The portion of Shemini details laws of animal sacrifice and of kashrut. Without a Temple, we no longer bring God animal offerings. As a result of rabbinic interpretation, we now observe many more rules of kashrut than those written in the Torah. Over time, Jewish practice sometimes expands and sometimes contracts. For what reason? One good answer is ethics.
Just two weeks ago, the Jewish Theological Seminary decided to ordain gay men and women as rabbis. It was the culmination of a process that began 35 years ago. When the feminist critique of Jewish law and practice was issued in the early 1970s, it stressed that Halacha, Jewish law, had begun to be perceived by many as a system driven strictly by internal forces, even though historically and talmudically it was driven by outside ones, as well. Jewish law had become more of a science and less of an art. What mattered was precedent and not principle. Beginning with the feminist critique, Jews across the denominational spectrum were forced to confront the deep question: What is the relationship between ethics and Jewish law? The main issue on the agenda back then was whether or not to extend to women the obligations and options that until that time had been reserved for men. Nearly everyone felt that it was the morally right step to take. But Jewish law, many claimed, stood in the way. It did not allow for women to serve as public prayer leaders, as rabbis, as witnesses in a court of law, and so on. Hence, the opponents of change threw their arms up in the air, expressed the pain they felt at the inequity embedded in Jewish law and enacted no change. Others, namely the leaders of the Reform and Reconstructionist movements, decided to extend full equality of opportunity to women and began to admit them to rabbinical and cantorial schools. The Conservative movement, after many debates, decided in 1983 to ordain women as rabbis and found talmudic justification for doing so. Orthodox institutions, to this day, do not admit women to rabbinical training programs. Even so, Orthodox women study Torah much more today than they used to in the past. Attitudes toward women have changed in Orthodox circles. Many girls now celebrate becoming a bat mitzvah by delivering a learned discourse on a topic of their choice.
Looking at these enlightened responses to changes in ethical thinking, we have to ask: On what basis can we continue to discriminate against gay men and women? The Reform and Reconstructionist movements decided that we cannot, and instituted gay ordination more than 10 years ago. The Conservative movement did so just last month. Many say that this issue is harder to deal with than women’s inequality because a Torah verse stands in the way of granting full equality to gay men and one cannot change Torah. Such an argument sounds convincing but does not withstand scrutiny. Its underlying premise is that Torah, which is God-given, cannot change, while Talmud — which is produced by men — can. This is not so. The Judaism we practice today is talmudic, which means that it is based on an extended essay, written by rabbis who lived 1,500-2,000 years ago, on how the Torah tells us to behave as Jews and as human beings. Anyone who studies Talmud extensively will note that the rabbis did not hesitate to alter the simple meaning of the words of the Torah in order to have them accord with their sense of ethical behavior. One clear example is reducing the number of witnesses needed to establish the facts of the case to one from two. This change was instituted for women whose husbands had disappeared but whose death could only be established by one man. The change made it possible for the women to remarry and move on with their lives. The Torah says in no uncertain terms, “al pi shnai edim … yaqum davar,” according to two witnesses, a matter is established (Deuteronomy 19:15). It took audacity, impelled by ethical thinking, for the rabbis to change the number “two” to “one.”
Change is taking place among Orthodox rabbis, as well. Rabbi Chaim Rapoport of Great Britain wrote a volume in 2004 titled “Judaism and Homosexuality, An Authentic Orthodox View,” with a foreword by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (Valentine Mitchell). In it he acknowledges that the homosexual drive is innate. He pleads for compassion and kindness for gay men and for their acceptance into the community. He encourages them to spend time studying Torah.
There is another argument that Orthodox rabbis can make for the acceptance of gays. Twenty-four years ago, in “Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Volume 2” (Ktav, 1983), Rabbi J. David Bleich wrote an article arguing for changing the status of the deaf. He asserts that the deaf-mute of the Talmud, who was exempted from mitzvot and unable to count in the minyan, is different from the deaf of today. Back then, deaf-mutes could not be educated, could not speak and hence could not display the ability to reason. Circumstances have changed, he writes. The deaf today are fully educable and fully able to display the ability to think and reason. They are not the deaf-mutes of the rabbis. They should therefore be treated like everyone else.
The parallels to the gay conundrum are easy and obvious. If Bleich could change the halachic status of an entire category of individuals in one fell swoop, then we can do the same for gays. The Torah regards sexual relations between men as abhorrent (if we assume, for the moment, that that is the correct interpretation of Leviticus 18:22). But are the gay men of today the individuals whom the Torah had in mind? I don’t think so. There is no reason to conclude that the “homosexual” of the Torah behaves in the same manner as the homosexual today. The Torah seems to be disparaging a particular sexual act between men. It does not know of a monogamous, loving, homosexual relationship between two men (or two women). Just as Bleich turns the deaf-mute of the rabbis into a null set, so am I arguing that the “homosexual” described in the Torah is today a null set. There are, thus, at least two different ways of changing the status of gay men: One is to use the mechanisms for change that were built into Jewish law by the rabbis, its architects; another is to view the words the Torah uses to describe the realities of its own day as no longer accurate in describing the realities of today. Note that this second method comes to us from Orthodox sources.
The larger point in this entire debate is that the past 35 years have witnessed the halachic maturation of the American Jewish community. Every one of its segments, in one way or another, has adapted itself to the realization that women are as fully human as men. Every one of its segments is also rethinking its attitudes toward, and its treatment of, gay men and women. We tend to focus on the issue of the moment. If we look instead at what has happened to Judaism over time, we will find it exhilarating: The American Jewish community has restored the ethical impulse to its halachic deliberations. A cause for celebration.
Rabbi Judith Hauptman is the E. Billi Ivry professor of Talmud and rabbinic culture at the Jewish Theological Seminary and the founder of Ohel Ayalah, a free, walk-in High Holy Days service for young Jews (www.ohelayalah.org).
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
End Orthodox Monopoly on Jewish Marriage in Israel
Boston Bombers Pal Slain in Florida Eyed in 'Jewish' Triple Murder
You've successfully signed up!
A wonderful, well reasoned article. Two points I'd like to make though, one to someone R. Hauptman quotes, one to another poster. 1. R. Rapoport suggests that gay folk study Torah, even though he's not willing to grant us full equality. It isn't going to happen that way. As LGBTI people gain equality and equal rights in civil society, we probably will be less and less interested in any religion that sees us aqs "less than." First accept us, recognize our marriages offer us smikha as a result of our study and we will fill the Yeshivot. 2. To Mr. Goldman: I will always be gay, having sex or even marrying a woman will not make me either straight or "yotse me-khovati" it will make me dishonest. Most likely the marriage will break apart, wrecking two lives plus the lives of any children. The conversion therapies like Exodus or Joshua have proven to be worse than failures, they are frauds with the founders usually running off with their same-sex assistants. Surely this cannot be the life of kedusha that ha-shem wants for us. As to the mitsvah of "Pru u-revu," be fruitful and multiply, it is followed by "and fill the earth. In case Mr. Goldman hasn't noticed, humanity has fulfilled that mitsva to the point where we can no longer feed or provide water for the people already here, and we are in grave danger of destroying Ha-Shem's earth, which we were given to guard and watch over.
A delightful piece. One of the beauties ignored, but which I have written on, is that of "correct interpretation of Leviticus 18:22". It is amazing how many can read, by not see. First, rightly, it points to an act of a MAN with a MAN -- and specifies a woman only as the subject of the same act by (implicitly) the same man. Thus, by fact and definition, it does not deal with homosexuality at all -- had it, it would, as was done in so many other laws which were to be applied to both genders, have stated itself again as a WOMNAN with a WOMAN relative to the same woman's conduct with a man. Homosexuality is not mono-gendered. It applies universally to all creatures regardless of gender. At best, the prohibition is against bi-sexuality among men -- that is the abomination. It is also, as so many of the laws are, a matter of health; a means to prevent the transmission of disease. For any who do not understand the "divine" logic of the latter statement, I would refer you to studies on the spread of AIDS by truckers in Africa and India -- where they engage in sex with transvestite prostitutes and bring AIDS and other diseases home to their wives. There is real world evidence for the wisdom of a law; but that does not mean those who try to assert it are showing appropriate wisdom.
1/ Given Reform Judaism's relationship with Halacha I completely support their support of same-sex relationships 2/ Reform Judaism + 25 years = Conservative Judaism 3/ Orthodox Jews and in particular ultra-Orthodox Jews are breeding like rabbits. Eventually they will be the majority of Jews. There's no reason for them to take a break from their natalist success and adopt a pro-gay position. How many gay or lesbian couples have 10 children?
With respect to male homosexuality, the Torah addresses behavior, not the person. What part of "is" in "is an abomination" does Prof. Hauptman have difficulty understanding? Judaism teaches that Teshuvah erases sin (which presumably includes abominations). But you can't have both. Teshuvah that either doesn't exist, or is taken with reservations doesn't count. Simply declaring something politically correct isn't Teshuvah. Thus the sin remains and likely continues. You cannot be both politically correct and Torah observant. Your choice, and your responsibility for what follows. They were not the "ten suggestions" and neither is the rest of halacha. As with respect to Reform Judaism and Halacha, Prof. Hauptman by her behavior raises the question not of "who is a Jew?" but who is a Rabbi? (Note--the writer is a professional economist who has experienced and understands orthodox, conservative, and reform practice and is not a fundamentalist.)
Interesting article, and nice dodge around the whole "abomination" thing. I'm curious, though; are there any parts in the Torah that Ms. Hauptman would acknowledge are not subject to revision in order to suit changing political and social views? Or is Conservative Judaism becoming like Reform-- i.e., the Howard Dean wing of the Democrat party served on a bagel?
The issue for rabbis is not the means or rationale for changing the law. It is the more fundamental question of the intent of the law. Was it to discriminate or to condemn? In other words, brain science and genetics will develop more theories about the genetic causes of disease and character (nature vs. nuture). The Judaic view was always that "nuture" or the teachings of Torah had the power to influence and even overcome nature. The rabbinic theory of the yezer ha-rah shows that it is biological in origin, yet its power must be controlled by the yezer tov or the encoding of Torah values into the psychic repetoire. Looking at homosexuality which until very recently was viewed as an aberration, we must ask ourselves will accepting this rather narcissitic impulse enhance family values and through family strengthen society and nation? Also, as I recall the mitzvah of marriage is not about love but about procreation. Are we promoting affection between same sex partners into a mitzvah by allowing them to be married? Are we terminating our commitment to the values of Torah by bowing to the transience of political correctness?
This is a woman who has been ahead of her time. It's now time for our Jewish world to catch to her teachings.
Maybe the Torah is insisting that not every desire be slaked. Maybe, marriage which has a dual purpose companionship and the possibility of childbirth needs to be set up as paragon which should be the ideal. Maybe, gay marriage which would only redistribute the number of children, not actually increase it, can never be the ideal atmosphere in which a child should be raised. Maybe, gay marriage infringes on the rights of the child to be raised in the maximally optimal environment requiring a parent of each gender to transmit the values that seem to be innate in each gender. Maybe, the Torah is drawing an arbitrary line stating that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman of a particular status. Maybe, the Torah is aware of human nature's desire to transcend certain boundaries and seeks to establish a boundary which will prevent bestiality, bisexual marriages ( Holland already has civil ceremonies for bisexual marriages) and incest. After all, in the pagan world these behaviors were perfectly acceptable. (as Peter Singer said: bestiality is not unethical - Slate Magazine review on the book " Dearest Pet)Maybe, gay people have no obligation to fulfill the Mitzvah of Pru Urvu and therefore need not get married. The reality is, that unfair as it may seem, many people can't get married for a variety of disabilities. It is interesting how ethical matters always seem to be defined in terms of expanding rights - the right to drive on Shabbat, the right to egalitarian synagogues, the rights of gays. Can it be possible that sometimes ethical behaviour is best promoted by witholding permission. I don't know, but from where I stand, while nobody can claim perfection, do societies that practice a religion which seems to take scriptural authority with some degree of literalism seem to have a higher ethical standards even though they may not idealize them. Does the belief in some form of standards encourage greater adherence to those standards among the masses ( even admitting that there are serious lapses in ethics by those who accept the standard as something that should be). The Conservative movement is merely drifting into secular liberalisms insistance on the rights of the individual while sunderiing its ties to their obligations. Surely, compassion is ethical. But as the talmud reminds us" Those that are kind to the cruel, will be cruel to the kind". Every society that has permitted gay marriage has seen a breakdown in conventional marriages, primarily due to the elasticity of the definition of marriage. As Maimonides said : No Jewish court should not make more than one or two small changes in a generation". The Conservative Movement has made many radical alterations in the last 50 years. Has it worked out so well for the Movement? Your followers are incapable of demographically sustaining your movement. Could this be because the words Pru Urvu have no literal meaning to the vast majority of your members. As Toby Lester said " Any religion that makes no demands on its followers soon disappears". My observation of the Conservative Movement indicates that it is the laity that makes the demands. Imagine, Judaism driven by the Amei Ha'aretz. But hey, that's democarcy a good liberal value. It's really working. As far as the notion that the world is at threat because of overpopulation which was a concern of one of your respondants. North Korea has very low population densities and is starving: Hong Kong has very high densities and is thriving. The issue is not the number of people but government policies, political corrupton and distribution of food. Thank you. Chaim Klein
enjoyed rabbi/dr. hauptmann's piece, and also the comments. jewish law is supposed to scrub the world clean. if it's deemed ineffective in this regard, that is not a sufficient reason to discard it. however, if it soils the world in the form of unjustly marginalizing people who cannot choose their pheromones, then it should be reexamined. homosexuality is not some fad; it has been with us for millennia -- why else do the torah and rabbinic literature comment on it? the more ephemeral "fad" is the doctrine that Jewish law is "immutable." that fad was started by rabbi samson raphael hirsch about 160 years ago in response to the other "fad" of the reform movement. any serious student of jewish law (in which the methodology is more western and less traditionally jewish) will readily concur that jewish law has changed -- sometimes radically -- at various points throughout history.
Any arguement positing that the application of Torah law is not identical to what it was in antiquity is clearly ahistorical. On the other hand, surely one must admit that some changes or alterations perpetrated by some Jewish factions have been detrimental. If change is the sole issue then why label the Reform movement's approach " a fad". What are the limits of change? Are there any? Should scriptural text not have any authority? Was the Conservative movement's heter to drive on Shabbat ultimately beneficial ? Or did it as Rabbi Scorsh, former head of JTS (and I've heard this from other Conservative Rabbis ) stated " destroy " Shabbat for the majority of Conservative Jews. (It is not an accident that the Masorti Movement- the Israeli branch of the Conservative Movement - in Israel prohibits driving on Shabbat. The Israeli Reform Movement does not accept gay marriage , as far as I know. If wrong please advise) How has egalitarianism worked out for the movement? Are those members of the Conservative Movement that do not succumb to the changes demanded by your laity ( Rabbi Byron Sherman said that Jews have a vote: not a veto) any less scholarly and knowledgeable about the Halachik process than the overwhelming members of the movement , who support the adoption of secular humanist values and insist that the future of Conservative Judaism lies in accepting humanism's ethical standards. Who is qualified to tamper with Halacha? Are any parts of the Torah immutable or is it merely Playdough, to be shaped at will? I can provide excellent scriptural arguements for the antiquity of paterlinealism from Sinai to Ezra. Why do the Conservative and Orthodox movements oppose it? Fact is that just because one can find a basis to do something does not mean that it should be done. Even admitting that some or much homosexuality is genetic or the result of predisposition does not necessarily justifuy permitting it. Isn't that what the Ramban means when he says Kedoshim Tihyu- you shall be Holy. It is possible to be a " menuval birshut Hatorah" - a reprobate following Torah Law( loose translation) In fact many Orthodox and Chareidi authorities now consider being gay an "Onus" ( not one's choice. So the slander that Orthodoxy monolitically thinks that homosexuality is solely a lifestyle choice is based on prejudice, not knowledge) Many behavious are the result predispositions. Does that justify permitting those behaviors. I thank God that this is not a test that I have to bear and that I am in no position to judge anyone. I have my own hard drive issues and predispositions that I need to deal with ( Nurture and Nature)That being said, the impact of permitting homosexual marriage and normalizing it may have serious consequences for society, not only Jewish society, as a whole. Historical embrace of sexually permissive behaviors has led to the destruction of those societies. Not necessarily as some Divine punishment but as some kind of natural consequences. What message does a society that elevates a relationship that is incapable of perpetuating humanity to the same level as one which has the potential to do so so ( Lo Ploog, when it comes to males and females even though there are those that are incapable medically or otherwise of perpetuating society)? What message is being transmitted by the society and Jews promoting the pre-Diluvian morality as expressed in Genesis 6 verse 3 : "...And they took them wives from whatever they chose" Other than for theonomously mandated reasons, who are we to deny the longing of an individual for love and affection with whichever object they wish to express themselves. If marriage means the right to marry whomever you want, why do individuals seeking to attain their ideological goals and thus insist that the Torah is mutable suddenly become staunch right wing religious fanatics and insist that certain things like incest, bestiality, polygamy, bisexual marriage, non-coercive adult child sexual relations are not acceptable. ( Don't tell me that they are beyond the pale. I can document existing advocacy groups for each of these behaviors, including the ACLU, beloved of liberal Jews) That change takes place halachikally is obvious. That not everything should be changed is just as obvious. ( Why don't people read Rabbi E. Berkovitz's OB"M book "Not In Heaven" to get an understanding of the halachik process?) Should there be limits to Man's autonomy? I think the narrative of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden militates against untrammelled ethical autonomy. Is it possible that Halacha is subject to it's own dynamic and is not merely subject to rationalism alone. Many esteemed Conservative Rabbis seem to think so? They opposed egalitarianism, driving on Shabbath and ordination of Gays and some sort of commitment gay ceremony. History will decide whether the liberals or the conservatives in your movement have been correct. My betting, based on the trends in the Conservative movement, is that the change, change, change laity will lead Conservative Judaism right into the remnants of Reform within a very short time.
Apparently, every time we give in to the yetzer hara, Hauptman will furnish us with an explanation and dispensation to make it conform to her disingenuous abrogation of even the most fundamental issues of halacha. (Too bad the denizens of S'dom didn't have her as a local judge. They might have had a better defender than Avraham!) Really now, to actually label such bufoonery as scholarship or interpretation strains even the most credulous definitions of either. I wonder what Professors Lieberman, Ginzberg, Finklestein, and Boaz Cohen what have said at such a proficient display of erudition. I eagerly look forward to Rabbi Bleich's reply to Hauptman's miserable co-option of his poignant responsum.
Absolutely specious arguments made in this article for the support of homosexual marriage and the homosexual lifestyle. Even while the damage of this wickedness is being borne out before your eyes, people still choose to exalt it. Such is the nature of sin. What was once an abomination in God's eyes is not now, that is not so much according to God, but according to man. How relived I feel that I no longer need to look to God to learn from His word how I ought to comport myself. Now all I need do is ask man.
Oh, yes also, sin is not a 'fad' either, it has also been with us for a millenia. I suppose the rationale here being that the older a particular behaviour is in recorded history, that gives it some credence as being 'acceptable' now. Maybe God should have said 'keep trying, and one day what I said is worthy of death will be just fine by Me'. Silly you say? Yes it is absolutely silly, but that is essentially what these apologists for evil are essentially saying. Sin unrepented of merely heaps more condemnation on our heads.