D'var Torah Delivered by D8C (Grade 8) Student, Zo:

This week's Torah portion is Vayikra, also known as Leviticus, which also happens to be the name of the book it's in. This portion is very important because it lays out the "rules" of Judaism. But because of its rules, they are also controversial.  

Like all Torah portions, Vayikra is long and has a lot of lines and information, and so many rules. So, I will just be sharing the two lines, really two rules, that stood out to me. This is as direct of a translation as I could find.

"You must not 'lie down' with a male as with a woman; this is an abomination."

"You must not fornicate with any animal, thereby becoming spiritually defiled by it. A woman must not stand in front of an animal in order that it copulate with her. This is considered depravity."

After reading this, I had a couple of questions, specifically about the wording and specification.

Why is the 'you' of the text assumed to be addressing men? Obviously, not everyone in this room is a man, but the line says you can't lie down, meaning have sex, with a male like you would with a woman. And in straight relationships, which was the norm, it's a man and a woman. So why, when the Torah says "you," is it a reference to a man?

Same for the second line I chose, "You must not do this", then "A woman must do this." Specifying something different for the woman than you, a man. So why is the audience male? Was it always like this, or is this a translation thing?

When I looked into this, the most plausible answer was the one that I somehow overlooked, aka forgot. Hebrew, unlike English, is a gendered language. Which, in this case, means that in mixed gender situations, they default to the masculine pronoun. So that would explain the first line, but the second line specifies women. 

So, after even more looking into it, I found the true answer. Sexism. In some information I found in Sefaria, I found that there was a decent amount of Rabbinic discussion about teaching your daughters torah. Rabbi Eliezer says: "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity." Why is teaching Torah promiscuity? Although I would say it's not, the likely reason why it may have been viewed as that is because it risks the woman being smarter than her husband. This is one of the many things confirming the target audience for Torah is men. 

I still don't fully understand why there was a specification of women in the second line but not in the first, so guess what gang, I did even more looking. 

So this portion specifies that you (male) cannot fornicate with animals, and that women should not either. And when it is discussing men lying with other men being prohibited, there is no mention of women being or not being allowed to lie with other women. Why is it men not with men and then also not women with women? Could be because of the genderedness of plural pronouns? Or for a more likely explanation of this lack of women mentioned is that everyone forgot that women existed and have sexuality. 

Which kinda led me towards this thought I had of maybe that's why there's a separate rule for women with different wording to indicate the responsibility for engaging in sexual activities with an animal. So I went to my handy Merriam-Webster dictionary, and I think I was mostly right. 

For men, the word fornicate is used. Meaning "to engage in consensual sexual intercourse with someone to whom one is not married." Key word being consensual. So in this case, the man was aware of his actions. When that word is put in the context of "You must not fornicate with any animal, thereby becoming spiritually defiled by it." The wording makes it clear that the man is actively doing the "fornication." 

For women, the word "copulate" is used. Meaning "to engage in sexual intercourse." When put in the context of "A woman must not stand in front of an animal in order that it copulate with her." The wording is making it seem as if the woman would be setting herself up in that situation, but the animal is the one with the responsibility of the action. That lines up with the definition.

This all leads to the same general answer to why the leaving out of or specification of women. It's because there's an underestimation and forgetfulness of women's own sexuality and that they are capable of making that choice without it being a man's responsibility and action. Literally just biblical sexism.

But let's circle back to the first line. "You must not 'lie down' with a male as with a woman; this is an abomination." 

This could just be it could just be homophobia. But a hatred for a group based on who they love, with hate not being included, doesn't really seem very G-d core. So I wanted to find some explanation on what else it could be.

I spiralled and came up with so many reasons why, but ultimately, I found a source that actually presented something interesting. It suggests that, oftentimes, translations of Hebrew text will just be what is simplest to grasp instead of the maybe more confusing or less understandable direct translation. But how is that relevant? Of course, they're trying to translate it so the message is understandable because word-for-word might not make sense." Valid thoughts, and I had those too when I read the direct translation, but I realized that when people translating Torah are using the words but switching it up a bit so the message comes through, they have some control over their interpretation of the message. So what if the message has nothing to do with homosexuality? But I couldn't find anything else really supporting that, so let this be some food for thought.

If we're back on the theme about homosexuality, I did even more looking, and though there were tons of potential reasons, I found a couple of things. Some non-Israelites practised same-sex intimacy as part of their religious practice, and the Israelites wanted to be differentiated from the others. In Bereshit (Genesis) 9:1, it says, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." And because no children can be conceived from same sex relationships, that might be why there's that rule, but even if this were true in those biblical times, it doesn't feel very relevant to today.

I didn't really find a direct answer. I think that's because one doesn't exist. Let me clarify. People wrote down the Torah and put G-d's words down on paper, or animal. Whatever. But the point is that words can have different definitions, and often that definition depends on context. And context is often up to interpretation. My opinion is that interpreting the words of Torah in the way most relevant to you is the whole point of Torah and Judaism. You listen to the words or story and find the meaning. Sometimes the words are as simple as "you shall love your neighbour as yourself," and sometimes the words leave room for interpretation.

Overall, I think Torah leaves much room for discussion and interpretation. Especially when we bring holy rules into play. The Torah says literally a couple of lines before what I spoke about, "You shall observe My statutes and My ordinances, which a man shall do and live by them." By living the rules, they will shape your life, but also your life and situation will shape your interpretation and how you follow them. This is something I actually look forward to when writing dvar Torahs. I get to speak about what I think the Torah is trying to say and put it into some context. 

Thank you all for being here with me tonight, and Shabbat Shalom.