Occupy Sodom

Newsflash: The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality. It was greedy inhospitality. 

To paraphrase Ezekiel 16:48-50, the inhabitants of Sodom lived in a land rich with God's gifts. They were prideful, rich, and idle, yet they did not care for the poor. Instead, they were haughty and committed "abominations".  Wait - "abominations". Surely that means homosexuality? 

Uh, no. At least, it was never interpreted that way by the ancient rabbis. In the Babylonian Talmud, a record of thousands of years of rabbinical discussion and analysis, the sin of Sodom is in two parts: first, they were "wicked with their bodies". The rabbis illustrate this using the story of Potiphar's wife enticing Joseph to commit adultery, and by the quoting of laws that seem to encourage adultery. This is sexual misconduct, but the examples are strictly heterosexual. One would think, if homosexuality were the problem, it would be mentioned at least once in the two thousand years of commentary that the Babylonian Talmud represents. 

The second part of Sodom's wickedness is they were "sinners with their money". They lived in a rich land, they themselves had plenty, but they refused to share the blessings God had given them. They not only refused to help the poor and needy, they made helping them a crime. One woman (Lot's daughter, according to the discussion), took pity on a beggar and sneaked bread crusts to him. When the man didn't starve as expected, she was discovered and executed horribly. 

Just as bad, the inhabitants of Sodom were lethally inhospitable towards strangers and travelers. They treated them as did Procrustes in Greek legend; if they were too tall to fit on a cot, the extra height would be cut off; if too short, they would be racked. No differences were to be tolerated. The Talmud especially castigates the four judges in Sodom who incorporated this selfish greed and inhospitality into law.

That seems an awful lot like what the Occupy movement is protesting, doesn't it?

Oh yes -- and the "abominations"? Talmudic scholars held that to be their violation of the rules of hospitality. They came in a mob, threatening the visiting angels (to whom, by contrast, Lot had offered hospitality. Lot's hospitality qualified him and his family to be spared).

Interesting essay on this topic by Rabbi Steven Pik-Nathan.