Parashat Acharei-Mot -- Kedoshim, Leviticus 16:1-20:27

This week's parasha is sponsored by Mal and Diane Sacks: "in memory of our mother, Florence Gainen, who like the study of Torah, added light to our lives."
To sponsor a parasha, click here.

The Torah's prohibition against homosexuality is not talking to today's gay men and women.

Study with Baruch Sienna

You know that an issue has become mainstream when Hollywood can make movies about it. The first movies with explicit gay characters/themes portrayed the dilemma of 'fitting in' by putting gays in situations where they had to pretend to be straight (Les Cages aux Folles, Touch of Pink). Then, the dark Brokeback Mountain, a serious drama, explored the angst of being gay in a homophobic environment. Being gay is beginning to be accepted. Gray Matters, (coming soon) has a sister fall in love with her brother's fiancée. Now, the latest comedy "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry" skewers our stereotypes about gay men, heterosexual relationships and homophobia by turning the formula on its head. Two, very straight firefighters, after claiming that they are in a 'domestic partnership' (to obtain pension benefits), have to pretend that they are gay in order to avoid a lawsuit.

I don't want to make light of a serious issue. Gays are frequently subjected to prejudice, discrimination and abuse. The rate of gay teen suicide may be double (or more - the studies are highly disputed) than that of their heterosexual peers. Should we rethink our attitudes? From time to time over the last few months (and even last week) I have briefly touched on the issue of gay sexuality, but never devoted an entire column to this emotional issue. This topic is highly sensitive and this week is sure to be controversial. I will admit that personally, I was initially uncomfortable with the idea of gay relationships (I thought: it's unnatural--see below), but (35 years ago) I also thought playing an organ in synagogue on Shabbat or a woman in a tallit was strange too. (I've gotten used to it :-} ). But in this case, rather than force myself to continue to agree with the Torah text, I've struggled to come to terms with a changed reality, and I've come to a new understanding of homosexuality and Judaism.

Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson demolishes many arguments against homosexuality in his Tikkun magazine (March/April '88) article: Rethinking Sexuality: Judaism and Homosexuality. Four of the top myths are:

      1. Homosexuality is unnatural. Studies have conclusively shown that homosexuality is found in cultures around the world, and have been recorded in human history since ancient times. In addition, examples of homosexual behaviour have been found in other mammals.
      2. Homosexuality is an illness. Indeed, the American Psychiatric Association at one time did consider homosexuality to be a disorder, and even tried to 'cure' homosexuals with therapy. In 1973 the association unanimously voted that 'homosexual acts are not psychiatric disorders' and even Freud noted that it could not be classified as an illness. Today there is general agreement that homosexuality is innate, not chosen, and cannot be changed. Mental health professionals no longer attempt (as they once did) to transform an individual's sexual orientation.
      3. Homosexuality is disgusting. (This is probably the closest to the Torah's view). Rabbi Lawrence Kushner astutely reminds his readers that at a certain age, the idea of any kind of sex was disgusting, and I remember as a teenager the horror at the realization that people my parents' age (including my parents, I supposed) must have had (and might have continued to have) sex. The idea of what is disgusting is highly personal and debatable, and why we consider the love between two people as 'disgusting' says more about our fears than about homosexual love.
      4. It's against the Torah. Well, it seems like it will be difficult to get out of this one. But wait a minute.

Yes, the Torah verse is quite explicit. This week's parasha declares: "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman, it is an abhorrence" (Lev. 18:22). Pretty strong language. The prohibition against [male] homosexuality is mentioned again in a parallel passage (Lev. 20:13) that like the first one includes a variety of laws against sexual immorality (bestiality, incest and other forbidden sexual unions). The other references to male homosexuality are in the context of rape (Gen. 19:5, Jud. 19:22) or cultic prostitution (Deut. 23:18, 19). The word 'to'evah' often translated as 'abomination,' usually refers to something repulsive, including food that is thought to be disgusting (see Gen. 43:32, Deut 14:3).

The pshat (intended) meaning is clear; the Torah is forbidding homosexual sex. (Note, as has been often pointed out- the prohibition is exclusively against male gay sex although the Rabbis infer that lesbian relations are forbidden as well). The Torah's worldview is heterosexual, so the Torah would have viewed homosexuality as unnatural. But how can liberal Jews (who might choose to eat forbidden foods, eat on Yom Kippur, or desecrate Shabbat) invoke the Torah's prohibition against homosexuality? Many liberal Jews understand the Torah's legislation as reflecting a specific time and place. Such a view acknowledges that in the days of the Torah, homosexuality was not an accepted practice, but the Torah's attitudes can no longer speak to this issue today.

But even if we cannot accept the Bible's condemnation, many readers of Torah are dissatisfied with leaving the Torah's prohibition 'as is' and moving on. To simply disregard the Torah text as irrelevant seems defeatist. Is there another approach that is respectful of Torah, and yet will allow dignity for all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation? Of course, I realize that there is also a danger in twisting the Torah's words to mean the opposite of what they say. There is a famous talmudic exercise to test potential students: to bring 100 proofs that lizard is kosher (when the Torah explicitly prohibits touching them). This approach was called 'pilpul', (creative logical arguments) and became famous for its hairsplitting dialectics. When it started becoming an end in itself, it began to lose its appeal and soon degenerated into sophistry.

At the risk of engaging in pilpul, a convincing argument can be made that to understand this prohibition we have to understand that in the Torah, homosexual sex was seen as a cultic/idolatrous practice. The prohibition against homosexual acts was really a prohibition against idolatry. Another solution from Rabbi Elyse Goldstein is suggested by the extraneous phrase "as with a woman". The Torah was against having a man play a submissive role. This would be supported by the Torah's injunction that a woman not put on male dress/gear- hence Orthodox women who do not wear pants. Roles in the Torah (and in traditional Judaism) are clear; crossing lines is frowned upon. Although homosexual acts have been practiced since ancient times, the concept of a 'homosexual', that is a person with a gay identity is a modern concept and was surely foreign to the original Torah listeners. So when the Torah says, "You shall not lie down with a male" who was being addressed? The 'you' is obviously not referring to women. One could equally argue that gay men were not being included either. I very much like Bob Goldfarb's novel solution found in Learn Torah With... . The Torah's prohibition was for male (ie. heterosexual) Israelites. The key to understanding this verse is not what is being prohibited, but who is being prohibited. The Torah did not conceive of gay men, so it is addressing straight men-- prohibiting them from having gay sex. That seems fair and not unreasonable. (The issues are more complicated when we consider bi-sexuals and transgendered folk, so I'll leave that for now).

So if we can find a 'midrashic' solution (and I admit it is a midrash) why do we still cling to the literal reading, when we understand other passages as metaphors? Sociology is often more powerful than we realize. Women, for example, even according to halacha, are permitted to do much more than they are currently allowed to do in Orthodox synagogues. If you challenge this- you'll be told, "We don't do that..." even though there is no halachic justification. The same holds true here. Even in the traditional world, the rabbis were less wedded to the text than we think. There are several times in rabbinic literature, where a law or a rite is discussed (such as the 'rebellious son' who is supposed to be stoned), and the rabbis say, "this never was and will never be." We don't think of stoning our rebellious sons; why don't we believe this about this verse? We could understand the Torah in more gay-friendly terms, but the truth is, many of us are not ready to. Deep down, many of us still feel that the Torah is right on this one. If the Genesis story is 'true' that the 'natural order' is for a man and woman to be a pair (and let's be honest- that is how most heterosexual couples feel), what do we do with Chuck and Larry, or Susan and Debbie?

The religious establishment has trouble changing gears-- whether to Galileo's challenge that the earth is not the center of the universe, or Darwin's challenge that the creatures we see today (including us!) have evolved over billions of years. This is an issue that will continue to challenge our religious movements (the recent controversy in the Conservative movement) as it becomes more and more normative for gay individuals to be in movies, in politics and in society. But I think the main reason the religious right has difficulty with this issue is not the explicit prohibition (although the verse does make this all the more difficult), but the larger issue, how could God have made a mistake. George Burns in the title role in of the movie Oh, God!, when pressed to think of one mistake he may have made, admits: "Avocado pits. I might have made the avocado pits too big." If it is true that God made someone homosexual, it would be unbelievably cruel to then make a rule: "Oh yeah, and by the way, no committed, loving, intimate same-sex relationships." One other point, if it is not obvious. Acknowledging that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are created in God's image, is in no way forcing or even encouraging heterosexuals to be gay. Just because we allow gay people the freedom to be themselves, does not impinge on any heterosexual. Remember, if you aren't attracted to a same-sex partner, then it's not about you. You still have permission to be straight.

There is a short Israeli film, called 'Eishet Kohen' about a young, newly married ultra-Orthodox woman who is raped in her home by a mentally ill homeless person.  According to halachah (Jewish law) her husband, a Kohen, is now not permitted to be married to her and must divorce her. The head of the ultra-Orthodox community understands that such a divorce would be adding insult to injury, and seeks a way to overturn the legalities of the case. The whole movie is about the tension between those on the rabbinical court who want to enforce the divorce (they legitimately claim: the law is absolutely clear in this case) and the 'Rebbe' who understands that there is a deeper Torah: that to further punish this beautiful couple would be devastating, and therefore cannot be God's will and our understanding of the Torah in this case must be flawed.

It will always be challenging to hear the words of the Leviticus 18:33 (they're traditionally read on Yom Kippur), but we have to look at our gay colleagues at work, and our gay friends who live in our neighbourhood, and our gay children, and realize that they deserve simple justice and fairness, our love and acceptance, just like all of God's other creation.

 

Shabbat Shalom

BDS