The good old book Leviticus is the bit where God, speaking through His ancient Israelite editor, says you shall not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination.
First, I understand that Conservative Jewish synagogues and rabbis these days may, if they choose, maintain a prohibition on anal sex between men, in keeping with that bit of Leviticus. Oral sex is, well, kosher for some Conservative Jews. Oh, and some rabbinical schools may admit lesbian and gay candidates.
Second, the word translated as abomination is toevah. It is used to indicate ritual uncleanliness. Now, Biblical-era Jews probably had antipahty towards homosexual activity. We shouldn't play that down. As David Plotz puts it, "There is no Brokeback Mount Sinai." However, handling the skin of a pig, eating lobster, working on the Sabbath, all these were also toevah. Christian priests do a considerable amount of activity to prepare for services on Sunday. Surely that counts as work?
Leviticus is about ritual cleanliness and uncleanliness. It is a holiness code. And actually, it is also a public health code. Chapter 13, instructions for people with leprosy, can be understood as an attempt to deal with an infectious disease. Lepers were expelled from camp, their clothes torn. "He shall cover over his upper lip, and he shall call out, 'Impure! Impure!' " Priests were to quarantine those with skin diseases. Later chapters describe how to deal with clothes and houses that are infected with fungus.
And then, of course, there were the laws condemning sex with consanguineous relatives. Humans have known for quite some time that inbreeding increases the risk of genetic defects.
Regular readers of this blog probably already know not to take Leviticus literally. But, how many of you had thought of it as a set of public health codes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
(I should probably say that I'm Muslim... so the code I try to live by is similar to, but not absolutely identical to Orthodox Judaism's) To be honest, I don't really like the public health explanation for the the various laws. I think that part of the purpose for religion is to point to a transcendent dimension to human life, but trying to justify the rules on a public health basis seems like giving in to a basically materialistic values system.
Just because we have refrigerators now doesn't all of the sudden mean folks should start eating pork. I think many of the rules, still have a meaning beyond avoiding illness (genetic, food-borne or otherwise).
Also (and this might seem to contradict my last comment) I think there are other concrete reasons other than simply public health.
In some environments, raising pigs for food is ecologically unsustainable.
And I actually think that a bigger reason for the incest taboo is how it confuses family relationships.
Abdul-Halim,
Thanks for the comment!
I should have been more clear.
For the Hebrews, there was no distinction between religion and secular law or practices.
Nonetheless, the holiness codes, like in Leviticus, contain public health regulations. Public health is one facet of Leviticus.
Public health today is an expanding body of knowledge. It does not claim to be perfect.
All our religious texts are expanding bodies of knowledge. I repeatedly advise fellow Christians not to claim them as inerrant.
I'm certainly not advising Jews or Muslims to eat pork, because we now know refrigeration and proper cooking. I'm certainly not advocating consanguineous relationships either. The former is a cultural practice that is not oppressive. The latter is a practice that is both taboo, and genetically dangerous. Prohibiting consanguineous relationships is not oppressive, either.
However, preventing same-sex relationships is oppressive.
Additionally, now that we know about safe sex and have condoms, there's no public health reason to prevent such relationships. The public health step to take is sex education. The religious step to take is to cease to condemn.
I think you were clear enough.
I'm just a bit wary of the public health explanation because it seems to weaken the force of the commandments overall.
I think you hit on it in your last response: For the Hebrews (or I might add, religious orthodox Jews) there was no distinction between religion and secular law or practices. There are just the 613 commandments of the Torah. So one perspective is to take them all seriously and forcefully as coming from God.
But when you say some of them are there for public health reasons, that opens the door to ignoring them once the obvious public health issue no longer applies (e.g. due to refrigerators, condomns, anti-biotics, etc.)
I realize that you aren't advocating eating pork or commiting incest, but a public health perspective still tends to weaken those commandments.
I too have thought for quite a while that Leviticus was a health code for the day. That's actually how I found your blog...google searching "Leviticus Public Health Code". I've often debated over this fact and the more I read the Bible the stronger my opinion gets. I do agree with abdul-halim when he says "the purpose of religion is to point to a transcendent dimension to human life", however I don't interpret that to say taking the Bible literally is the means to which this is accomplished. I think that the Bible...like spirituality/religion is a personal journey for each and every one who takes it to interpret for his/her self. What does concern me is the repeated history of using the Bible as justification for oppression. I also think that you CAN NOT take the Bible out of the context of which it was written...meaning to say...the time/era/year...and all that entails. The Bible was written during a time when women were property to be bartered, traded, or sold to benefit husbands and fathers. Slavery was rampant in both the old and new testaments with instruction on how they were to be sold, how they should behave, and how severely they may be beaten! How can you take something riddled with such atrocity literally? This is not to say that there are no good lessons to be learned from the Bible. I just think that you have to use your "God-given" faculty and decide whether or not you think the time at which it was written played any part in how the author(s) delivered the message? If you think it had absolutely nothing to do with it, and it is God's literal word...then take ALL of it and live your life accordingly. My guess is that you can't or won't follow ALL of God's literal word. NOW, ask yourself WHY? Unthinkable the notion of selling your daughters for sex slaves? Unthinkable the horrors of slavery? Have we pointed to that "transcendent dimension" yet? I'd encourage transcending into a more spiritual relationship with whatever you consider God to be, and pass the bacon...I'm hungry!
Post a Comment