Volume 59 Number 13
Produced: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:47:56 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality (3)
[Martin Stern Orrin Tilevitz Keith Bierman]
Reish Lakish (2)
[Shlomo Engelson Argamon Martin Stern]
The Torah view on homosexuality (2)
[Meir Shinnar Akiva Miller]
Welcoming visitors (5)
[Orrin Tilevitz Harry Weiss Batya Medad Martin Stern Sammy Finkelman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 1,2010 at 04:01 PM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...> wrote (MJ 59#12):
> Among the speculated causes of homosexuality, I am surprised that no one in
> the general scientific community has speculated on pollution by the plastics
> industry as a cause. I've read that some of the synthetic molecules have
> estrogen-like properties, and this may be causing both harm among fish and
> amphibians, and a reduced sperm count among men. Could it be possible that
> this is also affecting pregnant women, or infants, leading to an increased
> incidence in incomplete development of masculinity among boys (and, hence, a
> growing community of homosexuals)?
I fear Frank is confusing the term 'masculinity', which is essentially a
social concept related to the different roles and attitudes adopted by males
in contrast to those of females, with the development of the male sexual
organs. While it has been noted that exposure in utero [before birth] to
certain chemicals used in the manufacture of plastics has increased the
incidence of genital malformations, there is little evidence that this is in
any way linked to sexual preference.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 1,2010 at 05:01 PM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
In MJ 59:08, Lisa Liel wrote:
> They [i.e., halachic principles] do not justify assuming that people who
> are gay, even if they are in committed relationships, are committing sins
> in private.
I then asked, in MJ 59:09:
> Let's say a man lives in a apartment with three unmarried women (I think
> that eliminates the automatic issue of yichud). Let us further assume that
> it is known that none of the women go to the mikveh. One sees no public
> displays of forbidden physical contact between the man and any of the women.
> At what point, if any, may one assume that they are committing sins in
> private? If there is such a point, how is that case different?
Lisa responded (MJ 59:10):
> I don't think it is very different. That's a good example, actually (mostly.
> I actually know people who've been in that situation. If they are stam
> [ordinary run-of-the-mill - MOD] people, I'd assume at least some
> hanky-panky might be going on. But if they're frum Jews, I'd assume that
> they were taking whatever steps were necessary to avoid violations of
> halakha.
OK, good. So here is my problem. While I am willing to accept that some people
who call themselves frum or who outwardly appear to be frum and who are in such
an arrangement will obey normative halacha, just as I am willing to accept that
some homosexual couples obey normative halacha (as evidently Lisa does), I
cannot assume that all, or even most, will. My skepticism has at least two
sources.
First, I have personally known people who are described, by themselves or
others, as Orthodox but who
(1) go to the office on yom tov,
(2) are married to non-Jews,
(3) eat hard cheese dishes, cooked and served hot, in non-kosher
restaurants, or
(4) who are living with members of the opposite sex without the
benefit of chupa, kiddushin, or even mikveh.
Then there is the black-hatted black-hat yeshiva graduate who told a young lady
I know that he didnt want to respect her no-negia pledge.
Or the Orthodox rabbi, forced out of his pulpit when his extra-marital affair
was disclosed. (He became a Conservative rabbi in another town).
And we wont get into frum tax evaders, child abusers, etc.
Selective observance is rampant in the Orthodox/frum community. I'd like to
know specifically what they think the halacha requires, what rules they believe
are binding, and the extent to which they intend to adhere to them.
Second, nearly all people are wired to like sex, more than nearly anything
else. (One of the Harvard interviewees in the movie, Harvard
Beats Yale 29-29, says that the victory was the most enjoyable thing he
had ever been involved in. Better than sex? the inverviewer asks. After
thinking for a long moment, the interviewee responds: yes.) For good
evolutionary reasons, sex, whether hetero or homo, is a perfectly natural act.
(Frank Silbermans assertion (MJ 58:10, attributing homosexuality to plastics
cannot be right.)
Those on the list who have actually read the stuff can confirm this, but I was
taught, by a professor who supposedly had not read the material in the original,
that medieval Arabic poetry glorified beautiful boys.
(See also this article online: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Pederasty)
The Torah, in its wisdom, restrains unlimited heterosexual activity and bans
homosexual activity. Those restraints are unnatural. For heterosexuals, there is
usually (though not always) an outlet "get married and then work around mikveh
scheduling. But the subset of homosexuals who have no opposite-sex attraction
have no outlet at all for their natural sexual urges. Those who follow the
Torah's restraints, like Lisa, undoubtedly have a great zechut. (And of course
those who do not are committing a tremendous aveira. That it is a toeva
[abomination] is beside the point. Homosexual activity, like other forbidden
relationships, is in the category of yehareig ve-al yaavor [one must die rather
than be forced to engage in it]. That is just one reason why, contrary to what
some posters have asserted (it is not analogous to violating shabbat laws) but
it strains credibility that all, or most do.
Consider the analogous situation of Catholic priests. They are analogous to
Orthodox pure homosexuals because their vows of celibacy bar sex with women and
the religion bars them from sex with men. So they have no outlet for their
natural urges. What is the result? There are the pederastic scandals one hears
about, and periodically one hears of heterosexual affairs as well, but there
absolutely must be many consensual relationships that one does not. In the
middle ages, the story was that next to every monastery was a convent, and next
door was an orphanage. Natures do not change.
Then, you add in opportunity -- they are together, in private, behind closed
doors. And, while of course any suspicion could be allayed, are you really
saying that I should have no cause at all for suspicion that something more is
going on?
Now, mere suspicion of forbidden conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual,
is not sufficient to preclude someones receiving a synagogue honor. But what
about positions whose occupant needs to be beyond suspicion? I am not sure that
I could on principle oppose the idea of an avowed halachic homosexual becoming a
shul rabbi or a teacher of children in the absence of other factors, but if I
knew nothing more than that he was living with a guy? Would I hire a rabbi who
was living in this sort of mixed-sex arrangement? I think not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Bierman <khbkhb@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 1,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...> wrote (MJ 59#12):
> Among the speculated causes of homosexuality,... speculated on pollution
> by the plastics industry as a cause.
Far from our halachic focus... but this would presuppose that this is
a new and generally increasing phenomenon. The few studies I recall
being done claimed that the incidence of homosexuality was more or less
invariant (this being held up as a proof that it's innate and not
something people choose).
It's an interesting theory, and perhaps one that folks in some general
discussion group/research body should consider and evaluate. But it
does seem largely irrelevant halachically.
Either the orientation is innate or a matter of personal choice. If
the former, there is (perhaps) some question of "onnes [compulsion - MOD]"
and perhaps a path of leniency (vs. those who make a choice to follow the
path of various pagans, etc.).
On a personal level, I'd rather everyone kept their sexuality out of
schul, and I see little reason to treat fellow Jews worse because of
what I think they may be doing behind closed doors than because of
their demonstrated behavior (driving to schul, eating treif, etc.).
Many schuls don't hold those mitzvot so sacred that they keep the
violators off the bima (presumably out of the rabbinate, but that's a
different question) so why make such a fuss about this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo Engelson Argamon <argamon@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 1,2010 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Reish Lakish
Leah S.R. Gordon <leah@...> wrote (MJ 59#12):
> Martin Stern writes in response to me (MJ 59#06):
>> Leah S.R. Gordon <leah@...> wrote (MJ 58#98):
>>> To all the people shouting down Russell Hendel for discussing the opinion
>>> that Resh Lakesh was gay:
>>>
>>> You may never have heard this interpretation, or belief, but it is very
>>> widespread commentary outside of the Orthodox world. I myself was a bit
>>> surprised that Dr. Hendel was williing to espouse the view, but he has
>>> many companions in this view even if not necessarily on M.J.
>> Perhaps the fact that this interpretation is very widespread outside of
>> the Orthodox world is a symptom of the desire to undermine the shalshelet
>> hakabbalah [authentic tradition], on which Orthodoxy is based, by
>> discrediting its leading proponents of previous generations in order to
>> authenticate the various heterodox theologies claiming to be valid
>> versions of Judaism.
> I think this is extremely unlikely, because these same people are not anyone
> who thinks it "discredits" someone to interpret their sexual orientation as
> gay.
True enough - they are not trying thereby to discredit Resh Lakish.
Rather, by such tendentious reinterpretations, they seek to legitimate
homosexuality and homosexual behavior. "See! The great sages of the
Talmud accepted homosexuality! And some of them were homosexuals!" A
particularly egregious example of this genre is the literature on the
supposed homosexuality (Ch"vSh) of David and Jonathan.
I recall attending once a lecture by Daniel Boyarin, one of the leading
"scholars" doing this sort of thing, and being rather surprised at how
obvious his misinterpretations of certain gemaras were to me, even
though I hadn't learned the sugyas before he presented them. But in the
land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, alas.
Shlomo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 1,2010 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Reish Lakish
Leah S.R. Gordon <leah@...> wrote (MJ 59#12):
> Martin Stern writes in response to me (MJ 59#06):
>> Perhaps the fact that this interpretation is very widespread outside of the
>> Orthodox world is a symptom of the desire to undermine the shalshelet
>> hakabbalah [authentic tradition], on which Orthodoxy is based, by
>> discrediting its leading proponents of previous generations in order to
>> authenticate the various heterodox theologies.
> I think this is extremely unlikely, because these same people are not anyone
> who thinks it "discredits" someone to interpret their sexual orientation as
> gay.
They may not consider that homosexuality discredits a person but they are
aware that such an attitude is prevalent among Orthodox Jews and would
discredit the person in *their* eyes.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 1,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: The Torah view on homosexuality
David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...> wrote (MJ 59#12):
> I have refrained until now from entering the discussion which began with the
> "Statement of principles on homosexuality since I think it has strayed from
> what the Torah says about this subject and has deteriorated into a
> free-for-all debate on the general legitimacy of a homosexual lifestyle. To
> get back on the track I think that it is necessary to reiterate the clear
> and simple view of the Torah. From the Torah through the Shas and poskim
> homosexuality is considered a "toeivah", usually translated as "an
> abomination".
>
> This is over and above the aveirot of the specific acts whose severity ranges
> from karet to the lesser levels of issur.
While it is nice for Mr. Tzohar to tell us the Torah view, his claim
requires more than just stating from Torah through the Shas and
Poskim without any citation (and general statements without specifics
claiming to represent the Torah view are always problematic).
After all, a main part of the debate has been distinguishing three
different aspects of male homosexuality:
1) Homosexual attraction - defined here as an attraction to men as opposed to
womwn (precise definition, and exclusivity can be argued)
2) Homosexual acts
3) How the community should relate to an individual who is either homosexual,
does homosexual acts, or both
Everybody here agrees that # 2 is forbidden - and yes, the issur
extends from the Torah through Shas and Poskim
# 3 is the major issue for the rest of us - about how we as
individuals and communities respond but I wonder where Mr. Tzohar can find any
source (say predating 1900) that discusses #1 -and considers it a toeva? Where
is it in the Torah? Shas? Poskim?
(In some sense, the debate over #1 may be related to a more general
debate - brought down in the Rambam in Shemona Perakim (his
introduction to Pirke Avot) - whether it is better to be tempted and
overcome temptation, versus not to be tempted at all - the Rambam's
solution that it is better to be tempted in all issues where the
prohibition is strictly one of religious law, rather than reflecting
generally accepted mores - and he views sexual sins as being primarily
religious - i.e. better to be tempted. Whether the category of such sexual
sins that it is better to be tempted over includes homosexual ones is,
to the best of my knowledge, not explicit anywhere in the Rambam - and given
what we know of Greek mores (unclear of the Rambam's knowledge), it would seem
that it would fit under that rubric...)
However, be that as it may, the term toeva is used by the Torah for
several different actions, including business dishonesty, and we in
general do not view being tempted by those actions as being itself a
toeva - what is the textual basis for Mr. Tzohar's claim.?
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 1,2010 at 03:01 PM
Subject: The Torah view on homosexuality
David Tzohar (MJ 59:12) wrote:
> To get back on the track I think that it is necessary to reiterate
> the clear and simple view of the Torah. From the Torah through the
> Shas and poskim homosexuality is considered a "toeivah", usually
> translated as "an abomination". This is over and above the aveirot
> of the specific acts whose severity ranges from karet to the
> lesser levels of issur.
If you want to reiterate something, that's a great idea, but please back
yourself up with clear sources. Because the Torah which I read says in
Vayikra/Leviticus 18:22 that it is a "toeivah" when a man lies with another man.
I did not notice where it refers to a man who is merely attracted to another man.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 1,2010 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Welcoming visitors
When I joined my little shul in Brooklyn about 20 years ago, the weekday gabbai
was a skinny old guy named Meir Kotton (his yahrzeit was just this past Monday).
Mr. Kotton, who spoke at least 6 languages and could not be understood in any of
them, sat on the aisle, a couple of rows from the back. On day, he came to me
and explained why. When he came to U.S. from Europe in, I guess, the 1930s, he
initially joined a small shul in D.C. There was a minyan; he was number 11. The
only people who ever had aliyot were the original ten. Guests were ignored. He
promised himself that when he had his own shul, he would sit in the back and
make sure that all visitors felt welcome, that they had a place to sit, a
yarmulke, a tallis and a siddur, and that he knew their name so that he could
give them an aliya.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 1,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Welcoming visitors
Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...> wrote in MJ 59#12:
> Why we do not behave and welcome people to our shuls is beyond me. We
> treat people we don't know who come to shul as if they are intruders,
> there to make trouble and we ignore them or worse, as Carl had described.
> To me the whole thing just proves that we have gotten so far away from
> "Bein Adom le Chavero" that there is no point in going to shul. I stopped
> going to shul when they considered Baruch Lanner for the pulpit at Keter
> Torah, long after we had gone to the RCA with our complaints about him
> and were thrown out - with my friends forced to apologize to him. It took
> almost 20 years to get justice.
> Seems to me something is very upside down in the Jewish community and has
> been for a very long time.
You obviously have a big boulder on your shoulder, but I have had the need to
travel quite a bit for work. This past summer I finished the year of aveilus
for my mother a"h.
I davened at numerous shuls throughout the USA, all of which were O or Chabad.
In almost every case I was warmly greeted and did not experience the problems
that you seem to experience, which is even more surprising since you say you
stopped going to shul.
I know in our shul, the importance of having a set seat is emphasized, but it
is emphasized even more not to say anything if a visitor sits in your seat.
Anything different anywhere else is more of an exception than the rule. You
have some people who are nasty and they will be nasty wherever they are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 1,2010 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Welcoming visitors
Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...> wrote (MJ 59#12):
> If a visitor is sitting in your usual seat and you ask him to move,
> do you have any obligation to help him find a seat that is _not_
> someone's regular place, or are you allowed to leave him on his own
> after you displace him?
That's a good question. I've found myself in that position or, since
I'm usually among the very first in the Ezrat Nashim, catching the eye
of someone uncertain as to where to sit. Then I can help, because I
know who rarely shows up or sometimes who isn't home.
On Rosh Hashannah and Yom Kippur women who plan on being away offer
their seats in advance to those in need and even paste the names, so it
will be clear that the seats are reserved. Advance planning is very
important.
Shannah Tovah,
Batya
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 1,2010 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Welcoming visitors
Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...> wrote (MJ 59#12):
> If a visitor is sitting in your usual seat and you ask him to move, do you
> have any obligation to help him find a seat that is _not_ someone's regular
> place, or are you allowed to leave him on his own after you displace him?
This seems a curious question. If one has to get one's tallit etc. from
one's seat and thereby displace a visitor, it is obvious, as simple derech
erets [good manners], to help him find an alternative place.
> What if every seat is someone's regular place? Is the visitor condemned to
> wander from seat to seat each time someone else arrives until he's finally in
> a seat belonging to someone who didn't happen to show up that day?
Any reasonably large shul should have some seats reserved for visitors
and every member should see it as his duty to go up to a visitor, greet him
so that he feels welcome, and show him to such a seat where he will not be
disturbed.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 1,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Welcoming visitors
Jeanette Friedman wrote (MJ 59#12):
> Why we do not behave and welcome people to our shuls is beyond me. We treat
> people we don't know who come to shul as if they are intruders, there to
> make trouble and we ignore them or worse, as Carl had described.
But there is the tradition of giving a stranger to the shul an aliya, and that
isn't just in one shul.
I suppose when there are all sorts of divisions about halacha, where
the people there in a shul think so many people are wrong, then you'll
get that. Maybe there could be issues of someone trying to take over
a syngagogue. But Martin Stern's synagogue did not refuse to welcome
people.
> BUT...in the two black churches everyone was greeted as they walked in the
> door. They were welcomed by ushers who led them to seats, they were made to
> feel welcome and wanted, and then after the services, from the pulpit, there
> were the equivalent of "shout outs" about people who that week would need
> help as shut ins or being lonely in a hospital or just plain in need of
> assistance financially or otherwise.
But these were funerals, weren't they, where they expected maybe many strangers
to come?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 59 Issue 13