Posted June 2 2008
Torah Judaism, Homosexuality, and Gay Marriage
The Torah does not like gays.
For some Jews, this is not a difficult challenge to overcome. The Torah may have been inspired by God, but it was written by men. Its intolerance toward homosexuals can be written off as the outdated bigotry of a bygone age.
For others, it is not a challenge at all. The Torah is the unchanging word of God. Since it describes homosexuality as an “abomination,” then that is how it should be treated.
And then, there are the rest of us, who try to take from the best of both worlds and are faced with the challenge of reconciling the seemingly irreconcilable.
I believe that the Torah is the word of the living God. I believe that every word in it has meaning, and that we don’t get to pick and choose which parts to believe. I believe that the Sages who have interpreted the Torah throughout history, while they are not infallible, have transmitted our tradition to the best of their ability, and we cannot simply dismiss the teachings we don’t like.
It is difficult for people outside of this belief system to understand the scope and complexity of the laws and traditions followed by observant Jews. They are referred to collectively as halacha, which literally means “the way.” Halacha weighs in on everything from the prohibition against murder to instructions for how to put on one’s shoes in the morning. Halacha is hierarchical in nature, with some parts (e.g., the shoe-donning instructions) less important than others, and with some parts more amenable to adjustment. The prohibition against homosexuality lies within the category of halacha that is important, stringent and unchangeable.
I believe that I am enjoined by God to follow halacha. I believe that following halacha makes me a better Jew, a better person, and a better citizen of the world. I believe that by following halacha, Jews make themselves a holy people and a light unto the nations.
And yet, at the same time, I believe that homosexuality is inborn and not an “aberration,” that gays deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and to be allowed to live as full members of society, and that discrimination against gays is utterly and completely unacceptable. Furthermore, I believe that justification for these beliefs can be found within halacha.
If you see a contradiction here, then you are beginning to understand the challenge that I and the many Jews like me face when grappling with this issue.
The situation is not completely hopeless. The idea of a law in the Torah being so problematic that there must be a “loophole” is as old as our tradition of halachic interpretation. The best example of this is the law of the rebellious and disobedient son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21):
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them. Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place. And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
The Sages of the Talmud, who no doubt had sons of their own and were familiar with just how “stubborn and rebellious” they could be, were just a little bit concerned about this halacha. Their solution was to “interpret” it out of existence, to place so many caveats and restrictions on its enforcement that the likelihood of its ever being carried out was virtually nil. At the end of their discussion, in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, page 71a, Rabbi Shimon declares, “there never was [a child who met all the criteria] and there never will be in the future.” However, it is important to remember that the core concept that the rebellion and disobedience of a son against his parents is a sin so grave that the Torah considers it a capital offense remains.
Modern rabbis and halachic scholars seeking tolerance of homosexuality within observant Judaism employ a similar strategy. The Torah law against homosexuality is a prohibition of the homosexual sexual act, not against homosexual feelings or a homosexual “lifestyle,” whatever that is. Furthermore, a conviction for a capital offense such as this one can result only from the testimony of two reliable male witnesses to the actual offense, and only if the witnesses warned the accused before the offense was committed that it was a capital offense, and only if the witnesses can confidently testify that the accused fully understood the nature of the offense before committing it. Finally, there is an overarching requirement in halacha to give people the benefit of the doubt, very similar to the “innocent until proven guilty” concept in American jurisprudence. Oh, and by the way, the Torah law against homosexuality doesn’t apply to women (it does, however, apply to non-Jews, one of only seven Torah laws that do).
The core concept that God does not approve of homosexuality and therefore neither should we remains. However, by interpreting away the ability to know that someone is guilty of violating the Torah law, and at the same time setting against it the requirement to give our fellow Jews the benefit of the doubt and to treat all Jews with respect and dignity, we seem to have solved the problem.
Well, almost. The gay-rights battle currently at the fore, at least in America, is gay marriage. To understand the challenge this presents to observant Jews, even those who have come to grips with the other aspects of gay rights as described above, you must first understand the traditional Jewish view of marriage.
According to halacha, the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Every Jewish man is obligated by the Torah to produce and raise children (note well that the obligation is on the man, not the woman, because halacha is not supposed to put one’s health or life at risk, and pregnancy and childbirth are inherently dangerous). This obligation is so strong that there is a law, albeit one that is nowadays rarely enforced in practice and perhaps never was, that if a man discovers after he is married that his wife is unable to bear him children, he is obligated to divorce her and take a new wife.
The two challenges which halacha places on supporting gay marriage are now in sight. First, overt support for gay marriage transgresses the core concept that God does not approve of homosexuality and therefore neither should we. Second, a gay marriage (between two men as noted above, the halacha against homosexuality does not apply to women) is a public declaration by two men that they intend to ignore their obligation to procreate, and halacha does not look kindly (to say the least) upon public declarations of disobedience to Torah law.
Since the second of these is applicable only to Jewish men, if it were our only concern, then we would have no problem with endorsing civil gay marriage, although we would remain unable to support gay marriages performed in a Jewish setting. However, the first challenge affects our stance on civil gay marriage as well, since as noted above, the prohibition against homosexuality is one of the few which halacha considers binding on everyone, Jew and non-Jew alike.
Our response to this challenge is that although we cannot endorse the idea of civil gay marriage, we can not only endorse but actively promote making civil unions available to same-sex couples, with all of the same legal and civil rights that accrue from marriage. Because a civil union between two men is not necessarily a declaration of intent to engage in the prohibited homosexual act, we can, halachically, give the benefit of the doubt to those who enter such unions, and thus not violate the letter of the halacha. We may be stretching the spirit just a bit, but this is an acceptable trade-off when weighed against our halachic obligation to seek justice for all, to ensure equal treatment under the law, and to treat our fellow man with respect and dignity.
As I’ve explained above, we cannot actively support changes in the law to permit civil gay marriage. However, neither are we under any halachic obligation to oppose efforts by others to enact such laws. Furthermore, since we are obligated to respect and obey the laws of the land in which we reside, if gay marriage were to become legal, we would be under no obligation to work for its repeal. It is for these reasons that most American Jews have planted themselves firmly on the sidelines of the gay marriage debate. You can draw your own conclusions about which side Jews like me are cheering for.
The coping mechanisms I’ve described above will no doubt be perceived as too little by some gay-rights activists. Some, no doubt, will decry that we can only welcome gays into our communities by maintaining the illusion that we don’t actually know they’re gay and will brand this as no better than the universally despised “don’t ask don’t tell” policy of the American military. Others will declare that nothing less than full recognition of the rights of gays to marry is acceptable.
They’re right. These are not ideal solutions, and those of us who believe, as I do, that gays are entitled to equal treatment in our society, are not entirely happy with them. Nevertheless, we hope that the gay community will make an effort to understand that for us to go further would be to challenge the very bedrock of our faith. Just as we are doing our best to legitimize and recognize the rights of the gay community, we ask for the members of that community to respect the limits placed upon us by our faith. By meeting each other halfway, we will all benefit.
Add This Blog to Your Technorati Favorites
Jewish Blog, Jewish, Jewish Leadership, Jewish News, Jewish Values, Jewish Events
14 Comments currently posted. 
J says:
Global Voices Online » Israel: Gay Marriages and the Torah says:
[...] Jewneric discusses the Torah, homosexuality and gay marriage in Judaism. Posted by Amira Al Hussaini Share This [...]
Rabbi Anonymous says:
I’m commenting to clear up some of the gross errors in this fluffy, non-scholarly musing. First of all, the opening line is absurd: “the Torah does not like gays” is a childish and provocative sound bite. The Torah condemns the act of male sodomy. It does not tell us who God does and does not “like”.
“the halacha against homosexuality does not apply to women”
Completely false. The Talmud, Maimonodes, and Shulchan aruch all apply a ban on female homosexual acts. It is simply not as stringent as the male act, but is prohibited nonetheless. Maimonodes includes lesbianism in the list of activities which God punished the Egyptians for (which means this prohibition IS binding on non-Jews just as the male version is and IS biblically prohibited as “imitation of Egyptian ways”). Shulchan Aruch rules that women are to receive 39 lashes for having intercourse together (But we can’t administer such punishments without a Sanhedrin, which we lack for technical reasons). Maimonodes and Shulchan Aruch are as authoritative as it gets.
The case of the wayward son was not “interpreted out of existence”; the traditional, Orthodox belief is that this and other such rabbinic interpretations in the Talmud actually reflect the original intent of the Torah itself and that this true intent was passed on orally from the time of Moses himself. Kamens is free to reject this belief, but then his posting becomes irrelevant to Orthodox (halakhic) Jewry, whom he seems to be trying to convince. Furthermore, only the rabbis in the Talmud had the authority to make such interpretations. Orthodox doctrine teaches that we no longer have such authority. That is why the Talmud is canonical law in a way that our opinions are not. Saying “the Talmud said X so therefore so can I” is not a legitimate argument. You are not the Talmudic sages and your (and my) opinions are irrelevant in the canon of Jewish law. Furthermore, the argument that “Judaism can be shown to have changed, therefore we have the power to change it as we wish” is a fallacy, and a favorite of the Reform movement. Demonstrating rare instances of slow, organic change does not grant you license to implement whatever change you want.
Your final bit about halakha opposing gay marraige but not gay civil unions is semantic gymnastics. Civil union, marriage, these are just words which both describe a legally recognized, state sanction of such a union and are forbidden under any name.
Finally, I think you’ve abused Jewneric by posting your own personal musings here, and that this post does not belong on the site. I think you’d admit you’re not an expert in Jewish law. Just as I would not post my opinions on constitutional law, why would our readers care about your personal opinions on a matter you are not expert in? Bloggers should post issues of interest, such as news stories, or philosophical arguments as food for thought, but not detailed legal rulings/pronouncements which lead to such definitive, fine tuned policy conclusions such as this.
Jonathan Kamens says:
The wonderful thing about Jewneric is that it welcomes points of view from all segments of the Jewish community. It even welcomes those who think that their interpretation of Halacha is the only correct one (a hilarious assertion for anyone who has studied the Talmud to make!) that they are the arbiters of what is and isn’t appropriate for Jewneric. Jewneric even welcomes those who claim to be following in the path laid out by the Sages while seemingly forgetting the all-important mitzva of treating one’s fellow Jews with dignity and respect even when disagreeing with them. Jewneric even welcomes those who don’t have the courage to identify themselves when attacking their fellow Jews.
You make some legitimate points, which I might actually discuss further if it seemed that you were interested in civil discussion. But since that’s clearly not the case, I won’t bother to waste your time or mine.
J says:
I disagree with Jonathan Kamens’ view of Rabbi Anonymous response. If you are going to discuss halachot, then I think it is appropriate to be chastised if you step outside the boundaries. I think the most appropriate thing to do would be to at least humor Rabbi Anonymous’ response and answer his points. That is what someone in your situation should do since you originally offered your opinion on Jewneric, not he. So why not give yourself some credibility here and respond? I do not think that Rabbi Anonymous’ response to your posting was disrespectful at all. I do not think that he was attacking you. Why do you feel this way? It is clearly not a personal attack.
Leah says:
Jonathan, I was typing this long piece regarding parts in which I disagreed with. However every point I made was discussed in Rabbi anon’s post. Therefore I will just have to second his comments and say it in proper terminology. Since Fabbi is incapable of doing so.
Torah is not against Homosexuals. Homosexuals are loved by Hashem as much as heterosexuals. The avera is in the acts of homosexuality.
As for the Shulchan Aruch comment. Female homosexuality is consider an avera under many divisions. It is consider immoral and its discussion is dealt with in oral law. It is also in the Talmud and a female would recieve Malkos.
Vayikra 18:22
And BAVA Metzia my favourite Gemorah to read. 
Bava Metzia 91 a
K’makchol Bi’Shefoferes- like a stick or twig (that is used as an applicator) into a hollow reed tube (that contains a substance to be applied)
There are more ways to say a man is forbidden to be with another man.
And a woman is forbidden to be with another woman.
And a man is forbidden to be with an animal.And so on…
Please ready Sanhedrin and Berachos.
I say Berachos because in it , it speaks of a Women being able to go to heaven but not a man. A man must engaged with a women to raise his level spiritually. Since HaShem wants all his humans do to well then ofcourse he wants that a man should be with their bashert, one that is a female.
As for Rabbi Anonymous you did belittle him. Try to make arguments that aren’t personal but rather factual. GROW UP!
To discuss whether he is an expert in Jewish law? If you really are a Rabbi I am really disturbed. A Rabbi should not conduct himself in such a manner. Know that every word that comes out of ones mouth, if it is negative, it is a yezter hara energy that gets spewed into this world. Therefore Guard your tongue RABBI.
“J says: Why do you feel this way? It is clearly not a personal attack.”
To j, Are you kidding? READ BELOW
1. I’m commenting to clear up some of the gross errors in this fluffy, non-scholarly musing.
2. Finally, I think you’ve abused Jewneric by posting your own personal musings here, and that this post does not belong on the site.
3. I think you’d admit you’re not an expert in Jewish law.
4. You are not the Talmudic sages and your (and my) opinions are irrelevant in the canon of Jewish law.
Leah says:
oh please jewneric please dont censor my comments.
THANKS and a gutte vuch to everyone
J says:
Leah,
I hear your points on the personal attack issue. I was simply taken aback by Jonathan Kamen’s reaction to Rabbi Anonymous’ comments. I do not think that it was a mature person’s reaction.
Leah says:
I understand that it would be nice for Jonathan to reply back with a rebuttal. However it as obvious both sides weren’t promoting their best selves.
Rabbi Anonymous says:
As Shavuot approaches I want to apologize to Jonathan and anyone else who was hurt by my tone. In retrospect, it was certainly too harsh. However, when someone enters into such an inherently heated and controversial topic, and makes such blanket policy recommendations while speaking in the name of Torah, they really do have to be prepared for some heated reactions. When you study traditional rabbinic sources (such as Ramabam, Raavad, Baal HaMeor, and Ramban) you actually find very intense insults being traded back and forth. Clearly these great rabbis felt that concerns about offending fellow Jew’s sensibilities are outweighed by the need to vigorously defend the honor of the Torah in the strongest possible terms. When someone chooses to enter into a heated debate, even in academia for example, they do submit themselves to passionate reactions and should be prepared for them.
However, I am admittedly not on the level of the aforementioned rabbis and should have chosen my words more carefully..but it’s all to defend the honor of the Torah, and not G-d forbid, a personal attack. I was only outraged as what I saw to be a misrepresentation of Torah but was not trying to attack anyone personally.
My main issue is actually the tone in which this posting was written. One example: “OUR response to this challenge.. WE cannot endorse the idea of civil gay marriage.. WE can not only endorse but actively promote making civil unions available to same-sex couples..” Jonathan wrote as if he were issuing a ruling on behalf of Torah Jewry as opposed to humbly submitting his own ideas. It was this that I took issue with. I reiterate that I think all of us (myself included) need to avoid the urge to use Jewneric as a forum for issuing “psak” or teshuvot on very complicated matters in such absolute terms.
Leah says:
If you’re really a Rabbi, then it shouldn’t be in light of shavous. you should hold by the Torah everyday of your life.
I am sure you were taught in school if you want to make a point regarding Torah issues then you t your quotes and give citations. That is how you make your argument. I was taken aback by Jonathan’s fist comment. But in no way do I think Jonathan was writing this as a musing.
Here is the thing Rabbi, we were all given the Torah. Everyone has a right to interpret it. Whether they see the actual interpretation or not is a different story. I can give the Torah to Vice President Dick Chaney and I can give it to Amy Whinehouse (who is Jewish) and both would have a different analysis. Does it mean I have to insult both of them for not being a Rav.
We are all to take from the wise and to command our Ravs, Rebbes, and Rabbis.
No one knows the Torah 100 %. And I have yet to meet a sage on Jewneric, therefore humility and eretz derech is needed on this website when you comment on other’s people’s post.
Jonathan obviously took the time to write his post. And for that I give him credit.
Yossi (Joe) Izrael says:
I’d say on halacha I have to agree with ‘Rabbi Anon’. IMHO the tone in his first comment wasn’t all that bad. I don’t think strong & passionate verbiage should be excuriated from our lives, which is but one of the many symptoms of our social ills.
However, on the social plan, I beleieve that the problem is deceit, plain and simple. When one says “gays deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and to be allowed to live as full members of society, and that discrimination against gays is utterly and completely unacceptable.” it is a “lie truth”, i.e. the statement in and on itself is true, but used deceitfully. The first insinuation is that “gays” are routinely treated as garbage and tortured and humiliated. While it is true that many gays have to endure one form of abuse or another, this is true to almost everyone on earth, whether they have just a crooked nose or belong to a group with a crooked nose, so to speak. The second insinuation is that the Torah preaches hate of “gays”. The third insinuation is that all gays are invariably victims, they were all born that way, are exclusively homosexual and are absolutely incurable. There is little truth and many lies in these statements, whether insinuated or openly stated.
The real goal of many so-called ‘pro gay rights’ advocates is by far not protecting gays from harm, but to force homosexuality and depravity on everyone else. In our days it is very non-PC to say anything negative about gays, yet comments that are ipso-facto anti-Jewish (often under the guise of ‘pro-Palestinianism or criticism of orthodoxy) are fully acceptable. All medias are geared towards lewdness, sensual and sexual content in all forms. This all stems from the desire of self destruction, i.e. denial of authority (G-d) to justify the fulfillment of one’s own desire. That is wrapped in “compassion” and “love of the fellow”.
DFields says:
Oh Yossi, please! The notion that all ‘pro gay rights’ advocates are out to transform all us straight people into rainbow-lovin’ gay people is as ludicrous as the notion that Jews are corrupting our government and want to take over the U.S.- and eventually the world.
I actually really appreciated both Rabbi Anon’s AND Jonathon’s interpretations. I think that such is exactly what this site is for– to share your opinions and, hopefully, help others form their own. (After all, that is usually the point of a BLOG- duh.)
I do think that Jonathon’s post sounded authoritative and passed off as fact rather than opinion- but not any more than Rabbi Anon’s did. And, yes, both posts WERE opinion. I get very offended when someone tries to tell me how to interpret my own religion. I do love, however, hearing different views that help facilitate the formation of my own beliefs.
I was surprised to read the original post from ‘Rabbi Anon’ and it’s funny that Leah touched on it, because I was wondering myself if he was really a Rabbi- it didn’t sound like one. It did sound very negative, harsh and personal. No one has right to say what belongs on this site other than the editors.
Furthermore, I think that authoritative Rabbi’s who say, “This is what the religion means,” or “you must believe this” or “interpret it this way,” is exactly the type of elitism or egotism or totalitarianism- or whatever you wish to call it- that shuns people away or scares them away from orthodox religion and closer to Reform Judaism (or even no religion, as many of my once-Catholic friends would agree after they got out of Catholic school), which encourages people to interpret Judaism how they’d like, as long as it makes you happy with yourself and your religion- and who could disagree with that?
Self Appointed Genius says:
DFields is right. Judaism has a long running tradition of having more questions than answers. We seem to dislike simple, absolute conclusions.
Having said that, Johnathan brings up an interesting point when he says homosexual acts are prohibited rather than homosexuality. If you consider that in historical context, you get a different picture. The Torah was meant to be read, meaning context matters regardless of whether it was written by God or men; the people living at the time had to understand it.
And at that point in history, the Greeks (who weren’t that far away) had a habit of boy-love. It was normal for straight men to have sex with young guys. It’s sensible that the law was written in reference to that sort of behavior, which, we can probably agree, is an abomination.
This whole idea begs the question of why certain things were created in the world. The same question could be asked of why there are giant squid and “normal sized” squid in the ocean. Why both? What does that teach us? Where do both types of creates fit in with our view of life? Is this G-d “talking” to us through creations? Or are these two types of creatures just flukes of creation without a specific purpose? Now, ask these questions about heterosexuals and homosexuals and the varying degrees that are between these sexual preferences. Because we know that G-d prefers that we act as heterosexuals, not homosexuals, what should we learn from those who do not or can not follow this lifestyle? Are these behavioral deviants to be seen as flukes of creation or is there more to life than this? Do we simply label those people as not being capable of fulfilling G-d’s word, and thus pass judgment on them? Can we pass judgment on other creatures for their actions? There are several examples in nature of homosexuality (rodents, birds, and primates off the top of my head). Should we view homosexual humans as simply being bound to the ways of nature? Should we look at humans differently because of the matter of “free will”? It is not a simple matter. Either way, I feel that it is imperative to learn more than religious value judgments from homosexuals. Life seems to be much more complicated. Why are homosexuals, homosexuals? How did they become this way? Why are heterosexuals, heterosexuals? How did they become this way? What is the difference in the makeup of such individuals? Obviously these inclinations have been around since the beginning. Why are they around? Why would G-d do this to humans and other creatures? Is there more to creations’ sexual acts than procreation? Does this apply equally to all creatures? Why would G-d tell only humans that this is not the way to act? Why do we not see G-d authorizing us to put down homosexual animals? Is it a matter of free choice? Why was this not completely eliminated in the post-flood era?