״וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה״, אֵי זֶהוּ זָכָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁנֵי מִשְׁכָּבוֹת — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.
The verse states: “And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman [mishkevei isha]” (Leviticus 18:22). The phrase mishkevei isha, referring to lying with a woman, appears in the plural. Now, what male has two manners of lying? You must say that this is referring to a hermaphrodite,
נָשִׁים הַמְסוֹלָלוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ אָסוּר וּמִמַּעֲשֵׂה מִצְרַיִם הוּא שֶׁהֻזְהַרְנוּ עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ג) "כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ". אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂים אִישׁ נוֹשֵׂא אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה. וְאִשָּׁה נִשֵּׂאת לִשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂה זֶה אָסוּר אֵין מַלְקִין עָלָיו. שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לָאו מְיֻחָד וַהֲרֵי אֵין שָׁם בִּיאָה כְּלָל. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין נֶאֱסָרוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה מִשּׁוּם זְנוּת וְלֹא תֵּאָסֵר אִשָּׁה עַל בַּעְלָהּ בָּזֶה שֶׁאֵין כָּאן זְנוּת. וְרָאוּי לְהַכּוֹתָן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת הוֹאִיל וְעָשׂוּ אִסּוּר. וְיֵשׁ לָאִישׁ לְהַקְפִּיד עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ מִדָּבָר זֶה וּמוֹנֵעַ הַנָּשִׁים הַיְדוּעוֹת בְּכָךְ מִלְּהִכָּנֵס לָהּ וּמִלָּצֵאת הִיא אֲלֵיהֶן:
"Lesbianism" is not allowed because it is considered a "action of Egypt" we have been warned about. As it says "the actions which were done in the land of Egypt, don't do." The Chachamim say that this a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman or a woman marrying 2 men. Even though this deed is forbidden, we don't give her lashes [in a beit din] because she hasn't done any particular "lo taaseh" mitzvah because there isn't penetration at all. Therefore, she isn't assure to marry a cohen because sh is not a zonah [a woman who becomes a "zonah" is forbidden to a cohen]. She is also not forbidden to her husband because this is not "zenut." You can't give her "rebellion lashes" because here she hasn't done anything super forbidden. Men are required to prevent their wives from doing this deed and prevent his wife from mingling with women who are known for doing it.
(א) כֵּיצַד הָאִשָּׁה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת. אִם בְּכֶסֶף הוּא מְקַדֵּשׁ אֵין פָּחוֹת מִפְּרוּטָה כֶּסֶף אוֹ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה. אוֹמֵר לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת לִי. אוֹ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְאֹרֶסֶת לִי. אוֹ הֲרֵי אַתְּ לִי לְאִשָּׁה בָּזֶה. וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים. וְהָאִישׁ הוּא שֶׁאוֹמֵר דְּבָרִים שֶׁמַּשְׁמָעָן שֶׁקּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְהוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן לָהּ הַכֶּסֶף:
(ב) נָתְנָה הִיא וְאָמְרָה לוֹ הֲרֵי אֲנִי מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת לְךָ. הֲרֵינִי מְאֹרֶסֶת לְךָ. הֲרֵינִי לְךָ לְאִנְתּוּ אוֹ בְּכָל לְשׁוֹן הַקְנָאָה אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. וְכֵן אִם נָתְנָה הִיא לוֹ וְאָמַר הוּא אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. וְאִם נָתַן הוּא וְאָמְרָה הִיא הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת מִסָּפֵק:
(1) How is a woman sanctified (for engagement)? If one choses to do so with money (or its equivalent), it can not have less than the value of a "Pruta". He says to her, "behold, you are sanctified to me", "behold, you are engaged to me", "behold, with this, you are to be my wife", and he gives her the object in front of witnesses. The man must be the one to say words that have the meaning of an acquisition, and it must be he that is giving her the money.
(2) If she gives the money and says, "I am sanctified to you", "I am engaged to you", "I am a wife to you" or any other acquisition term, she is not sanctified. So to if she gives the money and he speaks, she is not sanctified.If he gives and she speaks, this is a questionable sanctification.
you are to inquire, and they are to tell you
the word of judgment.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, יְהִי כְבוֹד חֲבֵרְךָ חָבִיב עָלֶיךָ כְּשֶׁלָּךְ
Rabbi Eliezer said: Let your neighbors dignity be as precious to you as your own
The Gemara asks: Why? Let us also say here: “There is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.” Rav bar Shaba interpreted this prohibition, which is overridden by human dignity, before Rav Kahana as referring to the prohibition of: “According to the Torah taught to you and the ruling handed down to you, you shall do, you shall not deviate to the left or the right from that which they tell you” (Deuteronomy 17:11). The Yeshiva students laughed at him, as the prohibition of “you shall not deviate” is by Torah law, like all other Torah prohibitions. Why should human dignity override it any more than any other Torah prohibition?
Rav Kahana replied to them: A great man has spoken, do not laugh at him. The Sages based all rabbinic law on the prohibition of “you shall not deviate”; however, due to concern for human dignity, the Sages permitted suspension of rabbinic law in cases where the two collide. All rabbinic decrees are predicated on the mitzva in the Torah to heed the judges in each generation and to never stray from their words. Therefore, when the Sages suspend a decree in the interest of preserving human dignity, human dignity is overriding a Torah prohibition.
Kavod is the inner value that makes man a human being, that gives him/her identity as such; it constitutes a condition of human existence for him/her. This signification can slide into more institutional connotation, also present in the Bible. The kavod is, then, the social nature of a human being, his/her status, his/her importance, his/her value in society....Since the Middle Ages, the word kavod has represented the name of God. What makes us human beings is the divine part of us, the presence of God in us.
...we insist that the Jewish values and norms that apply to heterosexual sex be observed by homosexuals as well, including fidelity, safety, respect for one’s sexual partner, modesty, and love. Far from undermining Judaism’s sexual norms, this responsum seeks to extend them to homosexual sex.
Piskei Din: Legal Findings
Based upon our study of halakhic precedents regarding both sexual norms and human dignity, we reach the following conclusions:
-
The explicit biblical ban on anal sex between men remains in effect. Gay men are instructed to refrain from anal sex.
-
Heterosexual marriage between two Jews remains the halakhic ideal. For homosexuals who are incapable of maintaining a heterosexual relationship, the rabbinic prohibitions that have been associated with other gay and lesbian intimate acts are superseded based upon the Talmudic principle of kvod habriot, our obligation to preserve the human dignity of all people.
-
This ruling effectively normalizes the status of gay and lesbian Jews in the Jewish community. Extending the 1992 CJLS consensus statement, gay and lesbian Jews are to be welcomed into our synagogues and other institutions as full members with no restrictions. Furthermore, gay or lesbian Jews who demonstrate the depth of Jewish commitment, knowledge, faith and
desire to serve as rabbis, cantors and educators shall be welcomed to apply to our professional schools and associations.118
According to the Law of Moses and Israel
Rabbis Dorff, Nevins and Reisner state on page two:
"The traditional ceremony of kiddushin is said to be k’dat Moshe v’Yisrael, according to the laws of Moses and Israel. We acknowledged in our responsum that same-sex intimate relationships are comprehensively banned by classical rabbinic law, yet our teshuvah cit- ed the oft-repeated halakhic principle, gadol k’vod habriot shedoheh lo ta’aseh she- baTorah, “Great is the demand of human dignity in that it supersedes a negative princi- ple of Torah.” On this basis, and on the strong scientific evidence we cited that current discriminatory attitudes toward gay men and lesbians do indeed undermine their dignity, evidenced by their much higher rates of suicide, we concluded that for observant gay and lesbian Jews who would otherwise be condemned to a life of celibacy or secrecy, their human dignity requires suspension of the rabbinic level prohibitions so that they may experience intimacy and create families recognized by the Jewish community. We ac- knowledge that these partnerships are distinct from those discussed in the Talmud as “according to the law of Moses and Israel,” but we celebrate them with the same sense of holiness and joy as that expressed in heterosexual marriages."
In a footnote to the last line, they further add,
"As rabbinic interpreters of halakhah, we believe that our ruling is an authentic expres- sion of דת משה וישראל, the laws of Moses and Israel. That said, we realize that the model of ceremony that we here offer is discontinuous with the model created by our ancient rabbis, and that it is not yet established and accepted by the majority of rabbis in our time."
There is nothing that I fundamentally disagree with in what is quoted above. Yet, in my opinion, while same-sex partnerships are distinct from that which was discussed in the Talmud, this should not preclude the usage of proclaiming, publicly and officially, these holy relationships as 'according to Laws of Moses and Israel'. I agree with the authors that their original ruling in 2006 was "an authentic expression of דת משה וישראל," and see no reason for rabbis and couples to exclude that powerful reference from a marriage ceremony they engage in together.
Furthermore, I believe this phrase is a crucial part of creating true equality and acceptance. In using such language we believe we are further affirming to our GLBTQ community members and their allies that we insist on their equality under the canopy and with the full force of our sacred tradition.
This phrase, if used, would be recited at the end of each ring exchange declaration.