When I first read and thought about Heschel’s choice of an orange instead of bread as a symbol of lesbians within Judaism, I agreed wholeheartedly. It seemed offensive to me to equate bread on Passover with lesbians in Judaism, symbolizing transgression and violation of Judaism. But as we discussed it further in class, I began to realize that, like any newly-founded tradition, the orange would lose its radicalism over time. It would cease to spark discussion about what it represents. Therefore, if we are looking for a symbol that would more strongly stand out and provoke conversation, bread on the Seder plate fits as it will always be out of place, left uneaten on this occasion, different from all other nights. It is more symbolic of the struggle of marginalized people, as to many their existence is just as shocking and transgressive as putting bread on the Seder plate. By choosing to include the bread, a person is recognizing and including those marginalized people that it represents. However, does that mean that those same marginalized people are truly out of place, like the bread would be? The bread is jarring and would spark discussions, it would never feel normal on the Seder plate because of its nature as that which is not eaten on Passover. Are we thus keeping marginalized people on the outside of acceptance? Are we equating them as being against the rules, as bread is against the dietary rules of Passover? While the transgression of bread at the Seder might provoke questions, that same transgression could be offensive to a marginalized person who is looking for acceptance, to belong at the Seder like everything else.
Writing and other content
