Volume 59 Number 05
Produced: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:46:33 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality (3)
[Lisa Liel Ira L. Jacobson Susan Kane]
Changing one's seat during availut
[Ira L. Jacobson]
Santa Monica, CA, help needed
[Batya Medad]
who washes the dishes? (3)
[Leah S.R. Gordon Avraham Walfish Martin Stern]
Women Davening (was To the males of this list - A woman's status as a
[Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 25,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...> wrote (MJ 59#02):
>LISA LIEL wrote (MJ 58#98):
>
>> It's to show gay Jews that the Torah is not off limits to
>> them. That there is no "fee" to get in that requires falsifying
>> one's identity. That being frum and gay simultaneously is simply
>> a matter of refraining from acts that are forbidden. Not to
>> minimize the difficulty this may present, of course, but that is
>> the sum and total of it.
>
> Why would anyone think that the Torah is off limits under any
> circumstance? I don't understand that, unless someone inculcated
> them with such an idea -- which makes no sense. Also, I think not
> mentioned here are those homosexuals that want to be accepted not
> only for being gay but for acting gay -- in other words, gay
> couples, who may or may not be engaging in sexual activities. I for
> one would have a hard time believing that such couples are strictly
> platonic, and perhaps I am not alone with such an assessment, which
> may lead to people shunning such a couple. I myself would not, but I
> can understand why some people would.
Stuart, I used to work at a well known Orthodox college. There was
one rabbi who was very nice, but was also incessantly trying to set
me up on shidduchim. If I'd been able to just say, "Rabbi M, thanks
for the thought, but I'm not interested in men that way," it would
have made my life easier and less stressful. At the time, I wasn't
even in a relationship. But according to some people, saying that
would be labeling myself a wretched sinner and flaunting my sick
"lifestyle" in his face.
(Not for nothing, but my "lifestyle" is frum; gay is just part of who
I happen to be.)
The fact of the matter is, no matter how many apologetics people want
to toss out there, for most of the frum community, the choice is
either to put together a string of lies and evasions and never have
*any* loving relationship with another person, sexual or otherwise,
or be ostracized. And choice #1 simply isn't a reasonable thing to
expect of anyone.
I have watched women I know go off the derekh, not because they
weren't committed frum Jews, but because the homophobia in the frum
community was simply impossible for them to live with. And when I
say "homophobia", I'm referring to an irrational prejudice against
gays and lesbians. One which does not come from the Torah, but
rather from cultural bias, even if it is sometimes varnished with a
thin veneer of Torah as an excuse.
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 25,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
Lisa Liel <lisa@...> stated (MJ 59#03), first quoting your
humble servant:
>> The practice of homosexuality is referred to in halakha as mishkav
>> zakhur and is a very serious infraction of Torah law. So it can
>> rightfully be called a sin.
>
> No, sir. Mishkav zachor refers to anal sex between men. I assure
> you that I have never engaged in such a thing (obviously), and yet I
> am homosexual. Acts are forbidden.
Please note my use of the term "The PRACTICE of homosexuality." What
you are informing us is that you don't practice homosexuality. I am
not sure why you felt it necessary to reveal your intimate behavior,
since you never revealed what gender you were born with, and what you
did about that. Perhaps I should have been more explicit in defining
what I meant by "practice."
Regarding the therapists who report on successful treatment of
homosexuals, Lisa Liel states:
> It isn't that it's a low number. It's a low percentage. Like
> zero. There've been cases of bisexuals who had been functionally
> gay becoming functionally straight, but very few of those were due
> to "reparative therapy".
Have you numbers to prove your claims?
Lisa Liel was not above name calling when it came to mental health
professionals who don't agree with the stand she supports:
> Socarides was a quack. And paranoid, to boot.
In case anyone has been convinced that the APA's about face on the
illness called homosexuality was anything other than political
correctness, I remind you what I have already noted:
> In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random,
> asking them their opinion on this. In an article entitled 'Sick
> Again?' Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: "Of those
> answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a
> pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' 18%
> disagreed and 13% were uncertain."
That is, a significant proportion of APA member psychiatrists regard
homosexuality as a disease, illness or aberration.
A sampling of reports on the success of treating homosexuality:
> Nearly 25 years after the American Psychiatric Association
> officially removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic Manual,
> labeling it a lifestyle choice rather than a psychological disorder,
> a California-based association of psychiatrists and psychologists
> has proven that homosexuals can change their orientation through
> intense therapy and a strong desire to change.
>
> As a group, those surveyed reported statistically significant
> decreases following treatment in the frequency and intensity of
> their homosexual thoughts, in the frequency of masturbation to gay
> pornography, and in the frequency of their homosexual behavior with
> a partner. Respondents also indicated that, as a result of treatment
> and sexual orientation changes, they were also improving
> psychologically and interpersonally.
>
> And more than 95 percent of the psychotherapists said they either
> strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the statement that homosexual
> patients may be capable of changing to a heterosexual orientation.
In England:
> A significant minority of mental health professionals had agreed to
> help at least one patient "reduce" their gay or lesbian feelings
> when asked to do so.
>
> The survey, published in the journal BMC Psychiatry and conducted by
> London researchers, involved 1,400 therapists.
>
> Only 4% said they would attempt to change a client's sexual
> orientation, but when asked if they would help curb homosexual
> feelings some 17% - or one in six - said they had done so.
Admittedly a minority, but a significant one.
> One of the two great pioneers of the irreversibility of same-sex
> attraction, Robert L. Spitzer, officially reversed his position. The
> release of his October, 2003 study (Archives of Sexual Behavior,
> Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417) revealed that therapy not
> only changed sexual orientation in a significant percentage of
> cases, but it also proved helpful in other areas of the person's
> life. He concluded that the mental health profession should not
> prevent people from this kind of therapy, should they desire it.
>
> The other pioneer, the Salk Institute's Simon LeVay, had already
> reversed his position in another under-publicized event in the year
> 2000, in a Spanish homosexual publication, Reverso.
I am pleased that the problem is treatable.
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Kane <suekane@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 25,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
In MJ 58#98 Lisa Liel stated:
> That being frum and gay simultaneously is simply a matter of refraining
> from acts that are forbidden. Not to minimize the difficulty this may
> present, of course, but that is the sum and total of it.
The sexual problem of what is forbidden is a private struggle within the person
or within the (straight) marriage or between an individual and their posek.
But there is a second problem that is more complex - a public problem about
whether a gay frum couples should pretend to be straight and single or not.
Frumkeit happens in a community and gayness is about family structure as much as
it is about sexual desire or behavior.
If someone is not yet shabbat observant, its fairly easy to recommend that they
work harder and in the meantime, be discreet.
And if a member of an Orthodox shul is "dating" a non-Jew who is not planning to
convert, that relationship is surely temporary and is not made visible to the
community.
But a gay couple or gay parents are just that - a family - and a family is
harder to ignore than a private sexual issue.
Treating them as a family is not possible for most frum Jews. I think Martin's
feeling of DADT (don't ask don't tell) is probably the norm.
Treating them as individual temporary sinners who might do teshuvah and change
their family structure doesn't make much sense in reality.
Thus you have people who want to be part of a community and a community that has
no legitimate role for them.
If Judaism could be enacted on a desert island, it would be as simple as
avoiding the forbidden.
Because Judaism is a family and community based religion - its just not that
simple.
As for curing exclusively gay desire, I challenge Russell to find me a minyan of
gay men who have become straight.
When people speak of reparative therapy success, they usually mean that the
desire is contained or that the person can commit to celibacy or that they can
manage the mechanics of heterosexual sex.
Most gay frum Jews *do* try to repent. Trust me, the average hareidi teenager is
not being influenced by the gay rights movement. They would do anything not to
have this problem. Those who try the hardest often commit suicide because they
cannot imagine a way to move forward in life.
However, as a point of information, I have met hundreds of gay people in my life
and had extensive discussions with at least 50 or so including a number of good
friends who came from religious backgrounds and tried hard to change.
My reading of my personal data set is that almost all of the men and some of the
women experience their sexual orientation as immutable.
I have no answers for the halachic issue. It is an Orthodox problem and it will
be solved within the frum community, not by outsiders like me.
But every "new" halachic issue requires appropriate research. You need to know
*how* the elevator works, you need to know how hot the production equipment
gets, you need to know who last saw the husband alive, how much milk fell into
the pot. In short, you need to know *what* is going on before you can rule on it.
Before everyone decides that they know the answer, I suggest that they look not
to modern science and not to psychologists and not to gay activists but simply
to the lived experience of honest frum people who have struggled with this issue.
And if I had met tens or even one frum gay man who told me that he was able to
change his sexual orientation - I would say so.
I have *no* investment in the belief that homosexual orientation cannot be
changed. I am not frum - I do not need this belief to justify my own choices
and, in fact, it is not true for me personally.
If I saw evidence that exclusively gay men could change their sexuality, I would
be the first to say so. I'm not afraid of scientific evidence that contradicts
the gay rights movement. I just don't think the evidence is there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 25,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Changing one's seat during availut
David Ziants stated in MJ 59#04:
> One of the difficulties in asking a question to a Rav is that
> officially this shul does not have fixed seats for it's members
> (except Rosh HaShanna and Yom Kippur), but it is on a first come
> first served basis.
That seems to go against the halakha, which requires that we have a
fixed place where we pray. Arukh HaShulhan 90:23 states that one
must set a fixed place for prayer, both the building and the place
within the building.
> In practice, though, many people tend to have their seat, or maybe
> row, which they prefer to occupy.
That is not at all surprising, then.
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 25,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Santa Monica, CA, help needed
A close friend of mine, a religious woman, needs a place to stay in
Santa Monica, CA for a week after the High Holidays while visiting her
elderly mother and attending her late father's unveiling. She has a
very limited budget. Can anyone help? Please contact her directly at
<shomron4ever@...>
Thanks,
Batya
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S.R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 25,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: who washes the dishes?
In MJ 59#03, Martin Stern replies to me (MJ 59#01):
>> Hm. So if young, strong, not-otherwise-occupied men would be washing the
>> dishes in some kind of organized rotation, *that* is more of an exertion
>> than the wife in the kitchen washing a family/guests-worth of dishes? (I
>> assume here that unlike in my family, it does in fact fall on the wife
>> much of the time in y'all's households - I base this on statements from
>> M.J'ers implying that their wives usually shoulder household burdens.)
>
> In this case I fear Leah has let her feminism lead her astray. Obviously
> the Yeshiva in question employed staff to wash the dishes and it was to avoid
> their tircha yeteira (great exertion) that the ruling was given.
Why is that "obvious"? It's not at all obvious to me. If I organized a
yeshiva/dorm of 200 young people, they would absolutely have a Toranut
[chore duty] rotation. When I myself attended Camp Moshava we had a
rotation much like this.
(To answer Chana (MJ 59#03) re the conveyer belt dishwasher - she is exactly
right in her analysis and visualization. I have seen several of these, and seem
to be two general styles. One is just a very large dishwasher, with a conveyer
belt that merely brings and takes away the dishes, but otherwise you have to
close it and run it and open it and send the dishes on. The other is indeed
an open-line process, but I have never seen it run without a person spraying
the dishes first, sending them through in trays, and recovering the trays
afterward.)
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Walfish <rawalfish@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 25,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: who washes the dishes?
Martin wrote (MJ 59#03):
> Leah S.R. Gordon <leah@...> wrote (MJ 59#01):
>
>> David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...> wrote (MJ 58#99):
>>
>>> In response to Chana - MJ 58#84:
>>> ...
>>> 4-Washing the dishes at home is tircha (exertion). Washing the dishes in
>>> a Yeshiva for 200 bachurim is tircha yeteira (great exertion).
>>
>> Hm. So if young, strong, not-otherwise-occupied men would be washing the
>> dishes in some kind of organized rotation, *that* is more of an exertion
>> than the wife in the kitchen washing a family/guests-worth of dishes? (I
>> assume here that unlike in my family, it does in fact fall on the wife
>> much of the time in y'all's households - I base this on statements from
>> M.J'ers implying that their wives usually shoulder household burdens.)
>
> In this case I fear Leah has let her feminism lead her astray. Obviously
> the Yeshiva in question employed staff to wash the dishes and it was to
> avoid their tircha yeteira (great exertion) that the ruling was given.
>
Sorry, Martin, I think you have misunderstood Leah's point. The question is
- given the presence of so many yeshiva bahurim, the poskim had an available
a solution to the tircha yeteira of the staff - namely, to have the yeshiva
bahurim do the job. If the poskim preferred to find a (problematic) heter
for using the dishwasher on Shabbat, rather than propose the yeshiva bahurim
solution, that tells us something about the sociology of rabbinic
permissiveness vs. stringency.
Avie Walfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 25,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: who washes the dishes?
Judith Weil <weildj@...> wrote (MJ 59#04):
> I don't want to enter into the actual discussion, but want just to describe
> the automatic dish-washer system, which I have seen in kibbutzim. ...
>
> I don't know what happens in hotels.
These suggest much better examples of tircha yeteira (great exertion) than the
one suggested by David Tzohar (MJ 58#99):
> 4-Washing the dishes at home is tircha (exertion). Washing the dishes in
> a Yeshiva for 200 bachurim is tircha yeteira (great exertion)
that led Leah to write (MJ 59#01):
> Hm. So if young, strong, not-otherwise-occupied men would be washing the
> dishes in some kind of organized rotation, *that* is more of an exertion
> than the wife in the kitchen washing a family/guests-worth of dishes?
I wrote (MJ 59#04):
> Obviously the Yeshiva in question employed staff to wash the dishes and it
> was to avoid their tircha yeteira (great exertion) that the ruling was given.
It was Leah's criticism of the 'lazy' not-otherwise-occupied men that I
found unfair but, even if one were to concede that there would be grounds
for preferring her solution rather than invoke the concept of the tircha
yeteira of the staff, this would not apply to hotels unless she would expect
the guests to do the dishwashing.
Perhaps she would also like to consider substituting "a hospital with 200
patients" or "old age home with 200 residents" for "a Yeshiva for 200
bachurim" to understand that David's point was entirely reasonable and it
was merely his choice of example that allowed her to make her comment.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 25,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Women Davening (was To the males of this list - A woman's status as a
> I would point out that the Mishna Brura holds that women are
> obligated to daven twice a day (Mishna Brura siman 106:5 [shachrit v'mincha
> chova, arvit reshut ... chayavo otan b'tephilat shachrit v'mincha k'mo
> anashim], and the Aruch HaShulchan three times a day [siman 106]. Indeed,
> I think that working in a non-Jewish office, finding a time and place for
> mincha is generally more difficult for women. Working in the City of
> London, for example, the men in a similar situation almost invariably
> tended to have access to a lunchtime minyan that they could frequent.
> However, as these also tended to be overflowing rooms, unsuitable for a
> mechitza, that option was generally closed to a woman. Similarly on a family
> outing, when there is no minyan available, and where you belong to a family
> that takes these obligations seriously, you end up taking it in turns to
> watch the children while the other one finds somewhere to daven, but the
> difficulty is equal.
First having worked in non-Jewish Offices in non-Jewish locales this
problem is not unique to her. Lunch time is also a problem as the earliest
z'man for mincha can fall after the close of the traditional lunch hour. Having
had a private office for most of my career made mincha doable -- but not
necessarily with a minyan. The recent advent of cubicles (even for managers and
other riffraff) has sometimes meant davening in stairwells, etc.
I have worked at companies that had an on-site mincha minyan which is
especially handy when one is reciting kaddish.
In the late 80's - early 90's -- at Bellcore (Bell Communications Research)
there was a mincha minyan in the office that to accommodate a woman who wanted to
daven with this minyan jerry-rigged a portable (easy up / easy down) mechitzah.
Balancing child care with davening is not unique. We have men who bring
their infants and toddlers to our shul mincha / ma'ariv minyan when necessary.
Lastly, Ms. Lutz cites chapter and verse why she is obligated to daven -- it
must be noted that there are other opinions re: time-dependent mitzvahs. I'll
let those with the Bar Ilan CD-Rom weigh in here. (1) as to requirement to
daven and (2) whether and how one takes on this obligation if, indeed, not
"required".
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 59 Issue 5
