a voice is if we give it one. Are you ready to be Talmud's voice in this generation? 

I'm grateful to Rabbis Aaron Alexander, Lauren Holtzblatt and Patrick Beaulier, who in different ways helped me discover and express this perspective on Talmud. 

Machloket: How Jews Argue

The machloket (a way of disagreeing and debating) is a traditional way of exploring important Jewish values and practices on which we may strongly disagree.

The mindset of a machloket:

1. Arguing and debating ideas is an important way Judaism gives us to learn.

The goal is always to understand all the viewpoints and learn from them, even if we don't agree with them.

2. Challenging a person's ideas isn't rejection and isn't intended to humiliate. It is a way of clarifying and understanding The other person's point of view.

If you're trying to humiliate the other, prove them (not just the idea) 'wrong' or 'win' you aren't arguing according to Jewish tradition.

3. Being challenged openly, but with respect, gives you the opportunity of having your views heard and understood by others.

When you can show what you believe you gain the respect of others, even if they disagree.

Answering honest questions makes us stronger. We need to know "why we believe what we believe"

4. The goal isn't to make others agree with you - but to bring them to where they understand your point of view.

When you are through debating there should be no animosity or hurt feelings.

5. When making a statement, you should be prepared to back it up.

If you're unsure and looking for other viewpoints, it's best to do this as a question rather than a statement of fact. ("What do you think of...?" "Do you agree with?...Why?")

We see the value and power of the machloket in this Talmudic story from Eruvin 13b:

שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו

For three years, the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai argued. One said, 'The halakha is like us,' and the other said, 'The halakha is like us.'
יצאה בת קול ואמרה

A heavenly voice spoke:

אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה

"These and these are the words of the living God, and the halakha is like the House of Hillel."

וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש

A question was raised: Since the heavenly voice declared: "Both these and those are the words of the Living God," why was the halacha established to follow the opinion of Hillel? It is because the students of Hillel were kind and gracious. They taught their own ideas as well as the ideas from the students of Shammai.

ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן

Not only for this reason, but they went so far as to teach Shammai's opinions first.

Committing ourselves to practicing this traditional form of learning will make us stronger and increase holiness in the world, one. machloket at a time.

(Talmud text from Sefaria.org)

Confronting The Sin Of Sodom

(June 29, 2015) Since Friday's Supreme Court decision making LGBT marriage legal nationwide, my Facebook feed has featured several postings on sodomy, Sodom, and God's judgment for 'the sin of Sodom'. I thought a blog post to help us identify exactly what the sin of Sodom was, and why it matters to us, would be a good idea.

Before we read through the Biblical account though, I'll ask you to clear your mind of a couple of things so we can look at the text without any predetermined 'filters' or obstacles. Granted, this isn't easy, but it's the only way to see the text clearly, without bias.

First, let's clear our minds of the filter that "homosexual acts are called 'sodomy'" While this is true today, and the equating of Sodom with gay sex acts has a long history, it's still a post-biblical association. You see, outside of the actual story in Genesis, neither the word 'sodomy' nor the connection of gay sex to Sodom, occurs in either the Hebrew Bible or the Greek Scriptures. In fact, the term 'sodomy' doesn't make its first appearance until 395 CE! So, for our look at the story, let's remove this filter.

Second, we need to remove the filters that come from having been taught this Biblical story and its moral(s) in the past. Whatever you've been taught about what's happening in the story, or what its moral or spiritual message is, are filters you need to put aside as you walk with me through these verses. For now, pretend you've never heard the story and you have no idea what will happen next. Let's read it fresh, with open minds and hearts, moving through it scene by scene from its unfolding to it's conclusion. Clear your filters, and we'll begin.

Ready? Let's go!

Genesis 19:1-16 (JPSTanakh)

1 The two angels arrived in Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to greet them and, bowing low with his face to the ground,

Here, Lot is 'sitting in the gate' of Sodom, a position of respect and authority. Disputes of local law were decided by those who sat in the gates of a city.

2 he said, "Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house to spend the night, and bathe your feet; then you may be on your way early." But they said, "No, we will spend the night in the square."

When Lot arrives, he 'pitches his tents near Sodom' (13:12), an indication of the wealth he arrived with. These men arrive with nothing but the clothes on their backs and intend to 'sleep in the square,' an indication of their poverty.

Why would they reject Lot's offer of hospitality? Could it have anything to do with the purpose of their visit—to 'go down to see whether they have acted altogether according to the outcry that has reached Me' (18:21)?

3 But he urged them strongly, so they turned his way and entered his house. He prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

Lot persists in offering hospitality until they relent and accept. Had Lot not insisted, these strangers would've slept in the square. Lot feeds them 'a feast'

4 They had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the men of Sodom, young and old-- all the people to the last man-- gathered about the house.

After Lot has fed these strangers, but before they're going to sleep, *every* man in the city gathers around the house. Why?

5 And they shouted to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may be intimate with them."

Here, we have the first sexual reference of this story. What we don't know yet is 'why' this demand is occurring. Let's be clear here, this isn't a 'request for consensual sex', this is a demand for gang rape. One thing we know today about rape—it's *never* about wanting sex, it's about wanting power and control over the victim, subjugating and/or humiliating them! So how might that fact inform our story?

6 So Lot went out to them to the entrance, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "I beg you, my friends, do not commit such a wrong. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please; but do not do anything to these men, since they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Two points to take note of in these verses: First, Lot continues his persistent hospitality, in closing the door behind him to protect his visitors while putting himself at risk, in pleading that they be left alone as his guests, and even by offering his virgin daughters in exchange for their safety. Second, Lot seems to believe that his virgin daughters are a trade that would pacify these men. How does this make sense if this passage is about the men being gay and demanding sex?

9 But they said, "Stand back! The fellow," they said, "came here as an alien, and already he acts the ruler! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." And they pressed hard against the person of Lot, and moved forward to break the door.

What does Lot 'coming as an alien' and 'acting the ruler' have to do with anything? How does it tie it with the mob's demand? Lot has obviously been heterosexual during his stay, with a wife and several daughters. This can't be because Lot isn't adhering to their gay lifestyle, so what's going on here? What has Lot done to cause them to threaten to 'do worse to him than them'?

All Lot has done so far is show persistent hospitality. He's said nothing to these men in judgment of them, sexually or otherwise

10 But the men stretched out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And the people who were at the entrance of the house, young and old, they struck with blinding light, so that they were helpless to find the entrance.

All the men of the city are, for the time being, kept from doing harm to Lot, his family, or the men who are his guests, when they are 'struck with a blinding light' after his guests pull Lot to safety

12 Then the men said to Lot, "Whom else have you here? Sons- in- law, your sons and daughters, or anyone else that you have in the city-- bring them out of the place. 13 For we are about to destroy this place; because the outcry against them before the LORD has become so great that the LORD has sent us to destroy it." 14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons- in- law, who had married his daughters, and said, "Up, get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons- in- law as one who jests.

While 'all the men of the city' are light-blinded around his house, Lot's guests ask who else he has 'in the city' that need to be brought out and spared from destruction. Lot goes and speaks to his sons-in-law. Where? It would seem they're part of the crowd around his house who are blinded and groping! His sons-in-law don't sound much like gay men looking for sex. What else could be going on here?

15 As dawn broke, the angels urged Lot on, saying, "Up, take your wife and your two remaining daughters, lest you be swept away because of the iniquity of the city." 16 Still he delayed. So the men seized his hand, and the hands of his wife and his two daughters-- in the LORD's mercy on him-- and brought him out and left him outside the city.

If the city was engrossed in homosexuality, after surviving such a close call, why would Lot hesitate to leave? His wealth could have a hold on him, but after a near sexual assault of his guests, why not try to pack and take it with him? Why does he hesitate to leave at all, to feel safe enough to stay? Could his guests plans to be on their way be a factor? The guests eventually persist on bringing Lot's household out in much the same way he persisted in being hospitable.

So, now that we've read our central text, and raised a few questions that need to be answered about what might be going on in this text, we should see if there are other Biblical texts that can help us answer those questions and point us towards the underlying moral message of this story.

Ezekiel 16:48-50 (JPSTanakh)

48 As I live-- declares the Lord GOD-- your sister Sodom and her daughters did not do what you and your daughters did. 49 Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquillity; yet she did not support the poor and the needy. 50 In their haughtiness, they committed abomination before Me; and so I removed them, as you saw.

In this passage, a rebuke of Jerusalem for her many sins, God declares 'this only was the sin of Sodom: arrogance—that they had plenty and were at peace (no need to hoard, as during war or unrest), yet they failed to support the poor and needy. It is because they committed this abomination that the Lord removed (destroyed) them!

Here we have an opportunity for the prophet to point out clearly what the 'sin of Sodom' was, and he does—only he says *nothing* about gay sex, or any sex at all for that matter! The prophet's rebuke is that they had the security and resources to take care of the poor and needy and instead were arrogant in their wealth. Period.

Pretty unexpected, right? But wait, there's more.

Isaiah 1:9-17 (JPSTanakh)

Like a booth in a vineyard,
Like a hut in a cucumber field,
Like a city beleaguered.
9 Had not the LORD of Hosts
Left us some survivors,
We should be like Sodom,
Another Gomorrah.
10 Hear the word of the LORD,
You chieftains of Sodom;
Give ear to our God's instruction,
You folk of Gomorrah!
11 "What need have I of all your sacrifices?"
Says the LORD.
"I am sated with burnt offerings of rams,
And suet of fatlings,
And blood of bulls;
And I have no delight
In lambs and he- goats.
12 That you come to appear before Me--
Who asked that of you?
Trample My courts
13 no more;
Bringing oblations is futile,
Incense is offensive to Me.
New moon and sabbath,
Proclaiming of solemnities,
Assemblies with iniquity,
I cannot abide.
14 Your new moons and fixed seasons
Fill Me with loathing;
They are become a burden to Me,
I cannot endure them.
15 And when you lift up your hands,
I will turn My eyes away from you;
Though you pray at length,
I will not listen.
Your hands are stained with crime--
16 Wash yourselves clean;
Put your evil doings
Away from My sight.
Cease to do evil;
17 Learn to do good.
Devote yourselves to justice;
Aid the wronged.
Uphold the rights of the orphan;
Defend the cause of the widow.

Once again, Jerusalem's wickedness is being compared to that of Sodom, and what is she told to do? End all sexual perversion? No, nothing about sex is mentioned here at all (even though the Bible addresses sexual issues with no hesitation elsewhere). Here, Jerusalem is told to:

Learn to do good.
Devote yourselves to justice;
Aid the wronged.
Uphold the rights of the orphan;
Defend the cause of the widow.

Hmm, here too it doesn't seem like Sodom's incredible sin, its abomination, had anything at all to do with gay sex...

So, what was *really* going on in our story?

See how this scenario fits both our reading in Genesis and these two passages on Sodom:

Instead of being a story about a city filled with homosexual men, whose evil ways were an abomination to God, this is a story about Lot violating the Sodom 'city ordinance' or 'code of conduct' that deliberately refused to welcome outsiders who were poor. A community where only those of means were to be welcomed. But Lot, in public defiance of this code, insists on welcoming and feeding two poor strangers, raising the concern—and anger—of the entire city that he was damaging their elite community!

With this understanding, their comments to Lot about 'coming as an alien' and 'acting as a judge' make sense. They're saying, "You came here as an outsider, and we let you stay (because of your wealth), but, now you're trying to change the way we run things so poor people will feel welcome here. Give us the men so we can humiliate them sexually, sending the message that the poor aren't welcome here. And because you've violated our way of life and welcomed the poor, we'll do even worse to you than to them!"

This scenario answers the questions raised in the central text in a way that's also consistent with the Ezekiel and Isaiah texts. Reading this as a story about sodomy just doesn't fit the core text, nor does it unite the three passages.

The moral message of the story of Sodom apparently isn't 'the evils of an LGBT lifestyle,' but, rather, the evils of arrogantly hoarding wealth and having apathy towards the poor—or rejecting them outright.

When we see the message of this story as condemning LGBT sex, it's easy for most Americans to evade moral soul-searching, since the LGBT community makes up only a small percentage of the population. However, if this story's moral imperative is about caring for the poor, the vast majority of Americans have some soul-searching to do to honestly apply this lesson to their own lives, as citizens of a nation with so much wealth—and so much poverty.

Yes, we need to confront the 'Sin of Sodom' in this country: the laws that make it a crime to feed the poor, the elite communities that lock their gates to 'those people', the affluent neighborhoods that refuse to let the working poor move in even though living in such a community increases their chances of working their way out of poverty, the tons of food we throw away each year as our neighbors go hungry, the lack of adequate low-income housing, the prosperous corporations who leave many of their workers on government assistance while they enjoy record profits, The 'poor doors' and 'back entrance access' buildings that humiliate the poor, the mandatory drug testing to receive public assistance (which costs more than it saves but serves to humiliate the poor), the judgmental attitudes we exude towards the poor, and the unkind—even cruel—words we speak to, and about, them.

We need to be upset by the 'Sin of Sodom' in America! Not the 'sin' of a SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage, but the sin of our own greed and indifference towards those struggling in poverty, in need of persistent hospitality like Lot's...

Karla Worrell 

Sacrifice, Service, and Sanctification—Thoughts on Leviticus 10

All of the events in Leviticus 10 - the unauthorized incense, supernatural sudden deaths, seemingly callous and disconnected commands, and the various silences - take place during the same detailed, ritualistic inauguration of Aaron and his sons begun in chapter 9 that included blood on earlobes, thumbs and big toes, etc. This particular ritual was, as I understand it, a combination of public installation, the 'activation' of a set means for communal cleansing/relationship with God and a hands-on 'boot camp' for actually performing the various activities correctly.

In the midst of this critical learn-as-you-do process, with Moses providing the ritualistic instruction in much the same way he had assembled all the parts of the Tabernacle as he was shown 'on the mountain' (Exodus 25:40, 40:17-35), Nadav and Avihu decide to add an incense ritual of their own—one not authorized by God nor instructed by Moses. Up until this point, as the sons of Aaron, their role had been to assist their father, the High Priest. Their authorized duties had included preparing sacrifices and bringing the blood to their father to use in the various ritual offerings and ceremonies. Not glamorous work by any means, but much more than the average Israelite, observing from a distance, was allowed to do in the service connecting God and man.

Whatever Nadav and Avihu's desired outcome: drawing closer to God, highlighting their willingness to serve 'above and beyond' the mundane, or a desire to be the focus of attention like their father, the result is the end of their lives and service to God altogether. As the prophets would later state, God desires obedience even more than ritual sacrifice (1 Sam 15:22) As priests, their job was to draw the Israelites towards God—not themselves. Disobedience, in this instance, could be seen as a form of idolatry—placing personal desires or ambitions (no matter how pure or worthy) before God's instructions and sovereignty—results in 'alien fire.' Motives matter, especially in a place of public leadership in the service of God.

This act of disobedience—stepping outside the bounds of Divine orchestration through Moses—demands a response from God who desires that those near to Him be humble enough to accept the instructions He gave Moses. God's intervention in speaking to Aaron with the command not to drink while performing this ritual service may be both part of the shakedown training and a way on asserting that God rather than Moses is the source of these rituals. The rituals serve a Divine purpose and not human need for the Divine alone.

Aaron is silent in shock/grief, but like Job, also in his refusal to blame God. Moses' silence, and later anger, rather than comfort, reflect his understanding of God's power and judgment and the importance to not only Moses, Aaron and the immediate family, but to the whole community that this process for providing individual and communal atonement be completely and correctly activated. However, Aaron understands that this is - and needs to be - about more than rote ritual for atonement and connection with God to be successful.

Ironically, Moses' and Aaron's very different approaches to relationship with God (Moses stressing of ritual perfection and Aaron's focus on the emotional components) does seem to have created a breach in their own relationship.

I don't believe I've presented a radical approach by any means, just a slightly different nuance to this text. However, I do believe this nuanced reading can teach us valuable lessons regarding our own contemporary struggles with religion and spirituality:

• We need not choose between 'ritual' and 'emotional' fulfillment in our spiritual journeys or communities. Both have a role to play in our growth and connection to the Divine.

• A community that seeks to be holy, to serve the Divine beyond just self-interest, requires those who are passionate advocates of ritual and tradition serving alongside those equally as passionate about sensitivity to human emotion and imperfection.

• We can only be fully sanctified, reaching our full potential for service to both the Holy and the human, when we can accept others' perspectives and roles alongside our own and not see them as opposition to our own.

With gratitude to Rabbi Gary Creditor, whose Torah Study inspired this post, and to Rabbi David Mark for his input as I developed my ideas. I'm fortunate to count both among my teachers.

Life, Holiness and Community

LIFE isn't about 'what you have' 'where you've been' or 'the title you're called by'...
HOLINESS isn't following religious rules to perfection—the rules are the means, never the end...
SUCCESS isn't determined by what you've accomplished for yourself...

LIFE is drawing each breath, using each moment, in a way that makes the Divine evident to others (and yourself)
HOLINESS is being in a way that makes the Divine want to come near you, and those around you want to come near the Divine
SUCCESS is what you've worked with others to accomplish together

The GOAL is to repair the damage and fill the voids in the lives (individual and collective) around us by bringing the Divine close and shining Divine light on the broken and damaged pieces. The Divine light is not for us to draw attention to ourselves, but to keep focused on the need(s). Resisting the urge to stand in the spotlight is STRENGTH

COMMUNITY is holy, it's being like the Holy One
The Holy One loves individuals, but needs communities—large and small —to be fully present with us and sanctified in our midst
We were created, and are filled, with Divine life-breath, so we too need more than just the Holy One, we need one another—in all our diversity—as much as we need the Holy One

As we LIVE HOLINESS, COMMUNITIES that unite synergistically, are able focus enough of the light of the Divine Who is drawing near to usus, giving us wisdom, strength and hope to HEAL this world we have damaged. Achieving this GOAL sanctifies the Holy One in our midst.

The struggle isn't getting the Divine to defeat the Evil
The struggle is getting US to accept what LIFE, HOLINESS and SUCCESS realty are rather chase the counterfeit goals of possession, position, and power.

COMMUNITY is powerful. It doesn't take a large community to move a large obstacle or make long-term changes to society IF we keep the GOAL in sight.
HOLINESS is contagious. We are designed to respond to holiness and inspire one another to increase it.

If you've read all this and felt uplifted and inspired, don't leave without asking yourself THREE QUESTIONS (today and every day):

WHAT am I really living for each day?
WHO am I focusing the light with and on?
HOW can I increase true holiness in myself and my community?

It's TIME to make each day count and repair this world TOGETHER—Starting NOW!

[Inspired by learning with and from Rabbi Aaron Alexander, Reb Mimi Feigelson, Rabbi Shai Held and Rabbi Michael Knopf]

MOURNING

Some losses you mourn with tears and sobs
Some with community, closeness and memories
Some losses you mourn with silence and reflection
Some with commitment to transformation

Then there are the losses that are so profound
that mourning with all of these is still not enough

Karla J Worrell
November 16, 2014
In memory of Cantor Edward Cohen