Acharei Mos / Kedoshim: How Ancient Israelites Viewed Incest (and Why It Matters)

This article began with the two questions in the title and evolved into a theory about the Torah's campaign against arayos in general which became a shiur available below for paid subscribers only.

I'd like to thank Aaron K. for sponsoring this week's Torah content. June is less than a month away which means that I'll soon be transitioning into "summer writing mode," with more substack articles and fewer recorded shiurim. The bulk of these articles will remain free. However, if you would like to support my Torah AND access to additional spicy written content, consider becoming a paid subscriber by going to rabbischneeweiss.substack.com.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.

And because this is a paid subscriber post (due to the video behind the paywall at the end), free subscribers who want access to the audio will have to use the podcast version, which you can access by clicking here.

Artwork: Firefly 3.0’s response to the prompt, “hieroglyph of an ancient Egyptian female Pharaoh mother with her arms around teenage son and daughter,” modeled after a reference image of an unknown hieroglyph

Acharei Mos / Kedoshim: How Ancient Israelites Viewed Incest (and Why It Matters)

According to the Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 1:5), the term “arayos” refers to all forbidden sexual acts that are liable for kareis (spiritual excision). These laws are enumerated in Parashas Acharei Mos (Vayikra 18) and their penalties are detailed in Parashas Kedoshim (Vayikra 20). Other issurei biah (sexual prohibitions) – such as intermarriage, premarital sex, a kohen having relations with a divorcee, among others – do not qualify as arayos, as they are not liable for kareis. This is also true for the additional sexual prohibitions added by the Rabbis.

By Rambam’s count, there are twenty-three arayos in total. These include: eishes ish (adultery), niddah (a menstruating woman), mishkav zachar (homosexual sodomy), and revia’ (bestiality); however, the majority of arayos pertain to forms of incest – whether by blood (mother, sister, daughter, granddaughter, aunt, father, paternal uncle) or by marriage (father’s wife, step-daughter, uncle’s wife, son’s wife, brother’s wife, wife’s sister, among others). These Biblical prohibitions were supplemented by twenty Rabbinic arayos.

In the modern era, our view of incest typically falls into one of three categories. The first is disgust. Most people find the very thought of incest repugnant. The second perspective is through the lens of pathology. Given our innate revulsion, we tend to assume that those who engage in or exhibit thoughts about incestuous relationships must have a psychological abnormality. The third association links incest to criminality, as it is illegal across all fifty states in the United States and often occurs in the context of abuse.

Did the ancient Israelites share our modern sentiments? Based on the words of the Sages, the findings of modern historians, and the words of the Torah itself, the clear answer is: no!

The Torah states that “Moshe heard the people bocheh l’mishpechosav (weeping to their families)” (Bamidbar 11:10). The Sages (Sifrei Bamidbar ibid.) read this to mean that they were “weeping for their families”:

R’ Nehorai used to say: From where do we know that the Israelites were aggrieved when Moshe told them to abstain from arayos? From “Moshe heard the people weeping for their families.” This teaches [us] that [before the giving of the Torah,] a man would marry his sister or his father’s sister or his mother’s sister, and when Moshe told them to abstain from arayos, they were aggrieved.

Similarly, a few verses earlier, the Israelites complained to Moshe, saying: “We remember the dagah that we ate in Egypt chinam (for free)” (Bamidbar 11:5). According to the Gemara (Yoma 75a), Rav and Shmuel disagree on the meaning of this verse: one understands the word “dagah” literally as “fish” and the other understands “dagah” to be a euphemistic reference to arayos. The Torah Temimah (Bamidbar 11:5, note 3) explains:

The intention here is that they were prohibited from [engaging in sexual relations with] their relatives. [According to this interpretation,] “dagah” (fish) is from the expression “ve’yidegu la’rov” (“they multiply abundantly [like fish]”). This is clarified according to what is stated in the Sifrei: “Were they given fish for free while straw was not given to them?! Rather, what does chinam (“free”) mean here? – Free from the commandments.” … [Alternatively,] the explanation of the word “free” is because arayos with relatives are obtained without cost, unlike non-relatives.

According to the Sages, the Israelites were attached to arayos and were loath to give them up because they were accustomed to the sexual norms of Egypt. They bemoaned the arayos prohibitions that were imposed on them at Sinai and reminisced about the time when they were permitted to freely engage in these incestuous relations.

This claim is borne out by archeological findings. For example, in his commentary in The Koren Tanakh of the Land of Israel: Leviticus (p.122), Rabbi Dr. Zvi Ron writes:

This section, dealing mainly with incest, is prefaced by a warning not to emulate the practices of the Egyptians or Canaanites (at one time, Canaan had been an Egyptian province). Within the royal families of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties of ancient Egypt, it was customary to engage in brother-sister marriages. Pharaohs, including Tao II, Ahmose, Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Amenhotep II, and Thutmose III, married their sisters or half-sisters. Additionally, Ramesses II (1303-1213 BCE) was married to two of his sisters and at least two of his daughters. Beyond these royal marriages, there is evidence that marriages between close relatives were possible, although uncommon, in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom period. These incestuous marriages were sometimes beneficial economically, to preserve inheritance and marriage gifts.

Similarly, Professor Carl S. Ehrlich (ibid., p.127) writes:

Mythological texts from the ancient Near East, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish Epic (story of creation), include many instances of incestuous sexual couplings among the gods. However, this does not appear to have been the human norm except in the Egyptian royal family. It was only in the Roman period that brother-sister marriage became a widespread phenomenon in Egypt. Nevertheless, the sarcophagus inscription of the Phoenician king Eshmunazar (5^th century BCE) appears to indicate (unusually) that his parents were siblings.

While we cannot know with certainty how the Israelites in Egypt felt about arayos, these findings suggest they might have regarded brother-sister unions as a more exalted form of sexual partnership – a sublime marriage reserved for the pharaohs and gods rather than for mere mortals. Even if this is not exactly how they felt, we can be fairly certain that their reaction was not one of revulsion, nor did they view incest pathologically.

In truth, there’s no need to rely on the Sages or historians to support the contention that the Israelites related to the newly imposed arayos through the lens of their Egyptian exile. The Torah, itself, introduces the laws of arayos by making explicit reference to the sexual practices of Egypt and Canaan (Vayikra 18:1-5):

Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: “Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them: ‘I am Hashem, your God. You shall not act as they do in the land of Egypt where you dwelled, nor shall you act as they do in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you, and do not follow their statutes. Do My judgments and guard My statutes to follow them – I am Hashem, your God. You shall guard My statutes and My judgments that a person should do them and live by them – I am Hashem.’”

Many of the Torah’s prohibitions aim to uproot the beliefs, ethics, and practices of ancient idolaters; however, in the case of arayos, the Torah explicitly states this intent. Sifra (ibid. 18:3) clarifies the scope of these “statutes”:

Since the verse says: “as they do in the land of Egypt … as they do in the land of Canaan … do not act,” one might think that [the Torah is telling them] they should not build buildings or plant trees like [the Egyptians and Canaanites]. Therefore, Scripture states, “and do not follow their statutes” – this [prohibition] was only said in reference to those statutes which were enacted (lit. “engraved”) for them and for their ancestors. What would they do? A man would marry a man, a woman [would marry] a woman, a man [would marry] a woman and her daughter, a woman would marry two men. Thus, it was said, “do not follow their statutes.”

The Egyptians didn’t question the morality of their sexual practices. These were chukos: statutes of conduct sanctioned unquestionably by the authority of Egypt and its gods. Such statutes shaped the sexual norms and values of Egyptian society. To comprehend the Torah’s methods and objectives in addressing arayos, we should not simply dismiss prohibited behaviors like brother-sister incest with mere expressions of disgust. Such uncritical rejection mirrors the Egyptians’ uncritical acceptance. Neither approach furthers our personal development. Instead, we must use all the available evidence, both Jewish and non-Jewish sources, to understand how the ancient Israelites viewed these customs, and then examine our own cultural norms in light of that understanding.

---

Thank you for your patience in waiting for me to publish this article, which I started at the beginning of last week and didn’t finish until Friday afternoon this week. One of the reasons why this took a longer time than usual is because I bit off more than I could chew. What started as an inquiry into the Israelites’ feelings about incest developed into a theory about the strategies employed by the Torah in its campaign against arayos.

This morning, I set out to give shiur on the ideas in this article and I ended up giving shiur on the more universal ideas about arayos. We analyzed the prefatory and concluding pesukim in Vayikra 18 and — thanks to the Netziv — developed a framework through which we examined the sexual culture in present day America. I’m really happy with how the shiur turned out!

However, since I addressed topics and examples which are both sensitive and controversial (e.g. issues related to LGBTQ, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.), I have decided not to release this shiur publicly for now. Instead, I will limit access to my paid subscribers.