Equating Excessive Stringency to Idolatry

Reading Ynet this morning, it was refreshing to note a Chabad rabbi making an argument for the more liberal and open orthodoxy advocated by many, including this website.

Rather than reiterating his points, I'll just bring Rabbi Levy Brackman's article:

Stop making the golden calf
In mainstream Orthodox community, it seems strictest interpretations and rulings, rather than most lenient win out, damaging Jewish community as a whole
Published: 09.01.10, 08:54 / Israel Jewish Scene

Whether it’s about conversion, gender issues, or any other of a host of contentious problems facing the Jewish world it seems that within the mainstream Orthodox community the strictest interpretations and rulings, rather than the most lenient win out. This then has a damaging ripple effect for the Jewish community as a whole. To be sure there have always been a differing views with regard both practice and religious outlook. In the Talmud often these disputes are resolved by following the majority opinion where often the lenient opinion was favored.

The best example of this is the arguments between Hillel and Shammai. Hillel was known to be a tolerant, calm and humble man whose rulings were usually lenient. Shammai, conversely, was known to be less patient and more radical and strict in his opinions.

The Talmud relates that once the Students of Shammai coerced Hillel to accept a stricter decision. Here is the story: A sword was planted in the Hall of Study and it was made known that, "He who wants to enter can do so but no one can leave!" On that day Hillel sat submissive before Shammai, like one of the disciples and that day was as difficult for the Jews as the day the golden calf was made (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 17a).

The obvious interpretation of this Talmudic passage is that since due process was not followed and Hillel was belittled and his opinion overruled in an unfair manner it was a terrible day for the Jews. I venture to suggest an alternative interpretation. Hillel’s opinion was almost always more lenient and easier to follow. He made Judaism more compassionate and accessible to the average person. The day when Shammai was able to force his strict interpretation of Judaism upon the masses was a terrible day not just for scholars but for the entire Jewish nation.

The Talmud goes as far as to compare it to the day the golden calf was made. This is to be taken with the utmost seriousness. The Talmud is telling us that when a lenient and compassionate representation of Judaism is passed up for a stricter and less forgiving version it is as destructive to Judaism and Jewish continuity as the day the golden calf was made.

Tragically today this lesson is lost on most of the Jewish world. As Orthodox Judaism moves towards adapting stricter and stricter opinions as its mainstream it alienates more and more Jews who stop relating. This can be seen in many areas including some which are extremely contentious. The Orthodox world is being led by a pious yet uncompromising spiritual leadership.

Thus, when Jews who are outside the fold of Orthodoxy look inwards they are struck by an uncompromising system that is strict, often incomprehensible and at times uncompassionate—a Judaism that is more representative of a Shammaic attitude than that of Hillel. For those who care about the future of the Jewish people this is a tragic day—to use the Talmudic extreme, as tragic as the day the golden calf was made.

Contemporary Judaism needs to understand that stricter is often worse not better. It needs to realize that both opinions are legitimate and that the more lenient view is almost always the more appropriate and constructive one to take. Ultimately it is the lenient and compassionate approach which edifies Judaism rather than the opposite.

Problems with the Statement on Homosexuality

In the past month or so there has been much discussion of a "Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community".

I contemplated signing the document, but in the end decided not to, and instead have finally written up some of my reasons for not doing so and are posting them here.

In short - the document is trying to move the orthodox community I think it should go in, one it needs to go in. As others have said before me, the main thrust of the Statement of Principals is that all people should be treated with respect regardless of sexual orientation.

But, rather than issuing this short message, the Statement tries to flesh out some of the details, and does so in ways that I don't always agree with.

Here are my comments on the clauses in the original, and a couple of 'meta-issues' below follow after the clauses:

Clause 3: I question whether "Halakhah sees heterosexual marriage as the ideal model and sole legitimate outlet for human sexual expression" as is claimed in this clause of the Statement. What about pelegeshim/concubines and premarital relations (a debate for another post - but Ramban was matir while Rambam who was not)? While they may not be ideal, they might be legitimate.

I am also curious about Halakhah's sexual ethics for non-Jews. While I know the Statement addresses those 'in our community' - AKA Jews - the statement has been and will be read by some as being Judaism's view on the world, not Judaism's view on Jews. While the sheva mitzvot clearly encourage marriage, do they require it? And in light of a prior post on the meaning of Toeva, perhaps homosexuality is allowed for non-Jews. I certainly don't recall seeing it forbidden in any interpretations/compendiums I have read of the noahide laws.

Clause 4: What is the meaning of "Halakhic Judaism views all male and female same-sex sexual interactions as prohibited"? What is a sexual interaction? Can I hug fellow men? Only if I'm not gay, perhaps only if they also aren't? Where do we draw the line? And, I recall having learnt of more liberal stances on lesbianism. Rabbi Chaim Rapaport has even pondered whether lesbian couples need to keep hilchot niddah with each other.

Clause 5: "Whatever the origin or cause of homosexual orientation, many individuals believe that for most people this orientation cannot be changed. Others believe that for most people it is a matter of free will. Similarly, while some mental health professionals and rabbis in the community strongly believe in the efficacy of “change therapies”, most of the mental health community, many rabbis, and most people with a homosexual orientation feel that some of these therapies are either ineffective or potentially damaging psychologically for many patients." Here I must ask - why give this much credit to change therapy? If it doesn't work, state that, and don't give it undue credit. I've known a few people who have undergone change therapy, some have even gotten married to a partner of the opposite sex afterwards. I haven't followed the lives of everyone I have met who underwent change therapy, but know it did not work for some (including some who really wanted it to work for them as they saw it as a theological need). But every single one of the marriages I know of has ended with the formerly homosexual partner realizing they are still homosexual.

Clause 11: This clause talks about how "Halakhic Judaism cannot give its blessing and imprimatur to Jewish religious same-sex commitment ceremonies and weddings" but must accept the families that spring from such relationships. I've seen a few blogs claim the later part of this clause, the acceptance, is a back door trying to force the orthodox world to accept same-sex commitment ceremonies and weddings. It may be. But my problem is actually that it shouldn't be a back door acceptance. While a halachic wedding (kiddushin) can not be enacted when the partners don't fit certain criteria, that doesn't preclude the Jewish establishments provision for an alternate ceremony. One with no 'halachic' meaning. After all, even if just from a pikuach nefesh perspective, wouldn't halakha prefer a monogamous homosexual partnership to a forbidden gay/lesbian promiscuous single life? And, committing to live together doesn't need to mean committing to do forbidden acts together. There could even be a 'frum' commitment ceremony where a couple commits to care for each other, to love each other, and to work to contain the physical expressions of their desires to only those which they (and their rabbi?) find halachically acceptable.

Clause 12: Here the Statement says that "under most circumstances" homosexual Jews should not be encouraged to marry people of the opposite gender. What troubles me is the implication that in some cases they should be encouraged to. So what cases would this be? Further, might there be halachic questions as to whether or not they even can marry?

Meta-Issues:

Transgendered Individuals: OK - so this statement addresses the LG part of the LGBT community, and in ignoring bisexuals tells them to suppress/ignore their non-heterosexual desires. But it provides no framework whatsoever for dealing with transgendered individuals. Again, the statement overall is a step towards inclusion. But, I would like a statement that is even more inclusive, one that includes gender identity. This is a topic with much debate - in the mid-late 90's as Dana International represented Israel at Eurovision a number of poskim discussed the issue, and with an array of opinions. Is it too much to ask for a statement calling on the acceptance of all members of the Jewish community regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or the likes? Their ritual roles may not be equal (hey - gender differentiation is one of the defining hallmarks of orthodoxy in the liberal 21st century world), but the individuals should be welcomed in.

Role of a Statement: Does having a statement in and of it self further the cause of creating open communities, or does it hinder the cause? The statement is irrelevant to most of the open-orthodox/liberal end of the halachic spectrum, and it will likely be ignored (or chastised) by much of the more right/conservative end of that very spectrum. So, does it bring attention in a positive or negative manner. I don't know the answer, but am intrigued by the question.

Shabbat Nose Picking

So, can you pick your nose on Shabbat?

I have to admit, the question had never really occurred to me.

When I was a teenager in Yeshiva, we'd asked one of our rabbis about popping zits on Shabbat, but not nose-picking.

However, somehow, it came up this past Shabbat. One at the table quoted in the name R' Ovadia Yosef, saying that it was borer (sorting) to pick your nose, and thus forbidden on Shabbat. This makes sense - borer means sorting, and taking away things you don't want from things you want (like taking your unwanted bugger our of your nose) could indeed be construed as borer. Though I would think that for the same reasons we are allowed to wipe ourselves clean after going to the bathroom, we may be allowed to get that snot out of our nose.

So, with a little (post-Shabbat) research, a new reason was arrived at: a few web sites quote Ovadia Yosef as having said in a 1998 shiur that you might inadvertently pull out your nose-hairs in picking your nose on Shabbat. And, as we aren't allowed to trim our hair or nails on Shabbat, this would indeed be a no-no.

However, an AP article (yes, this made it into the news) from shortly after the class says that while R' Yosef did indeed dig into whether or not the risk of hair trimming might forbid nose picking on Shabbat, the conclusion of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's ruling was apparently that nose picking was indeed permitted on Shabbat. While I have not seen the video of this webcast, he apparently didn't relate to borer/sorting at all, and he ruled that as the hair trimming was inadvertent and not an automatic part of the nose-picking process, nose picking could go on.

So - to answer the question raised at the Shabbat table - doe forbidding Shabbat nose picking mean it would be permissible during the week? Well, obviously yes as it is allowed on Shabbat too according to R' Yosef.

In case you are curious, here is the text of the 11 January 1998 AP article on our topic:

JERUSALEM (AP) -- A leading ultra-Orthodox rabbi in Israel has ruled that it is permitted to pick your nose on the Jewish Sabbath, his aide said Sunday.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef delivered the ruling Saturday night in a sermon relayed by satellite to his followers in Israel and abroad.

The Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot had reported that Yosef had said nose-picking is forbidden because tiny hairs inside the nostrils might also be pulled out. But a viewing of a videotape of the event confirmed that Yosef had in fact ruled it was permitted.

Yosef is among a select group of rabbis who respond to questions from Jews -- serious or otherwise -- on the minutiae of applying Jewish law to daily life.

The Iraqi-born Yosef, a former chief rabbi in Egypt and Israel and a leading authority on Jewish law, is spiritual leader of the religious political party Shas, which has 10 seats in Israel's Parliament.

So - pick away, but please - show some discretion. Even if it is permitted by R' Ovadia Yosef, that doesn't mean anyone else wants to watch you go at it! Perhaps you could get a tissue and excuse yourself to another room first?

Toeva and Homosexuality

A friend and I were recently discussing the term used in the Torah to discuss homosexual relations - toevah, normally translated as abomination. It is worth noting most/all other biblical uses of this word describe things that other cultures do and the culture under discussion (usually the Israelites) shouldn't do, so as not to be like the other culture.

You can read more about that over at Religion Dispatches.

The friend wanted to know what the traditional Jewish view on this word (and thus on homosexuality) was. They also wanted to know what preceded this word.

This post stems from that question...

The term abomination only came around with translation, the Hebrew is toevah, and hard to know what (if anything) predated this term as it appears in Leviticus/Vayikra.

It may be worth noting that in Jewish eyes the transgressions of Sodom are primarily, inhospitality to guests & unethical trading. With physical lust - including the attempted homosexual rape of Lot's guests - a secondary issue. And it may be worth stressing that was not just a homosexual incident, but rather attempted rape - something that would be bad regardless of the genders/sexualities involved.

In the 5th century the Talmud (Nedarim 51A) recorded that the sage Bar Kappara explained the word toeva in relationship to homosexuality as meaning "toeh ata ba" - "you go astray because of it". The traditional Jewish commentators (Rashi, Tosofot & Ran) on the Talmud all explain that Bar Kappara means men would be off having sex with other men if it were allowed, leaving their wives lonely/unsatisfied and potentially leading the wifes to then seek out other men to fulfill their needs. IE - homosexual sex undermines the (presumed) family unit. (Yes, rabbinic Judaism most definitely presumes that its adherents have heterosexual relationships, and also from this text we can perhaps infer that it also presumes men would all abandon their marriages and flock to homosexual relationships if there were permitted to do so, though that may be taking things a bit too far.)

It may also be interesting to note the statement of Rabbi Judah in the 3rd century work the mishna (Kiddushin 82a): "two bachelors should not sleep under one cover." From the continuing conversation there, he clearly thinks bachelors will succumb to the temptations homosexuality, and he clearly thinks that is a thing to be avoided. (Also worth noting that the other sages reject his notion and say bachelors can share a bed.)

As for modern Jewish law, Rabbi Yuval Sherlow (head of Yeshivat Petach Tikvah), Rabbi Steven Greenberg (first openly gay orthodox rabbi) and the film Trembling Before God, all present fairly open/understanding viewpoints. But their voices are the minority (even if a growing one). More 'mainstream' Jewish legal camps say while it may be OK to be a homosexual, the fulfillment of homosexual desires is forbidden.

Also worth noting that Jewish laws approach to lesbianism is generally more open than how it deals with male homosexuality. The talmud is very open, though around 900 years ago Maimonides ruled that lesbianism is forbidden.

There is also a growing body of work on how Jewish law deals with transgendered people, and whether or not Judaism recognizes a 'spiritual' gender switch as being possible - and if so at what point/under what conditions.

And of course I should note that while Judaism presumes most people to be either male or female, there is also recognition of 3 other gender categories: Androgynous (born with both male and female gender markers), 'Tumtum' (those born with no gender markers) and Eunuch (born males, but who have had their masculinity removed).