The Parasha's Title, Acharei Mot¸ Means “After Death.” As Is Usually
Parashat Acharei Mot Leviticus 16:1-18:30 The parasha’s title, Acharei Mot¸ means “after death.” As is usually the case, it comes from the first line of the parasha, where G-d addresses Moses after the death of Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu. In the first part of this week’s reading G-d tells Moses to instruct Aaron in the procedures for atoning for the sins of the people through the mysterious Yom Kippur custom of the scapegoat.
Why does the parasha begin with a reference to the death of Aaron’s sons? Their death was recounted in Parasha Shemini, several parshiot before this one. This insertion here is therefore not chronological. Rashi says that their deaths are referenced to make clear the importance of Aaron following the procedure correctly, lest he die as well.
One goat is sacrificed to G-d and the other holds the sins of the people and is sent out in the wilderness to “Azazel.” The Mishnah identifies Azazel as a place, but references in the Dead Sea Scrolls and elsewhere refer to a fallen angel by that name. In Temple times, did people see the goat as being sent into the wilderness to die along with the sins, or was it given to a fallen angel? We don’t know.
The Rambam stressed the metaphorical nature of the ritual. Sins, he pointed out, cannot really be sent with the goat. People must repent and make amends for their sins to be forgiven.
We move on from this priestly ritual to rules that apply to all the Israelites, not just the priests. The text forbids “eating” blood, from which the requirement to remove blood from meat before eating the meat was derived. Then the Torah segues into forbidden sexual activities, introduced with an injunction not to behave like the Egyptians and the Canaanites. A long list of forbidden incestuous relationships follows.
Were the Egyptians and Canaanites particularly prone to incest? Robert Alter suggests instead that seeing both countries as “theaters of sexual license” can be attributed to “the widespread practice of projecting uncontrolled sexuality on the cultural other.” Interestingly, in a list of prohibitions that includes forbidding men having sex with their mothers, sisters, half-sisters, stepmothers, aunts, and granddaughters, there is no specific prohibition against a man having sex with his own daughter.
Some of the unions deemed incestuous or otherwise forbidden in the Holiness Code are shown elsewhere in the Bible without condemnation. Abraham married his half-sister; Jacob married two sisters; Moses’ parents were aunt and nephew. This is yet another reminder that the Torah does not speak with one voice.
In this week’s reading we also have the first of two biblical verses that have traditionally been interpreted to forbid male homosexual relations. Although often translated as “You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination” Leviticus 18:22 is not so simple in the original. The Hebrew uses the phrase mishkavei isha¸ which is plural. It is probably more accurately, albeit also more awkwardly, translated as “the (sexual) lyings of women.” The Talmud, in Sanhedrin 54a, explains the strange construction of mishkavei isha by saying that the reason it is specified in plural is to indicate that there are two methods of bedding women – anal and vaginal intercourse. Since the latter is impossible for a man to do to another man, the decision is that it must refer to anal intercourse.
Maimonides concurs that the forbidden act is male/male anal penetration. Rashi goes further, explaining that the reason that anal sex is prohibited to men is that the penetrated partner (in modern parlance we would say “the bottom”) can derive no pleasure from the act.
Traditional Jewish sources that categorically prohibit same-sex love and relationships – from the rabbinic period up until modern times – often do not seem to have a clear understanding of male physiology, male/male sexual behavior, or the variety of sexual acts engaged in by either same sex or opposite sex couples. As any modern physiologist (and any “bottom” in male/male sex) can attest, the male receptive partner in anal intercourse does indeed derive pleasure. And, of course, there are more than two ways for men and women to have sex, as well as for two men to have sex.
Haftarah I Samuel 20:18-42 A special haftarah is read on Machar Hodesh, when Shabbat is the day before Rosh Hodesh, the new moon. The haftarah was chosen because its first line says, va-yomer lo Yonatan machar hodesh - “And Jonathan said to him, ‘tomorrow is the new moon;.” The text comes from the first book of Samuel and tells a particularly dramatic episode in the story of Jonathan and David. Jonathan, King Saul’s son, was immediately taken with David upon first meeting him, a couple of chapters before today’s haftarah. The text tells us that upon meeting Jonathan’s soul was knit up with that of David’s and Jonathan loved David as he loved his own soul. Since then, Saul has turned against David but Jonathan’s love remains strong. As the haftarah begins, Jonathan advises David to flee and hide out while Jonathan assesses whether it is safe for him to be in the king’s presence. It’s not. Saul curses Jonathan in highly sexualized language and threatens to kill David. Jonathan secretly meets with David and relates what happened. They cry and kiss and swear eternal loyalty to each other as the haftarah ends. Is the love depicted between David and Jonathan a sexual/romantic one or one of deep friendship without sexual undertones? Traditional sources see the relationship in completely non-sexual terms. Many modern scholars disagree and gay activists point to the relationship as a biblical model of male/male love. It is an interesting coincidence that this year we follow reading a passage from Torah that has been often interpreted to forbid sexual relations between men with a Haftarah that celebrates the deep love between two men.