Acharei--Kedoshim: The Whole Gay Thing: A Torah Perspective

One of the real hot button issues in this world which directly involves the Torah (the Bible), is homosexuality. It is not my intention to promote or defend homosexuality, rather, to defend The Torah, which is used -- in my opinion, misused -- by some Jews, Christians  alike to demonize homosexuals, often to utterly condemn them.

This is wrong. I don't think it's what the Torah wants, nor is it what the Torah actually says. It's my feeling, also, that, although I may seem to be saying shocking, heretical things, here, there are many rabbinic authorities who actually agree with what I am about to say but who will never say so because they are concerned about misleading people who may draw the wrong conclusions, if given half a chance.

Am I in trouble, now! Why on Earth would I deal with such an incendiary topic?

Because I don't think anyone -- that I've heard or seen -- has got it right, yet, and the Torah teaches us "Tzedek, tzedek, tirdof," i.e. "make doubly sure you vigorously pursue truth and fairness."

Our sages say "Hevey metunim ba-deen," or "Be extra careful when you judge." Although this nominally applies to issues of justice and the courts, it most certainly also applies to individuals in our own daily lives, making our own personal judgements of others. Thus, if we are tempted to judge homosexuals by a mistaken understanding of what the Torah says, we have failed to fulfill this important principle.

That's where I come in. I am going to tell you what the Torah really says, he said humbly, and correct centuries of misperceptions and error in a single -- if lengthy -- blog entry. I am also able to leap tall buildings in a single bound -- but that's another story. And, I repeat, I am not here as an apologist for homosexuality, I am here as a defender of truth, justice and the Torah way. I will stray neither right nor left from the words of the Torah, nor will I twist them to fulfill any manner of agenda. Instead, I will free the Torah from the agendas currently being used to colour its meaning.

First, let me establish myself. I am a believing, G-d fearing, Modern Orthodox Jew. I keep the Sabbath; I eat only Kosher food. I believe in "taharas mishpacha," i.e. the non-cohabitation of husband and wife immediately before, during and after her monthly cycle, and her immersion in a mikveh for spiritual purification after her cycle is over. I myself have gone to the mikveh at least a thousand times, to date. By the way, this ritual immersion is where baptism comes from, however relevant that may be.

I have a great love for the Torah, and consider it to be an eternal and transcendent communication from G-d to mankind, especially to us Jews, of course, which contains an inexhaustible, ever-self-renewing motherlode of teaching, insight, guidance, and truth. It will never, in my opinion, be fully comprehended or understood. The rabbis say there are seventy faces to the Torah, indicating its constant revelation of new facets every time one looks into it. "The Living Torah" is a good way to describe it.

So. I believe in the Torah.

Having said that, let me give you my conclusions about G-d's intentions regarding homosexuality as indicated in the Torah. Then, I will elaborate.

In my opinion, the Torah says it's alright to be gay privately, but not alright to promote the lifestyle publicly in a theocratic state.

I know the above statement seems to conflict with the high level of tolerance and liberality in our secular society. I do not, however, apologize for the seeming lack of tolerance in the Torah because, to coin a phrase, it's an entirely different ballgame, when Daddy's in the house.

A theocratic state is an anomaly today. Nowadays, everyone extolls the virtues of the separation between "church" and state as a major advance in human history.

However, those of us who are observant, recall learning of a time when connection to G-d was felt, and society was run on G-d's rules, and real holiness was not only desired by the people but achieved.

When we ask Hashem to send the Messiah, we want G-d to "come back" as a "shocheyn," a resident of human society, and to rule us.

Of course, it's important to distinguish between a wannabe theocratic state where Hashem may not be resident, and a real theocratic state, where He is. When Hashem is present, as opposed to distant, holiness pervades the world. The atmosphere is different, but more of this, later.

In fact, to further clarify my above statements, and to show that Hashem is not being mean and repressive in his commands regarding homosexuality, it can clearly be seen that, in addition to tolerating homosexuality in private, the Torah does, in fact, tolerate even the promotion of a gay lifestyle in societies in general.

OK, now let's get down to specifics.

"Aha!" says everyone. If you believe in the Torah, how can you ignore that famous statement in parsha (chapter) Acharei Mot, trumpeted with great sound and fury from pulpits throughout the land?

"V'et zachar lo tishkav mishkevai isha, to-evah hih." "And a man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman; it is an abomination."

And so, as our first example of misperception, thundered throughout the land is this word, "abomination," so powerful in English because it contains within it the homonyms for both an explosive device, and a whole country. "It's an a-bomb-i-nation!" any pastor worth their salt will cry, emphasizing the spectre of war and destruction contained within the word, and likely savouring the subsequent shock and awe reverberating dramatically through their house of worship with this highly evocative and resonant combination of component words implying -- without even necessarily being fully consciously aware of it -- that homosexuality is a "Bomb" in the "Nation."

What do I think of that?

First of all, I find it kind of amusing. These same churches often teach that Jews and their "Old" Testament have been superseded by the "New" Testament, and are no longer even the chosen people(!) So why are these ministers and priests quoting this "Old" Testament statement, thus conferring great authority upon it, when they've got their bright and shiny "New" Testament which has -- G-d forbid -- replaced the old one?

"The G-d of the 'Old' Testament was a G-d of fury and vengeance," at least some of their leaders say, echoing a long held historical opinion. "Ours is more gentle and forgiving." Then, oddly, they go all sturm and drang on the poor gay community, quoting and acting like the "G-d of fury" they have supposedly moved on from. Which, of course, causes the gay community to react with unnecessary -- and unfortunate -- feelings of hostility towards, and alienation from, G-d, and religion in general.

Now, as for the word "a-bomb-i-nation," it behooves us to understand that this is a specifically English form of linguistic thunder which is an entirely different animal than the original Torah word, "to-evah." So much is lost in the translation of the Torah into English that a great deal of effort must be made to recover what was lost.

The best translation for the word "to-evah" that I can come up with, is the famous Yiddish expression, "Pheh!" which describes something which is distasteful. It does not signify as thunderous a calamity as the resonance of the English word implies, so there is already a difference in gravity between the original Hebrew expression and the English translation, a difference, I submit, which indicates the difference in severity with which G-d actually views the practice of homosexuality rather than the way we think He views it. The vernacular here, is less Earth-shaking, and much more subjective, as are all questions of taste.

Yes, "to-evah" -- which has more than a passing similarity to the supposedly Tongan word, "taboo," thus raising speculation about early Judaic migration, -- has the sense of unacceptability about it but, as in all matters of taste, the questions are when and to whom -- questions which I will, G-d willing -- answer later on in this probably overambitious blog entry.

What I'm -- eventually -- planning to show, is that (a) while being gay is not behaviour prescribed for holiness, it's not disobedience against G-d for any Gentile to be gay, if you understand the real meaning of the Torah passages, and (b) it's not such a sin for a Jew, either, and (c) it's misguided to generally condemn homosexuals, if you understand the true meaning of the Torah, and that (d) it's definitely wrong to say that G-d is angry with such people, and -- G-d forbid -- to vent misguided, "righteous" anger at them, on G-d's behalf, as it were. In fact, this last predisposition of some people may actually result in their souls burning in Hell for some time, according to the way I read the messages contained within the Torah.

The truth is, for our next example of misperception, as I'm sure at least some Jews and Christians know, the G-d of the Torah is not really a G-d of fury and vengeance at all.

How, in the face of all the "evidence" in the text of the Torah, is this possible?

Let us look at one of Moses' most noteworthy encounters with G-d.

"Hashem, Hashem, kel rachum vechanun," are the words heard at the singular moment when G-d passes his "back" across Moses' face. "Merciful and kind" are the attributes which describe the Master of the Universe, "erech apayim" i.e., "slow to anger," rather than "angry and vengeful."

The above passage has very special significance because it is the one time in the Torah when man "sees" G-d's true nature. Moses alone is given this rare privilege. G-d has "appeared" to the Patriarchs before but clearly not this up close and personal. In fact, Hashem says that noone can see His face and live, so He shows Moses His back, perhaps like the tail of a comet streaking by. The result is the "Thirteen attributes of mercy," the exquisite passage in the Torah describing G-d's infinite patience and compassion which is sung on Holy Days, and which is credited with miraculous saving power when invoked by a quorum of ten men, i.e. a minyan, to avert danger or trouble in the community.

That this passage shows the "ultimate truth" about G-d is demonstrated by the life and thought of one the greatest figures of Jewish lore, Nachum Ish Gamzu. Rabbi M. Miller, in his book, Sabbath Shiurim (page 72), goes into great detail on this point.

According to Rabbi Miller, Nachum Ish Gamzu represents perhaps the highest level of spiritual awareness a person can reach, that of "Emet," or Truth. And what is that truth? In brief:

Nachum Ish Gamzu was a man beset by troubles. His constant response to apparent adversity -- and this is how he got his sobriquet -- was "Gamzu letova." Which means, "This, also, is for good." Often, in fact, perhaps as an object lesson to us mere mortals, Nachum's fortunes would miraculously end right-side up even when they started upside-down. But even if things didn't turn out "good" the way we would describe them, they were still good to him.

Rabbi Miller asserts that Nachum Ish Gamzu was at a higher spiritual level than even the great Rabi Akiva, who coined the famous phrase, "Hakol bidei Shamayim ..." That everything, good and bad, comes from Above and we should accept even the bad with faith that there is a reason for it. This, appropriately, Rabbi Miller calls "Emunah," or Faith.

The difference is, to Nachum Ish Gamzu, there was no bad. In his high transcendent perception of things, he was always tuned in to the Emet, the Truth, as embodied by the words spoken when G-d passed his back across Moses' face, "Hashem, Hashem, Kel Rachum, VeChanun," which declare the infinite Goodness of G-d, and the world He has created. Long before the preternaturally wise parlance of today's youth, Nachum Ish Gamzu's credo was "It's all good."

So, there's ample reason within the Jewish tradition to not see G-d as vengeful or angry at all, notwithstanding the agenda of misperception of many who find it to their advantage to portray the Master of the Universe in this way.

But, you say, there are numerous instances in the Torah of G-d causing dramatic deaths, meting out harsh punishments, and making dire Divine threats to the people. G-d even says He is a "jealous G-d," and He will not tolerate the worship of other gods on pain of death. There's also a lot of capital punishment prescribed in the laws of the Torah. Sounds pretty hard-nosed. This has been the basis, therefore, in my view, of a mischaracterization of Hashem.

What I'm saying is that notwithstanding how harsh the afformentioned things seem, they do not in any way capture the "nature" of G-d Himself, who is known -- at least to His people, the Jews,  -- as a G-d of Mercy and Lovingkindness.

How to reconcile this apparent contradiction? Let's start with the nuclear family. A child growing up without meaningful punishments for bad acts grows up without self-discipline and respect for others, to say the least. If little Billy Bob is allowed to watch all the TV he wants, and to eat all the ice cream he wants, after he's destroyed his family's living room just for fun, what kind of a man will Billy Bob grow into? Nobody you or I would want to know. I'd give him a mile -- 1.6kilometres -- wide berth if I saw him coming my way.

And were his parents kind to let him get away with all his bad behaviour as a child? No. But had they been the "bad guys," and withheld privileges from him when he misbehaved, even if they were of an appropriately harsh nature, like, in his case, missing his very favourite TV show or a trip to a local restaurant, or even -- Heaven forbid! -- a trip to a local amusement park, would they not then be characterized as cruel and vengeful?

To Billy Bob at the time, such affronts would, for sure, seem cruel and unusual. He might wail, pound the walls, and gnash his little teeth -- until he learns that (a) his parents really do have the authority to rule in these matters, and that (b) he also has power, in that he can get his trip to the amusement park, and his ice cream, if he doesn't break the rules his Mom and Dad have laid out. No infractions, no punishments. Punishments are not inevitable, he sees; they are tied to behaviour, and need not happen at all.

Similarly, punishments may seem harsh in the Torah narrative but they, too, are not inevitable. There is an object lesson in each instance which teaches the people how they may avoid such punishments in the future. More on the meaning and nature of the punishments further on, but first, let's look at the specific context of these notable punishments in the Torah.

To complete the comparison, what if Billy Bob is now forty years old, and his parents are still withholding his ice cream whenever he does something that displeases them. That would definitely be silly now, but it wasn't back then, when he was a child. Just kidding about the ice cream at forty but the point is parents don't send forty year olds to their room; they don't try to influence adult children the same way they did when the children were young, and needed far more help understanding the consequences of their actions.

It is, in fact, a key misperception to think that the members of the Generation of the Exodus were like us, and, consequently, we mistakenly identify with them when all these dramatic events occur, and we react -- or flinch -- accordingly, to every harsh punishment meted out. But this is not the case. We are not like them.

The Children of Israel in the desert were very much, as their name implies, children. They had just gotten out of a cruel state of slavery where they were beaten, and afflicted with punishments without any bad behaviour on their part -- which completely weakened and demoralized them, -- and they were now just beginning to forge an identity as a nation -- unlike we, who have thousands of years of civilization informing our senses.

This fledgling entity of a people had been so beaten down by their Egyptian taskmasters that they had all but forgotten the G-d of their fathers. That's why G-d wreaked such havoc on Egypt with the ten plagues. As G-d says Himself in the Torah, the wonders and signs He goes out of His way to perform were not just to make the Egyptians let His people go, they were done to impress His people so that they would know there is a G-d, and He is with them.

Thus, in the desert, G-d was with them, as a parent leads a small child -- by the hand,-- providing for all their needs. Food came down, spoon-fed from Heaven (manna), a cloud led them by day, and a pillar of fire guarded them by night. When the cloud arose, they broke camp, and followed it. When it settled, they made camp. This was an extraordinary environment, unlike anything we know today, so it really isn't fair to view the Torah events with our sense of what is normal -- or harsh.

The harsh incidents and threats featured in the Torah have to be seen in context, that unlike today, they were appropriate for their time and conditions, i.e., for the formative stage the burgeoning young nation was at, and, therefore, do not reflect upon Hashem in the way some wish to misperceive, i.e. as frighteningly punitive.

We would be very afraid if these conditions pertained today, but they don't. Our Day of Judgement comes after we've lived. Then, however, it was a raw frontier religion where extreme measures were necessary in order to impress upon a people new to such options, the life and death consequences of their actions. When G-d says, "choose life," He means there is no need for harsh punishments at all -- when the right path is taken. There was, however, a need to demonstrate the opposite in graphic ways which would impress, like the Ten Plagues, the nascent collective consciousness of the nation.

Furthermore, Hashem is known as the Keeper of Souls. Since our view of reality embraces the spiritual afterlife, we can't say we know the final disposition of the souls of the people who were punished. Certainly, the Midrash tells us that the souls of Nadav and Avihu, the two prominent sons of Aharon whose souls were immolated by a fire coming from G-d because they approached Him incorrectly, like a child playing with an electrical outlet, ended up in a high position in Heaven.

And, to be somewhat blunt about it, life was cheap. The cost of wiping out even thousands of people was not as grievous as it sounds. It may sound a bit callous for me to say this but those of the Generation of the Exodus who died as a result of punishment from Hashem, i.e., for the sin of the golden calf, and for complaining about the conditions etc., were going to die anyway. They had no future beyond the desert, and their disobedience to G-d, and its punishment was, as I've said, an important object lesson for the new child/nation, and part of the process of the people's becoming.

The Generation of the Exodus, after all, were not going into the Promised Land. They had been "doomed" to wander in the desert until a new generation arose -- one which did not have a slave mentality, and could fight, and fend for themselves, i.e. the next stage of the child/nation's growth into independence. The pretext of the incident of the men sent to spy out the land coming back with a bad report was only a confirmation of what G-d already knew, that this generation, perhaps the holiest of all generations for having been present at the revelation at Mount Sinai, did not have the right stuff to conquer and cultivate the Promised Land.

The women of the Exodus, by the way, did not participate in any of the great sins, and since they were not required to fight, they did not die out, and lived to enter the Land of Israel. As did the men remaining in the last year in the desert, when those who expected to die on the fateful 9th of Av, the anniversary of the spies' failure, figured by the 15th of Av if they hadn't died yet, they wouldn't -- and didn't -- which is one of many reasons the 15th of Av is a happy day in the Jewish calendar. But I digress.

The Exodus/Desert Generation, then, was unlike our world today, where -- supposedly -- every person is someone who "can grow up to be President," and has a future, so we shudder when we make the mistake of misidentifying ourselves with the fortunes of those of that fateful generation who were punished, and wrongly think of G-d as angry and vengeful, a misperception borne of our cross-cultural overidentification. Then was not now, nor even two thousand years ago. These were the raw early days of a people aborning. To think the G-d of the "Old" Testament would continue to overtly use these broad methods of judgement is to ignore history. G-d has not acted as He did in the Torah since the days of the Torah. That was then; this is now -- but, guess what? It's the same G-d. Besides which, if you look at history, people have done much worse things, haven't we?

Also, the wholesale deaths of large groups of rebellious and/or insolent groups of people in various incidents in the desert was, perhaps, a way for G-d to turn over the soil, the souls of the people who could not conquer the Promised Land, so that it might yield stronger produce in the next crop cycle, i.e. the generation which would go on to conquer the land.

The idea of an afterlife aside, it's a good bet at least some of the souls -- possibly all of them -- who died in the desert were reborn into the new generation. How do I know this? Because reincarnation is a fully embraced tenet of Judaism. I think it's an elegant theory that the souls were recycled, having learned their lessons, into the stronger, new generation. Call it a hunch.

And by the way, it wasn't such a punishment for this entire generation to "wander" in the desert until a new generation came along. Think about it. All their needs were taken care of; they didn't have to worry about making a living or finding food or accommodations, and as a people who showed a clear fear of having to conquer the land when the spies came back with an intimidating report, they must have been relieved to be now off the hook, no longer having to worry about warring with the indigenous peoples of Canaan.

These people had heard the voice of G-d, and were engaged every day in Torah study, like young people in school, older students at Yeshiva, and grownups who devote themselves exclusively to Torah study; they had the unique experience of G-d's Shechinah dwelling in their midst,and they had nothing to do for thirty-seven years except enjoy this sheltered, ideal, idyllic existence. Sounds to me like a really high, exclusive religious retreat where you don't have to worry about re-joining the workaday world; you just keep feeding your soul Torah every day, along with the manna, enjoying the extraordinary knowledge that the Divine source of the Torah is present nearby in the camp. And since it was the desert, it was always Summer Camp.

Where do I sign up?

In addition, and a propos of G-d's dwelling in the camp, to further separate us from our misperception that G-d was cruel or vengeful by mistakenly comparing then to now, we should consider a theory of mine that the incidents of severe punishments at the time of the Torah narrative may be seen to have a purpose beyond the usual perspectives we have on such things.

More than to serve as dire warnings against sin, per se, I believe these instances are there to impress upon us, even today, the difference between living in a time when G-d dwells among us, and a time, like today, when G-d has distanced Himself from us.

When Hashem (the Holy Name) is "in the room," as He is in all the narratives of the Torah, it's a different ballgame entirely, where life and death, as we know them, take on a greater context, meaning and immediacy. Today, for instance, if a bunch of people -- even Jews -- wanted to make a golden statue of a calf, and worship it, I'd scratch my head incredulously, maybe try to talk them out of it, but failing that, I'd then simply let them to go their merry way. I'm certain that noone would put them to death, as was done to the worshippers of the golden calf in Exodus. And if anyone did wreak "vengeance" upon them, I'd expect that person or persons to be arrested, tried and punished within our society's court system.

So, notwithstanding the events as they unfold in the Torah, nowadays, when Hashem is not in the room, we don't see a whole lot of instances of the ground opening up, and swallowing rebellious people, or instant plagues etc. This isn't the time for that, and that kind of thing may never happen again. Most importantly, it's not the time -- and never was, even when Hashem was in the room, -- for anybody to try to imitate their idea of G-d by bringing forward "the wrath of G-d," themselves, as they imagine it to be, and visiting it upon others.

It's misguided, in other words, to blow up abortion clinics, to beat up homosexuals, or to do anything violent in the so-called "name" of G-d because, (a) it's not our job as human beings to do what we think is G-d's job -- in fact, as we shall see later, this in itself could make G-d "angry," because we are taking over what we think He is failing to do, and (b) the desert, burgeoning child/nation conditions specifically linked to G-d's acting in a violent way do not pertain today, and will not necessarily pertain tomorrow either, certainly not for the Jewish people who have been a self-governing nation three times already, and (c) if we really understood the situation, we would know that G-d was never really "angry," but used anger as a metaphor for the result of ignoring His law while he is "in the room," and to guide His people to grow up in the right direction, a direction which would still pertain even after G-d "leaves" the room.

The idea behind the notion of the G-d of the "old" Testament being one of vengeance and fury, therefore, comes from the dramatic harshness of the consequences of sin only in G-d's presence. The real meaning of it all, as I see it, is to teach us that G-d is powerful beyond our understanding, and to play around with His laws and instructions while He is present is not a good idea. Then, when we internalize that, we can take it with us into our independent adulthood.

Consider the example, as mentioned above regarding Nadav and Avihu, of a baby playing near a hot, open oven, or sticking something into an electrical outlet. That baby's got to have parental protection or else it could get its goose cooked, not because the oven or electricity are "angry" at it but because that's simply the way it is. The nature of a hot stove or an electrical current is not an act of emotion. Its effect on the human who runs afoul of that nature is a matter of physics, not retribution. The "fury and vengeance" thing, is, therefore, really a matter of children playing with fire, and the consequences of that, not of any emotion on G-d's part.

And, yet, the phrase "G-d's anger was kindled" appears throughout scripture, and it has even been enshrined in our daily prayers. Every day, when Jews recite the "kriyat shema," the special three paragraphs excerpted from the Torah, we read that if Jews do not follow G-d's commandments, then "the anger of G-d will be kindled against you," and bad things will happen. What are we to make of that?

I call it G-d's anthropomorphisation of Himself, as a device to explain the severe consequences of sin in His presence -- or in the Holy Land while He is present -- in terms we can understand.

The first thing, is that, just as the Gershwins wrote so many years ago in a song in their opera, Porgy and Bess:

It ain't necessarily so. It ain't necessarily so.
The things that you're liable to read in the Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.

Which, actually, is what Torah Jews believe.

The Written Torah is not the whole story, it requires the Oral Tradition to illuminate, and explain it. For instance, there were in the history of the Jewish Commonwealths, at different times, sects which only recognized the literal written word of the Torah, and who sat in the dark and cold on the Sabbath because the Torah says "do not kindle fire on the Sabbath."

They were textual literalists but were not even real fundamentalists because, in Judaism, you need to know the Oral tradition transmitted by Moses to Joshua and the Elders and on down, which taught the ways to interpret the written word, along with many other elaborations, in order to know what to believe in, in the first place.

The Oral tradition, in point of fact, tells us that we may have fires burning on the Sabbath giving light and warmth, if we light them before the Sabbath.

There are other well-known instances supporting Ira Gershwin's lines as accepted by all observant Jews,  i.e., one instance where the Written Torah says the word "wine," and those who know the Oral tradition understand that "water" is actually what it's referring to. Or that the word "Sabbath" can mean a holiday rather than the actual seventh day of rest.

So, it ain't necessarily so. The things that you're liable to read in the Bible may mean something quite different, in the light of deeper understanding.

And so, I think there's another hidden aspect in the whole notion of G-d's "anger" being kindled.

G-d is divine and transcendent, and really is not given to human emotions like fury and anger. So how is it that His "anger is kindled?" This expression is, as stated above, obviously what we call "anthropomorphism," i.e., the "morphing" or shaping, of our view of G-d from that of a transcendent, divine and ineffable Being into a more familiar one, that of being like a man, replete with human emotions.

The Torah could just as easily have said "if you disobey My Laws, here and now, when I am amongst you, you will suffer great consequences, for the power behind them is greater than you can imagine, and will squash you like a bug."

But G-d -- in a move which inadvertently gives rise to the whole school of thought of the G-d of vengeance -- purposefully couches Himself as a father figure, displaying the human emotion of anger.

But if G-d, the Creator, the Supreme Being behind and above the universe, who is beyond human understanding, does not really get angry, why does he pretend to?

That's one reason right there. We can better understand what we know, and what better way to bring a fledgling nation along, hinting at the great power leading them than by making that power, even when it wreaks destruction on them, friendly, paradoxically, by being characterised as someone loving and familiar, i.e. a Father. Fathers may punish but they also love, and they care personally about us. To this, we can relate.

I perceive, in addition to this, a certain persuasive dynamic involved in G-d's so-called "anger," based on instances I've seen in the Torah and Haftorah (those scriptural writings which are not the Five Books of Moses, like the Prophets).

Especially, let's take the example of Uzah who was in a contingent with King David accompanying the Holy Ark which was born by oxen. The load shifted on the oxen, and Uzah reached out to steady it. G-d then became "angry" at Uzah, and killed him.

Seems harsh and vengeful, I know, but we have to remember that we're dealing with figures of speech. To the chronicler, G-d's action of killing Uzah was a show of anger, a very human emotion. But I believe that G-d is divine, and not given to petty human emotions, so what's up with that?

I believe, first of all, as stated above, that things are very different when Hashem is "in the room." You've gotta know you better be on your best behaviour, respectful, aware, and in awe, when G-d is in town. Because He represents something so much greater than us, if we aren't acknowledging that, we're encouraging the community to disrespect, and to deny Him, G-d forbid.

Uzah reached out to steady a load on animals that was not an ordinary load. It was the Holy Ark, containing the tablets both whole and broken, resonating with divine power and significance. Such a divine object does not need human hands to steady it. To steady it, is to deny G-d's ability to look after His own. Unfortunately for Uzah, his action stood as a public denial of G-d's power which encouraged people to think of Hashem as less than omnipotent.

And so, my rule of thumb is as follows: When G-d is "in the room," i.e, when He is manifest and present among us, and we treat G-d as less than G-d, i.e., the same way we would treat a fellow human being, like someone who needs help balancing a load on a team of oxen, or someone whom we can replace with, say, an inanimate statue, or if we live in the Promised Land with the Temple standing, and brush off G-d's laws as if He were just another Self-Help author, then G-d shows us in return, a human face, and acts in a human way, i.e. with "anger.". This kind of response is called "mida k'negged mida," or "measure for measure," or even "tit for tat." We treat G-d as a human rather than as the Master of the Universe, and He responds in kind by embodying our lesser version of Himself, and acting in a human way. So, if G-d gets "angry" with us, it's a response we create by treating him as less than G-D, not because that's the nature of Hashem.

This, of course, is the classic object lesson on how we are to approach Hashem -- with the appropriate awe and respect. And I'm not saying that extreme measures will not occur in the birthing of the Messianic Era where doubting masses may suffer a similar fate to that of the Generation of the Exodus by failing to proffer any respect to G-d when He returns closer to our Earthly existence.

In his response to the lack of such, however, maybe we should now know that G-d will not really be angry. In actuality, I think he is bemused, -- albeit another anthropomorphism, -- amused at our thinking that the Supreme Being, Master of the Universe could ever really be angry -- when, in truth, He is not susceptible to such emotions. But at least, we can relate.

And, as indicated above, now, when G-d is not in the room, it is tragic and misguided for anyone to think they must act with fury and vengeance in G-d's stead. Those displaying "righteous" anger in G-d's name are making a big mistake, if they really are angry, themselves. They are trying to imitate G-d as they misunderstand Him, and this is a source of great, and unnecessary, strife in our world.

When a devout, large Jewish man, for instance, throws a smaller woman to the floor of a bus in Jerusalem, and spits on her because she refuses to sit in the back of that bus -- or wait for another bus -- in accordance with his understanding of their mutual religion, we have something far more akin to "roid" rage (the irrational anger afflicting those who take anabolic steroids to boost their testosterone in order to excel in athletic competitions), than G-dly justice.

We humans must understand that when we get angry, it's usually because our personal agenda is being blocked, and how dare anyone get in our way or deny us? Our anger is selfish, like the petulance of Billy Bob, the child being denied his ice cream. Even when we think we are angry for G-d's sake, we really are not. We are aroused to go to war for our individual egos or for the collective ego of the group to which we belong, not really for G-d, though we may protest as much to the rooftops.

I believe there is a misinformed "testosterone" school of religion which feeds on the misperception of G-d as angry and vengeful. By culturing this notion within themselves, and by an overly strict division of gender roles, where men are the sole power, heads, and arbiters of family and community life, adherents actually develop either a physically high level of testosterone or a high level of "spiritual -- or moral -- testosterone." Too high, for this leads to the above described "roid" rage, where high levels will make a person -- even a woman -- given to fits of irrational anger.

There were people in Jewish history, like our warriors ("It's a trap!  There's two of them!") who could sustain high testosterone levels, famously, of course, Samson. The rest of us, however, who, one way or another, manage to overly boost our testosterone levels -- physical or spiritual -- are playing with fire.

What, sadly, is missing, then, from the learned, devout and well-schooled man of the aforementioned attack on the bus in Jerusalem, is in fact, a true appreciation of the G-d of the Torah, as I have outlined above, that as a Kel Rachum VeChanun, a G-d of infinite compassion and patience, Hashem never really gets angry in the human sense. He only pretends to, as in an object lesson to a child. To truly know the G-d of the Torah, one must look beyond the simple story, and its misperception, and contemplate the way G-d describes Himself.

In other words, when G-d says He is angry in the Torah, He is, in the final analysis, kidding. He is speaking figuratively. It amuses Him that people believe in His anger but it helps people to understand the consequences of their behaviour, if He couches it this way.

Thus, the only "righteous" religious anger I will tolerate on the part of religious leaders is if they, like Hashem, are not really angry, and have a full sense of G-d's love and compassion which they consciously -- and humorously -- know puts the lie to their show of ire. In other words, I will only accept knowingly feigned anger in a sermon because then, G-d's love and compassion will inform it with kindness and inclusivity rather than hate and polarization.

It's tragic that there are so many who don't know this, yet. There are so many peoples, movements, schools of various religions who espouse hate and anger because they think that's what G-d wants when nothing could be further from the truth. To those who are "angry for G-d," who are trying to emulate the anger they think they see in their superficial understanding of the Torah, I say, look deeper. Think deeper.

Remember the story of Uzah. G-d does not need us to do his work for Him. To imagine He does, is to diminish Him, to imply that He is not capable, and this is, perhaps, the biggest "No-No" of all. Bottom line: never presume G-d needs you to "fill in" for Him, should your expectations of vengeful retribution for certain sins of others not be met.

So, to all who zealously and devoutly feel that cleaving to G-d involves acting violently on His behalf, I beg you to reconsider. You may actually be insulting G-d, and may find yourselves in great spiritual jeopardy come the Judgement Day. Think about the fact that our loving G-d is not really angry at all, so it would be a mistake to act angrily just to try to be like Him.

Someone will no doubt say, "But since G-d is not "in the room" with us nowadays, maybe we should pick up where he left off. Is it not our responsibility to repair the world (in Hebrew, "tikun olam"), to make it a better, more spiritual place?

Yes, it is our responsibility to make the world a better, more spiritual place. That's our job. Let's not try to do G-d's job as well. It's not our place to judge and punish others for what we perceive to be spiritual crimes. In fact, to do so, would be a spiritual crime. I think our job is more along the lines of doing G-d's will rather than inventing it, and practicing good values like forgiveness and understanding.

As far as G-d being angry at homosexuals, it's not happening, no matter how much certain religious leaders may wish -- in imitatio dei, they think -- to fulminate from the pulpit. G-d's response to homosexuality, is never couched that way. Punishment, under very limited and specific circumstances is promised, yes, but circumstances we need to explore more deeply. Anger, no. What "kindles" G-d's "anger," say, by the making of idols etc. is usually characterized by the actions of a group of people who deny His supremacy in public, rather than the private, personal behaviour of a few. So, notwithstanding public displays specifically designed for the sole purpose of insulting and rebelling against G-d, our first principles approach to homosexuality, is not to thunder and fulminate because G-d never does so.

What about Sodom and Gomorrah, you ask? Lot (pun) of destruction there. Surely, G-d's anger? Nope. This is another classic case of misperception associated with homosexuality.

G-d did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because he was "angry" about the sexual practices there. As we now should know, G-d wasn't angry at all. The Torah commentaries are clear that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah came about because these societies had become mini versions of the Generation of the Flood, a society which completely ignored the plight of the less fortunate and which formally banned charity, hospitality, and human caring -- and had no need for G-d. In Sodom and Gomorrah, it was forbidden to help strangers -- which is why Lot got into trouble bringing the three wayfarer/angels into his home.

As with the Generation of the Flood, things had gotten so bad that they were beyond redemption but nowhere does it say that G-d's anger was kindled. It was a cool, clinical decision. Just like it was with the Generation of the Flood, people in Sodom and Gomorrah had had it so good, they thought they didn't need G-d, and they wouldn't share what they had with anyone else. They refused to treat visitors and the less fortunate as human beings. This sent a signal up to Heaven.

Now, with the Generation of the Flood, it does say "hishchit kol basar darco," that all flesh had corrupted its way, and there is even mention of marriage contracts being written betweeen humans and animals, but sexual peculiarities were not the reason for the Flood. Once again, it was the complete disregard for the plight of one's fellow human being's rights that brought about that destruction. It was called "Chamas," people wantonly stealing from one another without any qualms or glimmers of conscience or consideration for one's fellow human being.

So, let's say it again: Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of any sexual practices of the inhabitants. As much as people like to think this, it just isn't so, according to the Torah, the one true authority in this matter. It was the cruelty and greed of the inhabitants that caused their own destruction.

Lot's wife is a case in point. She begged off having the three wayfarer-angels over for dinner because she was wary of the rules against hospitality. Her excuse was, she didn't have any salt -- a required component of any meal. And we all know what happened to her.

Now, according to what I've heard, at any given time, about five to ten percent of the population is homosexual. Sounds like a pretty natural phenomenon to me. So, having heard the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, are we to castigate, revile and fail to accept homosexuals as human beings, so that we turn into the Sodomites,ignoring the humanity of others, or are we better than that?

In fact, now that we're finally down to the core misperceptions, I believe the Torah clearly tells us that it is not disobedience against G-d's will for a gentile to engage in homosexual behavior. And, yes, I know this goes against the grain of a long line of tradition, including the notion of the "sheva mitzvot shel b'nei Noach," the source, I believe, of yet another misperception.

The "sheva mitzvot shel b'nei Noach," also known as the "Noahide Laws" are the "Seven Commandments" to all the sons of Noah, i.e. the entire human race which descended from him after the Flood, as a subset of the "Ten Commandments." All humankind -- not just Jews -- are supposed to observe them. Or at least, if they do observe them, these non-Jews will earn a reward in Heaven.

While the actual seven commandments specific to all humankind may vary from one interpretation to another, some commentators insist that "all sexual impropriety" is one of these commandments.  This, however, is completely untenable.

The list of sexual improprieties usually derives from the chapters, Acharei Mot and Kedoshim, roughly Leviticus 16 to 20.  Here a long list of improper liaisons, mostly of an extended familial nature, is itemized, including, in a category of its own, as "a bomb in the nation," the proscription of homosexual behaviour. The problem is, it is impossible that these apply to the whole world.

The entire purpose of these chapters is to tell the Hebrew nation that, in order to merit entering and staying in the Promised land, they must not follow the practices of the nations currently living there.
The Israelites must be "kadosh," or hold themselves apart from these practices.

Thus, whether we like it or not, the Torah is saying that other nations must do these kinds of things in order for the Jew to be different.  Therefore, it is impossible that all nations are commanded in the Noahide laws to refrain from these practices.  Otherwise there would be no concept of Jews being a nation holier than others.

So forget the idea that homosexuality is forbidden to the world via the Noahide laws.  That simply cannot be.  There must be homosexuality in the world, in order for the Chosen people to not do it, at least in public, in the Holy Land, when G-d is present.

What may be forbidden to the whole world as a Noahide law, as far as sexual impropriety is concerned, is the commandment against adultery.  "Lo Tinaf" is one of the Big Ten, and, rather than being overly complicated, it's a pretty simple affair (!): a man may not sleep with the wife of another man.  Period. Simple, and credible.

Now, my question is this: How many of those in the throngs of religious people who rail self-righteously, and conspicuously against homosexuality have committed, or are committing, adultery?
While it not really likely at all that homosexuality is forbidden for all the peoples of the world, there is no doubt amongst the proponents of the Noahide laws that adultery is so proscribed.
So, I would suggest that all the people -- political leaders and preachers included -- who have committed, or are committing adultery, be quiet. That alone might reduce the din of noise against homosexuals, and give us all more room to think.

More than what He says, what does G-d actually do, in the Torah, about homosexuality?
"You shall not follow after the practices of Egypt where you dwelled, and you shall not follow after the practices of the Canaanites where you are going to dwell," says G-d as a preface to this section on sexual practices. Later on, at the end of both parshas, G-d makes reference to the fact that the Canaanites committed all these practices which were distasteful to Him, and tainted the land, and that is why both He, and the land, are kicking them all out.
 
So G-d is actually getting rid of the gays.  Mustn't we then follow suit?  Doesn't it make sense?  Shall we not ride them all out of town on a rail? Shall we try to find out who is gay, and then shun them? Shall we curse them, revile them, discriminate against them, bring the wrath of G-d upon them?
Ah, but wait a minute.  Let's pay a little more attention to what G-d actually does.  Does G-d go to Egypt, and say "OK, all you homosexuals, OUT! (A different kind of "outing," to be sure.) In fact, does G-d go to any other country, i.e., ancient Greece, Rome, Turkey, Key West, Fire Island etc, and say "Gays must go!" (in Yiddish, probably, "Gay avek!").

No, He does not, and here we have an insight into G-d's true outlook on the matter, as demonstrated in the Torah.

Sure, G-d expresses His apparent distaste (the "Pheh" factor, see below for the possible reason, regarding homosexuality) for certain activities, by calling them "to-evah"s but He clearly is not ordering the entire world to cease and desist from them. G-d, in fact, his distaste notwithstanding, clearly accepts -- albeit while probably figuratively holding His nose -- these behaviours in other peoples of the world. The prohibitions of these parshas, therefore, apply solely to the Jews and to the Holy Land, and probably only when G-d is present, and presiding, the theocratic state mentioned earlier.

And here, I know I've just offended the entire gay community. It sounds very insulting to say G-d is holding his nose while tolerating their behaviour. Surely, I've touched an old nerve, raised some oft-raised hackles, and engendered the classic resentment and resignation gays must feel when told -- inaccurately -- for the umpteenth time, that G-d, the Master of the Universe, doesn't like them. How false and horrible. Beneath the tough, world-weary shrugs, there must be hurt, a hurt that runs deep, and I think a lot of religions should apologize to gays for how they have treated them.

As I will show below, I can't believe G-d hates gays.  I must, therefore, seek to understand what G-d means when he uses the "bomb" word.  I believe this involves developing an understanding as to which aspect of G-d is speaking -- and in what context -- when these statements were made.

Moreover, these statements in the Torah comprise a private, "entre-nous" communication to the Jewish people alone, and not to the world at large.  These remarks were never meant for the whole world to hear.  They are in the Torah, after all, and the Torah was given solely to the Jewish people. It's really a private communication, and if anyone wants to eavesdrop, they do so at their own risk.

The wide range of people who have jumped on the bandwagon to condemn gays because of the statements in the Torah are definitely not fully apprised of the meaning and context of these statements.

Such individuals or groups don't understand, for instance, that G-d will never hold anyone responsible for something which is beyond their control, and will not despise them.







These inflammatory statements about homosexuality don't even necessarily apply to Jews, anywhere and everywhere.

It is the Holy Land, the land of Israel which is the key here. G-d wants His standards to apply in Israel, the Promised Land for his Chosen People when Israel is functioning as a Torah state. Although He certainly wouldn't mind spiritual purity breaking out all over, He knows the unlikelihood of that, and abides. But having given the Torah, the System of all Systems for achieving and maintaining holiness, to the Children of Israel, G-d needs a home where both may thrive together.

There are mitzvahs (commandments), for instance, which only apply when the Jewish people are living in Israel, and the Holy Temple is standing. These include, of course, all the sacrificial services, as well as bringing portions of one's crops, livestock etc to the Bes Hamikdash (Holy Temple). Holiness and blessedness in the world at large reach new heights when these conditions pertain. And, in such times, a higher standard of holiness is required of the Jewish people. Violators of the Sabbath would be prosecuted and punished. When the Temple is not standing, however, well ... just look at the State of Israel today.

The land of Israel itself is holier soil than anywhere else in the world. It is where, as I discussed in my blog on Chayei Sarah, there is a portal to Olam Haba, the eternal spiritual world. It is where Isaac was bound for sacrifice, and where the then-future Temples would stand. It is the land promised to Abraham, the Patriarch, as I discussed in my blog on Lech Lecha, who stood alone in a world of idolatry and recognized Hashem. G-d gave this land to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob so that they might serve Him, and be holy, a testament to the world. It is there -- and only there, notwithstanding the voluntary committment of Torah Jews everywhere -- that G-d insists his holy standards be kept.

Which, by the way, is why I fear for the State of Israel, considering the things that Jews are doing there on its holy soil. This is one vector of concern, i.e. where Hashem's dire warnings against spiritual misdeeds combine with an independent fuse other than His patience -- the tolerance of the land itself.

The Rambam, aka Maimonides, if memory serves, tells us that the reason the Land of Israel was desolate for centuries -- even millennia -- was because the Jews, when they were previously living there as a nation, failed to let the land rest every seventh year, the fallow year, known as "shmitta." Failing to get its scheduled rest while the Jewish nation lived on it, the land caught up on its rest during the years it was subsequently desolate, as predicted in the Torah itself. It was only after 1948 C.E. that the Jews came back as a nation, and made the "desert bloom." Til
then, there might as well have been a sign on the land, "Gone Fishing."

This, it is worth noting, is related to but distinct from the act of faith required not to cultivate land for a year, and expect there to be enough food to sustain both the farmers and all the people -- which some say is the real point of shmitta. Nevertheless, there is something about the land ...

Nowadays, there are ways in which shmitta is being observed, largely through selling the land to a non-Jew during the shmitta year, so that the land may be cultivated, just not by a Jew. While I appreciate the thought and compassion behind this approach, I note it still does not allow the physical land to rest, and I worry that this is not the correct solution. Observant Israeli kibbutzim have, in the past, covered the land with plastic tarp, and then covered the tarp with new soil which was cultivated as an acknowledgement of the principle of letting the land rest. Still, new land is being worked in Israel during the shmitta year, with this approach.

To my mind, the ideal solution -- apart from the ideal of just letting everything go, and having faith there will be enough -- is hydroponic agriculture, which grows produce outside of the ground. The nutrients that plants usually absorb from the soil are dissolved in water, and fed to the plant this way. No soil is needed, and even less water is used in this form of agriculture. If Israeli farmers could use hydroponics exclusively every seventh year, the land would truly get its rest, -- and produce would be available -- and I wouldn't have to worry about it.

Letting everything go, and having faith, is the hardest. The joke is told of a man who fell down a cliff and managed to grab hold of a protruding branch with one hand. As he dangled precariously, he called out to G-d for help. A voice came out of the clouds, and said, "I will save you if you have faith in Me. Let go of the branch." To which the man responded. "Is there anyone else up there?" But back to the land.

So, if the actions of the Jewish nation on the land vis-a-vis shmitta had repercussions which reverberated through thousands of years, what can we expect from the fouling up of the land today with prostitution, sex slavery, and all manner of things specifically shown to be not kosher in the Torah? Stories abound, for instance, of how the Jewish Agency, early in the history of the State of Israel, prevented young boy immigrants from saying Kaddish for their parents, and from being religious at all, obliging them to eat "white steak," i.e., pork, on the anti-religious kibbutzes? And, of course, the militant "lo-dati" (non-believer) population of Israel are always proclaiming it's a mitzvah to break the mitzvahs.

One thing the Torah is clear about. Israel is a holy land, and the Canaanites were expelled because they did things unbefitting the higher kedusha (holiness) of the land. Jews were to be no different.

So, I worry.

The idea of homosexuality as a "to-evah" especially applicable to the Land of Israel, leads us to explore the nature of the whole concept of "to-evah."

The "Pheh" factor, after all, is subjective, as I've said. It is not an absolute, as the word "a-bomb-ination" seems to imply. This also helps us to place into perspective G-d's opinion of homosexuals.

One time-honoured method of interpreting the Torah, as taught in the Oral Tradition, is to recognize recurrences of rare words or unique phrases, and to compare them. I discussed and demonstrated this at length in my blog on parsha Toldot when comparing Rivka to her son Eisav, showing how the Torah linguistically links them as being alike.

We can do the same for the concept of To-evah.

Tellingly, the word "to-evah," does not find its only mention in the Torah from the mouth of G-d, discussing sexual mores.

When Joseph, as Viceroy of Egypt, invites his brothers to live there, he wants them to live in the province of Goshen, away from the corruption of Egyptian society, so he tells his brothers to emphasize to Pharaoh that they are shepherds.

Why?

Because that was an a-bomb-i-nation!

As I point out every Passover while conducting the Seders, the ritual meals dedicated to the retelling of the story of the Exodus, the Hebrews lived in Goshen, as proposed by their brother, Joseph, because, as shepherds, they were engaged in an activity which was a "to-evah le-mitzrayim," "an abomination to Egypt."

What was this a-bomb-i-nation?

Keeping sheep.

The Egyptian culture of the time was a pagan one which included the worship of certain sacred animals, cats and sheep being chief among them.

Here were the Hebrews coming to Egypt to live, with their flocks of these sacred beings, but instead of venerating them, they were shearing them, slaughtering them, eating lamb chops ... It was not nice! Pheh!

In fact, our relationship to sheep forms a large part of the dynamic of the Passover seders illustrating first the fall, and, then the rise of the Jewish people via this woolly issue. Before you say, "Baaaaa, Humbug!" look at the history.

The Hebrew tribes came down as masters of sheep, then they assimilated into Egyptian society, became slaves, and eventually fell so far spiritually and morally that they adopted the pagan beliefs of the Egyptians, and feared sheep rather than G-d Himself. This got to the point where the first mitzvah G-d famously gave them as a nation was to slaughter a lamb, and put its blood on the doorpost, so He would pass over their homes, while killing all the first-born in Egypt. This was not an easy task because they feared their Egyptian taskmasters, as well as the sheep themselves.

Killing the sheep, in spite -- or because -- of their trepidation to do so, was, therefore, the first step in their rise out of perdition to freedom, nationhood, and, ultimately, the Promised Land.

The lesson for us, here, though, is that the Torah is telling us that the concept of to-evah is relative, not absolute. In fact, it is a lot like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder.

I personally enjoy eating lamb chops, much as I think of sheep as cute, cuddly creatures, and I don't feel sheepish about this, at all. Yet, to some, i.e., the ancient Egyptians, my munching on mutton is, yes, a "to-evah."

Thus, we may deduce from the Torah, that "One man's a-bomb-i-nation, is another man's lamb chops."

How does this apply? It means we can understand G-d's use of the word in a different light.

When the word "a-bomb-i-nation" is thundered from the pulpits of the land to describe homosexuality, a wrong paradigm is applied. The paradigm used is: "Well, since G-d, the ultimate source of Truth and Knowledge, says homosexuality is an a-bomb-i-nation, then it must be so, period, end of story."

The Torah tells us, however, to use a different paradigm, that of "the eye of the beholder." If "to-evah" can mean two totally different things, then G-d's pronouncement is not applicable to everyone in every situation; it is not an absolute condemnation, it is a subjective comment.

G-d is saying, "I am the Lord, thy G-d, Who took you out of Egypt so you can become a holy nation. In order to do so, you must be holier than all other nations. If you want to be holy, you have to live up to a higher spiritual standard than anyone else. I am the Most High, and to me, in my role of Highest Holiness, homosexuality is 'Pheh,' a to-evah, and will not get you into the holiest of realms."

Why? It is probable that G-d, from His Most High point of view, sees the Ideal, a world where the "gesin-tes" go together as designed. A "gesin-te" -- which in Yiddish, means someone who is healthy -- is also used as a humorous term for something that "goes into" something else. So, as G-d created them, Man is a physical gesin-te for Woman, i.e. a man physically goes into a woman, sexually, in the prescribed way. To the Ideal, as G-d created them, homosexuality is a perversion of this plan. But this is only from the higher -- highest, -- spiritual plane, as indicated by the Torah fact that ancient Egypt also identified "to-evahs" but homosexuality was certainly not one of them.

As far as ordinary life on Earth, G-d Himself does not tell the ancient Egyptians to cease and desist all homosexual activity because He does not demand they become a Holy Nation, above all others. G-d, therefore tolerates homosexuality in the nations, even as He expresses His distaste for its practice. The word "to-evah" is merely a watchword to provide a signpost for those aspiring to spiritual heights, i.e. the higher you go, the less you want to be involved in such activity. Ultimately, this also applies to heterosexual sex. Moses did not live with his wife Tziporah, and Miriam, his sister, got into trouble for criticizing him for this.

While all this takes care of the non-Jewish homosexuals, but what of those who are Jewish? The Torah specifically gives us a negative commandment to not be homosexual.

First, let's put it in perspective. Yes, we have a commandment to this effect. It is one of many. Is there really a need to single this one out, when Jews are -- chas v'shalom -- violating so many other commandments? Is there a movement afoot to get everyone to keep the Sabbath? Surely, the commandment to keep the Sabbath affects more Jews -- and is more important -- than the commandment to refrain from homosexuality.

And does the latter really apply anymore? Are we really ready to make the Holy Land holy again? The commandment about homosexuality was a "kedoshim tihyu," commandment, i.e. when you go into the Holy Land, as a Holy People, and I dwell amongst you in your Holy Temple, don't practice homosexuality and these other things because they are not compatible with the Most High.

Everybody ready for that? Or are we all busy committing all kinds of sins of our own?

As for those Jews who are homosexual today, remember the True Nature of the Master of the Universe, as revealed in the Torah. Jewish law has provisions for mercy and compassion in such matters.

For those whose sexual orientation is truly homosexual, it is not a punishable sin at all to be gay because G-d understands -- even if some people don't -- that a person cannot change what is beyond their control. "Tinok shenishba," is a principle that a "baby who is taken captive and broken off from Judaism," i.e, raised with no knowledge of it, cannot be held responsible for keeping the Sabbath, that most important of mitzvahs (commandments) or any other mitzvahs.

Nowadays, most theories of homosexuality consider this kind of sexual orientation -- whether innate or forged by the environment, including hormones in the womb -- to be beyond a person's control. Also, it's been found that it's pretty hard to change someone's orientation -- if it's possible at all. These factors support the "tinok shenishba" view, that true homosexuals are blameless in the eyes of G-d, and, therefore, should be blameless in our eyes, too.

Nowadays, when the gay community wants to hold a Pride parade in the streets of Jerusalem, should we be horrified?

Not at all. Take a look at the word, "Pride." Where does it come from? It comes from the centuries of hatred directed at innocently gay people whereby their own self-respect, and respect in the eyes of others was cruelly denied.

We are the ones who have sinned, historically. Like the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Generation of the Flood, we have failed to treat our fellow human beings as human beings. We have demonized the gay community, castigated them, ostracized them, and deprived them of exactly what they march about -- their pride. That's why they call such occasions "Pride" functions. It's time these human beings were treated as such, and for us to put away our senseless, misguided zeal in condemning them.

Religious people who have made a point of hating gay people should strike their fists on their chests and say "Chatati!," "I have sinned!" I have broken the commandment of "love they neighbour as thyself," and even the one for loving G-d because innocent human beings are surely G-d's creatures, as much as anyone else in the universe.

It is not a rebellion against G-d and the Torah for people to be homosexually oriented, if that's their nature. It is a rebellion against G-d and the Torah to despise people who are simply, and innocently, gay. Even to make fun of them, I would think.

I realize that, for a lot of gays, there's a craving for public acceptance of the gay lifestyle as an equal to the heterosexual lifestyle. In this world, at this time, I see no problem with that -- unless you want to be a religious Jew. As Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) says, there's a time for just about anything. This may be the time in secular society for acceptance of gays in marriage expressly because it's not the time of the Messiah. And this is G-d's will. And things will change when the Messiah comes, whenever that will be.

But for now, it is not against the Torah for a secular society to institutionalize gay marriages. G-d did not insist that ancient Egypt change its practices; he just didn't want Jews in the Holy Land where He was present at the time to follow them. That's a huge difference, and that's the Torah.

As far as the penalty in the Torah for homosexuality -- death, we also have to be realistic about what this means. Since the Torah says elsewhere that you need two or three witnesses to convict a person of a capital offense after they've been duly warned about it, it seems impossible for anyone to be executed for homosexuality. As long as the act is done in privacy, it would take a threesome where two of the participants turned against their former mutual lover to testify against him but in so doing would incriminate themselves -- not a likely scenario.

And if people understood that G-d only objects to the public flauting of His preferences rather than the private acts of individuals, we could lay to rest all this nonsense about outing someone and conducting witch hunts. One can only imagine a pair of zealots hiding under a suspect's bed, and leaping out when they determine that there's homosexuality going on, and then testifying against the "offenders" in court. This kind of hateful zealotry is not what G-d wants, if you read the Torah closely. On the other hand, when G-d is back in the room, there will be no public institutionalizing of gay marriages in a Torah state. But this doesn't mean that gays -- if they are still gay, then -- will have to live in fear of being outed. They should be able to live their lifestyle in private without any harrassment from the community.

While religious Jews cannot sanctify a gay marriage because we are trying to keep as much of the Torah as possible, we must learn to accept homosexuality as a private person's orientation.

One question regarding my interpretation that Hashem is really only forbidding the public expression of homosexuality as an accepted lifestyle in a holy society is, what about all the other forbidden sexual liaisons?

Certainly, Hashem does not want any public expression of cohabitation with one's mother-in-law, sister-in-law, or daughter-in-law to be a normative part of a holy society as they may have been in other contemporary cultures. Does this mean, though, that these acts are alright in private, as I claim homosexuality is?

I would think not, and I go back to the fundamental principle that the Torah is Truth. As a document of the highest truth, the Torah cannot possibly deal falsely with any issues. The truth about homosexuality is that it's most likely a sexual orientation beyond a person's control, as demonstrated by established intrinsic personal distinctions between gay and straight people. Science and history tell us that gay people are different, and that's just the way they are.

Sleeping with one's daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, however, is clearly neither historically, nor biologically a form of any kind of orientation other than that of social mores. This kind of behaviour is controllable. Anyone who indulges in it is simply being a pig, in my opinion, and not expressing an inner imperative. I think the Torah as a vessel of Truth understands this distinction even if people may tend to lump all these practices together.

Now, what about the pedophile, a person who has a desire to prey sexually on children? Surely, that nature is also beyond a person's control. Does G-d accept such a person as innocent?

Most certainly.

Unless, of course, he practices pedophilia.

Pedophilia may also be ingrained in a person's nature beyond their control, but unlike homosexuality, the practice of it is not between consenting adult partners. Pedophilia takes advantage of, and emotionally damages, children. Children do not have a corresponding uncontrollable desire to have relations with adults (enelikophilia?). Consenting adults, however, finding physical and emotional fulfillment with each other according to the only nature they know, is a different ballgame entirely.

And what about the prospect of a parade? Well, for one day, there will be some excitement, and then it will be over. Meanwhile, that Shabbos, and on every other Shabbos throughout the year, Jews will drive through the streets of Israel, go shopping, play golf, go swimming, go to the movies, and work. Which should be our greater concern?

And what of the commandment against homosexuality? Perhaps there's an overlap between those people whose orientation is truly gay, and people who cynically indulge in homosexual behaviour as an insult to both society and G-d, sort of an "Up yours" attitude (literally). When the practice of homosexuality becomes a rebellion against G-d, it is worthy of censure and correction.

It is entirely possible, though, that this, too, is an example of "That was then, and this is now," i.e. that the practice of homosexuality in Egypt, and by the Canaanites, was of a different nature than the biological and/or psychological influences we find today. As I outlined in my blog entry on parsha Lech Lecha, our own Talmud tells us that the spiritual makeup of men was different in those days. According to our sages, the inner compulsion to worship idols mysteriously disappeared from our psyches during the time of Ezra, the Scribe, and the Men of the Great Assembly. Perhaps homosexual practice earlier on was tied to this inner drive for idol worship, thus making it imperative for the Children of Israel to overcome it, along with the urge for idol worship, in order to live in the Holy Land.
Moreover, Hashem apparently did not deem it beyond the nation's control to overcome this drive, so it might well differ from the drives we see today.

Those who, today, find themselves inexorably oriented toward homosexual behaviour are not then, by the lights of the Talmud, suffering from this earlier, possibly concomitant urge to worship idols, so their orientation is clearly distinct from spiritual practices. This isolation, in my opinion, makes it more likely a pure issue beyond the individual's control, and possibly changes the character of the act to be less of a to-evah.

For those who still want to overcome their makeup, there are options, like celibacy, but only if the person has monastic, spiritual aspirations. It's not considered a bad thing in Yiddishkheit for a person to want to transcend their physical nature but monasticism, like the Nazirite, is frowned upon to the extent that the Torah says a Nazirite who has abstained from various pleasures including wine for a period of time must bring a sin offering to atone for depriving himself. For the rest, I think the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy is best. We are all human beings. Let's respect each other as such. Especially in today's world, homosexuality poses no threat to holiness, considering everything else that's going on, and certainly no threat to, say, world peace. Accepting people as equal human beings would contribute a lot to world peace, though, if we can find it in our hearts to do so.

On this issue of tolerance, there is a further note from the Talmud. If a man cannot quell his drive to engage in a forbidden activity, the sages say he should leave the holy community, don a black hood, do what he has to do, and then rejoin the community. And this was in the Holy Land. If they could understand, then, we can understand now.

It must be hard for gays who want to have a relationship with G-d to have the bomb line in the Torah taken out of context and magnified beyond any current relevance. Gay people who love G-d, should feel no problem at all in going to their various houses of worship. Should they hear the standard coarse condemnations of something which is beyond their control, they should realize these comments are not directed at them but at those who have a choice, and do it as a rebellion against G-d's word, or even that it's all about an earlier time which does not pertain today.

Innocent, gay people should have compassion on those speakers who have not yet read my blog, and therefore are not yet fully enlightened as to what is the proper attitude to have towards those who are gay yet legitimate.

One word of caution, though, especially to Jewish gays: I, personally, would not think it wise to establish gay synagogues, although I know there already are some, and I do understand the need to be with like-minded people. Why? Because to do so would appear to be openly flauting G-d's Torah law, notwithstanding all sincere and innocent intentions. "Marus eyin," or appearances, count in Yiddishkheit, and the appearance of a rebellion against G-d's word, even if it isn't an actual cynical revolt, is something to avoid, I think. It's never a good idea to put words into G-d's mouth, i.e. to proclaim, by prominent display, that it's suddenly OK to appear to disobey the commandment against homosexuality.

And then there's the question of being potential role models for impressionable adolescents. Adolescence is a time of confusion at best, when sexual orientation becomes an issue. I think it is possible that some vulnerable adolescents who are really not gay in the innate sense may decide to become gay because they admire some openly gay person, and it seems to be OK with G-d despite the prohibition in the Torah -- as evidenced by a gay synagogue or a gay marriage in a synagogue. This raises the possiblity of a "false-gay" syndrome, someone who for reasons other than his true sexual orientation wants to participate in a homosexual lifestyle. This, the Torah does not want.

The Torah says that we are not allowed to put stumbling blocks in front of the blind.
Thus, we are not allowed to mislead impressionable young religious Jews that it's perfectly OK for them to opt to become gay. It's not. That would be "sheker," a lie.

When G-d says He does not want the people to engage in homosexual behaviour, I believe He is talking to the people as a nation, not as individuals. He does not want the holy nation to give a rubber stamp, and to elevate homosexuality to as public a practice as it was, say, in ancient times in Greece or Egypt etc.

The fine line I think the Torah wants us to walk here, is that one should not condemn a person for being gay, as that could well be his true nature, as made by G-d for him. On the other hand, the holy nation should not encourage a general desirability to practice homosexuality by consecrating gay marriages and having gay synagogues. I'm not being homophobic here; I'm trying to be true to the Torah.

I'd rather gay religious people simply belong to general congregations as equals but I realize that the "significant other factor" presents a problem. I'm sure that gay people who are couples, want the freedom to express their relationship in their house of worship. I think it's a little risky to openly do so in a general congregation (a) because there are bound to be people who don't understand, who would become critical and hostile, and (b) it could be seen as an open rebellion against G-d's word, even if the congregants are all, as I outlined above, innocently gay or tolerant heterosexuals.

I wish I had a better answer to this question of religious acceptance of gays but I think we have to stop short of enshrining homosexuality as a Torah desirable behaviour while at the same time end this stupid condemnation of people who are innocently and innately gay.

As to why does it happen? Why are some people oriented this way? My guess is it has to do with reincarnation, souls who, in addition to transmigrating, also transgender, i.e., a soul who lived as a woman and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially sexually, may have come back as a man this time around, for reasons only known to the Heavenly courts. I think this may have happened to a lot of souls in this past century.

Also, though, some souls may have a history of homosexuality going way back through multiple lives, and this makes it ingrained in them, even as they take on a new birth.

So, theoretically, since these souls desire this kind of expression in life, G-d makes for them the physical circumstances for this to happen (hormones in the womb etc.).

As more proof of G-d's compassion, let us note that G-d actually created a world with creatures whose nature is "tahor," spiritually pure, and those whose nature is "tamei," or spiritually impure. Why would G-d do that? Why would the Source of all spiritual purity create spiritual impurity?

Apart from answers along the lines that non-kosher animals are there to test the mettle of the Jewish people, my answer is that, since our first principle (of many first principles) is that, as Nachum Ish Gamzu states, "It's all Good," we must acknowledge that it must be good for some creatures to be spiritually impure. Why, is anybody's guess, but it's a given, when you believe in Kel Rachum VeChanun, a G-d of infinite compassion and goodness.

My guess? The reclamation of parts of consciousness which proceeded out of the Mind of G-d at Creation, and got far away from G-d, requires that some entities enjoy a life of spiritual impurity on their path back to G-d, i.e. that it's necessary for their spiritual evolution. Or, more simply, that G-d recognizes their need for self-expression, and in His mercy, provides a world for this. Moreover, this is further proof of the relativism of G-d's statement that homosexuality is a to-evah.

G-d speaks of "distasteful" creatures crawling the earth that are not kosher and forbidden for Jews to eat, another example of the Pheh factor. Yet He created them. Furthermore, even as G-d nominally calls them disgusting creatures, do we think that Mr. Sheretz, (Mr. Creepy Crawly Thing), finds Mrs. Sheretz disgusting? Au contraire. They find each other highly attractive. So G-d's statement of distaste is merely from the Highest Perspective of Holiness, and only addressed to the Jews, specifically, and not a blanket condemnation. Likewise, are G-d's statements about homosexuality. We do not have the right to adopt G-d's attitude -- that belongs specifically to Him. We Jews, to whom the Torah is directed, must learn from it but we should not exploit it.

The interesting thing about the nature of all these issues, is that they are sort of academic, as far as the future is concerned, considering the prophecy of the coming of Mashiach, -- the Messiah, -- which we read in the synagogue on the last day of Passover.

When Mashiach comes, according to the prophet Isiah, such holiness will pervade the Temple Mount that natural instincts will be over-ridden. A child will play near a snake and not be bitten, a lion will lie down with a fatling (could be a lamb), and not make lamb chops out of it (the ancient Egyptians would love it); we all know the words. They imply that regardless of natural, instinctive inclination, when G-d chooses to bring it, His Holiness will so pervade the environment that it will imbue us all, and we won't have to worry about our orientations or any tendencies to sin.

This is not to say the run-up to this period will be a breeze. There are so many "tinokim shenishbe-u," people who have been cut off from knowledge of G-d from their childhood, and so many haters of religion and -- chas v'shalom -- G-d Himself, that we may see a return of the harsh types of actions G-d employed with the child/nation of Hebrew slaves who treated Him with great skepticism when He was "in the room." G-d is eventually coming back into the room. That, as I've pointed out, is an entirely different ballgame. If we don't want to be among those on the receiving end of G-d's style of cleaning house, we should all start contemplating the Torah, and, of course, teaching it to our children.

As far as sexual practices go, ultimately, according to Jewish doctrine, in the coming Messianic Age, there will be no urges to do anything contrary to G-d's will. I suppose it's a trade-off. Our wills and instincts will be over-ridden by His. In exchange, we'll all get to experience a transforming, transcendent Spirit running through our entire beings.

So, I guess we should fret and worry about these things while we still can. The day will come when these concerns fade away in the brilliant, warm, all-encompassing light of G-d's Love and Compassion.