The biggest challenge to ’emunah’ of our time
By Rabbi Ari Segal, Head of School, Shalhevet High School
September 14, 2016
In the wake of last summer’s horrific massacre at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, I wrote to the Shalhevet community about our responsibility to take active steps to create safer spaces for the LGBT community. Well, the moment has arrived. We can no longer sit on the sidelines. As individuals and as a community, we must tackle this issue head-on.
Haven’t We Come Far Enough? Between Tolerance and Acceptance
I have heard many people claim that we have already turned the tide on this issue insofar as the observant community demonstrates more tolerance and less explicit homophobia than ever before. While I agree, I fear that we may be slipping into a state of complacency on this issue. To put it plainly, “being nice” cannot serve as the end-goal. Basic kindness is but the starting point of human decency.
I certainly do not want to belittle the importance of our community’s increased sense of tolerance. But what’s next? Of course, halachic Jews will always be limited in the degree to which they accept homosexuality as normative. But we must find a place that goes beyond mere tolerance even as it may stop short of full-fledged acceptance. Our commitment to Torah and mitzvot not only allows, but requires, that effort.
The Greatest Challenge to Emunah in Our Time
This may surprise many adults, but the reconciliation of the Torah’s discussion of homosexuality represents the single most formidable religious challenge for our young people today. More young people are “coming out” than ever before, and that repeatedly puts a face to this theological challenge. These weighty issues do not live in the abstract; they powerfully and emotionally impact genuine individuals living in our Orthodox community, with real life families and friends. What may seem like an interesting sociological debate in truth is creating crushing pain, anxiety, and general turmoil for people about whom we care deeply.
As they go off to college, students invariably face the painful moral dilemma created by the seemingly intractable conflict: believing in the primacy and validity of the Torah on the one hand, and following their hearts’ sense of morality with regard to loving and accepting their gay friends – or perhaps “coming out” themselves—on the other. All too often, this earnest challenge results in our children quietly losing faith in the Torah as a moral way of life.
In my experience, many, if not most, 20 to 40-year olds in the modern Orthodox world struggle with the issue of homosexuality and the divinity of the Torah. They believe in a kind and just God and they want to believe in the divinity of the Torah. But at the same time they feel fairly certain that being gay is not a matter of choice. In the apparent conflict of these ideas, the first two premises seem to be losing ground. Students today do not find solace in the argument that the issue mirrors other questions of theodicy – children born with severe disabilities, tsunamis or other natural disasters, or the proliferation of cancer, for example. This generation by-and-large views this particular challenge to faith as irreconcilable.
Steering away from the issue might feel safe, but that avoidance is detrimental and dangerous. Rather than avoid, we must actively and thoughtfully engage. Even just taking those initial steps, I believe, will alleviate the burden of this theological struggle, and will help prevent those tempted to throw in the theological towel to circumvent the tension altogether. In other words, I believe that putting this issue front and center will, in the long run, bring our young people closer to Torah and halacha—not further away.
I’m Just an Educator
I imagine that many of you also struggle with the question of why God would seemingly create (or allow for a situation in which there exist) people who are gay but then forbid them from acting on it. But that is up to G-d and I think we should stop discussing the “why” of it and leave that to God. The more we try to understand this, the more harm we do. Simply stated, my shoulders are not broad enough to reconcile the totality of this issue.
I will leave the discussion of this massive theological question to the Gedolim of our generation. But I beg the YU Roshei Yeshiva and the Gedolim of our community to take up the discussion now. Please do not wait for other groups to address this issue and then lambast them. Our Gedolim rightly claim the mantle of Torah leadership for our community but they must assert themselves. They must fill the vacuum that exists right now. If not, the difficult and vital issue will be addressed by those to their right and left.
I also will leave the specifics about what side of the mechitza someone occupies and the structure of shul membership to the poskim and rabbis of shuls. But again, I beg our community leaders to address the matter in a timely and forthright manner. If the specific conflict has not yet arrived in your community (which I believe it certainly has), it will be there shortly.
Finally, I will leave discussion about nature and nurture to psychologists and sociologists. While I have read many articles on the topic, and feel strongly that there exists a genetic component to this issue, I know that others disagree and cite social and cultural factors as a cause or at least predictor. I think that this discussion only distracts from the more significant point: many, many gay, lesbian and transgender people today have no control over their sexual orientation.
Whatever your stance on “causation,” I believe we would have a hard time denying that many gay people do not choose to be gay. And to address another common refrain, while in the past most people have suffered silently while attempting to sublimate their inclinations…our teens generally view that approach as, at best an exercise in avoidance (and at worst a recipe for torment and self-hatred.) People today do not feel the need to sublimate those urges and desires to live meaningful and fulfilled lives. In fact, they see it as inhumane and offensive to suggest such self-denial or self-abnegation. But again, this is for the Gedolim and Poskim and mental health professionals to discuss.
"The Curious Jew"
Thursday, December 24, 2009
To Deserve and To Sacrifice
Rabbi Kenneth Auman once clearly delineated the difference between rights and obligations in the conception of Judaism and the halakha. I think a similar distinction ought to be made here.
God owes us nothing. We owe God everything. If not for Him, we would not exist. We would not live, breathe, feel or think. The only being in the world to whom we can and must pledge ourselves wholly is God. Everyone else may fall away.
Thus, there is no such thing as our deserving anything within a Judaic conception of the world. Were we to spend all of our lives occupied in nothing but the total service of God, we would still be unable to repay Him for the goodness He has bestowed upon us. For people who have good parents, you know this feeling as well. I could pay my parents back all the money they spent on me and it would still not suffice. There is no way to ever repay. I can only live in their debt and express my gratitude in any way I can.
If you look at the advertisements in magazines like InStyle, Glamour, Cosmopolitan, W, Redbook, Vogue and Lucky, you will note a common theme. The advertisements continually end with the words, "Because you're worth it." Or alternatively, "You deserve it." America is a country which desires to make you believe that you should spend money to satisfy all your desires and needs because you are worth it. And on the surface, that seems to be a very satisfying philosophy. There shall be no people with low self-esteem in America; we have magically whisked them away. In their place, we shall have people who always believe that they are 'worth it.'
I look at these advertisements and laugh at them. Firstly, because I find it demeaning to be told that I am supposedly worth a very expensive bottle of Olay lotion. I am a human being created in the image of God; I am worth far more than that. Secondly, because I don't believe in the conception that we deserve anything. We deserve nothing. What God gives to us is a gift.
This is something that the Rav, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, understands entirely. This is why he developed a philosophy of sacrifice. Everything balances in the Rav's philosophy of dignity in defeat. We are permitted to eat kosher but not non-kosher. To engage in relations with our spouse but not with others. We must abstain from having relations when our wives are niddot. We can work during the week but not on Shabbat. Everything is a balance. And this philosophy, according to the Rav, helps train us so that we can accept dignity in defeat even when that defeat is not of our own making. For example, when it is the halakha that binds us and nothing else.
As he writes:
Dignity in Defeat
If man knows how to take defeat at his own hands in a variety of ways as the Halakhah tries to teach us, then he may preserve his dignity even when defeat was not summoned by him, when he faces adversity and disaster and is dislodged from his castles and fortresses.
What is the leitmotif of the strange drama that was enacted by Abraham on the top of a mountain when, responding to a paradoxical Divine summons to take his son, his only son, whom he loved, and offer him in a distant land called Moriah, he surrendered his son to God (Gen. 22)? It was more than a test of loyalty that Abraham had to pass. God, the Omniscient, knew Abraham's heart. It was rather an exercise in the performing of the dialectical movement, in the art of reversing one's course and withdrawing from something which gave meaning and worth to Abraham's life and work, something which Abraham yearned and prayed for on the lonely days and dreary nights while he kept vigil and waited for the paradoxical, impossible to happen. And when the miraculous event occurred and Abraham emerged as a conqueror, triumphed over nature itself, the command came through: Surrender Isaac to Me, give him up, withdraw from your new position of victory and strength to your old humble tent, all enveloped in despair and anxiety, loneliness and gloom. Abraham, take defeat at your own hands, give up heroically what you acquired heroically; be a hero in defeat as you were in victory.
Abraham obeyed. He realized that through this dialectical movement a man attains redemption and self-elevation. And the improbable happened; as soon as he reconciled, as soon as he gave Isaac up, the forward movement, the march to victory was resumed again. He received Isaac from the angel and the pendulum began to swing to the pole of conquest.
This drama is reenacted continually by the man of Halakhah, who is dignified in victory and defeat. The Halakhah taught man not contemptus saeculi, but catharsis saeculi.
Halakhah wants man to be conqueror and also to be defeated- not defeated by somebody else, not defeated by a friend, not defeated by an outside power, for there is no heroism involved in such a defeat; such a defeat, on the contrary, demonstrates cowardice and weakness. Halakhah wants man to be defeated by himself, to take defeat at his own hands and then reverse the course and start surging forward again and again. This directional movement, like a perennial pendulum, swinging back and forth, gives exhaustive expression to man's life and to Halakhah. [Emph mine.]
Is this important for mental health? I believe so. Of course I cannot spell out here how this doctrine could be developed into a technology of mental health, but I believe this doctrine contains the potential out of which a great discipline of the Judaic philosophy of suffering, an ethic of suffering, and a technology of mental health might emerge.
What I have developed is more a philosophy of the Halakhah. How this philosophy could be interpreted in terms of mental health is a separate problem, one that is quite complicated. But I believe that the trouble with modern man and his problems is what the existentialists keep on emphasizing: anxiety, angst. Man is attuned to success. Modern man is a conqueror, but he does not want to see himself defeated. this is the main trouble. Of course, when he encounters evil and the latter triumphs over him and he is defeated, he cannot 'take it'; he does not understand it.
However, if man is trained gradually, day by day, to take defeat at his own hands in small matters, in his daily routine, in his habits of eating, in his sex life, in his public life- as a matter of fact, I have developed how this directional movement is applicable to all levels- then, I believe, when faced with evil and adversity and when he finds himself in crisis, he will manage to bear his problem with dignity.
-Out of the Whirlwind by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, pages 113-115
I consider myself a compassionate person. The fact that my heart went out to those bound by the halakha when it comes to the LGBT movement particularly was a demonstration of this, I believed. Then I met Jordan and he, as usual, proved me wrong. Jordan was in fact more compassionate than me! "What of someone who is a kleptomaniac?" he asked me. "He has an urge, perhaps even an illness that makes him want to steal. Do you feel compassion for him?" I shook my head no. "What you have done is made a mental judgement that one kind of suffering is worse than another," he rebuked me. "Who is to judge the strength of desire? Who is to say that one desire trumps another? The same desire that a man may feel to love and cling to and totally mold himself with another man may express itself in the man who wants to steal. How can you know the strength and power of desire to decide that some are reasonable and some are not?"
"But," I argued, "the difference is that this has to do with living one's entire life. To live your entire life alone? Celibate, without anyone to share it with in that way? It seems cruel. Also, consensual homosexuality hurts no one whereas murdering or thieving takes someone or something away from someone else."
"Then tell me," he says, "what if someone has an impossibly powerful desire to eat treif? Do we say it is not a sin? Do we form a support group for those who eat treif, decide to have a Mechalelei Shabbos club in shul for those overpowered by that desire? The strength of one's desire proves nothing. Unlike you, I feel for everyone who suffers desire like that. The woman who has not been given a get and is an agunah; suppose she gets remarried without her get. Do I feel for her? Of course I do. Would I start a support group in shul for women who remarry without gittin? We cannot do so."
And he was right. I had decided, simply based on my own personal feeling, that the desire an LGBT person feels for someone else was more important and thus more heart-wrenching. I felt compassion for them when I would not feel that way towards others who broke the law. I had bought into the Western judgment which believes that we all deserve to be happy - or at least to engage in the 'pursuit of happiness' and also deserve to fulfill all desires so long as they don't harm others. But this is not the truth. We deserve nothing of God. Should He bless us, if we are lucky enough to live beautiful, fulfilled lives, we shall be the luckiest people in all the world. But if we do not receive these blessings, can we really accuse Him, tell Him that we deserve that perfect life, that we are somehow entitled to it; it's coming our way? I don't think so.
The reason I went to the event entitled 'Being Gay in the Orthodox World' is because I don't believe in going beyond the law. The law says a man who sleeps with another man like he would lie with a woman is committing a grave sin. It does not say that we must refer to that man as a 'faggot' or act cruelly to him. Most yeshivot, and YU is no exception, are homophobic. I went to the event because I thought it was important that people see that people who are homosexual are just like you and me. They are our classmates and our peers. And thus people would learn not to be needlessly cruel, to go beyond the law in their cruelty with words and actions.
I love people who happen to be attracted to members of the same sex. I find much to love in them. Some of my best friends are gay. But I cannot condone, countenance or believe in 'giving up' parties where people want me or anyone Orthodox to be okay with the fact that they are breaking the law (assuming they are acting upon their desires.) I will never be okay with that. And that means I may make decisions you will not like. When my child asks me about the kid who has two daddies, I may explain that according to Judaism it is forbidden, that s/he can love and appreciate the people and nonetheless know this is not in accordance to the law. I love many people who break Judaic law. The distinction here is that you absolutely know that this is not what God desires and you have made a decision to put yourself first, not to struggle any longer, not to strive to sacrifice even though it would be immensely painful to you, simply because you 'deserve to be loved.'
My heart goes out to all who struggle. But if the struggle is over, if you are 20 years old and have made a rational decision to break the halakha, that saddens me. I think you are too young to give up the fight just yet. You cannot tell me it is impossible to live a celibate life. I know women in their 60s who are virgins and will never touch a man for as long as they live. It is not because they don't want to. It is because they fear God. Is it awful, miserable, unhappy and lonely not to fulfill your love for another? Absolutely it is. But it is not impossible. And to me, the rationalization that you deserve to act on your feelings contra God because they will make you happy will not stand up.
This does not mean I would shun you or hate you or otherwise not love you as a person. But I will believe that you are doing wrong, that this is a sin, and you cannot expect my support of this sin. I love you. I don't believe in calling you names. I believe it is important for people to realize that you are human and struggling and to empathize with you. But we have been created by God, given the incalculable gift of life, and it is our job to attempt to repay through sacrifice. Even if we hate it. Even if we are angry with God. Even if we feel that He is cruel. And I cannot support anyone who has decided the struggle is over and the decision is made. I do not believe that is what Judaism is about. There is no point at which we simply give up. We are living for God and for this reason we must struggle to do as He wills.
The woman for whom I am named was murdered because she was a Jew. If she can die for being a Jew, must I not struggle with all I have, with all I am, to live as a Jew? To hate the times that I fail to serve God as He wishes? To try my utmost to do so, even when He hurts me, even when I am angry with Him, even when all I want is to run from Him? If I must give up my life for Him, must die for Him, then can I not give up my dreams for Him, my would-be spouse, my unfulfilled love?
We have raised a generation that does not understand why they must die for God, and thus it follows that they find it extremely difficult to live for Him. As a member of this generation, I feel with you, alongside you. I know how it hurts to live for God. I know the pain and the anger and the hatred, how you feel raw inside, the words unexpressed, the silent scream you wish He could hear. I know that anger because I live with it. But what I cannot do, what I cannot accept, what I will never accept, is that it is a legitimate choice to decide not to live for God. You may feel it to be a necessity, the only way you will stay sane, the only way to survive and I cannot judge you for that. But the point of view that states that it is legitimate to make such a decision-that I should see it as normal and think nothing of it, that it is acceptable to decide that you will not live for God- that I cannot accept. And if you wish to tell me such a point of view is legitimate, I will fight you with everything that I have. Because Jordan would take a bullet in his head for his Judaism and for God, and after knowing such a person, I cannot accept that we ought to be satisfied with anything less.
A Letter by Rav Ahron Feldman to a Gay Baal Teshuva
Rabbi Aharon Feldman
Dear _____,
I received your letter a few days ago and was very pained by the anguish you have undergone for so many years because of your homosexuality and which is especially tortuous to you now that you have become a baal teshuvah. You have asked me for a Torah view on your problem. I hasten to answer you with the hope that what I write you will help you in some way. I believe that the course you have taken is correct: you must refuse to deny your nature as a homosexual while at the same time refuse to deny your Jewishness. There is no contradiction between the two if they are viewed in their proper perspective. Judaism looks negatively at homosexual activity, but not at the homosexual nature. Whatever the source of this nature, whether it is genetic or acquired (the Torah does not express any view on the matter), is immaterial. This nature in no way diminishes or affects the Jewishness of a homosexual. He is as beloved in God’s eyes as any other Jew, and is as responsible as any Jew in all the mitzvos. He is obligated to achieve life’s goals by directing his life towards spiritual growth, sanctity and perfection of his character—no less than is any other Jew. He will merit the same share in the world to come which every Jew merits, minimally by being the descendant of Avraham Avinu and maximally by totally devoting his life towards the service of God. Past homosexual activity has no bearing on one’s Jewishness. Although it is a serious sin, all humans by nature have spiritual shortcomings and this is why teshuva was given to them. Teshuva has the capacity to return a person to a state even higher that which he had before the sin. Accordingly, a Jewish homosexual has to make a commitment to embark on a course where he will ultimately rid himself of homosexual activity. It is not necessary that he change his sexual orientation (if this is at all possible), but that he cease this activity. It is obvious that for many people this will be difficult, and will have to be accomplished over a period of time. But it must be done and it can be done. Family and children are important in Jewish society but one who does not have these need not feel that he is not a full-fledged member of the community. The verse in Isaiah 58, which is read by Jews all over the world on every public fast-day, is addressed to the homosexual: Let not the saris (who is physically unable to have children) say `I am a dried up tree.’ For so saith G-d to the sarisim who keep my Sabbath, who choose what I desire, and who keep my covenant: I shall make them in My house and within My walls a monument, a shrine, superior to sons and daughters. I shall render their (lit., his) name everlasting, one which will never be forgotten. Can a homosexual be expected to live as a celibate? I believe a Jewish homosexual can accomplish this if he decides that the Jewish people is his “wife and children.” It is possible to do this if he throws his every spare moment into devotion to the welfare of his people. There are many areas where he can do this. Because he does not have a family, a homosexual can make serious contributions to Judaism which others cannot. For example, bringing Judaism to smaller communities where there are no facilities for raising a Jewish family. I know of a case where a rabbi successfully inspired the Jews of an entire city for over forty years because, for various reasons, he never married. Since there were no religious schools in town, the rabbis who had held his pulpit before him all moved away when their children had to start going to school. But this rabbi, because he had no family, stayed on and had a major impact on the entire city. Activities involving much travel, such as fundraising, a vital aspect of Jewish survival, is best accomplished by someone who is not tied down to a family. I know of a homosexual who helped establish several important institutions through his fundraising and is grateful for the sexual orientation which freed him to make this contribution. Even within one’s community devotion to public causes can be more easily done by someone who has no family obligations. Several individuals whom I know became respected, active members of their communities during their lifetimes even though it was well known that they had no interest in marriage. It is no accident that homosexuals are generally more sensitive to the needs of others and to matters of the spirit (viz., the high percentage in the arts) than the rest of the population. This is because their function in society is meant to be one where their family is the Jewish people. Their sensitivity is an emotional tool which they were granted for devoting themselves to, and empathizing with, others. Devotion of one’s life to others is generally not considered an option in our modern world since fulfillment of one’s own desires and appetites is considered the major goal of life. This has caused the homosexual community to publicly flaunt their homosexual activity, as if to say to the rest of the world, “See, we can have just as much fun as you!” This is an understandable response to a culture which believes that without sexual satisfaction life is a failure. But this belief is both a total falsehood as well as a perversion of the nature of humanity. The fact is that neither homosexual or heterosexual activity has the capacity to grant happiness to humans, as even a cursory glance at our unhappy world will demonstrate. The only activity which can give us happiness is striving towards reaching the true goals of life. Life is not meant to be an arena for material satisfaction. It is to be used to carry out G-d’s will by coming closer to Him and serving Him by keeping His commandments. Sexual activity, by which the family unit can be built, is only one of the activities with which a man can serve God. But someone who does not have this capacity still has a whole life and unlimited opportunities to serve God. I have written at the outset that it is important for you to come to terms with your homosexuality. But to do so it is vital to change your orientation away from the manner in which Western culture views life and and instead see sexuality in its proper perspective. How does Judaism look at the reason for someone having been born or turned into a homosexual? Life is meant to be a set of challenges by which we continuously grow spiritually. Any physical defect curtails the enjoyment of life, but, on the other hand, meeting the challenge inherent in such a defect can be the greatest source of joy and accomplishment. Challenges are what life is all about, and homosexuality is one of these challenges. It is difficult for us to understand why certain people were given certain shortcomings as their challenge in life and other were not. We cannot fathom God’s ways but we can be sure that there is a beneficence behind these handicaps. When these shortcomings are met they will grant us a greater satisfaction from our lives and a deeper devotion to G-d than if we were not given them. A homosexual has an admitted defect, namely that he cannot have a family, but one which need not hamper his development into the human which G-d would want him to be. When the challenge of the shortcoming is met, the reward will be that much greater. I will add that I do not think that it is necessary for you to give up on the hope of someday having a family. The ways of Providence are manifold. For example, I was personally involved in a case of a woman who knowingly married a homosexual man in order to help him overcome his condition. They subsequently had a large family. It was only because they were both deeply religious Jews that they were successful. There is reason to hope that with your acceptance of living a life in the service of G-d, your problem as well will be overcome. Nothing is impossible if we merit Divine assistance; “Can the hand of G-d ever be inadequate?” I hope that the ideas I have expressed here will be of help to you. In your struggle towards reaching the goals of your life, remember that you are not unique: all of humanity is engaged in the same struggle. You were just given a different set of circumstances within which to operate. With my heartfelt blessings for your welfare and for your true success, I remain Very truly yours,Aharon Feldman
(כב) וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃
(22) Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.
(יג) וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מ֥וֹת יוּמָ֖תוּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם׃
(13) If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death—their bloodguilt is upon them.
הכי אמר רחמנא תועבה תועה אתה בה
So says the Merciful one: you are erring in it.
רלב״ג ויקרא יח:כב
תועבה בעצמותה
Ralbag Vayikra 18:22
An abomination in its essence.
Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, 1974
It may be, however, that the very variety of interpretations of to'evah points to a far more fundamental meaning, namely, that an act characterized as an "abomination" is prima facie disgusting and cannot be further defined or explained. Certain acts are considered to'evah by the Torah, and there the matter rests. It is, as it were, a visceral reaction, an intuitive disqualification of the act, and we run the risk of distorting the Biblical judgment if we rationalize it. To'evah constitutes a category of objectionableness sui generis: it is a primary phenomenon. (This lends additional force to Rabbi David Z. Hoffmann's contention that to'evah is used by the Torah to indicate the repulsiveness of a proscribed act, no matter how much it may be in vogue among advanced and sophisticated cultures: see his Sefer Va-yikra, II, p. 54.).
שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ד סימן קטו
והנה ראשית הידיעה דחומר האיסור דסקילה וכרת וגם שנקרא תועבה והוא מחטאים המגונים ביותר ואף בני נח נצטוו ע"ז הוא כח גדול לעמוד כנגד היצר הרע, ושנית שהוא דבר שלא מובן שיהיה ע"ז ענין תאוה דבבריאת האדם בעצם ליכא תאוה מצד טבע ולהתאוות למשכב זכור, שלכן אמר בר קפרא לרבי על תועבה זו שנאמר באיסור דמשכב זכור דפירושו תועה אתה בה בנדרים דף נ"א ע"א ופי' הר"ן שמניח משכבי אשה והולך אצל זכר.
Responsa Igrot Moshe Orach Chaim 4:115
Behold, the beginning of knowledge is the understanding that the stringency of the prohibition is that of stoning and excision, and also that it is called an abomination, and it is among the most severe of sins. Even gentiles are commanded in it. This knowledge provides great strength as to the importance of standing against the evil inclination. Second, it is incomprehensible that there be any desire in this regard. For in the essential creation of humanity there is no natural desire for homosexuality. For this reason Bar Kapara said to Rebbe regarding the term "abomination," which is written regarding homosexuality, whose interpretation is that "you are erring in it." And the Ran explains that one abandons heterosexual intercourse and go to the homosexual.
תועה אתה בה - שמניחין נשותיהן והולכין אצל משכב זכור:
You are erring regarding it - for they abandon their wives and go to homosexuality.
Rabbi David J. Bleich
Tosafot and Rosh... indicate that the homosexual goes astray in the sense that he abandons his family. According to this interpretation, the abomination associated with such conduct lies in the destruction of the family unit.
פסיקתא זוטרתא ויקרא
תועבה היא. תועה בה שהרי אין לו ממנו זרע אנשים.
Pesikta Zutrati Vayikra
It is an abomination. He errs in it, for he can bear from it no children.
(ד) משרשי המצוה. לפי שהשם ברוך הוא חפץ בישוב עולמו אשר ברא ולכן ציוה לבל ישחיתו זרעם במשכבי הזכרים, כי הוא באמת השחתה שאין בדבר תועלת פרי ולא מצות עונה.
Among the roots of the mitzvah. Because God desired the populating of the world He created. Therefore He commanded no tot destroy their seed with male intercourse. For it is truly destruction, for there is no yield of fruit nor a fulfillment of conjugal duties...
מתני׳ אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה ולא במעשה בראשית בשנים ולא במרכבה ביחיד אלא אם כן היה חכם ומבין מדעתו כל המסתכל בארבעה דברים ראוי לו כאילו לא בא לעולם מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור וכל שלא חס על כבוד קונו ראוי לו שלא בא לעולם:
Mishnah: One may not expound [the laws of] forbidden sexual unions before three people, nor the account of Creation before two, nor the [Divine] Chariot before one, unless he is wise and understanding from his own knowledge. Anyone who peers into four things would be better off if he had not come into this world: What is above, what is below, what is before, and what is after. And anyone who has no mercy for the honor of his Maker would be better off if he had not come into the world.
אלא אמר רב אשי מאי אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה אין דורשין בסתרי עריות (בשלשה)
Rather, R. Ashi said, What is [meant by] "One may not expound [the laws of] forbidden sexual unions before three people"? One may not expound the secrets of [i.e the inferences of] forbidden sexual unions in front of three.
עריות בשלשה כו' מוקי לה בסתרי עריות כו'. פרש"י שאין מפורשות כגון בתו מאנוסתו ואם חמיו כו' עכ"ל ולשון סתרי לא משמע כן ומתוך ספר ישן למדתי לפרש סתרי ממש וסוד איסור עריות כגון סוד איסור אחותו דהשטן מונה את ישראל באיסורה שהרי עולם בתחלת בנינו היה שקין והבל נשאו אחותם ואין האדם דן בשכלו לאסור... ואתי למשרי איסורא בעריות כי האי והשתא ניחא דהוה סתרי עריות דומה ממש למעשה בראשית ולמעשה מרכבה שהם ודאי סודות ודברים נסתרים ממש:
Illicit relations are with three, etc. [The Talmud] establishes the case as denoting secrets of illicit relations. Rashi explains that they are not explicit, such as one's daughter from a case of rape, or the mother of one's father-in-law. But the language of "secrets" does not sound this way. And from an old book I learned to interpret "secrets" literally. The secrets of illicit relations, such as the secret of the prohibition of one's sister, for the Satan counts the Jews among its prohibition. For the world from its inception was this way, for Kayin and Hevel married their sister, and a person might not logically think to prohibit... and they will come to permit the prohibition of arayot. And not it is intelligible, for the secrets of illicit relations are similar to the creation of the world and the instance of the chariot, which are certainly secrets and truly hidden matters.
R' Nathan Lopes Cardozo
| When discussing matters related to the ethical or religious foundation of sexual behavior, human beings tend to have severe differences of opinion. While up till the second half of the 20th century a more conservative approach was still prevailing, a radical change took place in the second half of the last century. Well established norms were suddenly challenged and often replaced by radical approaches which demanded more “liberty” and “broadmindedness.” This provoked a major confrontation between the conservatives and those who claimed that they were “modern-minded.” |
Since those days, we have been witness to a great amount of debates about such topics as homosexuality, a marriage between people of the same sex and abortion. Both sides try to prove their point of view with learned dissertations and heavy arguments.
But those who survey this literature have long since been convinced that such debates will lead nowhere. There is no reconciliation nor any modus vivendi which will bring these camps any closer. The reason is obvious: there is no common ground which could be used to allow for any kind of useful debate.
In the Mishna in Chagiga (2.1) we are confronted with several educational problems related to the esoteric world. The Mishna asks: how many people are permitted to be present when a teacher lectures on matters “beyond?” It concludes that some issues such as the secrets of Creation (Ma’aseh Bereshith) should only be discussed with one person at a time, while other metaphysical topics such as the ones mentioned in the book of Yechezkel (the Merkava, the celestial world) should only be discussed by a sage of great wisdom and only in front of one person. The main reason given for these rulings is to prevent misunderstanding. When only one student at a time is present there will be little chance that the student will misunderstand his mentor. He will be forced to listen carefully to every word the teacher speaks. He does not have the luxury to doze off and only hear half of the lecture and draw the wrong conclusions.
At the opening of the same Mishna we are informed that matters of “arayoth” (sexuality and its prohibitions) should not be discussed with more than two students at a time. The reason for this “lenient” rule is that both will make sure that they hear all that is said about sexuality, since most human beings are pre-occupied with sexuality. (Freud’s sexual libido?) So, even when the teacher is only speaking to one of them, the other one will listen. Three, however, is seen to be a problem, since the other two may start a discussion between themselves and draw the wrong conclusions and permit what is forbidden or vice versa.
The Maharsha (Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Eidels, 1555-1631), however, gives a completely different interpretation. According to his opinion, the many rules related to sexuality are, in fact, totally unknown and completely mysterious. No explanation is available. They belong to the same category as Ma’aseh Bereshith, the Creation chapter and the esoteric observations concerning the metaphysical world by the prophet Yechezkel. Matters like these are beyond human understanding. What, for example, asks Maharsha, is the reason why it is prohibited to marry one’s sister? Why is the sister of one’s living wife prohibited but permitted after the wife has died? (According to the Torah one is allowed to marry a second wife, it was the sages who forbade this in later days).
To claim that any of the prohibited relationships are fundamentally “unethical” is untenable for the obvious reason that the children of Adam and Chava (Eve) married their brothers and sisters. Nowhere is it written that this was forbidden. In fact, it was the only way that God saw fit to increase the human species. Similarly we see that Yaacov married two sisters, something which later became prohibited. And, as is well known, these marriages became the foundation stone of the Jewish people and were indispensable!
It is for this reason, says Maharsha, that one should only discuss these matters with two people at a time. Otherwise, two students would start arguing between themselves while the mentor would only concentrate on the third. They would advance all sorts of explanations, claim that they found the raison d’etre and go on to permit or forbid all sorts of marriages.
Maharsha’s observation is therefore of primary importance. All discussions of why certain marriages or sexual relationships are forbidden are doomed to fail! No human reasoning is able to explain them in any consistent way. It is for this reason that religious thinkers should distance themselves from giving primary reasons for these prohibitions. It would be counter-productive and dangerous. This is true when discussing homosexuality or even abortion. Although these relationships are forbidden since the days of the creation of man, they are beyond human comprehension and should be accepted as such.
It is here we believe that a difficulty arises for secular philosophy and ethics. On the basis of which rational principle should a homosexual relationship be permitted but incest forbidden?
However ghastly our argument may sound, we are forced to ask what could there be wrong with incest, pederasty, fetishism, or bestiality from a secular perspective? As long as such a relationship takes place by mutual consent and nobody gets physically hurt, there should be no reason why these relationships should be forbidden. While several philosophers have attempted to give secular reasons why such acts should even be forbidden by secular law, we have to conclude that no consistent and rational argument has yet been forwarded which is fundamentally sound.
Arguments such as the “need for human dignity” or “social conduct” are of little meaning, because it is completely unclear why human dignity or social conduct should in fact be unchallenged norms in our society. Philosophers are not even in agreement what the definitions of these phrases should be.
We are therefore forced to conclude that when secular law forbids certain sexual acts it borrows from a system alien to its own philosophy. The secular understanding of sexual morality does not make any sense unless one admits that it is founded on religious premises. Religious thinkers, however, should not forget as Maharsha indicates, that neither can religious philosophy explain the subject for them.
These prohibitions cannot be the result of rational deduction or ethical contemplation but must be rooted in a “will” which is external to man. Either one accepts this external will or one rejects it. Once one rejects such an external will, there can be no distinction made between matters such as homosexuality and incest, and as such both relationships should be permitted.
One is reminded of the words of Professor E. S. Waterhouse: “A parasite is an independent organism, but its existence is none the less dependent upon its host. If the host perishes, the parasite perishes with it. Using the term in the scientific and not in an offensive way, may not morality which is not dependent of religion be parasitic upon the religious system within which it has grown up? Surely the question of morality independent of religion cannot be settled by reference to individuals whose moral life began in a community saturated with ideas of religion. (“The Religious Basis of Morality” in Essays presented to J.H. Hertz, pp 413-4, London 1942) Richard Livingstone in “Education for a World Adrift” adds: “We have inherited good habits and habits persist almost indefinitely, if there is nothing to destroy them. A plant may continue in apparent health for some time after its roots have been cut, but its days are numbered.” (page 24, London, 1941)
It is, therefore, abundantly clear that secular society ultimately depends on religious values. To force religious values to be subordinate to secular law is, henceforth, a contradiction in terms.