Saturday, April 19th, 2014

Homosexuality and Halakha: In Tradition and Beyond

August 1, 2010 by  
Filed under From Our Archives, Halakha, New Posts

In light of the public discussion surrounding the recent Statement of Principles on homosexuality and Judaism, penned by one of our regular contributors, Text & Texture is making available some of the Tradition articles that have been written about homosexuality and halakha.  Additionally, we include below an essay by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde and Rabbi Shlomo Brody, published originally in the Jewish Press (17 March 2010).

Review Essay: Relating to Orthodox Homosexuals: The Case for Compassion by Uri Cohen (40:3, 2007)

Homosexuality: A Religious and Political Analysis by Hillel Goldberg (27:3, 1993)

Homosexuality: Clinical and Ethical Challenges by Moshe Halevi Spero (17:4, 1979)

Initial Religious Counselling for a Male Orthodox Adolescent Homosexual by Joel B. Wolowelsky & Bernard L. Weinstein (29:2, 1995)

- Shlomo Brody

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Homosexuality And Halacha: Five Critical Points

By: Rabbi Michael J. Broyde and Rabbi Shlomo Brody

This short essay will develop five critical points for responding to the voices within the broader community that seek to accept and legitimize homosexual conduct, an activity that directly contradicts the dictates of halacha. While we view such developments from an adversarial perspective, great thought must go into the process of developing an appropriate response. We must balance ideals and pragmatism while taking into consideration the nature of the halachic violation, the motivation behind it, and its cultural context. This remains particularly true with regard to counseling individual community members who struggle with or act upon homosexual inclinations. Each point remains crucial, as the appropriate response to this issue, as with so many others, requires a holistic, nuanced approach that appreciates the complexities of this phenomenon.

The Act: Halachic Judaism views same-sex activity, in all its forms, as sinful. Approaches that do not adopt this as their starting point must be dismissed within the Orthodox community. If we are to approach this topic with any intellectual honesty, we must loyally accept the dictates of Jewish law. The fact that halacha categorizes various homosexual acts with different degrees of severity does not reflect any sense that lesser acts are permitted. The overall legal prohibition remains, as does the moral condemnation found in aggadic and non-legal texts.

Further, we need to recognize that such activity is governed by the same free-will choices as all other sexual behavior. As such, it is unwise to put forward a halachic approach dependent on the “resolution” of the highly politicized question of the origins of homosexual orientation, colloquially known as “nature or nurture.” (We suspect there is some truth in both approaches, leaving the ultimate question as to how much control a person has in determining his or her sexual orientation.)

While this dispute absorbs much of the public dialogue – among religious and secularists alike – it remains irrelevant to the halachic discussion. Even if orientation is innate, every healthy person can choose whether or not to act on inclinations, no matter how strong those inclinations may be. Conversely, if this orientation develops, in one form or another, as a result of life experiences, it does not minimize the struggle of a halachically-committed Jew to choose not to act on such inclinations.

The Actors: Even as halacha clearly labels the act a sin, Judaism does not seek to label the actors as evildoers whom we must shun. The halachic tradition has a longstanding policy of diverse attitudes to transgressors, and only in the most rare of circumstances does it mandate excluding people from the community, especially for wrongdoing that does not explicitly harm others.

Some communities have expectations that all of their members maintain total Orthodox practice. Other communities maintain more open membership standards, sensing a need to create a place for all to come and worship, including those who drive to synagogue on Shabbat, do not observe taharahat hamishpacha (family purity restrictions), eat out in non-kosher restaurants, or even cheat in business.

As in the case with Shabbat violators, many communities will find it more appropriate to welcome gays who remain discreet about their personal activity and who respect the Orthodox setting, with no aim of sparking denigration of Torah law. Provocateurs with anti-halachic agendas will find themselves less welcome, and rightly so. The larger point remains that accepting a gay individual within one’s shul does not reflect any less commitment to halacha than accepting public Shabbat violators.

One might argue that, given the larger cultural battles raging throughout America, any form of acceptance of homosexual individuals might weaken our moral stand to the outside world and our halachic position within our community. While this approach is certainly tempting, as it avoids dealing with difficult questions of individual sensitivities, it remains unpersuasive, as well as unwise on an individual level.

First, there is a clear distinction between recognition and sensitivity versus acceptance and legitimization. Moreover, no matter how fierce the cultural battle, we still must care for every Jew with respect and sensitivity, and refrain from pigeonholing them as part of a war in which they may likely not be engaged or have any desire to join.

Additionally, the fear that increased sensitivity will encourage a coming-out or movement of “homosexual Orthodoxy” seems misplaced, not only because of our public insistence on the grave sin of homosexual acts, but because the sociological nature of our community’s family structure strongly discourages it. How many openly and actively gay Orthodox Jews exist in the world? We think very few. Everyone understands the deep philosophical, halachic, and sociological contradiction of this identity, and, as is currently evidenced in the non-Orthodox denominations, only the blatant misinterpretation of halachic tradition would distort that reality.

The Political: In addition to the significant distinctions made, in the halachic realm, between the act and the actors, we need to distinguish between our halachic statements and our political activity. Politics makes strange bedfellows, especially in multicultural democratic societies like America. The pragmatic decision to support equal rights for gays in the political realm is not inconsistent with our view that the underlining activity violates Jewish (and Noachide) law.

We support religious freedom for all, even as we are aware that some might use this freedom to violate Jewish or Noachide law. Similarly, it is wise to support workplace policies of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, just as we support such non-discrimination based on religion, even though these laws equally protect, for example, pagans. Discrimination based on lifestyle choices may threaten our own liberties, including freedom of religious expression. This pragmatic argument remains true irrespective of one’s views on the philosophical claims for equal treatment in the workplace or entitlement to domestic partner benefits.

A similarly balanced approach should be taken with regard to gay marriage. If one believes a civil prohibition of same-sex marriage does not threaten our rights in the long term, then joining a political alliance opposing such, based on shared values or interests, seems reasonable. If, however, one views such a campaign as an infringement of civil liberties, or a potentially bad precedent that might endanger our interests in other areas of civil life, then one should not feel compelled to combat gay marriage.

Alternatively, one might even contemplate supporting the so-called grand compromise that will allow federal “civil unions” while strongly preserving religious-conscience exemptions from recognizing those unions. We currently continue to oppose the civil legalization of same-sex marriage, but as this debate develops it will remain important not to overly conflate our religious views with our political stands.

The Context: Within the larger cultural war roiling modern American society, gay rights sometimes seems like ground zero. This stems, in part, from how some religious groups view the issue, which in turn becomes absorbed into the media and popular debate as the “religious viewpoint.” Yet as with many issues (stem-cell research, for example), it remains crucial for Orthodox Jews to stake out our own genuine positions and not simply follow the lead of non-Jews.

The more significantly threatening aspect of American culture is the primacy placed on self-fulfillment, particularly in one’s sexual life. The dictates and mores of Jewish law frequently clash with the current American ethical mindset, which promotes exercising personal autonomy toward achieving self-fulfillment. Within the highly eroticized Western culture, the greatest manifestation of this mentality is heterosexual promiscuity, followed closely by high divorce rates and startling amounts of adultery.

While halacha certainly recognizes the role of sexuality in shaping one’s identity and human experience, it definitively limits sexual activity to marriage and encourages such activity within marriage. The Jewish tradition counsels self-sacrifice and restraint to an extent that our secular society deems unreasonable or untenable, even more so on sexual matters.

In this context, the threats to the Orthodox way of life are much greater due to the culture of rampant heterosexual promiscuity than to homosexuality. The attempt to conventionalize homosexuality, while harmful, represents a decidedly less threatening manifestation of the ethos of sexual self-fulfillment. Few people are drawn to a gay life without an initial internal inclination, whereas the vast majority of men (and a smaller but significant number of women) contemplate with some interest and desire the promiscuous heterosexual life that is normal in secular America.

As promiscuity becomes more culturally acceptable, greater numbers within our community will succumb. In that sense, the focus on homosexual conduct causes us to miss the major problems of sexual ethics in our society: the problem of promiscuity and its impact on dating, marriage, and divorce.

The Pastoral: It is extremely important that we strike a balance between the pastoral needs of people with difficult challenges in front of them and our need to provide clear ethical guidance to the community. Homosexual individuals within our community regularly experience anguish, suppression, and depression, sometimes to the extent of self-endangerment. These cases deserve our empathy and understanding, albeit not to the point of any compromise in our commitment to halacha and our belief in free will.

Moreover, one must remember that good people sometimes succumb to the temptation of sin in many areas, including this one. We should further sympathetically appreciate how individuals with a homosexual orientation might yield to such temptations, as they have no licit outlet for intimate companionship. In this regard, his or her struggle remains much greater than that of the heterosexual adulterer or philanderer, who commits egregious immoral acts by rejecting permissible outlets for their desires. Our strongest condemnation should be reserved for these sins, which directly threaten the moral fabric of our community.

Finally, we must confront these issues in an open and clear manner. We will never succeed in properly educating our community – which is engaged economically, and to a certain extent, socially and academically with the broader society – without engaging in a frank and public discussion grounded in halacha, despite our natural discomfort with any conversation about these matters. While our multifaceted, holistic approach requires an appreciation for nuances and complexities, it remains, in our mind, the appropriate halachic response.

* * *

We have heard that the revered Rav Aharon Soloveichik, zt”l, when asked his thoughts on homosexuality, replied, “It is terrible. It is almost as great a sin as cheating in business.” Without being able to verify this story, and understanding that Rav Aharon might not have meant this in a technical halachic sense, this anecdote nonetheless highlights what we believe is a misplacement of priorities in the Orthodox world.

The Orthodox community currently faces two incredibly serious problems: heterosexual promiscuity and financial misconduct. We live, alas, in an era of scandals, an era in which chassidic rebbes go to jail for money-laundering and rabbis are arrested for selling organs, while blogs accuse rabbis who are running conversion courts of manipulations and sexual vices with candidates for conversion. These scandals reflect larger trends within our community of widespread betrayal and disloyalty: to the other gender, including spouses; to business associates; to the greater Orthodox community; and, ultimately, to Torah and mitzvot.

Halacha condemns homosexual acts, but the phenomenon of “Orthodox homosexuals” does not represent a major threat to the integrity of our community. Ultimately, we are afraid that disproportionate condemnation of this phenomenon gives unproductive focus to a red herring, leading to inappropriate responses to individual struggles and distracting us from the central problems truly plaguing our community.

 

Print This Post Print This Post

Comments

6 Responses to “Homosexuality and Halakha: In Tradition and Beyond”
  1. David says:

    Rabbi Brody,
    Are you planning on signing the Statement of Principles? Is there anything it contains that contradicts what you and Rabbi Broyde wrote earlier this year?

    kol tuv,
    David

  2. Shlomo Brody says:

    No David, I am not planning on signing the Statement of Principles, even though this is some defiitive agreement on certain central issues.
    Despite my full respect for its authors (and signers) and their intentions, I declined to sign because a) I had written everything I wanted to say on the topic earlier this year, b) I think that some details and policies, even when correct, are best left out of print, c) I think some of the rules written need to be subject to individual situations, including cases when there is an internal tension between them (For example, I agree that one should not simply “out” someone. I also think that gays should not marry a heterosexual, unless there is full disclosure. What happens when you know someone has engaged in homosexual acts, but hasn’t disclosed that to their fiancee? Not a simple question. I personally favor disclosure, but every case might be different); and d) I was afraid that the document would be misinterpreted, by the media and public, as “We think being a homosexual is fine, but we are Orthodox, so this is the best we can do.”
    Be that as it may, I think that it is a reasonable document, about which reasonable people can disagree, while everyone still being committed to halakha.

  3. Charles says:

    Rabbi:

    This is an issue that needs to be addressed, there are many more frum gay men out there than I think you recognize. about 5 to 10% of the overall male population of the world is gay and there is no reason to believe the same is not true of frum jews.
    I have come to terms with my own sexuality over the course of the last few years, unfortunately after a failed marriange and having become a full time dad to my 3 children as their mother is not willing to parent them. My own journey has been difficult to say the least, but I know that I am not destined to live my life alone and now that my kids are growing up and leaving the house, I find myself looking for someone with whom to share my life.
    what do you recommend I do.
    by the way, I work for an orthodox shule in a small jewish community.

    kol tuv
    Charles

  4. Shalom Spira says:

    Dear Charles, Yivarekh Hashem Cheilo, Vi’yizakeinu Bimi’or Torato,
    Thank you for your important posting. I have been privileged to speak about this question with my teacher, Dr. Scott Goldberg, a psychologist who lectures at Yeshiva University’s Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Education. Dr. Goldberg says that although – genetically and halakhically(*) speaking – every human being is either a lady or a gentleman, the psychological reality is that every human being actually represents the composite of a myriad of male and female attributes in a unique proportion not matched by any other individual. Some gentlemen are more female than others, and some ladies are more male than others. [Cf. the gemara in Yoma 71a which speaks of "talmidei chakhamim who resemble ladies", thus confirming Dr. Goldberg's analysis.] Dr. Goldberg cogently understands this as a kindness that HaKadosh Barukh Hu has performed for humanity (similar to the kindness described by the Rashi in his commentary to the Berakhot 43b, s.v. “yipah lo umanuto”); viz., for every gay gentleman who seeks to marry another gentleman, there will be a lady who closely resembles a gentleman (but is still halakhically considered a lady) in order for a successful and kosher kiddushin to be established, and vice-versa. Thus, with Dr. Goldberg’s prescription, Halakhah can be observed in good conscience by all gays and lesbians. See also R. J. David Bleich’s Bioethical Dilemmas, Vol. I, pp. 131-142 for an illuminating treatment of this subject [-though, will all due reverence manifested before Mori ViRebbi R. Bleich, he slightly misquotes the Akeidat Yitzchak in that brilliant disquisition, obviously as a pedagogically effective technique in order to verify if the students are awake, what the gemara (in Berakhot 33b et al) calls "lichadudei"]. Bihatzlachah rabbah, Charles, in your quest to find a kosher spouse according to Halakhah, as defined by Orthodox Judaism. I am sure you will succeed.
    Gratefully,
    Shalom Spira

    (*)=other than the cases of tumtum and androginoss, which are so vanishingly rare, they need not be considered for practical purposes (-though they do serve as a rich source of theoretical discussion in the Oral Torah, e.g. Tractate Bikkurim, ch. 4).

  5. David says:

    Rabbi Brody,
    Please re-consider your decision not to sign. If the Statement of Principles will have any positive impact, it will be b/c a large number of individuals from a wide range of places in the Orthodox world (geographically, ideologically, professionally, demographically) decide to sign. I appreciate your reservations, but they are small when compared to some criticisms of the statement and the potential good might outweigh your objection “A.” Objection “B” I cannot comment on since it isn’t explicitly in print either! And I think objection “C” is not in any way counter to the intentions of the document itself.

    All the best,
    David

Trackbacks

Check out what others are saying about this post...
  1. [...] raging debate that followed controversial actions within the Orthodox community. The first, “Homosexuality and Halakha: Five Critical Points,” published in the Jewish Press, was written after a YU student panel on Orthodox and [...]



Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!