Comments on: Gay, Orthodox, and in Love: Chaim Elbaum’s “And Thou Shalt Love”

By: Y. Ben-David

Y. Ben-David — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:36:51 +0000

Sorry-
I confused Elbaum with Steve Greenberg who is the “Orthodox rabbi” referred to in comments by David Greenberg above, whereas it was Elbaum who spoke at Yedidya.

By: Y. Ben-David

Y. Ben-David — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:34:10 +0000

aliyah06-
G-d also created thieves and murderers. Does that mean we are supposed to somehow learn to adjust to their behavior, or are we supposed to fight against them?

Regarding the “homosexual Orthodox Rabbi”, I would like to know if those Orthodox Jews, particularly Yedidya Congregations, who invite him to speak would also invite an “Orthodox Rabbi” who openly ate pork, conducted adulterous relations with married women and the like, “while he maintaining his committment to being an observant and believing Jew”? May we should create “new midrashim” and “write out” those prohibitions since people like to do those things anyway?

I find it most amusing when when people attempt to explain away the Torah’s proscription of male homosexual acts as a “toevah-abomination”. Since the same word is applied to avodah zara, they then say “well, homosexual acts are only prohibited if they are part of an idolotrous cult of worship”. Unfortunately for this interpretation, the word toevah is also used to describe “dishonest business practices”. See Deuteronomy 25, verses 13-16. In fact, I can make up my own “midrash” interpretation saying that since “toevah” is used for each of these 3 types of sins, we can conclude that there is something in common to all of them, that being that not only are these sins destructive to the souls of those directly carrying them out, but they are destructive of society at large.

Now, I am not advocating lynching homosexuals, any more than I am of lynching anybody else who violates the Torah. But to throw out parts of the Torah simply because they are not “politically correct” to the so-called “progressive” community is dishonest.

By: When being Jewish and gay is a problem | Antony Loewenstein

When being Jewish and gay is a problem | Antony Loewenstein — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:02:08 +0000

[...] spend an awful lot of time on this site criticising Israel, so here’s some rare good news that deserves praise, news about an Israeli film about gay life in the Orthodox [...]

By: fiddler

fiddler — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:37:02 +0000

aliyah06, that’s a nihilistic proposition, unless you’re simply being inconsistent. If everything is from God, then evil is also from him/her/it. If the Commandments came directly from God, then the concept of moral value judgement (which they imply, of course) is of divine origin, not an invention of man. To do or ignore evil, because that’s The Plan therefore contradicts a belief in the Plan’s essential goodness, which I understand is a fundamental tenet of all religions, save Satanism, obviously.

No, I’m not arguing that homosexuality is evil, far from it. Just saying that those who do will hardly find your suggestion satisfying.

By: aliyah06

aliyah06 — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:31:20 +0000

I’m not a scholar, so I cannot comment or interpret on any Midrash. But I am certain of one thing: everything is from G-d. If we believe that our Creator is perfect, then the creation of homosexuals is part of His Plan. So, get with the Plan, quit questioning it, and as for how the gay community itself handles it sexual relationships –well, it’s really none of our business, is it? When was the last time you discussed your heterosexual best friend’s sexual practices? You didn’t. So take care of your own commitment to the mitzvot and let everyone else worry about theirs. We’re not the Morality Police here.

By: chakira

chakira — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:54:45 +0000

Haim, thank you for your reply. However, I believe I have addressed all your concerns in my comment. For instance, I did not merely point out that Homosexual intercourse is prohibited by the Torah. I am aware, however slightly, of Rabbinic modes of exegesis, from my years in Haredi and Centrist yeshivot. Rather, I pointed out that few Rabbinic decisors have cared to change this consensus, where other things like jubilees and lex talionis have been written out. Furthermore, I addressed the latter point of it “mak[ing] no sense to believe that God has created…” when I wrote that many relationships WITH GOD (including polyamarous ones) are available online, throughout the world, and even relatively close to home in the new virtual Orthodox Judaisms of Hadar, Chovevei etc.
As to your broader claim that posekim respond to human needs; this requires a longer and more thought out discussion. I am no legal formalist, but I see great danger in the nascent approach of Halacha as common sense because its expositors are simpleminded and unsophisticated, and because their theory ends up being a throwback to much more primitive modes of analysis.

By: Haim Watzman

Haim Watzman — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:06:35 +0000

Chakira, as other readers have noted, halacha has in the past been a flexible system when faced with conflicting values. That doesn’t mean that anything goes–it means that halachic adjudicators over the ages have understood that it is their prerogative and duty to set some strictures aside–sometimes even those written in black and white in the Torah itself–when keeping the letter of the law would violate another precept or create an injustice. Its true that too few modern authorities are so brave, but nevertheless the system does change in response to such challenges. Why bother? Quite apart from the issue of faith, there is value in going through the process of grappling with the challenges presented by the clash between traditional and new ways of looking at such problems. I don’t see why we, living in the two-thousand-naughts, should assume that we possess ultimate wisdom and that we live on a privileged moral plane. We may see some things the ancients did not, but they may well have seen things that are difficult for us to discern. Lastly, Elbaum’s claim for his place in the Orthodox community is not based on the fact that secular society offers him sexual freedom, but rather on the theological claim that it makes no sense to believe that God has created human beings who are forbidden to love other human beings as they love God himself. It’s this latter point that comes out very powerfully in his film.

By: DP Greenberg

DP Greenberg — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:45:25 +0000

I have a question for the commentator above who thinks that a midrash on the apparent injunction in Leviticus against homosexuality would be a “perversion”? Ever hear of “an eye for an eye”? The rabbinic mitigation of that one seems to have done the human race some good (although not as much as one might have hoped). The Torah, indeed, enjoins us more than 30 times not to oppress a stranger. I think that’s a pretty strong hint that it’s a mistake to take Leviticus on gay love too literally. As with any other interpretation of text, it’s always important to strive to read seemingly disparate passages in harmony.

By: Yam Erez

Yam Erez — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:50:54 +0000

Well at least Judaism is consistent. The Christians dumped kashrut and the laws of niddah somewhere along the way, but somehow adhere to the prohibition against this “abomination”, which I can’t help feeling is *davka*, just an excuse for gay-bashing. Eating shellfish repulses me, but I don’t bash others who indulge therein.

By: Rebecca Lesses

Rebecca Lesses — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:59:31 +0000

I would second David Greenberg’s recommendation. Rabbi Greenberg just visited my college (at the invitation of the Jewish Studies program of which I am the coordinator) and gave a marvelous talk. It included, among other things, his progressive midrash on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.