I realize that the commentary on Acharei Mot and Kedoshim which addressed the issue of homosexuality in general and amongst Jews ranged farther and wider than that specific topic, and may be too lengthy, involved, and desultory to digest.
Therefore, I am going to try to address this hot button issue again from a more focused point of view. There are no guarantees I won't run off on tangents but if I do, I'll try to save those thoughts for another day and stay relatively strictly (!) on topic. Although I will be reprising many of the points in the afforementioned commentary, I will try (that wonderful word which gives everyone an excuse to fail) to organize my thoughts in a more easy to follow, coherent and logical manner.
That's my intention. So far, I've just got an opening: it's just the beginning.
HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE TORAH
The Torah says "Man shall not lie with a man [or as NASA rewrote Neil Armstrong's historic statement upon stepping onto the Moon's surface, just "man"] in the manner of lying with a woman. It is an abomination."
As before, in my previous blog entry on this topic, I think it's important to discuss the linguistic impact of the English word "abomination" as opposed to the Hebrew word "to-evah," but I'll get to that, G-d willing, later. Right now, I want to argue context.
The above statement from the Torah has historically been misinterpreted, in my opinion, to be a blanket condemnation of all people who are homosexual. It has made them into pariahs in supposedly "G-d fearing" societies.
But in condemning all homosexuals, and painting them all as sinners, these particular interpreters of the Torah have done a great disservice to humanity and to the Torah itself, not to mention, to G-d Himself. In addition to misquoting the intentions of the Master of the Universe, they have, historically, done further damage by creating an unnecessary tension and animus between the gay people in society and G-d.
Gay people have, because of the misinterpretation of the Torah on the part of religious leaders, inexorably been led to believe that G-d -- G-d forbid -- hates them. They have been left to their own devices to mount an ego defense against this irrational so-called hatred on the part of the Master of the Universe.
How would you deal with that? Suppose someone came to you and said "I have it on good authority that the Creator hates you."
Many people would respond, "Well, the 'heck' with the Creator, then." In other words, alienation, denial and defensiveness in order to preserve ego integrity in the face of an unjust onslaught.
But these religious leaders who vilify homosexuality have made a judgement of homosexuals based on a statement in the Torah for which they have failed to see the proper context, and have consequently created a long trail of error on the subject. In other words, the statement, taken out of context, on its own, is not what it seems to be upon superficial reading.
What do you mean, you say? It's there in black and white. It's unambiguous. There's no mistaking the meaning. Context can have nothing to do with it.
Here we have to consider the distinction between the simple and the simplistic.
"Simple" is good, whole, pure, complete. The Torah says Jacob was an "ish tam," a "simple man," as he was growing up but our sages teach us that this meant he was fully developed morally, and not lacking any faculties as he studied the Torah in its then current form.
"Simplistic," on the other hand, is a weak, fraudulent attempt to impute that something is simple by ignoring the whole of an issue, and latching on only to a part of it, and pretending that this part is the whole, like our one statement, out of context, regarding homosexuality. People take the statement on its face and argue that it's so unequivocal that there's no possible mistaking G-d's intentions here, that homosexuality is a sin.
Oh, really? Well, it's clear to me from the greater context of the Torah that homosexuality is not a sin, certainly not in our world.
How can context change the apparent meaning of the Torah?
First, we need a demonstration of the importance of context, which is basically any information extrinsic and intrinsic to a statement which may modify our understanding of it.
How about let's imagine there's a series of sentences in the Torah which goes like this:
"Thou shalt not drink milk. Thou shalt not eat cheese. Thou shalt not eat yoghurt. Thou shalt not put cream in thy coffee."
Oops. There goes the whole dairy industry. Bessie? Forget the milk, you're going to be a one-time source for filet mignon, other choice -- and not so choice -- cuts, maybe a dozen baseballs, some shoes and a winter jacket. That's a l-o-o-w down thing to do to a milk cow, you say? Sorry. The Torah says. Clearly.
Ah, but what if, just before the above imagined statements, the Torah said this:
"After you shall eat meat, you shall make a demarcation between the meat and any dairy products. You will wait until the meat has been fully digested. For a period of six hours, or into the fifth hour for some, or if you're a certain kind of European Jew, three hours, you shall not have any dairy products."
Then, say the Torah followed with our imagined statement:
"Thou shalt not drink milk. Thou shalt not eat cheese. Thou shalt not eat yoghurt. Thou shalt not put cream in thy coffee."
As we can clearly see, in context, the passage takes on a completely different meaning. We are not forbidden dairy products across the board, only in certain circumstances.
Thus it is with the statement in the Torah about homosexuality, if you add in the proper context from the Torah.
What context, you ask? Where is any context which qualifies the passage in question as to mean anything other than it seems to mean on the face of it? It's in a list of things not to do, mitzvahs known as "lo-ta-a-se."
Actually, there are many contexts in the Torah which bear directly and indirectly on this statement regarding homosexuality. There is a telescoping progression of contexts, all of which mitigate the apparent meaning of the statement in question.
Let's zoom out to the widest angle of perspective, and view the first context.
The first context involves who is the intended recipient of Torah law, i.e exactly who is the Torah talking to? Does the Torah address all people everywhere, or does it specifically and exclusively focus and direct its remarks to the Jews, hence the term, Chosen People?
Almost all religious Jews agree (a rarity) that the commandments in the Torah are exclusively addressed to the Jews -- and no-one else -- with the exceptions of the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noach.
To wit, a convert-in-training to Judaism who has not graduated into full-fledged Jewish status, may not fully keep the Sabbath even as they learn how to do so. They must violate the rules of the Sabbath by striking a match, turning on a light etc. so as not to incur a Heavenly penalty for impinging on the exclusive spiritual territory of the Jewish people, i.e. the laws of the Torah.
So, from our first context, we see that it is not the purpose of the Torah to prohibit non-Jews from engaging in homosexual behaviour because this commandment is not addressed to the world at large at all. It is, in fact, in a chapter (parsha) dealing with exactly how the Hebrew nation is to be different than other nations in order to be holy. The Jews, by following the Torah, are to be a Holy People, a testament to G-d Above. Other nations need not apply.
Nevertheless, of the 613 commandments, as counted by Maimonides, which Jews must follow, there are seven which all peoples of the world are supposed to observe. Some will say that the prohibition against homosexuality is one of these. To me, such a point of view overzealously expands on what the nations of the world are supposed to observe.
I hope to dispense with this argument relatively quickly. The notion that there are seven basic commandments which all peoples are supposed to observe is exactly that: there are seven such commandments, not thirty or forty or more. When these are listed, they include understanding that G-d is above, require the establishment of courts, prohibit the tearing a limb from a living animal, incest, murder, kidnapping and holding for ransom, and making false testimony.
Expanding on any of these commandments, is, in my opinion, not an option. Yet, we have seen all kinds of zealous people, Jewish and non-Jewish, add meanings to these which, in my opinion, are simply not warranted. I am going to look up the Gemara (Talmud) on this, but the question of homosexuality comes from the prohibition against incest, called "giluy arayot," or "the uncovering of nakedness."
In the Torah, it is crystal clear that "giluy arayot" pertains to forbidden liaisons within one's extended family, i.e., a man should not uncover the nakedness of his mother, sister, step-mother, daughter, daughter-in-law etc. Somehow -- and I will check it out -- this commandment was thought to be prescribed to other nations as well.
I know it goes against most thinking but I would question that. It seems to me that the proscription against incest is given emphatically to the Children of Israel as a means of being holier than other peoples, in which case, other peoples would not be prohibited by G-d from doing this, even though it is distasteful to G-d, and, in fact, would have to do it, in order for the Children of Israel to be different!
And, even if we assert that incest is prohibited for all peoples, there is no justification for tacking on one's favourite sexual pet peeve, and saying it also comes under incest. This particular group of laws in the Torah is limited to one's extended family. The only possible allusion to homosexuality is that one is told not to uncover their father's nakedness, however, this is interpreted universally as being a proxy nakedness, occurring when one uncovers the nakedness of one's father's wife, not literally, one's father's.
So, to call incest by the wider name of "sexual transgression," is a falsehood propogated by, in my opinion, overzealous do-gooders, and I say this, no matter how high and mighty they were. There were seven Noahide laws. There is no justification for expanding them into more, no matter how "well-meaning" our zealous commentators are.
My guiding principle in all of this is my rock-hard faith that the Torah is truth, or "emet," in Hebrew. If there seems to be something false or wrong in the Torah, I believe it's because we do not understand the Torah correctly.
And so, I cannot willy-nilly add homosexuality to the concept of incest. This would be false, and the Torah would have none of it. Along this line, I could also not possibly believe that the Torah tells us to hate and ostracize the gay community or to be angry with them. This would be a falsehood improperly ascribed to the Torah.
Why? Because the Torah is truth, and scientific, sociological and historical truth have shown us that sexual orientation is, for the most part, not the "fault" of the person, and not a matter of choice.
Throughout the history of the human race, there has always been a segment of the population which is made up of gay people. It's, therefore, actually, quite natural, as I see it.
We have a golden principle in Judaism, that a person cannot be judged as a sinner if their actions are not their fault, i.e. if they were brought up not to keep the Sabbath etc. It's called "tinok shenishba," or "a baby which was taken captive, i.e., spirited away from the opportunity to grow up in observant Judaism."
So, if we accept that the Torah operates on truth, then the Torah knows that those who are truly homosexual have no choice in the matter, and, like the innocent child raised away from observant Judaism, are not sinners at all, and must not be condemned.
As for sincere Christians who believe that their view of G-d's religion supersedes mine, and encompasses the proscription against homosexuality, I can only say that I believe the Torah and Judaism are 100% complete as they are, and do not require anything "new."
And, as stated above, I do not believe the Torah is addressed to anyone but the Jewish people -- whom G-d has not abandoned and replaced.
So, I'm sorry, dear preachers, I do not see any justification in the Torah for you to consider homosexuality a sin amongst non-Jews. The statement in the Torah -- yet to be placed in context regarding the Jewish people -- does not apply to gentiles. So, please, cool your jets.
What I believe, by the way, is that every great religion is true. I believe G-d has given teachings to different peoples which are appropriate for them, hence they are all true.
In his mercy, G-d has provided. What is right for one culture or population is not necessarily what another needs. Therefore, it's tricky to take from the Jewish tradition -- the Torah -- and try to apply it to everyone. This, in fact, shouldn't be done.
to be continued
