A RESPONSE TO A RESPONSE TO A LETTER TO DR. LAURA

-- OR --

LESSONS IN LOGIC WHILE-U-WAIT

Many of you will remember the following "Open Letter to Dr. Laura" circulating through email inboxes several years ago after radio pest Dr. Laura Schlessinger, an Orthodox Jew at the time, cited Mosaic law to back up her belief that homosexuality is immoral. The letter opens:

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 I 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 him 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 specific laws and how to best follow them.

The unknown author of the letter proceeds to quote other laws from Leviticus sanctioning activities that today we find ridiculous, immoral, or barbaric. Through satire, the writer intended to force fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews into one of two uncomfortable positions: (a) blindly endorsing the ridiculous, immoral, or barbaric laws, or (b) insisting the Mosaic prohibition on homosexuality was valid while the ridiculous, immoral, or barbaric laws were not, which would contradict their beliefs in scriptural infallibility.

A week ago I ran across a link (via The Raving Atheist) to a response from one John Braue, a blogger who studies a little Torah on the side. For each r/i/b law presented in the letter, Braue responds with interpretations of that law from the Talmud, a compendium of legal wrangling compiled by rabbis over thousands of years. By doing so, Braue intends to justify the use of Mosaic law to condemn homosexuality. I find his responses interesting because he uses a logically invalid tactic that I'll call the Argument from Intimidation. Braue ignores the issues at hand and seeks to shock and awe the reader with name-dropping and unexplained Talmudic jargon -- he hopes to stifle counterargument from the reader, who won't want to admit he doesn't understand the technical terms for fear of appearing stupid. Fortunately, I harbor no such fear.

The rest of the letter appears below in italics, with Braue's responses in regular type and my commentary in bold.

• When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
  
  You ought not to be making sacrifices at all. It is forbidden to offer any sacrifice outside of the Bet haMikdash. Read tractate Kodashim instead.
  
  Braue's answer confuses instead of convincing me, because I don't know what the Bet haMikdash is, or what a tractate is, or who or what Kodashim is. A persuasive response would have included an explanation of these terms. In any case, Braue seems to argue that the command to sacrifice livestock has expired, which makes this skeptic wonder why the prohibition against homosexuality couldn't have expired as well.
  
  
• 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?
  
  It depends on whether or not your daughter is a virgin. The "virgin's dowry" mandated in the Torah is 200 zuzim (or dinarim). The zuz is reckoned at 0.384g of pure silver; therefore, if your daughter is a virgin, 76.8g of silver is an appropriate price (N.B,: the troy ounce is 31.102g). A non-virgin daughter is not assigned a value in the Torah, but the Sages decreed that she should be valued at at least 100 zuzim.
  
  If you don't know whether your daughter is a virgin, shame on you for neglecting your parental responsibilities. Fear not, however; Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi figured this out 1800 years ago.
  
  Once you plow through the foreign terms and the mini-course in precious metals here, it seems that John Braue has no problem with selling women into slavery for as little as 1.23 troy ounces of silver -- about $7.61 as of market close Friday. Are you sure you want to stick with that position, John?
  
  (N.B.: Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi can kiss my ass. Is selling women into slavery okay because he said so 18 centuries ago?)
  
  
• 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 offense.
  
  The laws of modesty (tznius) forbid the touching of any woman (save one's wife) in a romantic way (derekh hibba) whether they are menstruating or not. If you can't tell whether or when your wife is menstruating, you have non-Halakhic problems that I can't help you with.
  
  I'm looking at Lev. 15:19-24 right now and it doesn't specify touching in a romantic way -- it just says "touches." It also states that "whoever touches anything [a menstruating woman] sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean until evening," so the letter writer's question makes complete sense, given that about 25% of women are having their periods at any given time and anyone might touch a chair on which a menstruating woman sat. But John sidesteps the ridiculousness of this law -- given modern hygiene -- and hopes to lose the reader in a smokescreen of Talmudic jargon.
  
  
• Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
  
  Actually, it is technically forbidden to own any slave. The reason is that it is forbidden to own any non-circumcised slave (or, in the case of women, who have not been purified in the mikvah). However, a slave who is circumcised (or purified) must then go free in the Sabbatical or the Jubilee Year (Exodus 21:2, Leviticus 25:8-55).
  
  This answer makes no sense. Braue says that you can't own slaves, and then immediately contradicts himself by saying that you can own slaves as long as they are circumcised (or purified) and you release them in the Jubilee Year, which comes every 50 years -- small comfort to that eight-year-old virgin girl you just bought for $15.22.
  
  
• I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
  
  You are forbidden to kill him yourself. The death penalty may only be administered by a court of 23 ordained rabbis (see tractate Sanhedrin). Since there are no genuinely ordained rabbis (and won't be until Elijah returns), no competent court can be convened.
  
  You know I won't be seeing tractate Sanhedrin anytime soon, John. But that's okay, because you just admitted that it's perfectly acceptable to execute a man on Sunday for bagging groceries on Saturday as long as Elijah returned on Thursday. Once again: are you sure you want to stick with that position?
  
  
• A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
  
  Eating shellfish is definitely the lesser abomination. The Talmud and those Rishonim who have commented on the subject agree that there are three mitzvot which may not be violated even under threat of death: murder, forbidden sexual relations, and idol worship. Since the laws of kashrut are not among these, they may be violated for the sake of saving a life (including one's own life).
  
  Notice that Braue avoids the letter writer's satirical point: it's ridiculous to believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternally existing, all-loving and morally perfect being would care if somebody ate a shrimp cocktail.
  
  
• Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
  
  Blindness in one eye (or, of course, both) is considered to exempt one from the positive commandment to approach the altar (in effect, to make pilgrimage to Jerusalem).
  
  Answer the question, John. The guy said he wears reading glasses, not that he's blind in either or both eyes.
  
  
• Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
  
  They will suffer "death by the hand of Heaven".
  
  So now the God you worship strikes men dead for having the wrong haircut? Isn't it enough that I can't get laid?
  
  
• I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
  
  Yes, provided that afterwards you immerse yourself in a valid mikvah.
  
  I'm not dazzled by your use of the word mikvah, John. Why don't you address the ridiculousness of adhering to dietary laws concocted thousands of years ago by a desert tribe that had no access to modern refrigeration?
  
  
• My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
  
  You can't do either; see the answer to question 5.
  
  And see my commentary on question 5 as well.

Braue concludes: "You didn't ask, but I'll tell you anyway: I know you're trying to be funny. Next time, though, try to find some questions that haven't been answered in three thousand years."

I can't wrap up any better than The Raving Atheist: "[Braue] never explains how three thousand years of thinking arrived at answers so very stupid."

+posted by Lawrence @ 4/25/2004 11:43:00 PM