Who is Happy?

by Rabbi Elli Tikvah-Sarah

There is a broadcaster by the name of Dr Laura Schlesinger who, according to an article which was doing the rounds on the internet a few years ago, regularly dispenses wisdom about lifestyle to her American listeners. Dr Laura is also an observant Jew and she told her listeners that, as such, she considers herself bound by the laws in the Torah.

The specific law that she mentioned was Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22 which states that homosexuality is an abomination. As such, she advised her listeners, homosexuality could not and should not be tolerated under any circumstances because of this biblical law. This broadcast statement prompted a response from a listener which was widely circulated on the internet. It read as follows:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35: 16 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

5. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

The list continues but I shall stop there as the reference is to one of the biblical verses we read a short while ago. In my bar- and bat-mitzvah class, which met earlier this morning and many of whose participants are in this room, we have spent the last two lessons looking at these and other biblical laws, particularly those which appear in the book of Leviticus. And we, like the author of this letter, have discovered that many of those laws have little meaning or relevance when applied to our modern world.

And as Liberal Jews in that modern world, we find ourselves asking why we read such ancient regulations – particularly in a context which suggests that they do indeed represent divine truth. And specifically, in relation to this morning’s readings, what is the relevance of legislation regarding the purchasing, owning and releasing of slaves?

In Dr Laura Schlesinger’s world this should, as indicated by the anonymous author of the letter, mean that slaves can be purchased from neighbouring nations. In our own case, there are questions of sovereignty and nationality which might lead to a debate about whether this permits us to buy Scottish or Welsh slaves or if we need to look further afield – and tonight’s Eurovision Song Contest might provide us with a few clues as to which of our neighbouring nations are most worth avoiding.

All joking aside, however, it is often difficult for the modern mind to discern the relevance of many of the biblical laws and so they tend to be ignored because they clearly belong to a different time and a different place. And Dr Laura Schlesinger and her ilk do religion – and us – no favours at all by insisting that such laws represent the unchanging and unquestionable word of God.

We need to ask ourselves a few questions about these laws. Why are there laws about slavery? Because it was clearly a feature of biblical times and not to have laws governing it would be as ridiculous as not having, say, road traffic regulations in our day and age. The idea of slavery may seem unjust to us but it was part of the accepted social structure thousands of years ago – and, of course, in much more recent times. The difference was that the biblical laws attempted to regulate and establish justice within this accepted social practice of more than two thousand years ago – something which was patently lacking in the exploitation of slaves which was prevalent in certain parts of the world less than two hundred years ago – and which indeed still exists in various forms today in some less enlightened places. And some of the employment practices coming to light in the wake of current political issues relating to illegal immigrant workers suggest that we have not taken on board those prophetic principles which lay behind the biblical laws.

The point about the biblical legislation – any biblical legislation – is that it addresses situations which prevailed in biblical times. To attempt to apply specific biblical laws to particular twenty-first century situations is doomed to failure and ridicule – as pointed out in the letter to Dr Laura. The most important aspect of biblical legislation rests in what it was trying to achieve, not in the details of how it sought to achieve it. And the reason for the complex legislation about slavery had a very clear purpose, stated many times throughout the Five Books of Moses: slaves shall not be treated with cruelty because the formative Israelite experience was that of cruel enslavement in Egypt. The Israelites learned at first hand what it was to be cruelly oppressed; therefore their religion makes it clear that the cruel oppression of others is not acceptable.

This is a self-evident religious truth and its absence in many places of the world – not least in the place where these regulations originated – is a source of shame and pain. And the fact that so much of that pain is inflicted by or on behalf of those whose religious views accord with those of Dr Laura Schlesinger – namely that ancient texts contain unshakeable divine truth – only deepens the shame.

That the oppression of others is not acceptable was also obvious to the prophet Amos. Our reading from him this morning began with the rather quirky exchange between him and God: God shows him a basket of summer fruit and asks him what he sees. ‘A basket of summer fruit,’ replies Amos, stating the obvious. And it was obvious – both to God and to Amos – that the oppression and exploitation of the poor was a sin against the divine and against humanity.

And the point which Dr Laura misses – as does anyone who attaches themselves to a literal interpretation of the laws of the Torah or any other scripture which purports to be the word of God – is that there are general principles underlying the specific laws. And it is the general principles which represent the true will of God, not the specifics, which are, for the most part, human interpretations of those general principles applied to a particular time and place.

It was the ancient prophets, of whom Amos was one of the earliest and most eloquent, who championed the cause of the poor and spoke out against oppression and injustice. Amos railed against those who engaged in dishonest business practices and who cruelly exploited the poor, crying out for justice to flow down like water, righteousness like an everflowing stream. These were the timeless, universal principles which underpinned the social legislation of the time – legislation which served an important purpose 3000 years ago but which belongs firmly to the time which produced it. And these are the principles which should guide us also, in our modern, troubled world. This is the role of religion, the reason that a liberal, dare I say prophetic, religious voice must be heard today.

The author of the letter to Dr Laura concludes, tongue firmly in his electronic cheek, with the words ‘Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.’ God’s word is, indeed, unchanging. It is the human interpretation of God’s word as applied to a particular social environment which is susceptible to change, being applied as surely it must be to that specific environment.

Our environment with its global awareness, scientific advances, materialist culture and sometimes seemingly shallow values is as far removed from the society of Ancient Israel as it is, perhaps, possible to be. And so, therefore, are laws relating to slaves, the treatment of women, observance of the Sabbath and – yes, Dr Laura, our attitude to homosexuality. The laws are different but the principles which underpin them remain the same. They are the same principles which inspired the lawmakers of Ancient Israel and which, it is to be hoped, guide the enlightened leaders of our world today. They are the words which expressed the visions of the prophets three thousand years ago: men who saw a future in which there would be an end to injustice and oppression and a world living in harmony with itself and its Creator. And if the Dr Laura’s of this world looked a little further behind those religious texts at the principles and beliefs which encouraged them to be written, rather than getting stuck on the detail, we’d be a lot closer to realising that prophetic dream than we are at the moment.