Lesbianism in Halakha
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> nie...@airmail.net (Ethel Jean Saltz) writes:
>Does halakha even deal with lebianism. I've seen in a couple of posts
>that Judaism doesn't see any problem with Lesbianism. I get the
>impression that the homosexual condition only applys to males.
I looked this up once, it's somewhere in tractate Sanhedrin.
Apparently, the sages don't recognize lesbianism per se, just like
they don't recognize homosexuality per se as an orientation.
Lesbian acts/relationships are forbidden rabbinically because
they distract a woman from her proper relations with her husband.
They don't recognize such a thing as an exclusive lesbian.
>If so, why? Doesn't make sense to me. How can a woman be fruitful and
>multimply if she is a Lesbian?
Well, that's the point. Lesbianism is forbidden as it interferes
with proper married life.
Note, however, that women are NOT obligated in "be fruitful and
multiply", only men are. Women prefer to be married than not, as
an extention of their existential nature, so they go along with
men to help them do their mitzvah. However, pregnancy is inherently
life-threatening, so women cannot be commanded to engage in life-
threatening activities.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Adam J. Schorr
In article <32cf1482...@news.airmail.net>, nie...@airmail.net wrote:
>Does halakha even deal with lebianism. I've seen in a couple of posts
>that Judaism doesn't see any problem with Lesbianism. I get the
>impression that the homosexual condition only applys to males.
>
>multimply if she is a Lesbian?
I've been told that there is a rabbinic decree against lesbianism based on
"and you shall not follow their customs." BTW, there is no commandment for a
woman to be fruitful and multiply; this obligation falls only on the man.
(Please don't ask me how men can do this alone, they can't. This is a legal
not a biological point.)
Robert Goldberg
Lesbianism is prohibited by the Torah under the verse (Leviticus 18:3)
"Kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim Asher Yeshavtem Bah Lo Saasu" which translates
into "Like the behaviour of [the people of] the land of Egypt which you dwelt
in, you shoud not do". The Talmud in the Sifra on this verse explicitly
includes lesbianism under this prohibition.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <32cf1482...@news.airmail.net>, nie...@airmail.net (Ethel Jean Saltz) writes:
> Does halakha even deal with lebianism. I've seen in a couple of posts
> that Judaism doesn't see any problem with Lesbianism. I get the
> impression that the homosexual condition only applys to males.
Although not a punishable offense, lesbianism (NASHIM SOLLELOT in Hebrew)
is not permitted (Rambam Hilchot Issurei Biah 21:8 and Tur Even Ha'Ezer
Siman 50)
Josh
>
> If so, why? Doesn't make sense to me. How can a woman be fruitful and
> multimply if she is a Lesbian?
> be-ahavah ve-shalom EthelJean of Creekbend
> MAC-NIET-SPIN-GAL/0387A.G./Khai Y'all
Ethel Jean Saltz
Does halakha even deal with lebianism. I've seen in a couple of posts
that Judaism doesn't see any problem with Lesbianism. I get the
impression that the homosexual condition only applys to males.
If so, why? Doesn't make sense to me. How can a woman be fruitful and
Andrew Mathis
Yes; it isn't allowed. In practice, that is. To be inherently gay
but not to act upon it is not sinful, since Judaism recognizes action
as sinful and not thought (generally).
Andrew
=================================================================
Shining a flashlight on the ugly underside of the 'net: http://www.webmagazine.com/Features/Hate/intro.html
NOT Alfred: http://www.nj.com/maxwells/archive/hitchcock.html
The Homepage that made Milwaukee famous: http://pages.nyu.edu/~aem0608
Interviewer: Well, then, can you destroy the Earth?
The Tick: Egads, I hope not! That's where I keep all my stuff!
Avital Pilpel
Andrew Mathis wrote:
>
> Yes; it isn't allowed. In practice, that is. To be inherently gay
> but not to act upon it is not sinful, since Judaism recognizes action
> as sinful and not thought (generally).
>
> Andrew
>
This is undoubtebly true, but what exactly is the idea behind "hirhurey
avera kashim me'avera" (thinking of sinning is worse than doing it)? Of
course it tries to put across a moral and not a legal point here, but
what exactly is meant?
Avital pilpel.
Adam J. Schorr
>Note, however, that women are NOT obligated in "be fruitful and
>multiply", only men are. Women prefer to be married than not, as
>an extention of their existential nature, so they go along with
>men to help them do their mitzvah. However, pregnancy is inherently
>life-threatening, so women cannot be commanded to engage in life-
>threatening activities.
There is an obligation for women to marry though. As for your last point, is
this an opinion or halachic fact? It seems strange to me since if pregnancy is
viewed as life-threatening in halacha you would think that men would not be
allowed to put their wives in such a position.
Adam J. Schorr
In article <32db2b6d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Jan 1997 04:03:12 GMT, aj...@ccp.uchicago.edu (Adam J.
>Schorr) wrote:
>
>>In article <32cf1482...@news.airmail.net>, nie...@airmail.net wrote:
>>>Does halakha even deal with lebianism. I've seen in a couple of posts
>>>that Judaism doesn't see any problem with Lesbianism. I get the
>>>impression that the homosexual condition only applys to males.
>>>
>>>If so, why? Doesn't make sense to me. How can a woman be fruitful and
>>>multimply if she is a Lesbian?
>
>family-minded. They arrange to procreate with the assistance of a
>surrogate. If a female couple, the "wife" is inseminated by a male,
>whether a friend or someone chosen for genetic reasons. If a male
>couple, they arrange for a female to be inseminated with the sperm of
>one of them.
>
>The other -- and very obvious! -- option is for same-sex couples to
>adopt. Giving a child a home is a major mitzvah. And there has never
>been the slightest evidence that being reared in a same-sex home has
>influenced the child toward homosexuality. Not likely, in that the
>scientific evidence, though still challenged by some "nice people" and
>many bigots, leans toward a genetic predisposition for homosexuality.
>
>Better a warm and loving same-sex home than a bitter, angry and
>abusive "conventional" home. Yet how many helpless children are
>trapped in just such a terrible situation -- with the courts and the
>overworked juvenile authorities unable or unwilling to save the child
> especially when the outward aspect is of material well-being -- as
>if that was ever the most important thing!
>
>Polar
>>
>>I've been told that there is a rabbinic decree against lesbianism based on
>>"and you shall not follow their customs." BTW, there is no commandment for a
>>woman to be fruitful and multiply; this obligation falls only on the man.
>>(Please don't ask me how men can do this alone, they can't. This is a legal
>>not a biological point.)
Are you responding to me or Ethel?
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> tand...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Tina Anderson) writes:
>Jonathan J. Baker (jjb...@panix.com) wrote:
>: In <32db2b6d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) writes:
>: >Better a warm and loving same-sex home than a bitter, angry and
>: >abusive "conventional" home. Yet how many helpless children are
>: >trapped in just such a terrible situation -- with the courts and the
>: Oh, now that's a nice unbiased statement: children can either be raised
>: in a "warm & loving same-sex home" or a "bitter, angry and abusive
>: 'conventional' home" As if there are no, or few, "warm & loving
>: 'conventional' homes".
>Jonathan, try reading what Polar actually _wrote_. If the choices Polar
>listed are the only two available, than I agree with Polar that the
>same-sex home is a better environment for a child to grow up in. Nowhere
>above does Polar say that "there are no, or few, warm & loving
>'conventional' homes".
My point is, for those who are not so quick, that sexuality of the parents
has nothing to do with "warm & loving" vs. "bitter & angry". To cast
the contrast the way she did, Polar made a polemic point about the
equivalence of homo is to warm-fuzzy as hetero is to nasty-abusive.
> Believe me, there are plenty of bitter &
>: angry homosexuals in this world, and plenty of warm & loving
>: heterosexuals.
>I don't think either Polar or I disagree with you on that.
>Tina (a heterosexual who would have preferred two moms to the nightmare she
>grew up in, thank you very much)
You probably would have preferred two parents who got along with each other
and you and your siblings (if applicable) whatever the sex. There is no
guarantee that your "two moms" would have been any better than your own
situation. To think otherwise is to live in a "grass-is-always-greener"
world.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Adam J. Schorr
My understanding of this is as follows: The Torah is designed to move people
away from living in the world of their fantasies (these would include false
ideas about G-d and fantasies about the benefits that a life of physical
pleasure would convey) towards living in the world of reality. Now people are
not perfect and they often fall prey to their whims and fancies in ways that
violate halacha. It is harmful to do so, but because we are physical
creatures, we are prone to make errors of this sort. It is one thing, however,
to fall prey to a particular desire and quite another to live in the world of
that fantasy in your mind. The latter is more difficult to correct.
Robert Goldberg
Since marriage is not "tofes" binding in the case of same sex marriages, the
aforementioned Rambam and Sifra are referring to the acts. Indeed, the term
"Noseh" (living as husband and wife, or marital relations) is used, not
"mekadesh/meares" (wed to). As a previous poster pointed out, presumably such
'marriages' would be forbidden under the conclusion of the same verse in
Leviticus "U'Bechukoseihem Lo Seileichu" (And in their customs you should not
follow).
Warren Burstein
>Lesbian acts/relationships are forbidden rabbinically because
>they distract a woman from her proper relations with her husband.
I am not aware of a source that brings the above reason.
Here are the sources that I do have.
The Talmudic source which prohibits sexual relations between women is
found in Torat Cohanim. I don't have a copy, but I found references
to it in commentators on Misheh Torah and Shulchan Aruch.
Rambam, Hilchot Issurai Biah 21:8 and Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer 20:2
both give as the source for the prohibition of sexual relations
between women Vayikra 18:3 which introduces the prohibited sexual
relations by saying not to follow the customs of Egypt or of Canaan.
The Maggid Mishneh says that Torat Cohanim interprets this as same-sex
marriages, but doesn't give a reference. The G"ra refers to Torat
Cohanim, Acharai Mot, 9:8.
--
Jonathan J. Baker
>Better a warm and loving same-sex home than a bitter, angry and
>abusive "conventional" home. Yet how many helpless children are
>trapped in just such a terrible situation -- with the courts and the
Oh, now that's a nice unbiased statement: children can either be raised
in a "warm & loving same-sex home" or a "bitter, angry and abusive
'conventional' home" As if there are no, or few, "warm & loving
'conventional' homes". Believe me, there are plenty of bitter &
angry homosexuals in this world, and plenty of warm & loving
heterosexuals.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> rrg@<??>.nyu.edu (Robert Goldberg) writes:
>Since marriage is not "tofes" binding in the case of same sex marriages, the
>aforementioned Rambam and Sifra are referring to the acts. Indeed, the term
Are you sure about this? Remember, the Sifra was referring to the acts
of Egyptians, who were not bound by halacha. Who's to say that they didn't
recognize same-sex marriages?
>"Noseh" (living as husband and wife, or marital relations) is used, not
>"mekadesh/meares" (wed to). As a previous poster pointed out, presumably such
So what? We use the term Noseh in Nisuin, which is the act of concluding
a marriage. "Mekadesh/me'ares" refers to betrothal. If you're going to
attribute halachic qualities to ancient Egyptians, at least get them right.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) writes:
>On 5 Jan 1997 13:08:44 -0500, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>> Rambam, and
>>I think the Talmud, don't consider female homosexual acts to be
>>real *acts* (biah), since there is no penetration.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but male homosexual acts can take place
>without penetration, can't they? Think about all those
Yes, of course they can. Note that Rashi on the verse in Leviticus
18 which bans "men from lying with men after the manner of women"
explains "like lying with a woman" to be anal intercourse (note you
will not find this in the bowdlerized Silbermann translation). Anything
else, oral, etc. is presumably rabbinically prohibited, just like
female homosexuality. I know at least one O homosexual who justifies
his behavior halachically as follows: anal intercourse is forbidden
from the Torah, so he doesn't do it. Anything else, well, he has
a God-given compulsion (call it a handicap if you will) to be
homosexual, so he feels he's exempt from the rabbinic prohibition.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
In <E3J3o...@itex.jct.ac.il> war...@itex.jct.ac.il (Warren Burstein) writes:
>In <5anc6g$7...@panix2.panix.com> jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
>>Lesbian acts/relationships are forbidden rabbinically because
>>they distract a woman from her proper relations with her husband.
>I am not aware of a source that brings the above reason.
I think I misread a Rashi on Shabbat 65b, top of page.
Shmuel's father didn't allow his daughters to sleep together
because it might accustom them to having another body in the bed,
and they would then go out & be promiscuous without marriage.
However, see the seifa of the Rambam you cited: why specifically
should a *married* woman be kept away from such relationships?
Interestingly, that Rambam seems to condemn homosexual *relationships*,
rather than homosexual *acts*. If "deeds of Egypt" prohibits "a man
marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman", those are expressions
of relationships, rather than of acts, especially since there are
other verses which prohibit male homosexual *acts*. Rambam, and
I think the Talmud, don't consider female homosexual acts to be
real *acts* (biah), since there is no penetration.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Tina Anderson
: >Better a warm and loving same-sex home than a bitter, angry and
: >abusive "conventional" home. Yet how many helpless children are
: >trapped in just such a terrible situation -- with the courts and the
: Oh, now that's a nice unbiased statement: children can either be raised
: in a "warm & loving same-sex home" or a "bitter, angry and abusive
: 'conventional' home" As if there are no, or few, "warm & loving
: 'conventional' homes".
Jonathan, try reading what Polar actually _wrote_. If the choices Polar
listed are the only two available, than I agree with Polar that the
same-sex home is a better environment for a child to grow up in. Nowhere
above does Polar say that "there are no, or few, warm & loving
'conventional' homes".
Believe me, there are plenty of bitter &
: angry homosexuals in this world, and plenty of warm & loving
: heterosexuals.
I don't think either Polar or I disagree with you on that.
Tina (a heterosexual who would have preferred two moms to the nightmare she
grew up in, thank you very much)
--
-----
tand...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
Pesach
--
Lesbianism is not SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the Torah -- these
verse, without the additional commentary, could apply to many things
that we think the Egyptians go. But, Lesbianism, like Pornography,
Prostitution are prohibited by many halachos that deal with
the way a Jew should act, what a Jew should view, and other
things.
I however think that the Torah doesn't specifically call
Lesbianism into consideration because of the different
nature of Lesbians in relation to male gay homosexuals --
the nature of the relationship is often very different
and comes about out of need for compasion and love.
THis is just my opinion however.
Binyamin Dissen
On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 02:49:35 GMT nie...@airmail.net (Ethel Jean Saltz) wrote:
[Posted and mailed]
:>Does halakha even deal with lebianism. I've seen in a couple of posts
:>that Judaism doesn't see any problem with Lesbianism. I get the
:>impression that the homosexual condition only applys to males.
The punishment for men is death (assuming proper Hasra-ah/warning and
Eidut/witnessing). AFAIK it is prohibitted for women rabinically and the
punishment would be lashes.
:>If so, why? Doesn't make sense to me. How can a woman be fruitful and
:>multimply if she is a Lesbian?
Women are not commanded to be fruitful and multiply. The end to that command
is "and fill the land and conquer it". It is the nature of men to conquer but
not of women. Therefore this commandment is to men.
Women get rewarded for producing children but are not obligated. Men are
obligated to produce children.
:>EthelJean of Creekbend
--
Binyami...@theoffice.net
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Warning, I AM NOT A POSEK. This is not a PSAK.
Adam J. Schorr
>Women are not commanded to be fruitful and multiply. The end to that command
>is "and fill the land and conquer it". It is the nature of men to conquer but
>not of women. Therefore this commandment is to men.
I haven't seen this explanation but I did see the following (I think in one of
the rishonim): Women are not obligated since the critical act (ejaculation) is
the man's alone.
Zev Sero
s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar)
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but male homosexual acts can take place
>without penetration, can't they? Think about all those
>happily-married men who stop in the park on their way home to get a
>blow job from a male prostitute (and then pass on AIDS to their
>unsuspecting wifes).
While perhaps not technically impossible, I'll bet you can't come
up with even one documented case of this actually happening. This
supposed method of transmission of HIV from prostitute to wife is
so improbable that the risk to the wife is less than that of doing
her physical and emotional damage by filling her head with such
hysterical fears.
>On a less disgusting plane, aren't there committed male lovers who
>do not penetrate, for one reason or another? So would those two
>diametrically-opposed examples pass inspection?
As Rashi (Vayikra 20:13) explains graphically for the `ben chamesh
lemikra', this is not covered by the Torah's prohibition. The
halacha regards it as `peritzut bealma', or `just fooling around'.
Also check out the Talmud's interpretation of the words `mishkevei
isha'.
--
Zev Sero Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne
zs...@mail.idt.net
zs...@technimetrics.com
li...@interport.net
Adam J. Schorr (aj...@ccp.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: >Note, however, that women are NOT obligated in "be fruitful and
: >multiply", only men are. Women prefer to be married than not, as
: >an extention of their existential nature, so they go along with
: >men to help them do their mitzvah. However, pregnancy is inherently
: >life-threatening, so women cannot be commanded to engage in life-
: >threatening activities.
: There is an obligation for women to marry though.
No there isn't. Why do you think there is?
: As for your last point, is
: this an opinion or halachic fact? It seems strange to me since if pregnancy is
: viewed as life-threatening in halacha you would think that men would not be
: allowed to put their wives in such a position.
Maybe he meant to say that it can be dangerous. There's a difference
between the two halakhically.
Lisa
li...@interport.net
: >Does halakha even deal with lebianism. I've seen in a couple of posts
: >that Judaism doesn't see any problem with Lesbianism. I get the
: >impression that the homosexual condition only applys to males.
: I looked this up once, it's somewhere in tractate Sanhedrin.
: Apparently, the sages don't recognize lesbianism per se, just like
: they don't recognize homosexuality per se as an orientation.
: Lesbian acts/relationships are forbidden rabbinically because
: they distract a woman from her proper relations with her husband.
: They don't recognize such a thing as an exclusive lesbian.
: >If so, why? Doesn't make sense to me. How can a woman be fruitful and
: >multimply if she is a Lesbian?
: Well, that's the point. Lesbianism is forbidden as it interferes
: with proper married life.
: Note, however, that women are NOT obligated in "be fruitful and
: multiply", only men are. Women prefer to be married than not, as
: an extention of their existential nature,
Ahem. Excuse me? Is that from "tav l'meitav tandu m'l'meitav armelu", or
is that your own opinion?
Lisa
Warren Burstein
>However, see the seifa of the Rambam you cited: why specifically
>should a *married* woman be kept away from such relationships?
He doesn't say that it's any more or less prohibited if the woman is
married. Perhaps it happened that some husbands were lax about it so
he felt it necessary to say that.
>Interestingly, that Rambam seems to condemn homosexual *relationships*,
>rather than homosexual *acts*. If "deeds of Egypt" prohibits "a man
>marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman", those are expressions
>of relationships, rather than of acts, especially since there are
>other verses which prohibit male homosexual *acts*.
The cited reason might seem to fit better to a prohibition of
relationships rather than of acts, but he doesn't say that. He says
that the act is prohibited.
--
Adam J. Schorr
>No there isn't. Why do you think there is?
mishum chshad
li...@interport.net
: >No there isn't. Why do you think there is?
: mishum chshad
Wait a second. It's nice that you snipped everything, but you said that
there's an *obligation* for women to marry. And when I asked why you
think that is, you answer "mishum chshad"?
For those who don't know, this means so that someone won't be suspected of
doing something wrong. What exactly do you have in mind here, Adam?
Once more, there is no obligation for women to marry.
Lisa
----------------------------------------------
I still believe in all my dreams
And all that I can be
I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
To make it eventually
'Cause I still believe in me.
- From the TV show Fame
Eugene Rabinovich
On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Adam J. Schorr wrote:
> In article <32e0efb8...@news.netvision.net.il>, Binyami...@theoffice.net (Binyamin Dissen) wrote:
>
> >Women are not commanded to be fruitful and multiply. The end to that command
> >is "and fill the land and conquer it". It is the nature of men to conquer but
> >not of women. Therefore this commandment is to men.
>
> I haven't seen this explanation but I did see the following (I think in one
It's in the Ms. Kidushin. I don't have it with me, but I think it's
somewhere in the Gemora on the first Mishnah of the first perek (possibly
on the bottom of daf (page) bet, amud (side) bet).
Eugene Rabinovich
y-rabi...@uchicago.edu
--------------------------
Def: Caffeine -- an essential body nutrient.
Def: Sleep -- a point in space-time when Caffeine does not work any more.
Pesach
li...@interport.net wrote:
> : Note, however, that women are NOT obligated in "be fruitful and
> : multiply", only men are. Women prefer to be married than not, as
> : an extention of their existential nature,
>
> Ahem. Excuse me? Is that from "tav l'meitav tandu m'l'meitav armelu", or
> is that your own opinion?
>
> Lisa
Lisa, there is tons written on why women are not commanded to get
married, including many Kabbalistic reasons, that point among other
things, that a woman is whole, while a man isn't, thus looking for
a woman to complete himself.
It is a basic concept of Judaism.
naomi pardue
Robert Goldberg (rrg@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu) wrote:
>
> Again, lesbianism is prohibited by the oral tradition of the Torah under the
> verse found in Leviticus 18:3. This verse is interesting because the written
> law never gives specific instances and must rely on the oral tradition for a
> proper explanation. The Bible prohibits homosexuality independent of whether
> 'sperm is wasted.' The act of lying together in such a manner is what is
> prohibited. While interesting explanations can be given to why the Torah does
> forbid these acts, it is most probably dangerous to 'second guess' Hashem. All
But surely the lesbian (or gay man) would be second guessing God if she
tried to deny the feelings that God gave her and engage in a relationship
that was repellent to her. God made some people to be gay, just as He
made some (most) people to be straight.
Naomi
li...@interport.net
naomi pardue (npa...@indiana.edu) wrote:
God made all kinds of people. It doesn't mean that everything a person
wants or needs is permissible according to Jewish law. If I was writing
the halakha, I think there are quite a few things I'd do differently. But
I'm not God.
I don't think God would intend for a lesbian to be saddled with a husband
and be miserable and have him be miserable. But that doesn't mean Jewish
law actually permits her to be with a woman.
Lisa
Robert Goldberg
Hashem did not make anyone gay or lesbian. He did make them male and female.
Everybody has desires and nobody is above the law. We are all responsible for
our actions. The Talmud gives an antidote for desire: live in a community
that truthfully practices Torah and further ones study of the Torah.
Pesach
Raquel Hasofer wrote:
> The problem with homosexuality is specifically a problem with wasting
> sperm that should only be secreted for the use of procreating and the
> pleasure of one's wife. Since the act of homosexuality wastes sperm
> it is prohibbited. However, lesbianism is not discussed as it is
> irrelevent to sperm waste.
>
> Since women are not obligated to be fruitful and multiply, and are not
> wasting precious sperm - lesbianism is perfectly permissable.
Come off of it!
I understand that in some places in the United States, there
is a lack of Yeshivot and Girls Schools, but I can't believe
that there are that much of a lack of Rabbis that someone would
seriously write the above formentioned thing.
There is, even though someone posted otherwise, numerous mentions
of Lesbians in Halacha, and what to do with in certain situations!
Lesbianism is completely NOT permissable for many, many reasons. The
acts of Homosexuality are NOT just permissable because of 'sperm-waste'
and if you see it that way, you are ignoring numerous writings saying
otherwise -- or you have a very, very limited view of Judaism.
There are spiritual matters, of course, in all things. Besides
being commanded not to do like the nations of the world, (loose
translation here), were are commanded to behave in such a manner
that is of Kedusha and of a Jew. It is not proper for a Bas Yisroel,
to get herself involved in such a situation! Infact, the Halacha
specifically states that if you find your wife in such a situtation,
you now _MUST_ make sure that she is NEVER alone with a woman!
If you are having a problem with this, and are an Orthodox Lesbian
or contemplating it, please contact Rav!
If you are really interested for the sake of Torah, I'd be glad
to quote you the sources.
Bentzion Turin
Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>This is undoubtebly true, but what exactly is the idea behind "hirhurey
>avera kashim me'avera" (thinking of sinning is worse than doing it)? Of
>course it tries to put across a moral and not a legal point here, but
>what exactly is meant?
When one commits a sin they *usually* feel guilty and repent thereby
uprooting the negative influence of the sin. One who thinks of sins
feels that they have done nothing wrong and will continue to debase
their G-d given intellect.
BTW if you know Rachel and Miriam Abramowitz (Freshman a Barnard
please say hello.]
--
Bentzion Turin
bent...@flash.net
li...@interport.net
Robert Goldberg (rrg@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu) wrote:
: Hashem did not make anyone gay or lesbian. He did make them male and female.
: Everybody has desires and nobody is above the law. We are all responsible for
: our actions. The Talmud gives an antidote for desire: live in a community
: that truthfully practices Torah and further ones study of the Torah.
Hashem made people gay and lesbian and every other variety of thing you
can think of. That's not relevant to whether it's permitted or not to
act on it.
And living in a Torah community is unlikely to make someone not attracted
to the opposite sex all of a sudden be happy with an opposite sex spouse.
Lisa
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> r...@FILE.nyu.edu (Robert Goldberg) writes:
>20:13 where a court death penalty is cited and lesbianism prohibited by the
>previous verse leviticus 18:3 where no court death penalty is cited. Since
>the negative prohibition of 18:3 is a 'Lav Shebechlalos' (A general negative
>prohibition that includes many cases) under Talmudic law would probably not
>warrant Biblical lashes. I do not have a citation though for this.
No, it warrants "macat mardut", lashes for rebellion against the court.
Since by all accounts it's a rabbinic prohibition, it's hard to see how
it would necessitate Biblical lashes.
See Rambam Hil. Isurei Biah 21:8 that everyone's been citing.
naomi pardue
Distribution: inet
Micha Berger (ais...@metropolis.idt.net) wrote:
> The argument that to a homosexual urge is an implicit statement from G-d
> about your intended lifestyle. Such an argument would have ugly parallels
> from people with other urges, such a pediophilia, homicide, etc...
The problem with those choices is that the other party does not normally
consent to being molested/murdered. (Also, there is extensive evidence
that those urges are NOT normal, inborn ones, but are the result of
having been abused or maltreated.)
Or,
> to give an obvious non-"redutio ad absurdam" example, would you use a
> similar argument to legitamize teenage (premarital) sex? G-d gave them
> sexual urges as well.
Teens know that they will eventually be able to fulfill those needs.
Naomi
Adam J. Schorr
>The problem with homosexuality is specifically a problem with wasting
>sperm that should only be secreted for the use of procreating and the
>pleasure of one's wife. Since the act of homosexuality wastes sperm
>it is prohibbited. However, lesbianism is not discussed as it is
>irrelevent to sperm waste.
You are entirely incorrect. Male-male anal sex is prohibited by the Torah. It
is a prohibited act. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the wasting of sperm
although you would probably violate that commandment in the course of
violating the other as well. If a man has anal sex with another man and does
not ejaculate, he has not wasted sperm but he has violated the biblical
injunction against male-male anal sex.
Adam J. Schorr
In article <5b0qbj$r...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
>Robert Goldberg (rrg@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu) wrote:
>>
>> Again, lesbianism is prohibited by the oral tradition of the Torah under the
>> verse found in Leviticus 18:3. This verse is interesting because the written
>> law never gives specific instances and must rely on the oral tradition for a
>> proper explanation. The Bible prohibits homosexuality independent of whether
>> 'sperm is wasted.' The act of lying together in such a manner is what is
>> prohibited. While interesting explanations can be given to why the Torah does
>> forbid these acts, it is most probably dangerous to 'second guess' Hashem.
>But surely the lesbian (or gay man) would be second guessing God if she
>tried to deny the feelings that God gave her and engage in a relationship
>that was repellent to her. God made some people to be gay, just as He
>made some (most) people to be straight.
You assume that it is good to act on any desire. This seems like a
particularly evil assumption given the rather evil desires that some people
have. One should not deny the feelings they have whether those feelings make
them want to steal, murder, rape, have homosexual sex, eat non-kosher, or
violate any other halacha. That does not mean that one should give in to the
feelings, but you're right about denial. People who have desires whose
fulfillment is prohibited should come to grips with their desires and decide
that keeping halacha is far more important than satisfying desires.
Adam J. Schorr
>Hashem made people gay and lesbian and every other variety of thing you
>can think of. That's not relevant to whether it's permitted or not to
>act on it.
True.
>And living in a Torah community is unlikely to make someone not attracted
>to the opposite sex all of a sudden be happy with an opposite sex spouse.
No, but it is likely to make one think of sex less often.
li...@interport.net
: True.
Sheesh... Now there's a happy thought. <shaking my head>
Eugene Rabinovich
Besides, if a male ejaculates sperm, his body will produce more sperm for
later use. You cannot "run out" of sperm.
Sheldon Lobel
naomi pardue (npa...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: Robert Goldberg (rrg@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu) wrote:
: >
: > Again, lesbianism is prohibited by the oral tradition of the Torah under the
: > verse found in Leviticus 18:3. This verse is interesting because the written
: > law never gives specific instances and must rely on the oral tradition for a
: > proper explanation. The Bible prohibits homosexuality independent of whether
: > 'sperm is wasted.' The act of lying together in such a manner is what is
: > prohibited. While interesting explanations can be given to why the Torah does
:
: But surely the lesbian (or gay man) would be second guessing God if she
: that was repellent to her. God made some people to be gay, just as He
: made some (most) people to be straight.
: Naomi
That's not a particularly good argument when discussing Judaism. There are
surely many people who immensely enjoy pork products (ie: bacon, ham...)
yet, pork is prohibited. God made some people love pork (or, insert your
favorite unkosher food or unhalakhik behavior) yet he also prohibited
eating it.
Norman
Micha Berger
The argument that to a homosexual urge is an implicit statement from G-d
about your intended lifestyle. Such an argument would have ugly parallels
to give an obvious non-"redutio ad absurdam" example, would you use a
similar argument to legitamize teenage (premarital) sex? G-d gave them
sexual urges as well.
--
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3736 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (16-Oct-86 - 9-Jan-97)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
<a href=http://aishdas.org>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>
Micha Berger
naomi pardue <npa...@indiana.edu> wrote:
: The problem with those choices is that the other party does not normally
: consent to being molested/murdered.
I agree that from a humanistic point of view, the ethics of the two are
very different.
I was just trying to disprove the equivalence of G-d implanted urge with
Diving imperitive. I was not discussing the second issue, the actual
morality of the act.
BTW, if I remember my adolecense correctly. "Someday" is as good as
never. Being told that you could have sex in another decade doesn't
console much.
Binyamin Dissen
On 8 Jan 1997 18:51:31 GMT npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
[ snipped ]
:>But surely the lesbian (or gay man) would be second guessing God if she
:>tried to deny the feelings that God gave her and engage in a relationship
:>that was repellent to her. God made some people to be gay, just as He
:>made some (most) people to be straight.
No. G-d gave the person with homosexual urges a challenge. Some people are
challenged with non-kosher food, some people are challenged with Shabbat, some
people are challenged with improper sexual urges, some people are challenged
with the urge to rape, some people are challenged with the urge to murder.
But G-d does not give a test that you cannot succeed. Perhaps the people
without homosexual urges are weaker in that way so G-d does not test them in
that way.
:>Naomi
--
Binyami...@theoffice.net
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Pesach
naomi pardue wrote:
>
> HaShem made us with sexual feelings. Most of us were born with sexual
> feelings that involve attraction to the opposite sex. Some were born
> with attraction and desires for the same sex.
> It seems pretty unfair of Him to
> make people with heteroxexual feelings and encourage them to marry and
> use those feelings, while, at the same time, making people with same-sex
> desires and telling them "Oh, but you're just going to have to grit your
> teeth and bear it, becuase you aren't allowed to do anything about it..."
> (And, if you're a male, you are requried to marry and engage in
> emotionally repellent behaviors so you can 'be fruitful and multiply.')
>
Well, Naomi, many people have their kinks, but they are
still forbidden. Many of us have an urge to eat non-kosher
food, but it is forbidden. We all have a Yetzer Hara
for something...
That is partially what Torah is. We are taught to overcome
out physicallity and allow our Neshama to shine through. If
you have abnormal feelings, then it is your responsibility
as a Jew, to learn and love Torah, and find yourself there.
With the Study of Torah we are healed spirtually, and if
you believe in G-d, you believe that he can help you overcome
feelings that are against his wishes.
Many, many people have overcome these feelings through
professional help, and most experts will tell you that
sometimes in everyones lives there is a time where someone
has feelings for someone of the opposite sex, usually
around puberty, when people experiment with their sexuality.
For somereason, some people "learn" that this is their
sexuality, and as they grow up, that becomes their focus.
It is like ANY kink we have, we assosiate certain things
with love and sex, and it becomes normal. Some people
have to have sexy shoes to have a 'normal' sex life.
We can learn other feelings!
--
Pesach Lattin
------------------------
re...@superlink.net
pes...@brooklyn.cuny.edu
------------------------
Visit Brooklyn College's Award Winning WebPages
[Student WebServer]
http://students.brooklyn.cuny.edu
[AeroWeb -- Everything is here in the Air!]
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/air.html
------------------------
Brooklyn College this year was rated 4 Stars (****) by
the Fiske's Guide to Colleges, making it one of the top
publically funded liberal arts colleges in the nation!
http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu
------------------------
Pesach
naomi pardue wrote:
>
> HaShem made us with sexual feelings. Most of us were born with sexual
> feelings that involve attraction to the opposite sex. Some were born
> with attraction and desires for the same sex.
> It seems pretty unfair of Him to
> make people with heteroxexual feelings and encourage them to marry and
> use those feelings, while, at the same time, making people with same-sex
> desires and telling them "Oh, but you're just going to have to grit your
> teeth and bear it, becuase you aren't allowed to do anything about it..."
> (And, if you're a male, you are requried to marry and engage in
> emotionally repellent behaviors so you can 'be fruitful and multiply.')
>
Well, Naomi, many people have their kinks, but they are
still forbidden. Many of us have an urge to eat non-kosher
food, but it is forbidden. We all have a Yetzer Hara
for something...
That is partially what Torah is. We are taught to overcome
out physicallity and allow our Neshama to shin through. If
you have abnormal feelings, then it is your responsibility
as a Jew, to learn and love Torah, and find yourself there.
--
Jacob Love
In article <32d3249a...@news.usyd.edu.au>,
Raquel Hasofer <rhas...@postbox.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>The problem with homosexuality is specifically a problem with wasting
>sperm that should only be secreted for the use of procreating and the
>pleasure of one's wife. Since the act of homosexuality wastes sperm
>it is prohibbited.
This is incorrect. Since many O authorities allow birth control for a
variety of reasons, and since it the case of masturbation is not
halakhically clear, it cannot be categorically stated that male
homosexuality is prohibited on a basis of wasting sperm. To the best of
my knowledge, the only Torah prohibition is in va-yiqra and refers to
the reason that a specified activity is an "abomination" (not that it
"wastes sperm"). This specified activity, as has been discussed in this
NewsGroup on at least a half dozen occasions, is male to male anal
intercourse. There is no prohibition against the state of being
homosexual, nor is there any prohibition on other homosexual activity,
at least with the Torah as a reference point. It is true that there are
some authorities who prohibit male homosexual activity of all sorts
based on interpretations of the halakhah. However, if I ask the
audience to provide a specific citation to the Tur, the Shulhan Arukh,
or any code of the era of the Shulhan Arukh or before which specifies
this, I believe the answer is that it is not there.
The primary point of the poster is that there no prohibition against
lesbian activity, and I would agree qal v'homer.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Jacob Love
In article <32D3D0...@superlink.net>, Pesach <re...@superlink.net> wrote:
>Come off of it!
>
[Deletia]
>
>There is, even though someone posted otherwise, numerous mentions
>of Lesbians in Halacha, and what to do with in certain situations!
>Lesbianism is completely NOT permissable for many, many reasons. The
>acts of Homosexuality are NOT just permissable because of 'sperm-waste'
>and if you see it that way, you are ignoring numerous writings saying
>otherwise -- or you have a very, very limited view of Judaism.
While I have posted a correction to Rachel's article, your points are
not well taken. Rachel's assertions regarding the absence of any
halakhah prohibiting lesbian activity are absolutely true. You accuse
her of having a "very, very limited view of Judaism," but the fact is
that accusation applies better to yourself. Fact: you cannot cite a
halakhah that prohibits lesbian activity from any classical halakhic
code. Fact: while it is true that there are Jewish sources which may
reflect an anti-homosexual bias, none of these are part of the
halakhah, and all of them come from sources which also contain material
that you (or whatever rabbi you claim to follow) would not accept. The
mere fact that you can find such material, in other words, says
nothing about whether it is permissible or not.
naomi pardue
Sheldon Lobel (lo...@is.nyu.edu) wrote:
> naomi pardue (npa...@indiana.edu) wrote:
> : But surely the lesbian (or gay man) would be second guessing God if she
> : that was repellent to her. God made some people to be gay, just as He
> : made some (most) people to be straight.
>
> surely many people who immensely enjoy pork products (ie: bacon, ham...)
> yet, pork is prohibited. God made some people love pork (or, insert your
> favorite unkosher food or unhalakhik behavior) yet he also prohibited
> eating it.
But you would never know if you liked bacon if you'd never tasted it.
Sexual attraction tends to come before the actual experience. And, of
course, even if one never eats bacon, there are, no doubt, other equally
enjoyable fooods that can be eaten in its place. The only reasonably good
substitue for sex with the partner of prefered gender is masturbation,
and that isn't permitted either.
Naomi
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> Binyami...@theoffice.net (Binyamin Dissen) writes:
>On 8 Jan 1997 18:51:31 GMT npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
>:>that was repellent to her. God made some people to be gay, just as He
>:>made some (most) people to be straight.
>No. G-d gave the person with homosexual urges a challenge. ...
>But G-d does not give a test that you cannot succeed. Perhaps the people
>without homosexual urges are weaker in that way so G-d does not test them in
>that way.
I beg to differ. Perhaps the adage about "God does not give a test that
you cannot succeed" applied in the days of the Avot, but it may well not
apply today. I look at a man I know, who lived as a heterosexual for many
years, and had many children, and then threw it and his Judaism over in
favor of homosexuality - it was either that or kill himself in agony
over living the contradiction - his rebbe told him that it was better to
give up religion & family than to kill oneself. If we are to believe
that adage has any validity, either we have to say that a) it applied to
the ancients, but not to us, or b) the test for him was whether or not
to take his own life, at which he succeeded, albeit at great cost.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
li...@interport.net
naomi pardue (npa...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: Sheldon Lobel (lo...@is.nyu.edu) wrote:
: > naomi pardue (npa...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: > : But surely the lesbian (or gay man) would be second guessing God if she
: > : tried to deny the feelings that God gave her and engage in a relationship
: > That's not a particularly good argument when discussing Judaism. There are
: > surely many people who immensely enjoy pork products (ie: bacon, ham...)
: > yet, pork is prohibited. God made some people love pork (or, insert your
: > favorite unkosher food or unhalakhik behavior) yet he also prohibited
: > eating it.
: But you would never know if you liked bacon if you'd never tasted it.
Sure. Look, smell. You wouldn't know you were attracted to a person of
the same sex if you never associated with them. Which isn't really all
that possible, practically speaking.
: Sexual attraction tends to come before the actual experience. And, of
: course, even if one never eats bacon, there are, no doubt, other equally
: enjoyable fooods that can be eaten in its place. The only reasonably good
: substitue for sex with the partner of prefered gender is masturbation,
: and that isn't permitted either.
It's permitted to women. But I don't imagine it's much of a substitute.
Lisa
Hiski Haapoja
naomi pardue (npa...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: The problem with those choices is that the other party does not normally
: having been abused or maltreated.)
I would say the same about homosexuality. No medical references, just
logic.
: > to give an obvious non-"redutio ad absurdam" example, would you use a
: > similar argument to legitamize teenage (premarital) sex? G-d gave them
: > sexual urges as well.
: Teens know that they will eventually be able to fulfill those needs.
The most inaccurate depiction of teenage mentality I've ever seen.
Hiski Haapoja (JSAS)
ki...@sci.fi
# Time wounds old heels. # (Groucho Marx in "Go West")
li...@interport.net
Pesach (re...@superlink.net) wrote:
: li...@interport.net wrote:
: > : Note, however, that women are NOT obligated in "be fruitful and
: > : multiply", only men are. Women prefer to be married than not, as
: > : an extention of their existential nature,
: >
: > Ahem. Excuse me? Is that from "tav l'meitav tandu m'l'meitav armelu", or
: > is that your own opinion?
: >
: > Lisa
: Lisa, there is tons written on why women are not commanded to get
: married, including many Kabbalistic reasons, that point among other
: things, that a woman is whole, while a man isn't, thus looking for
: a woman to complete himself.
: It is a basic concept of Judaism.
I didn't mean why we aren't commanded in pru urvu. I meant the part about
it being part of our "existential nature" to prefer being married.
Lisa
li...@interport.net
Binyamin Dissen (Binyami...@theoffice.net) wrote:
: On 8 Jan 1997 18:51:31 GMT npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
: [ snipped ]
: :>But surely the lesbian (or gay man) would be second guessing God if she
: :>tried to deny the feelings that God gave her and engage in a relationship
: :>that was repellent to her. God made some people to be gay, just as He
: :>made some (most) people to be straight.
: No. G-d gave the person with homosexual urges a challenge. Some people are
: challenged with non-kosher food, some people are challenged with Shabbat, some
: people are challenged with improper sexual urges, some people are challenged
: with the urge to rape, some people are challenged with the urge to murder.
:
: But G-d does not give a test that you cannot succeed. Perhaps the people
: without homosexual urges are weaker in that way so G-d does not test them in
: that way.
Hmm... so gays and lesbians are spiritually superior to straight people?
In potential, anyway? <grin>
Jacob Love
In article <5b0f11$pif$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
Robert Goldberg <rrg@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu> wrote:
[I'm not sure the attribution is correct given the peculiar header
above, so I'm reproducing it for reference purposes only.]
>Again, lesbianism is prohibited by the oral tradition of the Torah under the
>verse found in Leviticus 18:3.
No it isn't. Even male homosexuality is not prohibited by this verse.
>This verse is interesting because the written
>law never gives specific instances and must rely on the oral tradition for a
>proper explanation. The Bible prohibits homosexuality independent of whether
>'sperm is wasted.' The act of lying together in such a manner is what is
>prohibited. While interesting explanations can be given to why the Torah does
>forbid these acts, it is most probably dangerous to 'second guess' Hashem. All
>that is given is that male homosexuality is prohibited by verse Leviticus
>20:13 where a court death penalty is cited and lesbianism prohibited by the
>previous verse leviticus 18:3 where no court death penalty is cited. Since
>the negative prohibition of 18:3 is a 'Lav Shebechlalos' (A general negative
>prohibition that includes many cases) under Talmudic law would probably not
>warrant Biblical lashes. I do not have a citation though for this.
You do not have a citation to any of this, because one does not exist.
Ethel Jean Saltz
li...@interport.net wrote:
>Sure. Look, smell. You wouldn't know you were attracted to a person of
>the same sex if you never associated with them. Which isn't really all
>that possible, practically speaking.
Most of the psycho babble I've heard says that children, in general,
do experiment in homosexual acts. I can definitely state that as a 7YO
I discovered this at a Jewish camp at nap time. I just wondered about
all these girls around me. I felt "different" even then. I wanted to
fit in because it was only 2 weeks and I didn't want to disturb their
"fun" and become an "issue (outcaste)". It was the usual doctor
patient play. I thought it was perfectly revolting. So I never allowed
myself to be patient -- the only one. I don't know why, but I was born
knowing about homosexuality and couldn't stand it.
That's why I have no respect for any rabbi or physician or
psychologist who generalizes using all or none. I'm an exception in
many situations, and would be considered a liar if I said so. I'll
never get over how awful I thought the doctor/patient ritual of little
Jewish girls were, even 60 years later. I don't like anyone touching
me without my permission. I hate all that touchy/feely stuff that is
being fostered in today's socialization techniques.
be-ahavah ve-shalom EthelJean of Creekbend
MAC-NIET-SPIN-GAL/0387A.G./Khai Y'all
Sheldon L. Glickler
On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 12:50:50 -0600, Pesach <re...@superlink.net>
wrote:
>naomi pardue wrote:
>>
>> HaShem made us with sexual feelings. Most of us were born with sexual
>> feelings that involve attraction to the opposite sex. Some were born
>> with attraction and desires for the same sex.
>> It seems pretty unfair of Him to
>> make people with heteroxexual feelings and encourage them to marry and
>> use those feelings, while, at the same time, making people with same-sex
>> desires and telling them "Oh, but you're just going to have to grit your
>> teeth and bear it, becuase you aren't allowed to do anything about it..."
>> (And, if you're a male, you are requried to marry and engage in
>> emotionally repellent behaviors so you can 'be fruitful and multiply.')
>>
>
>Well, Naomi, many people have their kinks, but they are
>still forbidden. Many of us have an urge to eat non-kosher
>food, but it is forbidden. We all have a Yetzer Hara
>for something...
>
>That is partially what Torah is. We are taught to overcome
>out physicallity and allow our Neshama to shine through. If
>you have abnormal feelings, then it is your responsibility
>as a Jew, to learn and love Torah, and find yourself there.
>
>With the Study of Torah we are healed spirtually, and if
>you believe in G-d, you believe that he can help you overcome
>feelings that are against his wishes.
>
>Many, many people have overcome these feelings through
>professional help, and most experts will tell you that
>sometimes in everyones lives there is a time where someone
>has feelings for someone of the opposite sex, usually
>around puberty, when people experiment with their sexuality.
>For somereason, some people "learn" that this is their
>sexuality, and as they grow up, that becomes their focus.
>
>It is like ANY kink we have, we assosiate certain things
>with love and sex, and it becomes normal. Some people
>have to have sexy shoes to have a 'normal' sex life.
>We can learn other feelings!
>
>
>
Pesach, it is not so simple. It is not black or white. From what I
know (and I am not one myself so I speak as an outsider), there is a
spectrum. There are those who could lean one way or the other.
However, there are those where the chemistry is such that is it only
one way.
Shelly
li...@interport.net
Jonathan J. Baker (jjb...@panix.com) wrote:
: In <> Binyami...@theoffice.net (Binyamin Dissen) writes:
: >On 8 Jan 1997 18:51:31 GMT npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
: >:>that was repellent to her. God made some people to be gay, just as He
: >:>made some (most) people to be straight.
: >No. G-d gave the person with homosexual urges a challenge. ...
: >But G-d does not give a test that you cannot succeed. Perhaps the people
: >without homosexual urges are weaker in that way so G-d does not test them in
: >that way.
: I beg to differ. Perhaps the adage about "God does not give a test that
: you cannot succeed" applied in the days of the Avot, but it may well not
: apply today. I look at a man I know, who lived as a heterosexual for many
: years, and had many children, and then threw it and his Judaism over in
: favor of homosexuality - it was either that or kill himself in agony
: over living the contradiction - his rebbe told him that it was better to
: give up religion & family than to kill oneself. If we are to believe
: that adage has any validity, either we have to say that a) it applied to
: the ancients, but not to us, or b) the test for him was whether or not
: to take his own life, at which he succeeded, albeit at great cost.
I've heard the thing about God not testing us beyond our endurance. The
thought occurs to me that if a person reaches the point where he or she is
at the limits of their endurance, and is liable to kill themselves rather
than continue with the "test", there are two possibilities:
1) The person is wrong and there really is a way to continue to "pass the
test", or
2) The test is over. By definition. Because God just doesn't push people
that far.
I've seen cases in which #1 might possibly be true, though the only way to
do so would entail something like suicide of the soul anyway. And who
knows, maybe the idea is that such a person will have it "made up" to them
in Olam HaBa. But there's emuna and there's emuna. The emuna that's
strong enough for a person to willingly shrivel up into a living death in
return for a better room on the other side seems awfully rare to me.
Some people might call #2 a cop-out. And maybe it is. But I'd think that
someone who hasn't actually been in that serious a situation might want to
think at least twice before making that particular little judgement.
li...@interport.net
Ethel Jean Saltz (nie...@airmail.net) wrote:
: li...@interport.net wrote:
: >Sure. Look, smell. You wouldn't know you were attracted to a person of
: >the same sex if you never associated with them. Which isn't really all
: >that possible, practically speaking.
: Most of the psycho babble I've heard says that children, in general,
: do experiment in homosexual acts.
<shrug> I never did. I can't speak for everyone I know, because not
everyone would be willing to say so if they did.
Lisa
Russell Gold
In article <5b3452$2...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, npa...@indiana.edu (naomi
pardue) wrote:
>Micha Berger (ais...@metropolis.idt.net) wrote:
>> The argument that to a homosexual urge is an implicit statement from G-d
>> about your intended lifestyle. Such an argument would have ugly parallels
>> from people with other urges, such a pediophilia, homicide, etc...
>
>The problem with those choices is that the other party does not normally
>consent to being molested/murdered. (Also, there is extensive evidence
>that those urges are NOT normal, inborn ones, but are the result of
>having been abused or maltreated.)
The same could be said about homosexuality. What evidence exists - and it
is very little - only supports the idea of *male* homosexuality having a
genetic basis. There is no absolutely no credible evidence that supports
the idea of lesbianism being "normal" or "inborn."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Gold | "... society is tradition and order
russ...@ACM.org (preferred) | and reverence, not a series of cheap
russ...@netaxs.com | bargains between selfish interests."
rg...@sctcorp.com | -- Poul Anderson, "Iron"
Binyamin Dissen
On 10 Jan 1997 07:27:45 -0500 jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
:>In <> Binyami...@theoffice.net (Binyamin Dissen) writes:
:>>On 8 Jan 1997 18:51:31 GMT npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
:>>:>that was repellent to her. God made some people to be gay, just as He
:>>:>made some (most) people to be straight.
:>>No. G-d gave the person with homosexual urges a challenge. ...
:>>But G-d does not give a test that you cannot succeed. Perhaps the people
:>>without homosexual urges are weaker in that way so G-d does not test them in
:>>that way.
:>I beg to differ. Perhaps the adage about "God does not give a test that
:>you cannot succeed" applied in the days of the Avot, but it may well not
:>apply today. I look at a man I know, who lived as a heterosexual for many
:>years, and had many children, and then threw it and his Judaism over in
:>favor of homosexuality - it was either that or kill himself in agony
:>over living the contradiction - his rebbe told him that it was better to
:>give up religion & family than to kill oneself. If we are to believe
:>that adage has any validity, either we have to say that a) it applied to
:>the ancients, but not to us, or b) the test for him was whether or not
:>to take his own life, at which he succeeded, albeit at great cost.
What sophistry. Threw Judaism over... either that or commit suicide... living
a contradiction...
At any rate, to the issued.
Homosexuality is one of the big three that one is required to be killed rather
than violate.
I agree with the 'Rebbe' that it is better to give up ones family than kill
oneself.
I cannot imagine a 'Rebbe' telling someone that it was OK to give up the
Judaism. Perhaps you are referring to R or C?
What would the 'Rebbe' had told him if this man who would "kill himself in
agony over living the contradiction" would have told the 'Rebbe' "If I can't
rape/murder I will commit suicide"?
The test was to see if he could control his evil urges. No harder than a
person who has the urge to kill. Or an urge to rape. Or an urge to steal.
As you tell the story, he failed.
:> Jonathan Baker
Pesach
>
> : Most of the psycho babble I've heard says that children, in general,
> : do experiment in homosexual acts.
>
Most kids also pick their nose and eat it...
..but doesn't mean they should continue when they get older...
Ethel Jean Saltz
The answer could quickly be discovered, however, from participations
in this area with homosexuals, I get the feeling they would fight
scientific research in this area. They are afraid that if it is
genetic, people would "fix" their embryos, one way or another.
russ...@ACM.org (Russell Gold) wrote:
>
>The same could be said about homosexuality. What evidence exists - and it
>is very little - only supports the idea of *male* homosexuality having a
>genetic basis. There is no absolutely no credible evidence that supports
>the idea of lesbianism being "normal" or "inborn."
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Russell Gold | "... society is tradition and order
>russ...@ACM.org (preferred) | and reverence, not a series of cheap
>russ...@netaxs.com | bargains between selfish interests."
>rg...@sctcorp.com | -- Poul Anderson, "Iron"
be-ahavah ve-shalom EthelJean of Creekbend
MAC-NIET-SPIN-GAL/0387A.G./Khai Y'all
li...@interport.net
: in this area with homosexuals, I get the feeling they would fight
: scientific research in this area. They are afraid that if it is
: genetic, people would "fix" their embryos, one way or another.
There's a science fiction story by Greg Egan called "Cocoon" about this.
The question was - believe it or not - whether that would be a kind of
genocide.
Good story, though.
Lisa
li...@interport.net
Jacob Love (jl...@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
: In article <5b0f11$pif$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
: Robert Goldberg <rrg@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu> wrote:
: [I'm not sure the attribution is correct given the peculiar header
: above, so I'm reproducing it for reference purposes only.]
: >Again, lesbianism is prohibited by the oral tradition of the Torah under the
: >verse found in Leviticus 18:3.
Right, that's the verse. Thanks.
: No it isn't. Even male homosexuality is not prohibited by this verse.
What's "even"? No one claimed it was. But lesbianism is among the things
that is. Why are you denying this? Don't you think people are capable of
checking? Do you think that just by saying it's not, that makes it so?
Seriously, I'm trying to figure out what you think you're doing here.
: >This verse is interesting because the written
: >law never gives specific instances and must rely on the oral tradition for a
: >proper explanation. The Bible prohibits homosexuality independent of whether
: >'sperm is wasted.' The act of lying together in such a manner is what is
: >prohibited. While interesting explanations can be given to why the Torah does
: >forbid these acts, it is most probably dangerous to 'second guess' Hashem. All
: >that is given is that male homosexuality is prohibited by verse Leviticus
: >20:13 where a court death penalty is cited and lesbianism prohibited by the
: >previous verse leviticus 18:3 where no court death penalty is cited. Since
: >the negative prohibition of 18:3 is a 'Lav Shebechlalos' (A general negative
: >prohibition that includes many cases) under Talmudic law would probably not
: >warrant Biblical lashes. I do not have a citation though for this.
: You do not have a citation to any of this, because one does not exist.
No, he said that he didn't have a citation for his conclusion that
violation of this prohibition probably would not warrant biblical lashes.
Not that he didn't have a citation about the verse prohibiting lesbianism.
Can you give us a hint what you're aiming at by making blatantly false
claims? Inquiring minds want to know...
Lisa
: --
li...@interport.net
Jacob Love (jl...@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
: In article <32D3D0...@superlink.net>, Pesach <re...@superlink.net> wrote:
: >Come off of it!
: >
: [Deletia]
: >
: >There is, even though someone posted otherwise, numerous mentions
: >of Lesbians in Halacha, and what to do with in certain situations!
: >Lesbianism is completely NOT permissable for many, many reasons. The
: >and if you see it that way, you are ignoring numerous writings saying
: >otherwise -- or you have a very, very limited view of Judaism.
: While I have posted a correction to Rachel's article, your points are
: not well taken. Rachel's assertions regarding the absence of any
: halakhah prohibiting lesbian activity are absolutely true. You accuse
: her of having a "very, very limited view of Judaism," but the fact is
: that accusation applies better to yourself. Fact: you cannot cite a
: halakhah that prohibits lesbian activity from any classical halakhic
: code.
Um, this isn't true. It's not even an almost-fact. Look at the
commentaries on the verse prohibiting us from behaving as the Egyptians.
This is based on material going back to the Talmud, if not earlier.
: Fact: while it is true that there are Jewish sources which may
: reflect an anti-homosexual bias, none of these are part of the
: halakhah, and all of them come from sources which also contain material
: that you (or whatever rabbi you claim to follow) would not accept.
Huh? Wait, are you talking about lesbianism, or homosexuality in general?
Because if it's the latter, and that's how it looks, are you sure you want
to say that there are no Jewish sources that are part of the halakha that
reflect an anti-homosexual bias? Like as in "Lo yishkav ish mishkavei
isha", for instance?
: The
: mere fact that you can find such material, in other words, says
: nothing about whether it is permissible or not.
Did you really mean to post this? Did a neighbor come in and use your
account? Whether you accept what the halakha says about this is one
thing, but why would you say things like this about what the halakha
actually says that are so patently false?
I don't get that.
Lisa
naomi pardue
Russell Gold (russ...@ACM.org) wrote:
> In article <5b3452$2...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, npa...@indiana.edu (naomi
> pardue) wrote:
>
> >The problem with those choices is that the other party does not normally
> >consent to being molested/murdered. (Also, there is extensive evidence
> >that those urges are NOT normal, inborn ones, but are the result of
> >having been abused or maltreated.)
>
> is very little - only supports the idea of *male* homosexuality having a
> genetic basis. There is no absolutely no credible evidence that supports
> the idea of lesbianism being "normal" or "inborn."
There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest this. (I have several lesbian
friends who come from families where all, or more of the sisters are
lesbians. [Some have lesbian cousins, aunts, etc. as well.])
Naomi
Robert Goldberg
Unfortunately, the sysop has not been able to locate the problem with the
domain name of the computer. My email address is r...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu. I
forget to include that at the end sometimes. Sorry about that. Feel free to
discuss with me anything that I have posted.
For the benefits of the readers, I will translate verbatum (without discussion)
what Maimonides writes on this subject:
Hilchos Issurei Biah 21:8
"Women who act in a lesbian manner do so forbiddenly and these are [instances of]
the actions of the Egyptians that the Torah warns us regarding [not to emulate]
as it is stated 'Like the actions of the [people of the] land of Egypt, you
shall not do.' Our sages elaborated: What did they do? A man acted as a spouse
to another man and a woman acted as a spouse to another woman and a woman
acted as a spouse to two men. Eventhough this lesbian action is forbidden, it
would not incur Biblical lashes because the prohibition is not formulated
only for this case ... And it is proper to impose lashes against rebellion
since what they do is [anyway] forbidden."
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> writes:
> Andrew Mathis wrote:
>>
>> Yes; it isn't allowed. In practice, that is. To be inherently gay
>> but not to act upon it is not sinful, since Judaism recognizes action
>> as sinful and not thought (generally).
>>
>> Andrew
>
> This is undoubtebly true, but what exactly is the idea behind "hirhurey
> avera kashim me'avera" (thinking of sinning is worse than doing it)? Of
> course it tries to put across a moral and not a legal point here, but
> what exactly is meant?
>
> Avital pilpel.
Avital, I'm glad to have this chance to expound on this idea. In a
previous post you mentioned that some author, apparently based on
this statement, imputed a "permission" to sin in order to avoid
thoughts about sinning. I disputed it and will explain a little
more here.
You say yourself that it is a moral and not a legal point. Of course.
As such, it _is_ not and _could_ not be, a "permission" to sin.
The moral idea is as follows. Tshuva, repentence, must be proportionate
with the sin. The remorse felt by the penitent should (at least) equal
the pleasure felt when sinning. A person aroused to tshuva will feel
remorse for his _actions_. He is less likely to feel remorse for his
_thoughts_. They are intangible. Therefore "hirhurey avera" the
_thought_ of the sin is, in this context, worse than the sin, since it
is difficult to feel the appropriate remorse.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(posted & mailed)
Jacob Love
In article <32e0efb8...@news.netvision.net.il>,
Binyamin Dissen <Binyami...@theoffice.net> wrote:
>The punishment for men is death (assuming proper Hasra-ah/warning and
>Eidut/witnessing). AFAIK it is prohibitted for women rabinically and the
>punishment would be lashes.
As has been pointed out several times by several people in the past few
days, the above is incorrect. Neither male nor female "homosexuality"
as defined as an "inclination" or a "preference" or a "state of being"
is prohibited by the Torah, nor are any of these things prohibited by
the classical codes of halakhah. Some individual rabbis may have made
such pronouncements, but any such post-date the codes and therefore
apply only to the congregations who accept those particular rabbis.
(Most knowledgeable Jews acknowledge that by rabbinic interpretation of
the passage in Leviticus, male to male anal intercourse is
prohibited--and even this would require Binyamin's conditions of
warning and witnessing.)
Jacob Love
In article <5bc4de$d...@interport.net>, <li...@interport.net> wrote:
[citing R. Goldberg]
>: >Again, lesbianism is prohibited by the oral tradition of the Torah under the
>: >verse found in Leviticus 18:3.
>
>Right, that's the verse. Thanks.
>
>: No it isn't. Even male homosexuality is not prohibited by this verse.
>
>What's "even"? No one claimed it was. But lesbianism is among the things
>that is. Why are you denying this? Don't you think people are capable of
>checking? Do you think that just by saying it's not, that makes it so?
First of all, you succeeded in mixing up attributions confusing Robert
Goldberg's remarks with my own. Second, your thoughts are sufficiently
muddled in the paragraph above that I can't figure out what you are
referring to. So I'll simply restate the facts: 1) The Torah does not
prohibit homosexuality in Leviticus or anywhere else. 2) Rabbinic law
does not prohibit homosexuality anywhere up to and including the time
of the completion of the classical halakhic codes.
>Seriously, I'm trying to figure out what you think you're doing here.
I'm attempting to make sure that phony "experts" such as yourself do
not create even the slightest impression in the eyes of anyone reading
this thread that you have even the slightest grip on the truth.
>No, he said that he didn't have a citation for his conclusion that
>violation of this prohibition probably would not warrant biblical lashes.
>Not that he didn't have a citation about the verse prohibiting lesbianism.
>
>Can you give us a hint what you're aiming at by making blatantly false
>claims? Inquiring minds want to know...
Tell you what. Let your mind enquire into the task of finding a single
halakhah in any classic halakhic code such as the Tur or the Shulhan
Arukh that prohibits anything related to homosexuality other than male
to male anal intercourse. When you've located it, let me know. Until
then, go away.
Yehuda Klein
Jacob Love wrote:
>
> In article <5b0f11$pif$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
> Robert Goldberg <rrg@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> >This verse is interesting because the written
> >law never gives specific instances and must rely on the oral tradition for a
> >proper explanation. The Bible prohibits homosexuality independent of whether
> >'sperm is wasted.' The act of lying together in such a manner is what is
> >prohibited. While interesting explanations can be given to why the Torah does
> >forbid these acts, it is most probably dangerous to 'second guess' Hashem. All
> >that is given is that male homosexuality is prohibited by verse Leviticus
> >20:13 where a court death penalty is cited and lesbianism prohibited by the
> >previous verse leviticus 18:3 where no court death penalty is cited. Since
> >the negative prohibition of 18:3 is a 'Lav Shebechlalos' (A general negative
> >prohibition that includes many cases) under Talmudic law would probably not
> >warrant Biblical lashes. I do not have a citation though for this.
>
> You do not have a citation to any of this, because one does not exist.
>
> --
> -----------------------
> Jack F. Love
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Jack, since you insist on a citation, how about the following (I
apologize for my loose translation:
It is forbidden for women to fondle one another. It is the behavior of
the Egyptians that we are warned about, as it says, you shall not do
similarly to the deeds of the Egyptians (Vayikra, 18:3) (Rambam,
Hilchot Issurei Biah, Perek 21, Halacha 8).
The Rambam goes on to make the following points:
Lesbian acts are not subject to Biblical lashes, because they are not
specifically prohibited by the Torah, and because there is not act of
intercourse.
Lesbian acts are subject to Makot Mardut -- Rabbinical lashes, because
they are rabbinically prohibited.
A woman who engages in lesbian acts is not prohibited to marry a cohen,
nor is she prohibitied to her husband.
A husband is entitled to be particular about such behavior on the part
of his wife, and to divorce her on that account.
See also the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin Perek 7,
Mishna 4, and the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yevamot, Daf 76, as cited
in the footnotes to the Mosad Harav Kook edition of the Mishne Torah.
I hope this puts to rest the assertion that no citations exist to "any
of this".
Yehuda Klein
Jacob Love wrote:
>
> In article <5bc44o$d...@interport.net>, <li...@interport.net> wrote:
> >Um, this isn't true. It's not even an almost-fact. Look at the
> >commentaries on the verse prohibiting us from behaving as the Egyptians.
> >This is based on material going back to the Talmud, if not earlier.
>
> What does it matter if "commentaries" say that something is good or
> bad? Commentaries are not halakhah, that is not how Judaism works. I
> can show you dozens, perhaps hundreds of places where commentators have
> made favorable statements about behaviors that are now halakhically
> prohibited and vice versa. Your task is very simple. If you want to
> prove that I am wrong, all you have to do is pick up a copy of
> Shulhan Arukh (the real thing, not the Kitzur) and cite chapter and
> verse. If you can, fine, if you can't, you're wrong.
>
> >Huh? Wait, are you talking about lesbianism, or homosexuality in general?
> >Because if it's the latter, and that's how it looks, are you sure you want
> >to say that there are no Jewish sources that are part of the halakha that
> >reflect an anti-homosexual bias? Like as in "Lo yishkav ish mishkavei
> >isha", for instance?
>
> this in this NewsGroup within the past several years. The Biblical
> verse you cite is discussed in the Talmud and the discussions clearly
> indicate that in the eyes of the Oral Law, the prohibited activity is
> male to male anal intercourse. That is all that the verse prohibits.
> Now *non-Jews* can make something else of the verse if they like, and
> perhaps *non-Orthodox* Jews can discuss whether it means something
> else, but in the eyes of Jewish *Orthodoxy* it is the end of the story.
> By the way, since I do not claim to be any sort of spokesman for
> Orthodoxy, let me make clear that I am only restating what was
> acknowleded to be true by the most knowledgeable Orthodox Jews who
> posted to this group on each of the occasions that this issue was
> raised.
>
> Now, I am not claiming that Orthodox Judaism has to endorse or even
> tolerate homosexuality. However, all of the rules which can be cited in
> opposition to homosexuality derive from rabbanim who have taught
> subsequent to the classic halakhic codes, and which therefore do not
> apply to the Jewish people as a whole, but rather to the individuals
> and congregations who accept the rulings of those teachers.
>
> Please do some homework before wasting more of our time.
>
> --
> -----------------------
> Jack F. Love
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
I see from your latest post that you hold that there is no basis in
classical sources for the prohibition of male homosexuality.
See Rambam Hilchot Issurei Biah Perek 1, Halachot 4 and 14, which
clearly specifies that homosexual relationships are punishable by death
by stoning (if intentional and with appropriate warnings).
See also Tractate Sanhedrin, Mishna on Daf 54 and the gemara that
follows.
Please do some homework before wasting our time.
Sincerely,
Yehuda
li...@interport.net
Jacob Love (jl...@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
: In article <5bc44o$d...@interport.net>, <li...@interport.net> wrote:
: >Um, this isn't true. It's not even an almost-fact. Look at the
: >commentaries on the verse prohibiting us from behaving as the Egyptians.
: >This is based on material going back to the Talmud, if not earlier.
: Lisa, you should try to think a little before posting such nonsense.
: What does it matter if "commentaries" say that something is good or
: bad? Commentaries are not halakhah, that is not how Judaism works. I
: can show you dozens, perhaps hundreds of places where commentators have
: made favorable statements about behaviors that are now halakhically
: prohibited and vice versa. Your task is very simple. If you want to
: prove that I am wrong, all you have to do is pick up a copy of
: Shulhan Arukh (the real thing, not the Kitzur) and cite chapter and
: verse. If you can, fine, if you can't, you're wrong.
That's a hoot. *You* are telling *me* how halakha works? Go look up
Rambam in Issurei Biah 21:8 and stop making things up. It's not even a
little bit cute.
: >Huh? Wait, are you talking about lesbianism, or homosexuality in general?
: >Because if it's the latter, and that's how it looks, are you sure you want
: >to say that there are no Jewish sources that are part of the halakha that
: >reflect an anti-homosexual bias? Like as in "Lo yishkav ish mishkavei
: >isha", for instance?
: Evidently you've been snoozing through the several dozen discussions of
: this in this NewsGroup within the past several years. The Biblical
: verse you cite is discussed in the Talmud and the discussions clearly
: indicate that in the eyes of the Oral Law, the prohibited activity is
: male to male anal intercourse. That is all that the verse prohibits.
And that's exactly what you claimed was not forbidden. Go back and read
your own post.
: Now *non-Jews* can make something else of the verse if they like, and
: perhaps *non-Orthodox* Jews can discuss whether it means something
: else, but in the eyes of Jewish *Orthodoxy* it is the end of the story.
: By the way, since I do not claim to be any sort of spokesman for
: Orthodoxy,
Gee whiz, really...?
: let me make clear that I am only restating what was
: acknowleded to be true by the most knowledgeable Orthodox Jews who
: posted to this group on each of the occasions that this issue was
: raised.
No you are not. You're twisting whatever it may be that you remember.
: Now, I am not claiming that Orthodox Judaism has to endorse or even
: tolerate homosexuality.
Damn white of you.
: However, all of the rules which can be cited in
: opposition to homosexuality derive from rabbanim who have taught
: subsequent to the classic halakhic codes, and which therefore do not
: apply to the Jewish people as a whole, but rather to the individuals
: and congregations who accept the rulings of those teachers.
What Rambam cites in Issurei Biah is brought down l'halakha by all the
poskim.
: Please do some homework before wasting more of our time.
Good advice. You might want to consider adopting it yourself.
Lisa
Avital Pilpel
Just to make absolutly clear, I did not mean to imply that 'hirhurey
avera ka'shim me'avera' is a permission to sin, no more than "if you
insult someone publicly it is worse than murder" means that I should
rather kill one person than insult two: The point here is also a moral
point, of course...
My point was exactly that it can be MISINTERPRETED as such a permission.
By the way ,it seems that many qoutes from the talmud are used out of
context - both by antisemites and, to my surprise, by anti-jewish
"orthodox atheists" in Israel that use these qoutes to 'proove' that
judaism is racist, anti-feminist, etc. I am a secular jew and I am -
for the good of both religion and state - for separation of 'church and
state' in Israel, but this does not mean that i am anti-jewish...
Avital Pilpel.
Sheldon L. Glickler
I sorry world, but while I don't approve of homosexuality, I can't buy
into this bullshit that equates it with killing, raping or stealing.
This was not even worthy of using the term BS. It is pure and simple
bullshit -- whatever the source!
Shelly
Raina Steiner
Sheldon L. Glickler wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 03:05:07 GMT, Binyami...@theoffice.net
> (Binyamin Dissen) wrote:
>
> >On 10 Jan 1997 07:27:45 -0500 jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
> >
> >:>In <> Binyami...@theoffice.net (Binyamin Dissen) writes:
> >:>>On 8 Jan 1997 18:51:31 GMT npa...@indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
> >
> >:>>:>that was repellent to her. God made some people to be gay, just as He
> >:>>:>made some (most) people to be straight.
> >
> >:>>No. G-d gave the person with homosexual urges a challenge. ...
> >:>>But G-d does not give a test that you cannot succeed. Perhaps the people
> >:>>without homosexual urges are weaker in that way so G-d does not test them in
> >:>>that way.
> >
> >:>I beg to differ. Perhaps the adage about "God does not give a test that
> >:>you cannot succeed" applied in the days of the Avot, but it may well not
> >:>apply today.
Just because you can succeed, doesn't mean that you will.
Sorry if I clipped quotes incorrectly.
> I sorry world, but while I don't approve of homosexuality, I can't buy
> into this bullshit that equates it with killing, raping or stealing.
>
> This was not even worthy of using the term BS. It is pure and simple
> bullshit -- whatever the source!
>
> Shelly
Shelly,
I don't think that the issue is what you approve of, it is about what
the
Torah allows. And it's not about how you equate, or don't equate
mitzvos.
From reading many of your postings and getting an idea of what Torah is
to
you, I must say that it is your judgements on the relative importance of
the mitzvos (or their importance at all) that are what is the BS.
Raina
Jacob Love
In article <5bc44o$d...@interport.net>, <li...@interport.net> wrote:
>Um, this isn't true. It's not even an almost-fact. Look at the
>commentaries on the verse prohibiting us from behaving as the Egyptians.
>This is based on material going back to the Talmud, if not earlier.
Lisa, you should try to think a little before posting such nonsense.
What does it matter if "commentaries" say that something is good or
bad? Commentaries are not halakhah, that is not how Judaism works. I
can show you dozens, perhaps hundreds of places where commentators have
made favorable statements about behaviors that are now halakhically
prohibited and vice versa. Your task is very simple. If you want to
prove that I am wrong, all you have to do is pick up a copy of
Shulhan Arukh (the real thing, not the Kitzur) and cite chapter and
verse. If you can, fine, if you can't, you're wrong.
>Huh? Wait, are you talking about lesbianism, or homosexuality in general?
>Because if it's the latter, and that's how it looks, are you sure you want
>to say that there are no Jewish sources that are part of the halakha that
>reflect an anti-homosexual bias? Like as in "Lo yishkav ish mishkavei
>isha", for instance?
Evidently you've been snoozing through the several dozen discussions of
this in this NewsGroup within the past several years. The Biblical
verse you cite is discussed in the Talmud and the discussions clearly
indicate that in the eyes of the Oral Law, the prohibited activity is
male to male anal intercourse. That is all that the verse prohibits.
Now *non-Jews* can make something else of the verse if they like, and
perhaps *non-Orthodox* Jews can discuss whether it means something
else, but in the eyes of Jewish *Orthodoxy* it is the end of the story.
By the way, since I do not claim to be any sort of spokesman for
Orthodoxy, let me make clear that I am only restating what was
acknowleded to be true by the most knowledgeable Orthodox Jews who
posted to this group on each of the occasions that this issue was
raised.
Now, I am not claiming that Orthodox Judaism has to endorse or even
tolerate homosexuality. However, all of the rules which can be cited in
opposition to homosexuality derive from rabbanim who have taught
subsequent to the classic halakhic codes, and which therefore do not
apply to the Jewish people as a whole, but rather to the individuals
and congregations who accept the rulings of those teachers.
Please do some homework before wasting more of our time.
--
Yehuda Klein
> -----------------------
> Jack F. Love
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
I am not claiming to be any sort of expert. However, in about fifteen
minutes of research I have found the following sources, which I am sure
Dr. Love could have found yet more quickly:
Yevamot Daf 76 - which states that an unmarried man that has a
relationship with an unmarried woman gives her the status of a zonah,
but in the case of two women, it is pritzus b'alma'.
Rambam Hilchot Issurei Biah Perek 21 Halacha 8
Shulcan Aruch Even Hoezer Siman 20, Sif 2 (which by the way follows
almost word-for-word the language of the Rambam.
It is clear from the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch that:
1. lesbian behavior is prohibited.
2. although it is not subject to lashes, it is subject to makkot mardut;
and
3. a husband can prohibit his wife from engaging in Lesbian behavior.
The enquiring mind will examine the commentaries on the Tur and Shulchan
Aruch for further discussion of this issue.
This arid discussion of halacha overlooks the more fundamental point.
We are placed in this world for a reason -- to perfect it. Acts which
the Torah requires of us build up the world, and acts which the Torah
prohibits destroy the world. Not all desires, however natural, are to
be indulged. Our bodies our not "ours", to do with as we please.
Rather they are vessels to be perfected, and through which we are
enabled to perfect the world.
May we be worthy to perfect ourselves, and perfect the world, and
thereby be worthy to see the ultimate perfection through the coming of
our Righteous Moshiach, may it happen speedily in our days.
Micha Berger
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> writes:
: This is undoubtebly true, but what exactly is the idea behind "hirhurey
: course it tries to put across a moral and not a legal point here, but
: what exactly is meant?
Good question. I speant some time wondering about it, now that you
posed it.
Best take I can get on it -- which is arguably more literal than your
translation is: thoughts of sin are harder [to get rid of] than the sin
itself.
To again quote Cheshbon Hanefesh:
One who explores the [nature of] habit will see that there are
three kinds of habit, each harder (same word: qasheh) than the
other (lit: its friend).
There is external habit, when a person is acclimated to a given
action over a long period of time. This habit becomes a strong
craving in the desires of the heart which has to be constantly
satisfied. Until it is hard (qasheh) for a person to conqure
it and fix it.
There is another, harder (qasheh), habit than this, when it works
in conjunction with character traits or desires, such as gossiping
or looking [at inappropriate things]. For its strength is twice
that of desires and habits, each one taken alone.
The most hard (qasheh) of all of them is habit of the thought.
If a single thought captures your heart, it becomes the focus
of your attention. The mind itself is pulled along the channel,
and he has no salvation.
- Introduction by R. Yitzchak-Isaac
Sher of Slobodka
Since the majority of the book is how to get out of habits of the mind,
I assume by "he has no salvation" he means that one can not be saved
by accident, he has to put effort into it.
Either way, the quote -- by someone who clearly new the principle
Avital is quoting -- indicates that habits of thought are harder to
break than those of action. Perhaps this is his take on the expression
as well.
--
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3740 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (16-Oct-86 - 13-Jan-97)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
<a href=http://aishdas.org>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>
Robert Goldberg
Shulkhan Arukh was never meant as a comprehensive law book as attempted the
Rambam (Maimonides). Indeed, most laws were ommitted by the Shulkhan Arukh
because he felt that they could only be enforced with a functioning Sanhedrin,
or had a prerequisite of the rebuilding of the Holy Temple (may it be speedily
in our day.) The citations of commentaries do play a role but they only get
one vote each. Ultimately it is the majority opinion ("Acharei Rabim Lhatos")
of accepted halachic authorities that determines general halachah. The Shulkhan
Aruch attempted to do the vote in a number of important areas of Halachah. He
also relied in fact on his commentary Beis Yosef on the Tur who did the
compendium of opinions on those matters that the Shulkhan Aruch was based on.
The Tur preceeded the Shulkhan Aruch by 200 years. The Tur himself only did
a compendium on those laws that his father the Rosh (Rabbeinu Asher) decided
to write on (again based on most applicable). To ignore all halachic
scholarship besided the Shulkhan Aruch is missing a major component of how
halachah is decided. A final component for practical purposes is a competent
halachic authority in your own day who has a tradition from his masters on
how to decide (paskin) a halachah (law).
With regards to the issue at hand, I have already translated the Rambam in
Hilchos Issuerei Biah 21:8b that clearly states that Lesbianism is Biblically
prohibited by a negative prohibition, but instead of Biblical lashes, the court
would impose Rabbinical lashes ("lashes of rebellion.") Homosexuality is
Biblically prohibited under a court imposed death penalty.
The Shulkhan Aruch in Even Haezer 24:1 avoids specific details of the
prohibition (which can only be relevant when a Sanhedrin, Rabbinical Supreme
Court is in place) and only quotes Rabbinical prohibitions to deter such
activities:
"No Jew is suspected to transgress homosexuality or bestiality. Therefore, it
should have followed that it is not prohibited for two men to be alone in a
room together... HOWEVER, (emphasis mine) in our generations that immoral
people of increased one man should refrain from being alone with another man."
The Chelkas Mechokek and Beis Shmuel both cite the Bach on this source that
explicitly states that two men lying in the same bed is certainly forbidden
but only being alone in the same room should depend on how immoral the
people of that town are, and they state that pious people should be
stringent even to not be alone two men in the same room. (midas chasidus)
Jacob Love
In article <5bdnv8$pvf$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
Robert Goldberg <rrg@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Shulkhan Arukh was never meant as a comprehensive law book as attempted the
>Rambam (Maimonides). Indeed, most laws were ommitted by the Shulkhan Arukh
>because he felt that they could only be enforced with a functioning Sanhedrin,
>or had a prerequisite of the rebuilding of the Holy Temple (may it be speedily
>in our day.) The citations of commentaries do play a role but they only get
>one vote each. Ultimately it is the majority opinion ("Acharei Rabim Lhatos")
>of accepted halachic authorities that determines general halachah. The Shulkhan
>Aruch attempted to do the vote in a number of important areas of Halachah. He
>also relied in fact on his commentary Beis Yosef on the Tur who did the
>compendium of opinions on those matters that the Shulkhan Aruch was based on.
>The Tur preceeded the Shulkhan Aruch by 200 years. The Tur himself only did
>a compendium on those laws that his father the Rosh (Rabbeinu Asher) decided
>to write on (again based on most applicable). To ignore all halachic
>scholarship besided the Shulkhan Aruch is missing a major component of how
>halachah is decided. A final component for practical purposes is a competent
>halachic authority in your own day who has a tradition from his masters on
>how to decide (paskin) a halachah (law).
It isn't clear whom you are addressing in this paragraph. I must say
that you are making considerably more sense here than in one or two
other posts of yours I have seen. I don't believe anyone here said that
the only place to rely on for the halakhah is the Shulhan Arukh. If
this has any relevance to what I have posted, I merely claim that one
cannot say that anything is either permitted or forbidden by "the
halakhah" unless one can find a citation to support the views in the
major *classical* halakhic codes. This includes several of the various
works you have cited above. The last part of your paragraph is a
statement of Orthodox theology, however one that I have no major
problem with. The point is this: it is a point of O theology itself
that there is no longer any competent halakhic authority which can
speak for the entire Jewish people, not even for a major component
thereof (such as all Ashkenazi Jews). Therefore, if a matter has not
been decided to the satisfaction of all prior to the era of the Shulhan
Arukh, then it is open to dispute among any competent halakhic
authorities. And, whether we like it or not, the definition of
"competent" is itself very much open to dispute.
>With regards to the issue at hand, I have already translated the Rambam in
>Hilchos Issuerei Biah 21:8b that clearly states that Lesbianism is Biblically
>prohibited by a negative prohibition, but instead of Biblical lashes, the court
>would impose Rabbinical lashes ("lashes of rebellion.") Homosexuality is
>Biblically prohibited under a court imposed death penalty.
It does not matter what the Rambam has to say about this matter, except
as evidence in a dispute. As I have posted on many occasions, while the
Rambam was one of the greatest geniuses of his day, a large portion of
his own halakhic rulings have been rejected and are not followed to
this day. One example I have recently provided is the clear dictum of
the Rambam that a woman may read the Megillah on Purim. However, I must
acknowledge that your source was instructive, and I have followed up a
few other citations so that I am compelled to agree that lesbian
activity (*not* lesbianism) is discouraged in the codes (the term that
is used translates to "delinquent"). The term you use "Biblically
prohibited by a negative prohibition" is, as I think you are aware,
another way of saying that it is not really "Biblically" forbidden --
rather, it is simply an activity which the rabbis declared fall under a
broad category of "not behaving like xyz" where xyz is nowhere
identified as "lesbian."
Again, your last statement is incorrect. "Homosexuality" is not
"Biblically" prohibited, unless you are referring explicitly to male
anal intercourse.
>The Chelkas Mechokek and Beis Shmuel both cite the Bach on this source that
>explicitly states that two men lying in the same bed is certainly forbidden
>but only being alone in the same room should depend on how immoral the
>people of that town are, and they state that pious people should be
>stringent even to not be alone two men in the same room. (midas chasidus)
These sources are post-classical and therefore not relevant to my
discussion.
It's never pleasant to discover that one is wrong about a topic that
one holds important, so I am sad to find that even in this small degree
(a handful of citations in a sea of law) that our sages viewed Jewish
women in this negative ("delinquent") light. Nevertheless, I must
concede (at least until I can find some opposing views) that you have a
point. In my own personal view, this means that this has to become an
area for halakhic reconsideration, just as it was once frowned upon to
collect interest, or use olive oil prepared without supervision. In the
meantime, Mr. Goldberg, our congregation will be very happy to accept
any of the gay individuals from your congregation who are (in the words
of another poster) being "shunned" by yours.
Adam J. Schorr
>I sorry world, but while I don't approve of homosexuality, I can't buy
>into this bullshit that equates it with killing, raping or stealing.
>This was not even worthy of using the term BS. It is pure and simple
>bullshit -- whatever the source!
I sorry too Shelly but this is the Torah. If you don't like it then that's
your choice but recognize what it is you are spitting on. Now just to be
perfectly clear, the Torah does not equate homosexuality with killing, raping,
or stealing. For one thing, stealing does not carry the death penalty and rape
does not necessarily carry the death penalty. Secondly, and more importantly,
the Torah was not equating anything and if it was, it was equating male-male
homosexual sex (not homosexuality per se) with murder in the sense that both
are punishable by death and require you to die rather than violate the
prohibition. Furthermore, homosexual sex was not singled out for this
distinction, it is the entire category of arayos (sexual offenses).
Harry Weiss
Jacob Love (jl...@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
: In article <32e0efb8...@news.netvision.net.il>,
I think you are confusing the issue. Warning and witnessing are required
to receive the punishment from the court. They are not required to be
prohibited or to be punished by G-d.
Harry
: --
Eugene Rabinovich
On 13 Jan 1997, Jacob Love wrote:
> (Most knowledgeable Jews acknowledge that by rabbinic interpretation of
> the passage in Leviticus, male to male anal intercourse is
> prohibited--and even this would require Binyamin's conditions of
> warning and witnessing.)
A court can punish you only when there were witnesses and a warning. The
action is still prohibited even if there are no witnesses.
Eugene Rabinovich
y-rabi...@uchicago.edu
--------------------------
Def: Caffeine -- an essential body nutrient.
Def: Sleep -- a point in space-time when Caffeine does not work any more.
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
> s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) writes:
>
>>Better a warm and loving same-sex home than a bitter, angry and
>>abusive "conventional" home. Yet how many helpless children are
>>trapped in just such a terrible situation -- with the courts and the
>
> Oh, now that's a nice unbiased statement: children can either be
> raised in a "warm & loving same-sex home" or a "bitter, angry and
> abusive 'conventional' home" As if there are no, or few, "warm &
> loving 'conventional' homes". Believe me, there are plenty of
> bitter & angry homosexuals in this world, and plenty of warm &
> loving heterosexuals.
>
> Jonathan Baker
> jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan, I don't usually agree with Polar and have even argued with
Polar on occassion. However, you are not being fair in your post.
Nowhere did Polar say there are _only_ two choices. The point
being made is that a _good_ same-sex home is "better" than a _bad_
conventional one. You can agree or not (I don't. The choice is much
too simplistic). But don't put words in Polar's mouth.
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
>>nie...@airmail.net wrote:
>>Does halakha even deal with lebianism. I've seen in a couple of posts
>>that Judaism doesn't see any problem with Lesbianism. I get the
>>impression that the homosexual condition only applys to males.
>>
>>If so, why? Doesn't make sense to me. How can a woman be fruitful and
>>multimply if she is a Lesbian?
>
>R U kidding? Why not? There are many same-sex couples who are very
>family-minded. They arrange to procreate with the assistance of a
>surrogate. If a female couple, the "wife" is inseminated by a male,
>whether a friend or someone chosen for genetic reasons. If a male
>couple, they arrange for a female to be inseminated with the sperm of
>one of them.
>
>The other -- and very obvious! -- option is for same-sex couples to
>adopt. Giving a child a home is a major mitzvah. And there has never
>been the slightest evidence that being reared in a same-sex home has
>influenced the child toward homosexuality.
Polar, You say "never" in a way that makes it sound that the situation
is hundreds of years old, studies are done all the time and no evidence
is found. Not the case. For how long have same-sex couples been "out of
the closet" and able to adopt? How many children were adopted? How many
of these are now adults and have normal heterosexual lives? I would
think that most people _need_ to see both male and female adults in a
family context to understand the world and society as it exists.
>Not likely, in that the scientific evidence, though still challenged
>by some "nice people" and many bigots, leans toward a genetic
>predisposition for homosexuality.
I consider myself nice, not a bigot and I am very comfortable with that
conclusion. I think it is homosexuals _themselves_ who challenge that
idea because it makes them seem less than perfect. If their genes are
causing their "sexual orientation" and it's an orientation which will
_not_ reproduce, then biologically it's an abnormality. <sigh>
Robert Goldberg
A previous post on this thread requested information regarding lesbianism
according to the Oral Tradition as redacted by "classical" works of halachah.
I submit the following quotation of the Shuchan Aruch.
Shulchan Aruch. Even Haezer Chapter 20, Paragraph 2.
"Woman who act in a lesbian manner have trangressed the verse 'the actions of
the land of Egypt etc.' (Leviticus 18:3) which we are warned against. And it
is proper that a court gives lashes for rebellion, since they performed a
forbidden act."
The Shulchan Aruch is quoting the Tur and Rambam who explicitly state that such
behaviour is Biblically prohibited by the above-mentioned negative prohobition.
The Talmud in the Sifra on the verse was the source for the Oral Tradition
regarding the interpretation of that verse. Rabbinical lashes, as opposed to
Biblical lashes, are given as Rambam Hilchos Issurei Biah 21:8 explains
becauset the Torah forbids many actions with this one prohibition and
not just lesbianism alone.
Pesach
Jacob Love wrote:
>
> The primary point of the poster is that there no prohibition against
> lesbian activity, and I would agree qal v'homer.
> --
Your totally incorrect, and totally ingoring the words of rabbis
from then to now. Lesbian activity is forbidden for numerous
reasons, but not because of THAT reason. While it doesn't have the same
level of being forbidden, (I believe because of difference circumstances)
there is halacha written on Lesbianism, including what happens if
you find your wife with another woman -- she can not be left alone
with women anymore. My advice is to ASK a RAV.
--
Pesach Lattin
------------------------
re...@superlink.net
pes...@brooklyn.cuny.edu
------------------------
Visit Brooklyn College's Award Winning WebPages
[Student WebServer]
http://students.brooklyn.cuny.edu
[AeroWeb -- Everything is here in the Air!]
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/air.html
------------------------
Brooklyn College this year was rated 4 Stars (****) by
the Fiske's Guide to Colleges, making it one of the top
publically funded liberal arts colleges in the nation!
http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu
------------------------
Pesach
> >The same could be said about homosexuality. What evidence exists - and it
> >is very little - only supports the idea of *male* homosexuality having a
> >genetic basis. There is no absolutely no credible evidence that supports
> >the idea of lesbianism being "normal" or "inborn."
** READ THE WHOLE POST **
There is no such thing as "Normal" sexuality my friend. We are
all sexual, and some of us choose to express our sexuality in
certain ways. Being SEXUAL is infact NORMAL and INBORN. This
includes Homosexuality -- which perfectly NORMAL.
HOWEVER -- Homosexual Intercourse is SPECIFICALLY forbidden
in Judaism, because G-d has ordained that some types of Sex
bring KEDUSHA (holiness) and others don't. Any type of sex
outside of a halachically legal marriage, in the Tzman HaZeh,
is forbidden.
Micha Berger
Pesach <re...@superlink.net> wrote:
: But I often am seriously offended when people quote that homosexuality
: is "to'eivah" and thus often destroy any possibility of helping those
: Jews who wish to change theirs ways, learn to overcome their desires
: and become productive members of Jewish Society.
We need seperation of three things: the person, the orientation, and
the act. I tried to clearly label the act as to'eivah, without trying
to judge people who have a challenge to battle a desire I never had to
face.
: You are totally ingoring, when you say that homsexuality is "to'eivah"
: (grotesque or an abomination) that in Devarim 14:3, non-kosher food is
: also called "To'eviah", and that Shlomo HaMelech says that a false heart
: and envy is "To'eivah".
No, actually, as I write in another thread, our inconsistant implimentation
of "to'eivah" shows that it's not to'eivah that drives it but personal
feelings. We can see this also in the fact that we let our feelings about
the activity color our feelings about the people.
But if the we were honsestly feeling to'eivah because Hashem told us to,
we'd feel the same to'eivah about one who cheats in business as well.
--
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3741 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (16-Oct-86 - 14-Jan-97)
Pesach
Jacob Love wrote:
>
> In article <5bc44o$d...@interport.net>, <li...@interport.net> wrote:
> >Um, this isn't true. It's not even an almost-fact. Look at the
> >commentaries on the verse prohibiting us from behaving as the Egyptians.
> >This is based on material going back to the Talmud, if not earlier.
>
> Lisa, you should try to think a little before posting such nonsense.
> What does it matter if "commentaries" say that something is good or
> bad? Commentaries are not halakhah, that is not how Judaism works. I
> can show you dozens, perhaps hundreds of places where commentators have
> made favorable statements about behaviors that are now halakhically
I have trouble saying this without anger, because it is
absolutely ignorant of the development of Halacha. You
say that Halacha has NOTHING to do with the commentaries,
and that we follow the Shulchan Aruch? That is totally and
completely false -- we do not completely follow the shulchan
aruch -- some sephardim do to a greater degree. We follow
many of the commentaries from the Shulchan Aruch!
I advise you to sit in a Yeshivah for ONE WEEK and you
will have a better understanding of how the Halachic
Process works.
Pesach
Sheldon L. Glickler wrote:
> I sorry world, but while I don't approve of homosexuality, I can't buy
> into this bullshit that equates it with killing, raping or stealing.
>
> This was not even worthy of using the term BS. It is pure and simple
> bullshit -- whatever the source!
>
> Shelly
I agree. Homosexuality is a sexual "no-no" like anything
forbidden sexual under the Torah.
As mentioned before, I don't believe in Homsexuality, Hetrosexuality
or BiSexuality -- we are all just plain sexual, with our bodies
having urges, and as Jews were are responsible to learn Torah and
overcome these urges.
Pesach
Micha Berger wrote:
>
> However, this doesn't change the fact that the Torah prohibits people
> in that state from acting on their urges, or that G-d calls that kind
> of activity between two men to be a "to'eivah" (grotesque).
Micha, I respond to you with deep respect.
But I often am seriously offended when people quote that homosexuality
is "to'eivah" and thus often destroy any possibility of helping those
Jews who wish to change theirs ways, learn to overcome their desires
and become productive members of Jewish Society.
You are totally ingoring, when you say that homsexuality is "to'eivah"
(grotesque or an abomination) that in Devarim 14:3, non-kosher food is
also called "To'eviah", and that Shlomo HaMelech says that a false heart
and envy is "To'eivah".
I hardly ever see 'religious' people running around proclaiming that
eating non-kosher food is the downfall of the family and civilization,
or any condemnation of non-kosher food with the same fevor as they do
with homsexuality. As soon as we accept that homsexuality is forbidden
no more than is ANY forbidden sexual contact, and that it is often
a deep religious problem for some people, then we can act apon this
knowledge and help those Jews with LOVE who wish to do tshuvah.
Pesach
> Not all male homosexuals (from what I have read & heard) necessarily
> engage in anal penetration. (The rather bitter examples I gave were
> of "good" heterosexual husbands who stop in the park on the way home
> to have a male prostitute suck them off -- after which they go home
> and pass AIDS on to their wives & unborn children. Also cops who
Homosexuality is NOT forbidden according to the Torah.
Homosexual action is.
Sadly, in this day and age, we have associated that LOVING someone
of the same sex is wrong -- because we associate it with Homosexual
Action. However, two men LOVING each other, with a close bond does
not mean that they have to be lovers -- David HaMelech and Yohonoton
were deeply close, with a LOVE closer than most married couples. However
they did not have sex, nor did they have sexual feelings towards each
other.
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
>> Since marriage is not "tofes" binding in the case of same sex
>> marriages, the aforementioned Rambam and Sifra are referring to
>> the acts. Indeed, the term
>
> Are you sure about this? Remember, the Sifra was referring to the
> acts of Egyptians, who were not bound by halacha. Who's to say that
> they didn't recognize same-sex marriages?
>
>> "Noseh" (living as husband and wife, or marital relations) is used,
>> not "mekadesh/meares" (wed to). As a previous poster pointed out,
>> presumably such
>
> So what? We use the term Noseh in Nisuin, which is the act of concluding
> a marriage. "Mekadesh/me'ares" refers to betrothal. If you're going to
> attribute halachic qualities to ancient Egyptians, at least get them right.
>
> Jonathan Baker
> jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan, I'm not sure of your point. I _think_ you're trying to say
that the Sifre and the Rambam are refering to same-sex marriages but
_not_ to same-sex _acts_. Does that make any sense? The Torah forbade
the marriage and permitted the acts!?!? Also, remember that it is in
reference to the verse: Lev 18:3 "k'ma'aseh eretz mitzraim" - (do not
do) as the _acts_ of the Land of Mitzraim...".
In any case, I'm glad to see postings which talk of Torah and halacha!
("They said it couldn't be done...")
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(posted & mailed)
Micha Berger
Polar <s.m...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Just parenthetically - I may not *understand* homosexuality, being a
: card-carrying hetero, but I don't see it's mine to "approve" or
: "disapprove" a state of being that is most likely genetic in origin.
I agree. And I think it's sad that we do. The source is quite likely
cultural or instinctive and not religious.
However, this doesn't change the fact that the Torah prohibits people
in that state from acting on their urges, or that G-d calls that kind
of activity between two men to be a "to'eivah" (grotesque).
It is not for me, though, to judge someone's ability or lack thereof
to resist a desire I never faced.
Adam J. Schorr
In article <32DBB6...@superlink.net>, Pesach <re...@superlink.net> wrote:
>Micha Berger wrote:
>>
>> However, this doesn't change the fact that the Torah prohibits people
>> in that state from acting on their urges, or that G-d calls that kind
>> of activity between two men to be a "to'eivah" (grotesque).
>
>
>But I often am seriously offended when people quote that homosexuality
>is "to'eivah" and thus often destroy any possibility of helping those
>Jews who wish to change theirs ways, learn to overcome their desires
>and become productive members of Jewish Society.
>
>You are totally ingoring, when you say that homsexuality is "to'eivah"
>(grotesque or an abomination) that in Devarim 14:3, non-kosher food is
>also called "To'eviah", and that Shlomo HaMelech says that a false heart
>and envy is "To'eivah".
It also ignores the gemara (or is it one of the midreshei halacha?) that
defines toeyvah as "toeh ata bah."