And, as the story of Eliezer ben Herkanes teaches, a majority of men are entitled to their mistakes, and neither a Bat Kol nor the Conservative Movement's law community can correct them.
Can nothing correct them? How does Halakha change? Why is the CJLC (Conservative Judaism Law Committee) different than the "majority of men" - even more so, the "majority of men" (and women) in the Consevative movement want to interpret God's word's differently? Why is that illegitmate. One can say that for that time period of the Gemarah until recently, it was interpreted one way, and we are not correcting or changing them - we are interpreting it for ourselves? (Continuous Revelation)
(ps, I know none of this would work for Orthodox people, but I am talking about judging the Conservative movement - you can't judge them on your standards, thats just unfair. Obviously they have no reason to conform to your standards)
Even for Orthodoxy, how does "no one can correct a historical mistake" work? From years 1000 to 1920s, the "majority of men" have been entitled to believe that women should get no Jewish education...then the Chafetz Chaim (among many many others) decided to reinterpret/correct the mistake/change the Halakha/admit that circumstances have changed (pick any one of the 4 you like) and open Beit Yaakov, giving Polish girls a Jewish education...similarly, Rav Soloveitchik opened Talmud Study to women in the 1970s... Is that illegitimate?
What was man's mistake in interpreting v’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee??
What was man's mistake in interpreting v’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee??
If one were to believe (I do not) that the Torah is only Divinely Inspired, then maybe the inspiration told us something about the homosexual pedophelia or homosexuality used as a power from certain men over others in the surrounding cultures, and somewhere before the text was Canonized, it got screwed up.
The thing is that that deligitimized the rest of Torah too...which is a major concern of those on the right side of the Conservative Movement...in my opinion, by even considering that opinion, you de-emphasize Torah too much, but thats just 1 Orthodox guy's opinion
Sarcasm means to flay one's flesh from the Greek word 'sarkos.'
It is disturbing to see a Rabbi condoning the use of sarcasm.
What is a Rabbi? And what is a Rabbi's job? I believe it is often understood as leading the people. A pulpit Rabbi speaks to his congregation and other Rabbis lead by example and through their words. For a Rabbi to stoop to the level where he is mud-slinging or condoing the use of sarcasm is astonishing.
Satire I understand. Satire can be brilliantly and cleverly used, as anyone who has read Mark Twain or The Pushcart War knows. But sarcasm? Putting people down, humiliating them, embarrasing them, writing about them as though they were fools (although not calling them "ignorant fools" outright, as he said...)? What kind of Rabbi is it who does this or condones this?
Maybe I've just misunderstood the role of Rabbi. Maybe nowadays Rabbis lead by sneering at others and knocking them down. Or at least, by justifying that sneering. Maybe Rabbis think they'll accomplish more that way.
Maybe.
How can you mistake Ayin Tachas Ayin. Clearly, it means that if you knock out someone's eye, the punishment is that we knock out your eye.
I mean, it's so obvious. How could you think it means something else.
Oh wait: We're not Tz'dukim. We don't believe that the Torah commandments are perfectly literal. Reading a pasuk and saying that it's obvious what it means is contrary to Judaism.
"Even for Orthodoxy, how does "no one can correct a historical mistake" work? From years 1000 to 1920s, the "majority of men" have been entitled to believe that women should get no Jewish education...then the Chafetz Chaim (among many many others) decided to reinterpret/correct the mistake/change the Halakha/admit that circumstances have changed (pick any one of the 4 you like) and open Beit Yaakov, giving Polish girls a Jewish education...similarly, Rav Soloveitchik opened Talmud Study to women in the 1970s... Is that illegitimate?"
The difference between women learning and homosexuality is that nowhere in the Torah (Written) does it say women are forbidden to learn. Rather, there is a G'marah that says that women should not be taught Torah and even in the G'marah, it is obvious that there is a differnce of opinion of exactly what is forbidden because clearly, women have to know a great deal of practical halacha in order to run a Jewish Halachic household. So, if nothing else, all the Chofetz Chaim did was to expand the parameters somewhat because of a need of the times. However, when it comes to homosexuality, there is no broadening of parameters. A specific Written Torah verse tells us that this act is prohibited.
That's a whole different ballgame.
Also, Yeshiva Bochur, we have a mesorah that ayin tachat ayin meant financial compensation, not to be taken literally. We have no such mesorah for homosexual sex being limited to non-monogamous, humiliating sex. That's outside the mesorah then.
I think Neil Gillman had the right idea. Simply declare that the Conservative movement is no longer a halachic movement and be done with it. It's better than making things up out of whole cloth and pretending that it's halacha.
Note that I'm not advocating against what the conservative movement is proposing. To me it's the height of hypocrisy to say "that's against halacha" when they've given the green light (pardon the pun) to driving on Shabbat, counting women in a minyan, etc. Let's just call a spade a spade. They're not a halachic movement, there is therefore no reason to be makpid on this particular issue, other than homophobia.
CWY,
What was man's mistake in interpreting v’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee??
_I_ am not sure that any mistake was made. But it's clear that there are those who think the Sages made an error, (because they thought homosexuality was a disease, or inseperable from promiscuity, or from abusive relationships or whatever.)
Yaakov Menken, typically, mistates the other sides argument, though, and he's done it here again.
The Sages didn't make an error. It's explicitly assur from the Torah, like CWY states.
It's explicitly assur from the Torah, like CWY states.
Its just as explicit as "An eye for an eye"
Since the Conservative Movement does not believe in revelation at Sinai in the same way the Orthodox movement does, they might (anybody who knows better, feel free to correct me) that all "Mesorah"s are man-made and written by well-meaning Rabbis...so they were mistaken in not creating a Mesorah reinterpreting homosexuality
(can anyone who knows Conservative theology very well correct me please if I am wrong)
It's explicitly assur from the Torah, like CWY states.
Have you and CWY never learned Mishna or Gemarah? Only someone who's never learned oral law could so cavelierly dismiss the role of the Rabbis in explaining, establishing and interpreting.
Exactly, DB. You and AJ (and Yeshiva Bochur are missing the point).
Ayin tachat Ayin has always been understood by Chazal as non-literal. Homosexuality has always been understood literally BY THE RABBIS.
To turn around and say "well, the Torah prohibition means humiliating sex between men" is outside the mesorah. Note I said "mesorah" not just the scriptural reference.
Additionally, I find Gordon Tucker's argument ludicrous. It says "don't lie with a man as you would with a woman." Where is the humiliating factor in that? hetero sex was never understood as a humiliating act.
DovBear, if you are surprised that we published your comments, you may be more surprised that I am commenting here -- but your comments this time seemed of an extraordinarily high nature.
Chana, for any fan of DovBear to decry "putting people down, humiliating them, embarrasing them, writing about them as though they were fools" -- surely you jest, right? Or do you just have a problem when Rabbis do it?
All I can say is that besides being hypocritical, you've also misunderstood what I wrote. By no means was I endorsing an attack on individuals rather than their ideas.
Satire is nothing more than writing which employs sarcasm and irony, as you can see here. See both of my examples of inappropriate sarcasm, vs. Eytan's use of it. The very standard you suggest is being employed in practice -- at least, on Cross-Currents.
DovBear, you misinterpreted my comment as representing the Conservative position; as Eytan said, however, they say this is a reinterpretation, not that G-d actually got it wrong. Nonetheless, l'fi ha'emes, in accordance with the Truth, we know that our Mesorah on the meaning of the verse is unchallenged as jdub and CWY have stated. There is a clear differentiation in the Oral Law between that which the Rabbis worked to understand and interpret, vs. that which was clearly part of Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, concerning which there is no debate. To get this concept to the table of Halachic discourse, one must accept the thought that HKB"H B'chvodo V'Atzmo, G-d Himself, got it wrong (chalila).
JDub, you are right. It's outside the Mesorah. But the conservative position is that the Mesorah can be fixed.
Yakov Menken, on his blog, wrote that they seek to correct God. As I and others on this thread have pointed out, this is not so. They aren't attentping to second guess God. They are attemtpting to second guess the men, who over the years, have attempted to tell us what God meant.
Whether the Rabbis debated the meaning among themselves or not is not relevant. The fact remains it was they who interpreted the scripture, and it is they who the conservative movement wishes to overrule.
You're splitting hairs here.
They're trying to take an express Scriptural verse and read it in a way that is inconsistent with the text.
Yes, Chazal did that in other places (ayin tachat ayin is a good one) but there is a clear example of needing a mesorah, and not "fixing" it.
I'm not defending Cross-currents, I don't read it. But it's nonsense to even pretend that this is a halachic decision, even by Conservative standards. This will go down as a watershed moment for them -- the time when they've given up any pretense of being within Rabbinic Judaism.
Additionally, I find Gordon Tucker's argument ludicrous. It says "don't lie with a man as you would with a woman." Where is the humiliating factor in that? hetero sex was never understood as a humiliating act.
Just an interesting fact - in ancient Greece, where homosexuality (and pedophilia) were popular, the law proclaimed that men may only be "pitchers" while it was the younger boys who served as "catchers."
If ever a man served as the "catcher," he was often revoked of his citizenship and his masculine status in the country. In fact, the vow one had to take when in legal dealings with the government there was:
"I am not a woman, I am not a slave, I am not a foreigner."
Huh. I know I've heard that somewhere....
Oh, and separately - JDub -
I agree with you on the "halachic" issue - if we just stopped trying to claim that we're a traditional halachic movement, we'll be much better off. If it makes us happy to call ourselves "progressive halachic" or "modern halachic," so be it, but, the older generation of rabbis (including and especially Schorsch) have said that one of the main reasons to avoid many of the decisions they're avoiding is that the Orthodox will cease to call us halachic.
Oops, too late. We just need to stop worrying about what everyone else is saying about us and do what we think's right.
But it's nonsense to even pretend that this is a halachic decision, even by Conservative standards. This will go down as a watershed moment for them -- the time when they've given up any pretense of being within Rabbinic Judaism.
As a minor thing, they have not (yet) made the decision. The vote is going to come in December
Seperately, didn't they give up the pretenses when saying that one could drive on Shabbat, thereby starting a fire, or (as was mentioned on some blog) saying that a Kohen can marry a divorcee? Both are D'Oraita and they had no Mesorah to rest on...
Unfortunately, as the story of Eliezer ben Herkanes teaches, a majority of men are entitled to their mistakes, and neither a Bat Kol nor the Conservative Movement's law committee has the power to correct them.
But a later Sanhedrin does have that power. And if we can assume that were a Sanhedrin to exist, it would stop the oppression of gay and lesbian Jews (by changing their own Derabanan's, if they can't change the solitary Deoraisa), then why are we trying to continue that oppression ourselves?
It's not for us to enforce a psak ben adam lamakom we know is flawed. Well, unless we're hateful, ignorant, and self-righteous, of course.
Seperately, didn't they give up the pretenses when saying that one could drive on Shabbat, thereby starting a fire
If you read the famous "teshuva," which isn't really a teshuva, even though they call it one, (IMO) you will see that they don't exaxtly "give permission" to drive, but rather, they are saying that better you should drive and come to shul than drive and go shopping. This is about the same advice the orthodox were given at the time, but the orthodox just didn't write it down.
Oh, and there's a load of difference between "starting a fire" as it's described in the Torah (guy goes out, gathers wood, strike flint on steel in the open, makes heat and light, etc.) and what happens inside an internal combustion engine (highly refined hydrocrabon or alcohol fuel is compressed in a closed cylinder and automatically ignited by an electric spark or self ignited (in a diesel engine), which results in no usable heat or light, but rather mechanical energy.)
"starting a fire" as it's described in the Torah (guy goes out, gathers wood, strike flint on steel in the open, makes heat and light, etc.)
Exodous 35:3 "You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the sabbath day" (JPS)
Doesn't really describe much
(I guess you mean as it would have been commonly understood...which I guess highlights a difference between Orthodoxy and Conservativism)
it's nonsense to even pretend that this is a halachic decision, even by Conservative standards
Who is pretending it's a halachic decision?
The issue is whether they are going against the mesorah by saying God made an error, or whether they are going against the mesorah by saying the sages made an error.
Menken says the former; intelligent people say the latter
How can there be an error???
How much clearer can a verse be??
CWY -
There's the verse and then there's real life, and there are gay people who are just plain gay - no matter how hard they try not to be. So there's a challenge now on how to include those people and keep them active in Jewish life, rather than push them away which has been, shall we say, our mesorah.
DB:
1) Intelligent people (myself included) think that rereading an explicit verse in the Torah in a nonsensical manner without a mesorah for that reading is saying God and Chazal made a mistake. This assumes that Conservative Jews believe in the divine authorship of the Torah in any form.
In fact, since the Conservative movement doesn't generally accept any Torah mi-Sinai, they are really saying "the men who wrote the Torah were wrong." So both you and Yakov Menken are wrong.
2) Robbie, the issue is that you want the Conservative movement to sanction your behavior. There's a huge difference between being warm and empathetic to gay jews and sanctioning their sexual behavior. The pasuk in the Torah is express. If you believe in the divinity of the Torah, then it's a clear issue (I see eye to eye with CWY on this one.)
If, on the other hand, you don't believe in the divine authorship of the Torah, then who really cares? Your religion is based on moral relativism if you can change the clear meaning of the Torah with the whims of the passage of time.
1) Intelligent people (myself included) think that rereading an explicit verse in the Torah in a nonsensical manner without a mesorah for that reading is saying God and Chazal made a mistake. This assumes that Conservative Jews believe in the divine authorship of the Torah in any form.
Yes, it does assume both - so if God didn't make a mistake, then how do you explain homosexuality? Do you personally believe the verse is wrong (but abide by it because that's just how it is?) Do you believe that there aren't really gays, only people in it for fashion?
There's a huge difference between being warm and empathetic to gay jews and sanctioning their sexual behavior.
Yes. But empathy is the wrong word to use. There's no possible way that anyone not having experienced the type of psychological torment that traditional Judaism lays on homosexuals can even claim to understand. The best you can hope for is sympathy in recognizing the struggle.
2) Robbie, the issue is that you want the Conservative movement to sanction your behavior.
Pretty much, yes. I'd really like it if all mankind saw the light, but, for now, I'll settle for my own movement.
If, on the other hand, you don't believe in the divine authorship of the Torah, then who really cares? Your religion is based on moral relativism if you can change the clear meaning of the Torah with the whims of the passage of time.
I do believe that the Torah is the word of God - as written down and, in some cases, adjusted and interpreted by humans. I believe that many of the stories and laws are original, but there are others that were added in at later times by scribes and the 4(or 5 or so) "authors."
Literarily it makes sense, especially with tonal changes and word choices. I do, though, recognize that this is in direct conflict with what Traditional Judaism teaches - but, that's where I stand.
Im not sure i understand the argument. What is their basis for claiming there is an error. Other than a changing social climate (which can just as easily shift back the other way), is there anything else they are basing this on?
Flip -
That people are, in real life, and permanently, gay. It's the "get used to it" portion of, "we're here, we're queer..."
(Or perhaps, "We're here, we're queer, and we're Jews, too, dammit."
And what happens if science in 20 years says, oops, turns out that homosexuality is a choice and it's not permanent?
I'm not saying it will, (I tend to doubt it will) but what if it does? Do we turn the clock back and say, looks like we were wrong?
The Torah is eternal. I know the Conservative movement doesn't believe that, and that's fine. I firmly believe everyone has the right to be wrong! 
So the Conservative movement will sway in the wind, allowing people to drive on Shabbat, allowing women to count in a minyan, sanctioning gay marriage, and they'll be no different than Unitarians, with Hebrew. In other words, like Reform Jews, with Hebrew.
CWY: How can there be an error???
How much clearer can a verse be??
Ayin tachas ayin! How much clearer can a verse be?
JDUB Intelligent people (myself included) think that rereading an explicit verse in the Torah in a nonsensical manner without a mesorah for that reading is saying God and Chazal made a mistake.
And you're wrong, first for presuming that this rereading is more "nonsencial" than a plethora of similar rereadings which are cited throughout the Talmud, and second for failing to realize that the people in the Conservative movement who wish to make a change are saying nothing about God. They are saying, simply, that men, going back to the very begining, misunderstood God's intention. I may not agree with this, but that -and not what you and Mencken claim- is their argument.
In fact, since the Conservative movement doesn't generally accept any Torah mi-Sinai, they are really saying "the men who wrote the Torah were wrong."
Of course they, generally, accept Torah miSinai.
If you believe in the divinity of the Torah, then it's a clear issue
No. Only if you beleive in the infallability of the Sages is it a clear issue. The Sages told us what God menat with this verse, just as they told us what every other verse meant. And many times, their take on what the verse meant stands in opposition to what the verse appears to say.
Flip Im not sure i understand the argument. What is their basis for claiming there is an error.
They say the sages were wrong about gays, in the same way they were wrong about science. They say that if the sgaes knew what we know about Gay people now, (and what, presumably God knew when He wrote the verse) they'd have interporeted and applied the verse in other ways.
What was man's mistake in interpreting v’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee??
Not in the same way. Be creative. And avoid doing it in your wife's bed.
Anyhow it cannot be done the same way. The mechanics are different.
Fercraps' sake don't confuse the two practises, and don't treat one like the other.
Limit yourself.
Further, if you doubt the dvar mi Sinai aspects, it is relatively clear that what was in the cross-hairs was the temple prostitution and societally approved weirdness of the heathen - don't screw around on the woman you married. And don't engage in heathen sex rites.
And don't take psukim out of context. It leads to some rather Christian fundamentalist insanity. You just might end up Catholic if you do that. And they aren't an example. They really aren't.
In other words, like Reform Jews, with Hebrew.
And slightly stricter kashrut.
I firmly believe everyone has the right to be wrong!
Yeah ya do.
And what happens if science in 20 years says, oops, turns out that homosexuality is a choice and it's not permanent?
I should have tried harder?
And me - I'd get rid of the driving thing - it'd help. But let's keep treating women like people and encouraging marriage and raising Jewish families. And if orthodoxy wants none of that - so be it.
That last one was me. Haloscan's forgetting who I am - or trying to keep me quiet, one of the two.
DB said:
Of course they, generally, accept Torah miSinai.
Umm, what kind of happy weed are you smoking and can I have some?
I went to JTS for 4 years undergrad. They fundamentally reject Torah miSinai, and any type of divine Torah. It's all a work of man to them.
Who is this "they" of which you speak? A few odd professors? Your fellow students?
A few odd profs? No, every one, with perhaps 2 exceptions. And I had almost every prof there at the time.
My fellow students? yes. Every one of them, with a handful of exceptions (the Orthodox students), and certainly every rabbinical student.
The laypeople at my conservative shul growing up? given that a repeated message in the drashot was "the authors of the Torah said . . ." I doubt any of them believed in it.
Where are you basing your shtus from? I actually lived it. You seem just to dabble in it.
Jdub-
And what happens if science in 20 years says, oops, turns out that homosexuality is a choice and it's not permanent?
I'm not saying it will, (I tend to doubt it will) but what if it does? Do we turn the clock back and say, looks like we were wrong?
This Masorti FAQ (http://www.masorti.org.uk/whatsmas.htm) says the following:
The main principle that defines conservative Judaism is our relationship to modern science and scholarship. What role do the results of modern studies, particularly in the fields of history, archaeology, bible scholarship and literature play in the understanding of our tradition? The Masorti/Conservative approach to this question is unequivocal: The results of these sciences cannot be ignored. They must be used to inform our religious beliefs, to help us understand our tradition better. They cannot be rejected outright, without careful consideration of their claims.
There are many areas where the results of scholarship and tradition seem to contradict. In these instances it is our position that we must interpret the tradition in a way that it doesn't contradict our knowledge from other sources. This is not a matter of convenience. The only reason to follow a tradition is because it is true. If we accept our tradition as truth, then it must agree with the facts as we know them. This means that, although we believe in the same things as traditional Judaism, how we understand those things is influenced by the findings of modern science and modern thought.
In other words, not only would changing their mind should new evidence or information about homosexuality be consistent with C.J's philosophy, it would be necessary. I fail to see what's so bad about this. What you call "swaying in the wind", they call keeping their eyes open and keeping Judaism intellectually honest and relevant.
Imagine that! Rabbis who are willing to to admit they've been wrong about something based on secular/scientific information. (Cough, cough, Slifkin.) Heaven forbid, right?
Forget what they teach in JTS, does the average Conser
Jew believe in Torah M'Sinai?
That's what counts.
and any type of divine Torah
I'm not familiar with the overall population of JTS, but that's not true of the people I know. Are you differentiating between the rabbinic/cantorial programs and the others? I feel pretty safe saying that most Conservative clergy feel that there's some sort of divine inspiration involved in the Torah, or why not be Recon, which has similar practices to left-wing Conservative, better artists, and fewer committees? For that matter, I'd feel pretty safe saying that most Reform Jews feel there's some sort of divinity to the Torah, if maybe less, or in a less direct way, than the average Conservative Jew believes.
looks like my question has been answered.
Of course, this is not the same thing at all as Torah mi-Sinai, but it's not "this is purely the work of humans making things up, so why don't we make stuff up, too?"
"They say that if the sgaes knew what we know about Gay people now, (and what, presumably God knew when He wrote the verse) they'd have interporeted and applied the verse in other ways"
What exactly are you referring to when you say "what we know about gay people now"
Im assuming you mean that being gay is not a choice. Even if that were true, psychology considers much of what the torah forbids not to be within a person's realm of control. Should all these things now be allowed according to the torah?
Another thing to consider is that psychology is a social science, which is far less reliable than regular sciences and heavily influenced by the surrounding culture. Remember, it was as late as the 1980s that the DSM still considered homosexuality a disease, which changed at the same time that the gay rights movement started gaining mainstream support.
divine inspiration ain't divine authorship.
What exactly are you referring to when you say "what we know about gay people now"
That it's possible for gay people to share a loving monogomous non abusive relationship.
In the ancient world, I am not sure there were any that fit this bill; most were old men taking advantage of small boys.
Per Wikkipedia:
In agreement with traditional Judaism, Conservative Judaism holds that God inspired prophets to write the Torah (five books of Moses) and the Hebrew Bible. However, for theological reasons most Conservative Jews reject the traditional Jewish idea that God dictated the words of the Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai in a verbal revelation. Divine revelation, however, while held to be real, is generally believed to be non-verbal -- that is, the revelation did not include the particular words of the divine texts. Conservative Judaism allows its adherents to hold to a wide array of views on the subject of revelation.
Conservative Jews are comfortable with the findings of higher criticism, including the documentary hypothesis, the idea that the current text of the Torah was redacted together from several earlier sources. They go further, and the movement's rabbinic authorities and official Torah commentary (Etz Hayim: A Torah Commentary) affirm that Jews should make use of modern critical literary and historical analysis to understand how the Bible developed. The view of a "non-verbal" quasi revelation is rejected as heretical by traditional Orthodox Judaism, and the view of any revelation at all is rejected as too traditional by Reform Judaism.
Conservative Jews reconcile these beliefs by holding that God, in some way, did reveal his will to Moses and later prophets. However, records of revelation may have been passed down through the centuries in many ways, including written documents, folklores, epic poems, etc. These records were eventually redacted together to form the Torah, and later on, the other books of the Tanakh
Jdub,
based on my understanding of Conservadox theory, the argument would run something like this:
There are several examples of Torah laws which so horrified the Rabbis that they Darshened them into oblivion.
For example: 18. If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who does not obey his father or his mother, and they chasten him, and [he still] does not listen to them, 19. his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place. 20. And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not obey us; [he is] a glutton and a guzzler."
21. And all the men of his city shall pelt him to death with stones, and he shall die. So shall you clear out the evil from among you, and all Israel will listen and fear.
Since the sages were horrified by this concept, they imposed numerous restrictions on it, so that it could never be enforced in practice. So, they end up reading the verse like this: If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who is between the age of 13 and 13 and three months who does not heed the voices of his father or his mother, whose voices are identical in tone and timbre. And many other restrictions on every other word of the verses. Through this device, the sages weeded the Torah of its brutality.
So, since we now know that provisions against homosexual relationships are brutal, the modern sages should Darshen them out of existence in the same way.
"starting a fire" as it's described in the Torah (guy goes out, gathers wood, strike flint on steel in the open, makes heat and light, etc.)
Exodous 35:3 "You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the sabbath day" (JPS)
Doesn't really describe much
I guess I was thinking about Numbers 15:32-36, where they catch a guy "gathering sticks" on Shabbos and stone him. I would think the only reason the poor dweeb is gathering sticks is becuase he wants to make a fire, in the usual way they did back in the days of the Bible.
On the other Hand God never tells Moses to kill someone becuase thy're working on their car on Shaboos. And in the instructions for the Mishkan, there's nothing in it about working on your car, so from this I deduce that it's 100% permissible to operate a motor vewhcile on Shabbos.
the Torah also forbids bestality. If it turns out that the desire to be intimate with an animal is possibly biological, does that mean that the Torah/our sages got that one wrong as well? I challenge all of you come up with an interpretation that will make it mutar.
So, since we now know that provisions against homosexual relationships are brutal, the modern sages should Darshen them out of existence in the same way.
This last bit is less that accurate, but what you wrote about the rebelluous son is another answer to CWY. The Torah explicitly says a Rebeluous son should be killed. The sages said, "not so fast."
(In case you aren't following along, my own view is that the Sages can not be over-ruled, even if they did make a mistake, on a matter like this. I just wish to make the Conservative argument as clear as possible and to protect it from the distortions of folks like Menken.)
the Torah also forbids bestality. If it turns out that the desire to be intimate with an animal is possibly biological
CWY please pay attention, and resist the urge to misconstrue the oppositions argument (they are my opposition, too. I don't think the Sages can be over-ruled even if they have erred)
They don't say the Sages were wrong about gay people because it is "biological" They say that the Sages were wrong because they presumed that the law was meant for all gay-kind, when perhaps it was meant only for gayt relationships which are promiscuous, polygomous or abusive. They say that if the Sages knew that a gay relatyionship could be lasting and loving they would have re-read the verse in the same way the re-read the explicit verses about the Rebelluous Sons and countless others.
There are things about this argument that appeal to me, but as a matter of practice I agree with those who say that we're stuck with the Sages, mistakes and all. (see the story of Eliezer ben Herkanes)
You can have a loving, caring relationship with an animal. that doesn't make having sex with it mutar.
That it's possible for gay people to share a loving monogomous non abusive relationship.
In the ancient world, I am not sure there were any that fit this bill; most were old men taking advantage of small boys.
But what about non-loving, non-monogamous, but also non-abusive relationships?
Does the relation have only be non-abusive to be OK?
Or does it also have to be monogamous?
Or does it have to also be "loving" (whatever that is)?
What would such a standard imply for conventional heterosexual marriage? After all, "love" has only been a part of marriage relationships for a short time in history --- most marriage is for convenience or economic/dysnastic reasons. And Jewish law permits polygamy (or at least it did until recently for sephradim).
Why the fetishization of "loving" "monogamous" relationships?
Loving, lasting, monogamous is irrelevant. you can probaably have that with your sister or mother, yet the Torah still forbids it.
DOn't ask me to DEFEND their argument; I am only doing my best to EXPLAIN it.
Loving, lasting, monogamous is irrelevant. you can probaably have that with your sister or mother, yet the Torah still forbids it.
Michael said:
So, since we now know that provisions against homosexual relationships are brutal
We know no such thing. Assuming you believe in the divine authorship of the Torah, we know that God said "Don't have sex with a man like you do with a woman."
We don't know why, but certainly nothing in our tradition limits this to "temple rites" or violence.
oops, can't make those stupid italics work.
They don't say the Sages were wrong about gay people because it is "biological" They say that the Sages were wrong because they presumed that the law was meant for all gay-kind, when perhaps it was meant only for gayt relationships which are promiscuous, polygomous or abusive. They say that if the Sages knew that a gay relatyionship could be lasting and loving they would have re-read the verse in the same way the re-read the explicit verses about the Rebelluous Sons and countless others.
They're saying that if the Sages had to put up with a flock of relentless gay activists who continuouslly gave them grief, and wouldn't stand for half-assed compromises, then the Sages surely would have caved, too.
It's all about power politics, and the principal that the "sqeaky wheel gets the grease." I'll bet that the reason the sages darshened the stubborn and rebellious son law out of existence is either (1) some macher had a stubborn and rebellious son and didn't want the kid executed, or (2) there were so many stubborn and rebellious types running around that if the Sages didn't act fast, they wouldn't be able to make a minyan.
The greased squeaky wheels is one reason why I'm a Conservative Apikoris. I saw the feminists squeak and get greased by the cowards leading the Conservative movement, with little regard (and in fact quite a bit of hostility) to Jewish tradition. Now the gays have lined up for their turn.
and the patrilineal descent "Jews" are lined up in the wings, Conservative Apikoris.
CA, you're 1000 percent right about how it works, but another important piece of that puzzle is that once the Sages have spoken, the discussion is over.
for better or for worse
"They say that if the Sages knew that a gay relatyionship could be lasting and loving they would have re-read the verse in the same way the re-read the explicit verses about the Rebelluous Sons and countless others."
is this really their argument? it borders on absurd.
Flip,
That is their argument in a nutshell.
Flip, it's not absurd at all. The only problem with the argument, according to how halacha works, is that you can't contravene a firmly established precedent, and certainly not one established 2000 years ago by the Sages, following virtually no debate.
The issue isn't that the Conservatives are wrong, but that precedent, practice and tradition are not on their side.
C-A: On the other Hand God never tells Moses to kill someone becuase thy're working on their car on Shaboos. And in the instructions for the Mishkan, there's nothing in it about working on your car, so from this I deduce that it's 100% permissible to operate a motor vewhcile on Shabbos.
I can't tell if you are being serious or not...
DB: There are things about this argument that appeal to me, but as a matter of practice I agree with those who say that we're stuck with the Sages, mistakes and all.
By Sages do you mean the specific Rabbis who wrote the Talmud or do you mean the sages that continue to our time?
I like the utter inability of supposedly "halachically-minded" Yidden to actually analyze this issue with their halachic brains.
Not all gay actions fall under the issur of "mishkav zachar". In fact, only one kind of sexual activity does.
Assuming you don't hold according to the Rambam's daat yachid, *all* lesbian sex acts are barely derabanan even, falling under pritsut and tseniut.
Same sex marriage is not a question of anything in the Torah.
Neither is equal respect in shul for someone who identifies as "gay".
Neither saying "I'm gay" (i.e. "Stop trying to make shidduchim between me and your daughters") nor "Would you like to come for a Shabbos meal to my and Yosef's home?" is equal in any way to saying "I do that particular sex act that is prohibted as "mishkav zachar" all the time. Twice last night, in fact."
So stop trying to quote Vayikra on this issue, and pretend to be halachic Jews. Analyze the issue HALACHICALLY, element by element.
The only reason you keep coming back to Vayikra is because it makes a good sound byte, like the Fundie Christians have shown us. But it's halachically IRRELEVANT to just about this entire discussion. Use Derabanan sources when you discuss issurim derabanan, because we all know that the Torah never commanded us to keep muktzah. Chazal did.
Except, Mr. Yankel, all gay sexual activity is assur at least d'rabbanan in addition to anal sex. So, your argument fails.
By Sages do you mean the specific Rabbis who wrote the Talmud or do you mean the sages that continue to our time?
Neither. I mean the Sages who were active when this law was codified (probably Tannaim)
dude, i didn't say anything was muttar.
i suggested that maybe y'all should actually know the real sources and deal with them like good jews instead of sounding like pat robertson and crew.
Except, Mr. Yankel, all gay sexual activity is assur at least d'rabbanan in addition to anal sex. So, your argument fails.
No his argument works, because, he is pointing out that the verse in Levit does not justify ostracizing gay people, and ultimately the conservative don't wish to leagalize gay acts, but to remove the ostracization.
Why don't you actually read DB's posts and the discussion?
The discussion (what the conservative movement is proposing) is centered around rereading the biblical (BIBLICAL!!) prohibition in a way contrary to 1) common sense and 2) the way Chazal (the d'rabbanan part) read it. That's what we've been discussing. The conservative movement's effort to wiggle around a biblical verse.
So don't come swooping in like a know-it-all showing off. At least read what we were debating.
The discussion (what the conservative movement is proposing) is centered around rereading the biblical (BIBLICAL!!) prohibition in a way contrary to 1) common sense and 2) the way Chazal (the d'rabbanan part) read it.
1 - This is irrelevant. When it comes to reading a bible verse, common sense is usually not helpful.
2 - This is all that matters.
It is not irrelevant. One doesn't generally read a text against its plain meaning without a tradition to do so.
Neither. I mean the Sages who were active when this law was codified (probably Tannaim)
So then how do you deal with the other changes made to Halakha since that time - such as women's learning, or the change that now a Jew is allowed to charge interest to another Jew (Heter Iska was only written in the 1500s...)
It is not irrelevant. One doesn't generally read a text against its plain meaning without a tradition to do so.
We ASSUME that a tradition justifies the re-reading, but we don't know, not for certain.
We ASSUME that a tradition justifies the re-reading, but we don't know, not for certain...
and because we don't know for certain, what we are really doing is relying on the Sages.
So then how do you deal with the other changes made to Halakha since that time - such as women's learning, or the change that now a Jew is allowed to charge interest to another Jew (Heter Iska was only written in the 1500s...)
They didn't change the rule; they found a way around it. The law against interest is still on the books, but circumvented.
With women's learning?? What's the circumvention there?
Deuteronomy and Rambam say a woman can't be king/leader, but Golda Meir was Prime Minister. Is that because Israel isn't a halakhic state? Dina deMalkhuta Dina?
Conservative Judaism sees Halakha as binding. However, it's sees more flexibility in what kinds of changes may be allowed. Socially, the movement is pretty assimilated, but at least in theory, the CJLS sees Halakha as binding.
In short, Conservative Judaism believes Rabbis have more power to admit social changes affect halakha such as in women's and gay's issues. There is support for this socially, historically, halakhically if you are willing to see it. Remember, CJ is characterized by allowed secular academic research to influence halakha. (e.g. No evidence of Mehitzas until the middle ages).
I think of CJ as elitist, ivory tower judaism because few people are intelligent enough to live such nuanced halakha vs. modernity lives. I'd rather skip to Reconstructinism and give the past a vote but not a veto. But then a lot of recons are weird. so I don't identify
With women's learning?? What's the circumvention there?
This was never forbidden.
"Flip, it's not absurd at all. The only problem with the argument, according to how halacha works, is that you can't contravene a firmly established precedent, and certainly not one established 2000 years ago by the Sages, following virtually no debate."
"They say that if the Sages knew that a gay relatyionship could be lasting and loving they would have re-read the verse."
Whats absurd is the notion that rabbis of the time would take "love" into consideration. This isnt a Hollywood movie ("KILL THEM....but rabbi, what about love, did you ever consider for a moment that they can form a loving lasting relationship? (cue the music)).
No matter how pro gay rights you are, you have to concede that this would not make the rabbis re-read anything. You cant just take the 21st century american value system and superimpose it on rabbis of the past. Heck, rabbis of today wouldnt even care about it.
Here's the thing, if you take "man shall not lie..." as prohibiting a chosen action, you are insulting the many homosexuals who believe it is not a choice, but something they discovered about themselves. Seriously, why would someone choose to be gay against societal norms? Fringe benefits?
If homosexuality is innate, biological etc, then we have the conflict that the Torah is calling a toevah something that someone is born with. Jews don't believe in original sin.
So, it must be that the Torah is talking about something else. Perhaps Toevah means an abhorred ritual practice of the surrounding nations. There's evidence for that.
In any case, the traditional understanding of the Torah seems unfair and mean to a particular sect of Jews. A good-hearted person should look for a way around it. The mitzvot were given to purify us, right?
There is no halakha lemoshe misinai in the mishnah. It is a later concept. And given the amount of debate in the sources, it's hard to believe anything could be transmitted unchanged.
The sages made great changes in Jewish law in their time. Why can't we?
Benjamin, the problem with that argument is that a good deal of the commandments go against nature. By nature men are greedy, argumentative, murderous and worse. The law - indeed, civilization - tell us these natural impulses are wrong.
The fact that something is inate, is not an argument, in of itself, for accepting it.
Benjamin said: If homosexuality is innate, biological etc, then we have the conflict that the Torah is calling a toevah something that someone is born with. Jews don't believe in original sin.
Wrong. Homosexuality and homosexual acts are different things. I love pepperoni pizza having grown up eating treif. Torah says "don't eat pig." I may want it, doesn't mean I can have it. (Yes, the analogy is a stretch, but it's late and I need to get out of here.) That a man is attracted to another man is one thing. That he acts on it is another. it's the act that is the sin, not the desire.
Your analogy to "original sin" is inapt. Jews certainly believe in the yetzer ha'ra, so one can certainly want something that the Torah prohibits.
Benjamin:
I'd also point out the conservative Judaism isn't an ivory tower because it's hard. It's an ivory tower because outside of JTS, it doesn't exist.
You want hard, by your definition, you're talking Modern Orthodoxy. That's nuanced halacha embracing modernity. The old joke is you have Orthodox Rabbis in conservative synagogues talking to reform Jews. Change the first part and the rest is still accurate.
jdub, would you let your daughter married an "out" flamboyantly gay homosexual if he promised not to have sex with men forever?
are you forcing gay men and women to be celibate or to marry against their most basic instincts? I don't know which is more cruel.
jdub "Your analogy to "original sin" is inapt. Jews certainly believe in the yetzer ha'ra, so one can certainly want something that the Torah prohibits."
you misunderstand. yester harah is an inclination. original sin (here) means the homosexual is born a sinner, regardless of his inclination.
Thanks DovBear for the comment going against nature. It's a good point. I suppose I am trying to have things both ways. I personally believe the Torah is just wrong on this point. But from a Halakhic point of view, as for the Conservative movement, you have to reinterpret the verse.(or laaqor iqar min haTorah) So, we say the verse talks about something else, we know gays are good people (or as good as anyone else), and voila, one problem solved, another box opened (what else can they change)
jdub: also, I can be trained to not want cheeseburgers. you can't train a gay to not want gay sex. i don't think you can put their yitzre hara in the same category because gays don't choose to be gay.
I have no yetzer ra to have gay sex but they do. that's why I call it original sin, even though the Torah only prohibits the sex act itself. It is a "genetic/congenital" yetzer hara.
One doesn't generally read a text against its plain meaning without a tradition to do so.
So given enough time, the Conservative position will be right?
'Its just as explicit as "An eye for an eye"'
Not for women.
And even for men, if you believe Rashi, it is only talking about one specific act.
'If ever a man served as the "catcher," he was often revoked of his citizenship and his masculine status in the country'
Not so Alexander the Great, who despite both being an open idolater and an openly active homosexual is admired by Chazal.
'what happens inside an internal combustion engine'
If it isn't an av melachah, it has to be at least a toldah. If you had a battery powered electric vehicle and were within an eruv, there might be room for discussion.
'there are gay people who are just plain gay - no matter how hard they try not to be'
This is empirically a true statement, and we might as well stop denying that our mesorah does not know what to do about this.
'Do you believe that there aren't really gays, only people in it for fashion?'
Have you ever had a friend who has struggled with this? I personally know two frum jews, and several other non-frum Jews and non-Jews, who were in marriages with people who were trying -- desparately -- not to be gay. For years -- even decades -- they kept up the pretense. Most of you probably have no idea how difficult this was for them, how painful. If there were even one such person, it would be a problem for our mesorah. And there are in fact more than one. For at least some gay people, is not just adolescent rebellion.
'that psychology is a social science, which is far less reliable than regular sciences and heavily influenced by the surrounding culture'
Actually, much of psychology is based on better empirical evidence than some "harder" sciences. Some forms of psychotherapy are better supported by evidence than a lot of drugs that are commonly used. Psychology is probably the most rigorous of the social sciences.
'the DSM'
is written by physicians, not psychologists.
'divine inspiration ain't divine authorship'
This true statement is not well understood by most Jews.
'possible for gay people to share a loving monogomous non abusive relationship....
In the ancient world, I am not sure there were any that fit this bill'
Alexander and Hephastion.
But you are essentially correct in that they were not the norm.
'modern sages should Darshen them out of existence in the same way'
I have never heard of a frum Jew suggesting the reinstitution of the death penalty for male homosexual sex. For that matter, I have not heard of anyone wanting to reinstitute the death penalty for d'oraita Shabat violations. (I *have* heard suggestions that the guys who throw stones at cars on Shabat should be whipped.)
'I just wish to make the Conservative argument as clear as possible'
I will let Conservative Jews try to make their arguments.
'once the Sages have spoken, the discussion is over'
I'm not so sure. Women now study talmud, we drink milk produced by non-Jews, we eat shemittah year produce from Eretz Yisrael, and my wife does melachah in the hospital in order to treat seriously ill non-Jewish patients on Shabat.
Forget what they teach in JTS, does the average Conser
Jew believe in Torah M'Sinai?
Nu, so what does the average Ortho Jew believe abot this stuff? If I can take the experience of my neighbors who affiliate ortho, not to mention the evidence of all the skeptics on the blogs, I'd say that most ortho shuls are full of apikorsim, too. They're just apikoristic sheep who outwardly follow what the rabbis say, or (to be more charibale) find some personal benefit in being Orthoprax even if they think it's as bogus as the non-O's believe.
The number of true frum Jews who have drunk the Orthodox Kool Aid is probabaly a small percentage of k'lal yisrael, and it's probabaly been that way ever since Sinai.
Well, the rabbis outlawed polygamy, didn't they? Even though it is legal in the Torah? Where there is a rabbinic will, there is a halakhic way, although I don't think it's terribly important whether the Conservative movement makes the "halakhic" choice. I'd rather that they made the "right" choice, and I don't think the halakhic choice is always the right choice--where women are concerned there is plenty of evidence that the halakhic choice is often the wrong choice, or at least it is if there's no evolution--take divorce laws and/or agunot, for instance. There is a reason we talk about taking on the "yoke" of the commandments, and *every one of us* chooses which commandments we're taking on, whether we are Orthodox or Not. (I'm Not.)
CA,
"which results in no usable heat or light". Does you know where the heat in a car comes from? And no light? There IS electrical light, lots of it, though I'm not sure what the Conservative opinion is on that. I heard they are matir turning on electrical light on Shabbos, is that true? If so, for what reason?
&,
"I'd feel pretty safe saying that most Reform Jews feel there's some sort of divinity"
"some sort of divinity" isn't necessarily miSinai though. It can as well be, and probably is in this case, divine inspiration.
anonymousgrrrl,
It was ONE rabbi, the Meor haGolah. But all Ashkenazim listened.
"which results in no usable heat or light". Does you know where the heat in a car comes from? And no light? There IS electrical light, lots of it, though I'm not sure what the Conservative opinion is on that. I heard they are matir turning on electrical light on Shabbos, is that true? If so, for what reason?
OK, your partially right regarding the heat. However, an engine is not started for the primary purpose of generating heat. As to the lights, yes, there is a Conservative halachic opinion that states that operating electrical devices is permitted on Shabbos. This is because turning the switch is physcially similarr to opening a faucet, which is permitted on Shabbos.
The whole business is a philosophical difference. Better the Shabbos restrictions be defined very narrowly -- that is, only in the context that they were done at the time the Torah was written -- that that they be dfined so broadly that future generations of power-hungry rabbis and piety-crazed frumsters can drive k'lala Yisrael crazy with their chumras.
jdub: also, I can be trained to not want cheeseburgers. you can't train a gay to not want gay sex.
Ohm I don't know. Based on experience with heterosexual marriage, I would suggest that if we allow gay marriage, it might actualy be a way to get gay men not to want gay sex!
"Not tonight dear, I have a headache."
Well, the rabbis outlawed polygamy, didn't they? Even though it is legal in the Torah? Where there is a rabbinic will, there is a halakhic way, although I don't think it's terribly important whether the Conservative movement makes the "halakhic" choice. I'd rather that they made the "right" choice,
Well, it's not clear which choice the Conservative movement like to make. It seems to me that the choice they make is the political choice. That is, if enoguh people squeal and nag, they can get what they want.
Which might be OK, except that it diminishes their credibility as expounders of eternal religious truths (if such things actually exist.)
I have never heard of a frum Jew suggesting the reinstitution of the death penalty for male homosexual sex.
Actually, once about 15 or 20 years ago, a prominent MO rabbi in our town was asked for his reaction to the hiring of a gay rabbi by the local Reform Temple. While he didn't call for the poofter's execution, he did go out of his way to mention that the guy was committing a capital offense according to Jewish law. (I think this gay rabbi had a partner and was pretty up-front about the nature of the relationship.)
And this from an old-time MO rabbi who would actually sit at the same table and work on community matters with non-O rabbis, including some who violated Shabbat (at least by orthodox standards), which is also a capital offense.
Mishugass, it's all mishugass.
charlie-
"Actually, much of psychology is based on better empirical evidence than some "harder" sciences."
No one in the scientific community considers psychological studies to be empirical evidence of anything. In fact, there was just a large article in the times about this. This is why there is so little consensus among psychologist regarding approaches to treatment at even the most basic level.
And while the DSM is written by psychiatrists, it is partly based on psychological research, and is considered completely unscientific by much of even the psychiatric field. You can google this and plenty of journal articles will come up.
Well, the rabbis outlawed polygamy, didn't they? Even though it is legal in the Torah?
But that's making something forbidden allowed, so really, throw it in on that "fence around a fence" thing and there ya go. It's not as though the Torah said "You MUST have more than one wife."
It would have been a totally different issue then.
Ok, Sorry, that's supposed to read "that's making something allowed forbidden," rather than the other way around.
For a Conservative/Masorti halakhic view, see here
Dovbear approximately said: Once the sages have decided an issue, it is decided forever. Sounds like we've become the Persians - a decree signed with the King's signet ring can never be repealed. Instead some other way has to be found around it.
The way O Jews find another way is traditionally to say the surrounding circumstances have changed so that the question being asked is no longer the same question. Take women's education. The Chafetz Chaim said the chain of women's mesorah was broken and what was once taught in the home now had to be transmitted via school because of the loss of knowledge.
Another case: The Sdrei Aish said that girls and boys should allowed to sing zemirot together because of changes in the normal educational structure in France and Germany - not to allow it would drive away many young French and German yidden.
Sometimes this change is made reluctantly with much gnashing of teeth - the decision to allow men to say Shema in front of married women whose hair was uncovered is a good example. The Rabbis wished that the women would cover their hair, but given the fact that that was not happening, they allowed what was previously forbidden (the saying of the shema, not the uncovering of the hair).
Other times the change is made with greater acceptance - the teshuvot allowing Jewish doctors to heal non-Jews on shabbat never said 'because of our great sins we are forced to this accomodation' or anything like that, AFAIK.
Whether circumstances around the questions of gay marriage, gay ordination, and simple public acceptance of openly gay people have changed enough to make it a different question is plainly debatable. In O communities the overwhelming concensus is that it has not.
For those asking if conservative Jews believe in Torah Misinai, I would say many do not believe that the torah as we have it (or in any form) was revealed on a mountain 3500 years ago.
Yet, there seems to be belief in torah min hashamayim, that the torah nonetheless represents Hashem's will, that the hand of God guided the various authors who wrote the torah.
If they saw it as nothing more than a human document, they wouldn't sit around arguing about what to do with laws that are harmful to people. If it was writtne by people, it certainly can be overturned by people.
THe reason they are strugglign with this is that they do understand it as a document that represents Hashem's unchanging will. As we understand the torah to be moral and good, if laws seem to caprisciously harm a segment of society, we MUST be misunderstanding Hashem's will.
10 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
