I am not Jewish and know relativley little about Judaism but half suspected that this was the case.

Thanks for an interesting and informative piece

an interesting take, can't go wrong with scriptual interpretation

Orthodox Judaism neither requires nor expects those of a homosexual orientation to cease being so. In enjoining abstinence it lays down a rule, knowing full well that some will not meet this exacting standard.

But as we have only one life, absinence is not an option for the vast majority, especially since they never asked for this orientation in the first place, it is there and is unchangeable. So to demand someone in this position remains alone their entire life is immoral.

Carl4sparta

an interesting take, can't go wrong with scriptural interpretation

There is only so much amount of liberal interpretation one can do. The line is the line, what did CiF expect? It would be nice if one could chop and change the Jewish laws, but you can't.

You either then work within those laws or reject it. What you don't do, is ask for orthodox groups to ignore the law, amend the law or reinterpret the law as you wish.

Fiction

So to demand someone in this position remains alone their entire life is immoral.

I see no reason why LG&Bi cannot work within Jewish law, given a bit of give and take on both sides. e.g. a man does not frenchy his partner at the synagogue gates and the congregation does not ask what the sleeping arrangements are of anyone.

That way one is not denying anyone's right to be who they are, it is about taking responsibility to obey Jewish law.

@PaulMetcalf01

e.g. a man does not frenchy his partner at the synagogue gates

Got my agreement there. Regardless of the sex of his partner.

and the congregation does not ask what the sleeping arrangements are of anyone.

Amen. Seems like in this case a 'dont ask dont tell' policy would be the only one that works.

However this would only work provided the religious adherents redress the issue in the context of the entire bible and stop giving it disproportionately high attention.

There is something a little disingenuous about saying there is no taboo concerning or ban on homosexulaity in Orthodox Judaism, and then repeating the ususal prohibitions, plus some less familiar ones.

Those of us who listen carefully for changes in attitude towards gay people, can be heartened by the approach of the statement, which, if it signals no change in religious rules, does signal a change of mood. Almost like they're preparing to say 'Hey we never believed any of that nasty stuff in the first place'.

A transvestite does not go in to synagogue wearing a dress and the rabbi ignores the fact that the transvestite is wearing a dress, when the rabbi meets him in the street.

One is obliged not to embarrass anyone, speak badly about anyone and look favorably on a person. If both sides do that, everyone will get along much better.

At present the orthodox groups ask questions about their congregants which they should not and the gay rights lobby openly ask for Jewish groups to amend and ignore Jewish law. Both sides are wrong.

Fiction

However this would only work provided the religious adherents redress the issue in the context of the entire bible and stop giving it disproportionately high attention.

I thought that as well until someone mentioned that the fact that sex is such a big deal in the human condition a greater attention is given to it.

e.g. The rabbi can ignore a small Buddha (Idol) sitting on a mantelpiece in a gay Jewish household but the fact they are openly gay cannot. One would think they are both equal being against commandments.

Quite the reverse. "Halakhic Judaism", it reminds its readers, "views all male and female same-sex sexual interactions as prohibited". And it goes on to condemn any and all "Jewish religious same-sex commitment ceremonies and weddings". But I welcome the statement because it does not stop at that point, but reminds us of the framework within which those with a homosexual orientation can – and must – play their full part in the life of the synagogue and the community. I particularly welcome its very sensible warning against encouraging (pressurising would have been a better word) those with a homosexual inclination to marry someone of the opposite sex. I once had to advise a student who had been thus pressurised, and I came to know something of the utter misery it can cause.

A proper interpretation of Jewish law does not require homosexuals to abstain from sexual relations.

This is because the prohibition in Leviticus has to be read together with the Rabbinic teaching that one who does not have free choice is exempt from any prohibition ("Anoos Rachmana Patrai" - is the Talmudic phrase).

One can temporarily overcome one's sexual drive, but most people cannot permanently overcome their sexual drive. This point may not have been apparent in the pre-Freudian era but there is no excuse for not recognizing it today.

Hence the prohibition in Leviticus taken in the Talmudic context can only mean that heterosexual people are forbidden to have homosexual relations.

On this basis the Rabbis' statement could have gone further, and I understand that some of the Rabbis involved were prepared to do so but preferred to compromise in order to get wider support.

Sorry. The previous comment escaped.

The statement of principles issued on 22 July does not depart one iota from the prohibitions I have summarised above. Quite the reverse. "Halakhic Judaism", it reminds its readers, "views all male and female same-sex sexual interactions as prohibited". And it goes on to condemn any and all "Jewish religious same-sex commitment ceremonies and weddings". But I welcome the statement because it does not stop at that point, but reminds us of the framework within which those with a homosexual orientation can – and must – play their full part in the life of the synagogue and the community. I particularly welcome its very sensible warning against encouraging (pressurising would have been a better word) those with a homosexual inclination to marry someone of the opposite sex. I once had to advise a student who had been thus pressurised, and I came to know something of the utter misery it can cause.

Professor Alderman. It seems you are saying that the rabbis want to have their cake and eat it.

Some wise rabbis realise that homosexuality is part of human sexuality, In other words, it ain't going to go away. Even more, the vast majority of homosexuals are 'produced' by hetrosexuals.

A hot subject in Israel is an orthodox rabbi who 'sinned' with young boys. At least two, under age boys. A very popular rabbi and charismatic for some. The orthodox community in Israel is very troubled. Not all the details are in the public domain but they will be.

This is the future for orthodox communities. They must make their peace with homosexuals including profuse apologies for past persecutions in Israel and elsewhere. They must stop teaching their children that it is a sin any more than wearing a polyester/cotton/wool mix T-shirt.

If they don't, they are going to be held up to ridicule every time one of 'theirs' is exposed as a closet homosexual.

Geoff01: Your argument - which I have heard before - fails to convince because of the unambiguous prohibition against a man "spilling his seed."
Geoffrey Alderman

geoffreyalderman

"spilling his seed."

OK, I haven't read Kosher Sex, but I understood that rabbis have agreed in a heterosexual marriage, the husband was able to indulge in sexual activates that are not just vaginal intercourse. i.e. it is OK to spill ones seed if in a loving, healthy marriage. Am I wrong?

@Geoffrey Alderman

I am sure you have heard it before. In fact I first heard it some twenty years ago from a Rabbi who was a graduate of Gateshead Yeshiiva.

The answer to your question is simply that the prohibition of spilling one's seed is also subject to the principle of one who lacks free choice being exempt.

The principle of the prohibition of spilling one's seed is no different from any other prohibition. Oness Rachmana Patrai refers to all the prohibitions in the Torah, not just some of them.

Geoff01

The principle of the prohibition of spilling one's seed is no different from any other prohibition. Oness Rachmana Patrai refers to all the prohibitions in the Torah, not just some of them.

Are you qualified to interpret 'Oness Rachmana Patrai refers to all the prohibitions in the Torah, not just some of them.'?

@Geoffrey Alderman

Your argument - which I have heard before - fails to convince because of the unambiguous prohibition against a man "spilling his seed."

It is an argument I first heard it some twenty years ago from a Rabbi who was a graduate of Gateshead Yeshiiva.

The answer to your question is simply that the prohibition of spilling one's seed is also subject to the principle of one who lacks free choice being exempt.

The principle of the prohibition of spilling one's seed is no different from any other prohibition. Oness Rachmana Patrai refers to all the prohibitions in the Torah, not just some of them.

A further point is that the prohibition against a man spilling his seed is far from unambiguous. I will grant you it is unambiguously stated in the Shulchan Aruch, and said to be a very serious matter.

But references to it from earlier times are quite hard to find. It is hinted at in the Talmud, but the nature of the prohibition is far from unambiguous there, and there is no real scriptural basis. The sin of Onan, which is sometimes pointed to, is explained by Rashi as Onan's desire to prevent his wife getting pregnant and therefore losing her beauty.

@PaulMetcalfe01

The rabbi can ignore a small Buddha (Idol) sitting on a mantelpiece in a gay Jewish household but the fact they are openly gay cannot. One would think they are both equal being against commandments.

If logic dictated, one would think that the Buddha idol would create much more of a scene, given that is against the second of the ten commandments. The gay couple is only against a couple of vague old testament references; it is not against any of the commandments, and I think I am right in saying Jesus had nothing to say on the matter at all. It is this selective interpretation where the issue lies.

@Paul metcalf1

I understood that rabbis have agreed in a heterosexual marriage, the husband was able to indulge in sexual activates that are not just vaginal intercourse. i.e. it is OK to spill ones seed if in a loving, healthy marriage. Am I wrong?

The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer) actually brings two views. One is that all ejaculation should be vaginal. The other is that all sexual activities between husband and wife are part of the relationship and therefore permitted.

Generally Hassidim follow the former view and non-Hassidic Jews follow the latter view.

HerbertH

The principle of "Oness Rachmana Patrai" is an issue of free will. One can only philosophically be guilty of something if one had the freedom not to do it and made a choice to do it. Now of course there are varying degrees of making choices. One could deliberately choose to do something, and one could be negligent in not taking sufficient care to avoid it. Oness Rachmana Patrai is a level beyond negligence. The person really had no free will and exercised no choice.

Thus it is nothing to do with which command or which prohibition we are talking about. It is an issue of free will in general.

Apologies about the double posting above.

this article misses the point of why the statement is important which is that it counters homophobia which exists in some orthodox circles

anyone familiar with modern responsa literature will see this reflected there. It isn't surprising that this is the case because this is a reflection of the conservative social values of the rabbis who write these responsa

so this statement will be important if it reflects first and foremost a shift in these social attitudes, which is a belated but welcome response to the shift in social attitudes in wider society e.g. one couldn't imagine the current Conservatives re-implementing Clause 28 and so on

it is this that is the key issue and this is the point that Alderman misses when he says that there is "nothing new under the sun" here. Privately this will empower some rabbis to provide rulings on an individual basis (which won't be published responsa) which may well be along the lines that Geoff01 has argued

and fwiw, Alderman's "spilling seed" argument is nonsensical in halakhic terms for loads of reasons which are probably much too technical for a forum of this nature

The suggestion David 's relationship with Jonathan was 'gay' is a perversion of David being a man after God's own heart. Also to say the word 'abomination' as used in Leviticus requires extensive explanation is only to seek a way around a statement of God's that disagrees with current corrupted mores.
What is right and what is wrong never changes. What does change is society,
which becomes degenerate and then attempts to convince right and wrong changes with them.
But no, right and wrong is defined and fixed for eternity. Meanwhile liberals of prevailing wisdom attempt to modify eternal truth.
Remember what God said to Christ when he ascended into heaven. 'Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.'
Liberal apologists attempting to shoehorn God's word in order to reconcile their error are these enemies who oppose and substitute their own dogmas for holy truth.
They are having their day. But will fade into history when it dawns upon sufficient numbers that theirs is an era that features a long dark tunnel of ignorance and error.

GeoffreyEngland

Whether what you say is true or not, it certainly isn't Good News.

leftwingorthodoxjew

Privately this will empower some rabbis to provide rulings on an individual basis . . . which may well be along the lines that Geoff01 has argued

Rulings to do what exactly? The Jewish concept of private is private, is far more than don't ask, don't tell. So what else is there?

Join a shul as a couple? Get married? Hold hands outside the shul gates, a quick peck on the cheek after Kiddish with no second glance from the congregation.

No one can stop a man saying kaddish, if his male partner died, so besides gay marriage and therefore a reduction in shul fees as a couple, what exactly is the gay agenda with respect to a Jewish community life? Even if rabbis allowed sex between males, they still can't get married.

@GeoffreyEngland

Also to say the word 'abomination' as used in Leviticus requires extensive explanation is only to seek a way around a statement of God's that disagrees with current corrupted mores.

Nonsense. The word is used liberally around those passages in reference to many things like lying, using false weights and measures, wearing mixed fabrics and my favourite, eating shellfish.

Liberal apologists attempting to shoehorn God's word in order to reconcile their error are these enemies who oppose and substitute their own dogmas for holy truth.

Equally, an interpretation of what you have written can be that you are selectively picking and shoehorning scripture to fit your own prejudiced world view, while conveniently ignoring the many other passages in the bible about judging others and so on. The fact that human sexuality is so rarely mentioned in the bible supports this interpretation.

May I suggest you reevaluate your own views, do you really think your god will look kindly on your abusing scripture to victimise others who have done you no harm?

Do you people really have sex with your partners with accordance to some ancient book?!

@ Geoffrey England

"What is right and what is wrong never changes."

The 10th Century Jewish philosopher and Rabbi Saadiah Gaon in his book Emunot VeDeot (Faith and Knowledge) taught that Divine revelation consists of two things. First of all there are the things that our eyes and our ears tell us about the surrounding world - in short science, and then there are the words that God spoke on Mount Sinai and to his prophets.

But he added that these two Divine revelations are equal. They are both given to man through the grace of God and therefore they can never contradict.

Thus when man, through Divine Grace, discovered that the universe was billions of years old and not just a few thousand years old, it changed our understanding of the meaning of the six days of creation in the book of Genesis.

Likewise, when psychology, through the same Divine grace, discovered that human sexual drive could not be overcome except temporarily, and anyone who tried was in danger of developing dangerous complexes, this too becomes part of revelation, and must be used in our interpretation of scripture.

What you say about Liberal apologists and prevailing wisdom would be true if indeed it were some head in the clouds philosopher who had come up with the idea that homosexuality was OK. But psychology is hard (well fairly hard) science. Therefore it is part of the Divine revelation and thus no longer apology but correct interpretation of the totality of Divine revelation.

@Zarazek,

Do you people really have sex with your partners with accordance to some ancient book?!

Well, yes,, but since I am married and since the ruling is that anything consensual between husband and wife is permitted, the requirements are not very onerous.

Geoff01

Likewise, when psychology, through the same Divine grace, discovered that human sexual drive could not be overcome except temporarily, and anyone who tried was in danger of developing dangerous complexes, this too becomes part of revelation, and must be used in our interpretation of scripture

As always, I am still swaying. I cannot wait until the rabbis discuss this in the Sanhedrin, it will be one corker of a discussion.

At least for now, if gay practice stayed within the home, there should be no conflict.

I have looked on the net to try to find out what the ultimate objective of Jewish gay rights is, but it seems a bit secular to me.

Zarazek

Do you people really have sex with your partners with accordance to some ancient book?!

Don't wanna get to personal Zarazek, but do you do your wife when Arsenal are playing at home?

Geoff01

Do you know Debra and Phillip, kids Mathew and Dominic?

Do you know Debra and Phillip, kids Mathew and Dominic?

Can't say it rings any bells. Sorry.

Hence the prohibition in Leviticus taken in the Talmudic context can only mean that heterosexual people are forbidden to have homosexual relations

So David, he with the multiple wives and roving eyes (remember Bath Sheba?) should have been put to death having been caught by his enemy Saul? (death being the Levitical judgement)

See what occurs when we make free and easy with interpretations?