USCJ Review - Spring 2007
Letters to the Editor
Halakha About Gay Men and Lesbians
In our fall/winter edition, we ran three stories about the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards’ then upcoming vote on the halakhic status of gay men and lesbians. The committee voted in early December; see page 11 or go to our website, www.uscj.org, for more information on the vote. We received an avalanche of mail on the subject; feelings ran high and opinion seemed evenly divided. Here are some of the letters:
I just finished reading the two articles, on opposing sides of the issue, of the discussion on the halakhic interpretation of sexual rights and practice of homosexuals. The articles, I believe, brought to the forefront of discussion what it is that the Torah states as an abhorrence in the sexual practice of homosexuals, i.e., anal sex.
Reading the articles suddenly brought to mind the US Supreme Court decision of November 18, 2003, where the court struck down the sodomy law in Texas. The law as defined by the Court talks about sexual conduct between consenting adults. This decision by the Supreme Court rightly focused on the privacy of individuals.
What I find difficult to understand, even under the umbrella of halakha, is that Judaism and the Torah focus on the individual and their relationship with God and the privacy of one’s life. We all know that sexual practices among heterosexuals can and does include what is abhorrent to strict believers of the Torah, i.e., anal sex. As long as this conduct is between consenting adults, I do believe that what is acceptable in sexual conduct of heterosexuals should be acceptable for homosexuals. God, in his or her wisdom, always said that all his people are made in God’s image. Taking that concept a bit further, it can be said that as long as no one is hurt, then there is no right or wrong.
I applaud the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards for opening this discussion on the most basic and fundamentalist aspects of life – that God is our partner, but that our life is our own within our own abodes.
- Anita Beckerman, Boynton Beach, Florida
In December the Committee on Law and Standards considered one or more of the following issues, as discussed in the fall United Synagogue Review: “permissibility of homosexual conduct, recognition of homosexual unions through marriage or analogous ceremonies, and rabbinic ordination of sexually active homosexuals.” The Committee should not consent to or permit homosexual marriage within the Conservative movement. Real marriage is impossible among homosexuals regardless of what governmental or religious bodies may “legalize.” In order for a marriage to exist, it must be consummated. Homosexual simply do not have the physical equipment to consummate a marriage. Any “marriage or analogous ceremony” would simply be a charade.
Ordination of sexually active homosexuals should not be permitted. Rabbis are leaders in the community. We expect our rabbis to be persons who our young people would look up to and imitate. Most of us would not want our children to consider homosexual behavior something to emulate. It is true that many homosexuals are born that way. However we also know that homosexual behavior can be learned. Consider prisons and other places where men have no access to women. We should not redo the mistakes of the Catholic Church with respect to homosexual priests. Perhaps we can learn from their experience. Sexually active homosexuals should not be ordained.
How can we consider active homosexuals within our congregations? We should accept them as human beings. However they should not be placed in leadership positions over children.
- Lawrence Briskin, Centerville, Ohio
How sad it is to watch the Conservative movement spending decades tiptoeing around the question of whether homosexuals should be treated with equal dignity to heterosexuals. Yes, legal equality for homosexuals under Jewish law would contradict an explicit Torah prohibition. But that affords us the opportunity to expand our understanding of revelation through recognizing a limitation of our written Torah. Equality for homosexuals under Jewish law, in other words, would not only be a just step improving the quality of real human lives, but may yield the added bonus of helping us to further grapple with the meaning of revelation.
Great legal minds – and the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards certainly contains great legal minds – are capable of rationalizing most any position. But rationalization should not be confused with justice. Perhaps it will be years, even decades, before a new generation of rabbis on that Committee raised with a different set of experiences and attitudes adopts a non-discriminatory stance toward homosexuality. God-willing, such a change will come soon. Tzedek, tzedek tirdof.
Rabbi Prouser asserts that changing Jewish law in this area “would overturn 3000 years of unambiguous legal precedent.” I suggest two points in response. First, those who opposed (and oppose) legal equality for women under Jewish law may well have advanced similar, though not identical, arguments – arguments that should be rejected. Second, in recent decades, the Reform and Reconstructionist movements have, after much deliberation, taken significant steps toward creating equality for homosexual rabbis and homosexual relationships. To assert that changing Jewish law in this area would overturn 3000 years of unambiguous legal precedent is either to regard such steps as having absolutely no precedential value at all, or to be in error.
- Jonathan R. Cohen, Gainesville, Florida
(The writer is a professor of law at the University of Florida.)
I commend Rabbi Prouser for his superb opinion piece, which perfectly mirrors my own view.
I attend a Conservative synagogue (rather than one that is modern Orthodox) because of the absence of a mechitza and the ability of women to participate fully in the service. The tradition of separation of the sexes in prayer and the prohibition against women serving as shaliach zibbur and reading the Torah are rabbinic or later innovations, which do not directly violate any biblical proscription. I agree with their removal by the Conservative movement after intensive study and halakhic discussion. In contrast, the proposed virtual championing of homosexuality as an approved “alternative lifestyle” flies in the face of an explicit prohibition in the Torah, which goes so far as to label it, along with bestiality, as an “abomination.”
As with others who support homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style, Rabbi Mackler in his companion piece urges that one must closely analyze the wording of the biblical text, which only forbids a man from “lying with a man as with a woman.” He argues that this implies that only anal intercourse is forbidden, while other homosexual activity is permitted. Using this type of convoluted reasoning, one could equally well argue that because the prohibition against pig meat in Leviticus specifically uses the word “eat,” it is permitted to “drink” pureed pork! Another justification for accepting homosexuality as an alternative life style is that it is an “inborn sexual orientation.” Would this justify a man with an obsessive compulsion having intercourse with his aunt, or even his sister – an act that is prohibited in the same chapter in Leviticus? Would a pyromaniac be allowed to light a fire on Shabbat?
I hope that there are a sufficient number of members like Rabbi Prouser on the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards who have the courage to withstand political correctness and the homosexual lobby and vote against measures that would have a devastatingly divisive effect on the Conservative movement.
- Ron Eisenberg, M.D., J.D., Tiburon, California
t is inappropriate that the United Synagogue Review provided information to its readers about only two of the three positions on the halakhic status of gays presently before the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. It is entirely possible that that third view expresses the opinion of a substantial part of United Synagogue’s constituency.
That view holds that there is no basis in halakhah, nor has there ever been any basis, to bar homosexuals from the rabbinate, because homosexuality never was forbidden. It also asserts that the contemporary understanding of homosexuality, that it is not a choice or lifestyle any more than heterosexuality is, permits change in the halakhah about prohibited sexual behavior, and therefore monogamous homosexual relationships should no longer be judged illicit. This is a substantial contrast to the opinions presented in the articles by Rabbi Prouser and to a lesser degree by Rabbi Mackler and the CJLS teshuvot they support. That third opinion should have been described to your readers, because as you correctly assert in your introduction to the two articles, “the Conservative movement values education, learning and logic.” Fairness and objectivity too, I hope.
Rabbi Prouser would retain all traditional restrictions on homosexual behavior and any punishments their violation would invoke. He can find no way at all to permit gay ordination although a restriction of this sort should require a gezera, forbidding that which was formerly permitted, or to sanction homosexual unions. Rabbi Mackler would permit ordination and gay unions and most monogamous sexual activities. Both rabbis agree, however, that the biblical law that would impose a death penalty on those who engage in specific kinds of homosexual relations is to be retained, Rabbi Mackler because he believes the interdiction is biblical rather than rabbinic, Rabbi Prouser because any change in the law would result in “legal incoherence.”
There is no better example of legal incoherence or the rendering of halakhah obsolete than attempting to square Jewish morality with a biblical or rabbinic law that calls for the death penalty in the circumstances described. Respect for God and Torah and concern for the relevance of halakhah in the contemporary world would urge that we acknowledge the reality before us, accept what medical and social science teach us about human sexual behavior, and reflect that in living Jewish law.
Just as Rabbis Prouser and Mackler are entitled to have their opinions presented in the United Synagogue Review, so too are those members of the CJLS who would decriminalize homosexual relations, and welcome gays to the rabbinate and to a full measure of equality in any congregation that feels so inclined.
- Rabbi Myron S. Geller, Gloucester, Massachusetts
(Rabbi Geller sits on the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards and was the coauthor of a teshuva that the committee did not pass in its December meeting.)
Prior to any voting by any committee on the issues associated with homosexuality, every member of every congregation throughout North America should be informed about the traditional Jewish view on homosexuality. If one lives in a democracy, one practices the democratic right to know all relevant historical and current facts surrounding homosexuality and to have one’s voice to be heard.
- Dr. Morris Givner, Halifax, Nova Scotia
(Dr. Givner is a retired professor of pathology and associate professor of medicine at Dalhousie University.)
While I know little about the specific halakhah with regard to homosexuality, after reading both articles in the Fall/Winter United Synagogue Review on the subject, I have an additional comment.
Based on my years as a Prozdor student at the Jewish Theological Seminary, I remember that historical context is an important component to our understanding of halakhah. For example, I remember a discussion of whether a woman can wear a tallit or whether it is beged ish – mans clothing – something specifically forbidden by halakhah. I was told by several rabbis that this does not pertain to the tallit because of the historical context of the prohibition. The prohibition was designed to prevent Greek- and Roman-style orgies, where cross-dressing often was part of the festivities. This was to keep us separate – kadosh – from the other nations.
In this context, the prohibitions against homosexuality can also be seen as a prohibition against the homosexual acts that occurred as part of such Greek and Roman observances. The prohibitions were against homosexual acts performed by heterosexuals, especially those already in a committed heterosexual relationship. This makes the actions of homosexuals in a loving, monogamous homosexual relationship an entirely different thing.
- Judith Luber-Narod, Northboro, Massachusetts
At least some of Rabbi Aaron Mackler’s arguments for including gays in the rabbinate and for gay “marriage” are rather disingenuous, especially using the following quotation from Rabbi Joel Roth.
“I find it unacceptable that the community to be more severe and intolerant in its reactions to the [halakhaically] illegal act of homosexual behavior (which is not chosen in any conventional sense) than it is to the illegal acts of hillul Shabbat or intermarriage (which are freely chosen).”
Orthodox and Conservative communities may have members who are not observant or fully observant of Shabbat and may have members who are intermarried. They may even have gay members. But they do not sanction these activities by having a rabbi who does not observe Shabbat or who is intermarried. Thus the quote used as argument to include gays in the rabbinate or to sanction gay marriage is disingenuous.
- Maurice M. Margulies, Rockville, Maryland
Adult Bar and Bat Mitzvah Ceremonies
I read with interest the article in the fall/winter issue of United Synagogue Review about adult b’nai mitzvah programs (“It’s Never Too Late – Adult B’nai Mitzvah Classes Thrive”). According to the article, Conservative synagogues have been running such programs “since the early 1970s.”
In fact, the Conservative movement’s adult b’nai mitzvah classes date back to 1962. A young rabbi, H. David Teitelbaum, organized the first class for 18 men at Temple Beth Jacob in Redwood City, California. When they became bar mitzvah on May 18, 1963 it was national news in the Jewish press.
Thanks for setting the historical record straight.
- David Plotnikoff, Stanford, CA
The author replies:
When the fall Review went to press, the earliest Conservative congregational adult bar or bat mitzvah program we could find dated to the early 1970s. Hillel rabbis had begun conducting individual bar mitzvah ceremonies for male college students about a decade earlier.
Rabbi H. David Teitelbaum came to Temple Beth Jacob in 1957 and began an impressive adult education program. He learned that many men in the shul had not had the opportunity to become bar mitzvah at 13. Rabbi Teitelbaum decided to start an adult bar mitzvah class. Eighteen male students – this in a time before many women became bat mitzvah – joined. It had been some time since their 13th birthdays – their ages ranged widely but the average was 42. They studied together for about a year. When the students became b’nai mitzvah in 1963, the service drew more than 700 people.
Passion for the Center
Like Rabbi Michael J. Safra (“I Have Worked hard and I Have Succeeded – My Passion for the Center,” Fall/Winter 2006), I have been a Conservative Jew for many years, and I was terribly disappointed by what seemed to be his inability to find meaning in Conservative Judaism other than its claimed attempt to search for the center. The center of the Torah and tradition does not exist, and Rabbi Safra advises us that Conservative Judaism is therefore both confusing and in decline.
Rabbi Safra offers the following advice concerning his “passion for the center.” He advises, “Even if you do not yet keep a kosher home, buy kosher meat even if you don’t own separate dishes.” I know many such families. They often eat the kosher meat with cheese, and they include shellfish as the palate desires. This will not lead us from “one mitzvah to another” and no one’s children will see such a pattern of false kashrut as compelling.
About a decade ago I had an internet debate with a well-known Conservative rabbi who was advocating a method for halakhic infidelity in response to his observation that it was so common. He argued that kindness and the use of condoms could make the infidelity more halakhically acceptable. No more so, I observed, than proper slaughter and salting of pork.
All of these arguments are just slouching and crouching. If our homes are treif then no one needs to have rabbis say that they are magically kosher. If we are eating pork ribs outside of our home then someone must say that it is hypocritical. If we are immoral, then we must improve. The center of Judaism does not lie in accepting with a shrug what we know to be wrong and then wondering why we are in decline.
What is most sad for me is that there is an underlying tone that Conservative Judaism is not profoundly consequential to a person’s life or to the life of the community. It’s all apparently of limited relevance and easily open to a rabbi’s accommodation. It’s not only “confusing,” as Rabbi Safra writes, it’s also unsustainable.
- Jules Reichel, DeWitt, New York
Small-Town Judaism
I live in Iowa City, Iowa, and have been reading your magazine for years. There is a topic I have not seen discussed – smaller Jewish communities and the issues faced by the people who live there. Each year for Passover we talk with local grocery stories about ordering items for Passover. Each year these stores order the items we request and each year their orders com in late and short – delivered the week before Passover, with half the items we ordered missing.
Our merchants have to go through a distributor because they cannot order the quantity required by the large food companies. The distributor supplies their larger customers, and we get what is left. The merchants are very frustrated because they have ordered what we requested and the items do not come. Passover is always a challenge here – we want to support our merchants but we also need Passover items. My son in Detroit says the Passover items are marked down there before they arrive here. We never know what will arrive here, or when.
The days of Jews living in large cities only have passed. Those of us who live in smaller communities need your help. Perhaps pressure from the larger Jewish communities can be put on the larger food companies and their distributors to supply the smaller communities also. Perhaps your other readers have suggestions about how to encourage the distributors to fill complete orders.
- Esther Retish, Iowa City, Iowa
The Triennial Cycle
In “The Authentic Triennial Cycle: A Better Way to Read Torah?” (Fall/Winter 2006), Richard D. Rogovin does not convince me that people who are “diligently following the Hebrew in their chumash with a finger” are “dishonoring the Torah by engaging in this empty ritual.” Far from being an empty ritual, my finger on the Hebrew text connects me to my grandfather of blessed memory, who performed the same meaningful ritual – and, I suspect, to his grandfather. Further, that finger serves the practical purpose of allowing me to keep my place as I repeatedly glance at the English translation. I am grateful that my rabbi and many members of my congregation don’t presume to tell me which of my rituals are invalid.
- Henry W. Rosenberg, Northampton, Massachusetts
