Leviticus traps
CommentsI contacted 20 newspapers with the op-ed piece below, and kept getting the same reaction: it’s good, but it’s too old. Dr. Laura? The West Wing? What decade are you in, anyway?
On the other hand, one of the largest newspapers in California asked me to write for them a more general opinion piece responding to the tiresome, intellectually vacuous left-wing demand “Don’t impose your religion on me!” It should appear some time next week.
So here’s the original “Leviticus traps” piece, which explains why asking an Orthodox Jew “Do you support the death penalty for wearing mixed fabrics?” shows utter ignorance of what Orthodox Judaism is:
When Orthodox Jews and other traditionally religious people discuss our ideas about marriage and other public-policy issues relating to homosexuality, we often run into what I call “Leviticus traps.” Such quasi-arguments suggest that people who follow the Bible are singling out homosexuality for condemnation out of prejudice or narrow-mindedness - because if we really valued Scripture we’d also follow all the other “silly rules” in the Bible.
Perhaps the most famous Leviticus trap was set by President Josiah Bartlet, played by Martin Sheen on the former NBC television series The West Wing. A character (”Dr. Jenna Jacobs”) modeled after radio advice-giver Dr. Laura Schlessinger (an Orthodox Jew at the time) visited the White House and the president confronted her:
Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
Jacobs: I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.
Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.
Jacobs: 18:22.
Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it OK to call the police? … Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?
This confrontation, which is based on a Leviticus trap in an open letter to Dr. Laura that circulated on the Internet eight years ago, sent gay and lesbian opponents of traditional religion into a tizzy of righteousness and self-congratulation. The problem is, the scene shows zero awareness of the beliefs and practices of Orthodox Jews like me, Dr. Laura at the time, and presumably Dr. Jacobs (a Jewish name).
Because Orthodox Jews believe not only that the written Torah (the first five books of the Bible) is divine, but that God gave an oral Torah as well, which has come to be written down in rabbinic literature such as the Talmud and the Midrash. Orthodox Jews believe male-male intercourse is forbidden to everyone not because we open the Torah, read a verse from Leviticus, and reason out its meaning. Rather, we listen to our rabbis who are experts at the entire Jewish legal corpus, which explains how we should understand the written Torah. All legitimate Orthodox rabbis agree that male-male intercourse - and same-sex marriage - are universally prohibited.
Bartlet’s diatribe dramatizes a made-up death penalty (it’s mentioned nowhere in the Bible) for mixing two threads together. It’s true, Orthodox Jews do not wear garments with both linen and wool - I had to get my new suit approved by a rabbi before I could buy it - but doing so has never been a capital crime. The Biblical prohibitions that do carry the death penalty demanded such a high burden of proof that executions for the violation of Jewish law were rare. I know of no specific case where a Jewish court executed someone for gay sex, for example. Punishments, in Jewish thought, are meant as atonement, not vengeance. Today’s Jews look at each violation’s corresponding punishment as a measurement of the severity of the sin, not a practical plan for disciplining offenders.
In addition, many of the examples Bartlet gave - such as mixing fabrics and observing the Sabbath - are laws that apply only to Jews. In fact, we believe non-Jews are forbidden to fully observe the Sabbath. So Dr. Jacobs’ special condemnation of gay sex actually does make sense, because the prohibition of intercourse between males (and, incidentally, of same-sex marriage) are “Noahide” laws that apply to all human beings. In other words, one answer to “Why don’t you lecture your radio listeners about violating the Sabbath and wearing mixed fabrics rather than just homosexuality?” is “Judaism believes only the prohibition of the latter applies to everyone - and most of my listeners aren’t Jewish.”
The people who set Leviticus traps for Orthodox Jews display a basic ignorance of Orthodoxy. It’s time to have some honest dialogue on marriage and other gay issues, but nobody’s beliefs should be misrepresented or mocked.
However, fundamentalist Christians believe that every word in the Bible is true and that every one of its commandments should be obeyed. Or at lest they say they do.
David,
You write:
“Because Orthodox Jews believe not only that the written Torah (the first five books of the Bible) is divine, but that God gave an oral Torah as well, which has come to be written down in rabbinic literature such as the Talmud and the Midrash…. Rather, we listen to our rabbis who are experts at the entire Jewish legal corpus, which explains how we should understand the written Torah.”
I don’t know that all people who set “Leviticus traps” are ignorant of the distinction between written and oral Torah. I think it’s conceivable, in fact, that at least some people take issue with rabbinic interpretation of God’s word. Historically, it certainly appears that “God” has been imbued with very human prejudices and flaws that, coincidentally are the exact same prejudices and flaws of those claiming to have some special insight into what God believes.
I mean no disrespect to your religious beliefs, David. I’m just trying to explain how too often devoutly religious people cast non-believers in the same ignorant, heathen stone. I don’t doubt that many people who would criticize your faith are ignorant and clumsy with their critiques. But, many people also have legitimate complaints and criticisms of organized religion.
Oh my goodness. You didn’t post this on Shabbat, did you?
Hi David.
A friend of mine, F. Rottles, wrote something in response to that West Wing episode back when it was first broadcast. Here is what he put together …
* * *
The West Wing episode that blasted Dr. Laura was little more than an attack ad. The rant by “President Bartlet” was full of venom and hyperbole.
The character is portrayed as a very prominently devout Catholic so his rant carries the stench of hypocrisy.
The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture opposes same sex sexual acts as immoral — always. The orthodoxies of Judaism and Protestantism pretty much arrive at the same conclusion. (As does the major religions and philosophies of the world). And they all teach that all of Scripture is the inviolate word of God and that all of it is to be followed by believers. Within each, the consistency is well-scrutinize, but, yes, inter-faith contradictions persist (of course).
The scriptwriter, Aaron Sorkin, has admitted to the gay publication, The Advocate, that the Bartlett rant scene’s list of ordinances from Mosaic Law was just an excuse to blast Dr. Laura. Unfortunately the means used amounted to a rather ill-informed attack on the moral relevancy of the Bible.
Disagree with people and disagree with their religious beliefs, but why shoutdown someone with a rant that gets most of the references very, very wrong? Seems self-defeating to me because it destroys the creditibility of everyone involved — both sides get smeared.
Do those who agree with Bartlet’s rant actually agree with the implications of that rant? Or with the falsehoods upon which those implications rest so flimsily?
Anyway, here’s a tongue-in-cheek replay of the scene, but with the Dr. Laura character actually speaking up with a few answers to the rhetorical questions of the show’s President Bartlet. If you watch The West Wing you might get some of the show-related jokes and puns in the added responses from the Dr. Laura character.
This replay appeared in a discussion of The West Wing (The Midterms) at the following website: http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com
[Note: I've added some footnotes for readers who may not have watched The West Wing or who may not recall some of the episodes.]
A literal account of the Bartlet v. Dr. Laura scene: White House reception for talk radio personalities; Bartlet enters with his personal staff in tow; he notices Dr. Laura sitting beside the buffet table.
BARTLET: Forgive me, Dr. Laura, are you an M.D.?
DR LAURA: No sir, I’m not a medical doctor.
But you really meant to ask about my credentials?
Well, I have a B.S. in Biology Sciences, State University. An M.S. and Ph.D in Physiology and an M. Philosophy from Colombia. Post-doctoral certification in marriage, family, and child counseling, University of Southern California. Member of the graduate psychology faculty, Pepperdine University. And I’ve been in private practice, psychotherapy, for more than twelve years.
And I play theological Scrabble at the master level in Hebrew, Latin, and Geek.
BARTLET: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here.
DR LAURA: As you may know, sir, my viewpoint on biblical matters is drawn from the religious tradition of orthodox rabbinic Judaism. Did I mention that I am immune to the #2 pencil anomaly? [FN 1]
BARTLET: I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and always clears the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another?
DR LAURA: Mr. President, the Bible doesn’t commend slavery. And there is no requirement that you sell your daughter. You could give it a try but you’d risk the wrath of the TWoP Anti-Female Sexism thread. [FN 2] With a second language and general cleanliness, Zoey is good for a slave’s wage, err, I mean, minimum wage — plus tips — at La Rosa Puzzante. [FN 3]
BARTLET: My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?
DR LAURA: Rest assured that you, sir, are not morally obligated to execute Mr. McGarry, however, if you decide to take him to the proper authorities please be sure to bring three witnesses, both parties, and elders. But a word of preventative advice: give your COS a break from your demands on his time and let him enjoy conjugal “barbeques” on the Sabbath before it’s too late for his marriage. [FN 4]
As you know, Mr. President, you don’t have the authority to try capital cases. This country has a civil judiciary branch of government. No matter. While “executive insomnia” [FN 5] doesn’t mean much to you just now, [SPOILER] by Season Four Mr. McGarry’s hardwork will pay off and you’ll get to put someone to death by calling your own enforcement officers [/SPOILER]. Excuse the self-censorship, sir, that was a national security spoiler. [FN 6]
BARTLET: Here’s one that’s really important, because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
DR LAURA: Even if the footballs were made of pigskin, they aren’t food. But if you were to swallow a football, it still wouldn’t make you unclean. Although I think it might be a bit tough to pass (pun intended). Besides, the big leagues play with footballs made of cowhide and cows are kosher. Same goes for vynil. Both are as innocuous as your pigskin wallet. So playing football is not considered a sin, unlike the other thing.
There’s an old rabbinic statement that might help with your implied complaint:
A person shouldn’t say, “I really can’t stand pork.” It’s better to say, “I would really, really, really like to indulge in some. But my Father in heaven has declared it to be forbidden.”
BARTLET: Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
DR LAURA: Well, sir, your brother can thank God that Leviticus 19:19 has never provided for that sort of punishment for gardeners. On the other hand, if John doesn’t grow his own weed, he might want to go to Canada to get legally stoned. [FN 7]
As for your mom’s fashion sense, the Bible does provide for a proportional response. If a sanction was deserved, the hip Fashion Court [FN 8] could set aflame the First Mom’s wardrobe high atop the altar of modernity. Or your Mom could have a postmodern garage sale.
Sometimes you just have to be cruel to be kind. [Sotto voce] Let’s hope she doesn’t have a special relationship with her shoes. [/Sotto voce] [FN 9]
BARTLET: One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tightass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.
DR LAURA: [Blink] With all due respect, Mr. President, you are one of the most prominent Catholics in this country. Why do you pose as a petty legalist? Picking and choosing from scripture out of context, twisting the facts, giving yourself permission to rudely take a run at someone whose religious views differ from your own? As a good host, you won’t mind me reminding you, sir, that, in our country and in this White House, the President doesn’t get to replay the worst of the “Inquisition”.
Now, while you stand there in your wrongness, and I sit here on my size nine derriere, please accept this, the last crab puff in the room. It’s “New England” crab [FN 10] and I’ve saved it just for you. Sit. Enjoy.
—
Footnotes
FN 1 — POTUS says he got 800/790 on his SATs. “For the life of me I can’t imagine what I got wrong,” he says. Maybe there was a question about humility somewhere in there. He says he took them again and got 800/790. He begins to wonder if there might have been some No. 2 pencil anomaly. Arkin interrupts to make clear that POTUS got 800/790, but still took the test again. [Episode: Holy Night, 16-Dec-2002] http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/the_west_wing/holy_night.php?page=6
FN 2 — Sexism in the show, The West Wing, was discussed vigorously in a contemporaneous forum. The thread on sexism was very popular among viewers. The website had to close it down 4 times due to the heated disagreements among feminists. It was revised a 5th time before the show went off the air. See:
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=2441382&st=0
FN 3 — La Rosa Puzzante is a restaurant in the show’s ficitnal Washington DC.
FN 4 — In an episode of The West Wing, the chief-of-staff had difficulties with his marriage due to his devotion to his job at the White House. Due to some crisis he did not go to a family barbeque with his wife. President Bartlet, a good friend as well as his boss, warned Leo to pay more attention to conjugal visits. Or somesuch. I don’t recall the details.
FN 5 - During his second term in office, President Bartlet suffered from insomnia for which he sought the help of a psychiatrist who secretly visited him in the West Wing.
FN 6 - President Bartlet ordered the assisanation of a suspected terrorist. He covered it up and kept the murder a secret.
FN 7 - In an episode of The West Wing, the staff exchanged off-handed remarks about the availability of marijuana in British Columbia (IIRCC).
FN 9 - Leo upset a columnist when he made a joke about her shoes. “who knows what kind of special relationship women have with their shoes! It was perfectly benign to anyone who doesn’t take shoes that seriously. Just tell her that I love her and that I’m sorry and I’ll take her shoe shopping.”
http://www.westwingtranscripts.com/search.php?flag=getTranscript&id=33&keyword=shoes
FN 10 - In the rant episode (The Midterms), on his way to the reception Bartlet remarked to his staff that there were crab puffs on the menu. “There’ll be crab puffs. New England crab puffs, by the way, made in New England. … Let’s get there.” At the conclusion of his rant, Bartlet turns to his staff and says of an old political rival: “That’s how I beat him.” He leaves the reception. One of his staff steps toward Dr. Laura and cheekily says, “I’m just… I’m gonna take that last crab puff,” as he snatches it off her plate and then turns to follow Bartlet.
[...] while some Protestants take the Bible literally word for word, 99.9 percent of Jews do not (see my Leviticus Traps). A Jewish case for gay marriage, if such a thing was thinkable, would have to deal not only with [...]