One such example of the use of incest alone comes from the post-Talmudic Shulhan Arukh, a source of legal
administration in the medieval ages by Rabbi Joseph Karo. It is an important
document in establishing the development of rabbinic thinking, but it
translates the arayot (at least in
the translation I found) differently. The passage below what is known in
Rabbinic Judaism as the principle of pikuach
nefesh (saving a life), and it suggests three sins for which there is no
escape. Once violated, these sins require that a Torah-observant
Jew give his life.
A person should permit himself to be killed rather than
violate a negative commandment in public or because of religious coercion, or
rather than commit murder, fornication, or idolatry. A person may not save his
life at the cost of another person's, but he may save his life by deception.
The more popular translation is simply incest, replaced here with fornication. You can find
this in a variety of places, including Rambam’s long explanation on pikuach nefesh in which he describes the
second sin as “incest.” Now while a conversation I had with a rabbi on the
problem of translation here only revealed that incest is a compensatory word
meant to cover all sexually illicit conduct found in Leviticus 18, others, like
Emil Fackenheim, the great German-American rabbi of the previous century,
suggested that incest was a “family matter.” Referring to the principle of pikuach nefesh, he writes:
“Why incest? The authorities seem unanimous about the fact
but not the reason; but it may be surmised that incest destroys the family, that
Israel begins as a family and in a sense always remains a family, and that its
witness to the nations includes the sanctity of family life.”[1]
So given that incest is tantamount to familial intercourse, Fackenheim does little to extend that definition to include adultery, male
homosexuality, or bestiality. But why? The rabbi then asked me why pre-martial sex was not
included in this list because that surely had to be a sin. But this brings us
to the very problem Fackenheim recognizes. The reason why incest is chosen is
not at all clear, if the implication is why not these others? Then we have an
example in which the arayot of Leviticus 18 as a cover-all term for at least three varieties of
sexual sin may not be the best translation, but simply the sin of incest.
Perhaps Fackenheim did not think these other sins affected the “family structure.” Now it becomes a little dicey
when Fackenheim concludes that it is because Israel is a family that incest is
wrong. Following this logic, one could argue that any sex would therefore be wrong (even
married sex) because it would be done within the confines of Israel and
certainly Fackenheim is not prescribing mixed marriages here as the answers.
Therefore, I can’t help but believe he means literal incest
here. An approach that tries to square this up with arayot has to explain the insufficiency of the explanation to
capture homosexuality, adultery, and bestiality as the only types of
sin that ruin the family, when Fackenheim’s own description of Israel as a
family would also make sex within marriage wrong. While Incest (depending upon impregnation) destroys
the genetic sanctity of the family, and adultery (depending upon impregnation)
destroys the moral sanctity of the family, bestiality and male homosexuality at
best destroy the perception of wholesomeness. Pre-martial sex on the other
hand, not mentioned as arayot, cannot destroy any perception of family since no
family is implied.
Still, it strikes me as a sloppiness that needs to be
remedied, especially among American Jewish thinkers who continue to use incest
where they mean arayot, a description
that encompasses much more. The only thing I can find similar where I encounter the frustrations
typical of a former English major, though not as morally egregious, is the translation from Hebrew texts to English
ones where the word people is used.
The ha’am of the Hebrew is a singular
noun, but in English it is usually a plural in subject-verb predication. Yet,
you see instances time and again where the translation is not things such as “The
people of Israel is a community.” Or “I have seen how my people responds to
such allegations.” The same rabbi suggested that the people here may be
referring to the collective consciousness and so should be rendered singularly,
but I find this a difficult proposition to accept, especially since the contexts
in which I see these written do not suggest mystical or figurative understandings
that require enhancements.
So while love may cover a multitude of sins, I’m not sure
incest does.
No comments:
Post a Comment