Justice and Sexual Orientation: One Jewish Perspective

An address by Rabbi Lindsey bat Joseph to the Diversity Conference,
March 10, 2002 at Grant MacEwan College, Edmonton

Speaking for Jewish Tradition

I want to begin this morning by stating that Judaism is not monolithic and there is no single spokesperson for the entire Jewish people. While there are many branches within the Jewish world, we essentially fall into one of two main groups: Orthodox and non-Orthodox. Now within those two divisions, there are wide variations again. An orthodox Jew can be anything from Modern Orthodox, which maintains traditional practices but with an eye to participation in modern society, to Chasidic movements such as Chabad Lubavitch and ultra-right wing extremists who view anyone outside their particular sect with a great deal of suspicion. Within the non-Orthodox community you will find Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Jewish Renewal, Jewish Humanists and the completely secular. So, what I am presenting to you this morning is not a definitive statement from the Jewish world. What I am offering is one Jewish perspective on the issue of justice and sexual orientation in a Jewish context.

I am a Reform rabbi. That should not be confused with the Reform political party, however. They're right wing. Reform Judaism is definitely left, or at least central on the Jewish religious spectrum. I come from a movement that traces its historical beginnings to what we call the Age of Enlightenment of 19th century Europe, and its ideological roots to the great prophets of Jewish tradition such as Isaiah and Jeremiah. We view ourselves as not only the inheritors, but also the continuation of the prophetic tradition, the focus of which was the call for social justice.

That does not mean, however, that the so-called "clobber-verses" of Leviticus can be easily swept aside and ignored. The Torah is our basis, our core; our centre of being. Without it we are not Jews. We live through Toraitic text and tradition on a weekly basis. Every Sabbath in every synagogue around the world - regardless of which branch of Judaism - we read a portion of the Torah, the Five Books of Moses. We begin each fall with Genesis and read through to the end of Deuteronomy, week by week, and then immediately begin the cycle all over again. We are confronted with the "clobber-verses" a second time each High Holy Day season, since the Leviticus holiness code and its injunctions regarding sexual mores are reread as a part of the Yom Kippur - Day of Atonement tradition. Furthermore, we're the ones responsible for bringing the Torah to the rest of the world. The Hebrew Bible, after all, is the beginning of the Christian scriptures.

Jewish Approach to Text & Tradition

Our tradition teaches that the entirety of the Torah was dictated to Moses on Mount Sinai. There are all kinds of textual and archaeological evidence that suggests different origins of the Bible, of course, but that's not the issue here. What's important is that along with the written Torah, an equally authoritative oral tradition, one of interpretation and explication -- also came down from Sinai. The name "Yisrael" - Israel, means to struggle with God. Jacob, our forefather wrestled with angels - we wrestle with text, tradition, and contemporary sensibilities. This is not something that is unique to the Reform movement. It is an inherent part of Jewish tradition. For generations rabbis have engaged in creative biblical and legal exegesis, seeking newer, deeper understanding of biblical texts. This process, which resulted in the generation of volumes of Midrash, Mishna and Talmud, has allowed us to interpret and reinterpret our texts and traditions so that they continue to meet the needs of every age. This process has also, on more than one occasion resulted in the circumventing of a literal interpretation of the text in order to make the law more compassionate.

The "Clobber Verses" - Changing our Understanding

So, how do I contend with Leviticus, and the two so-called "clobber verses"? By using the same tools employed by generations of rabbis before me. An often-cited example is the case of the cheiresh. In Hebrew, the word cheiresh means deaf. According to halakhah, Jewish law, a cheiresh was not allowed to testify in a Jewish court, nor could he receive any of the other rights and privileges that were guaranteed for other so-called "unblemished" Jews. This is because of the assumption that someone who was deaf and mute was mentally defective. However, with the advancement of our understanding of this particular condition, the rabbis long ago determined that someone who is deaf is in fact quite competent and should, therefore, be given the same rights and privileges as everyone else. So how did they resolve the disparity between the interpretation of the text and their understanding of the deaf? By reinterpreting the word cheiresh. The word cheiresh still means deaf, but within the context of applying biblical law, it now only signifies and applies to the deaf-mute who is actually mentally incompetent.

I could site dozens of other examples - cases involving the stranger, the divorcee, the leper, the sabbatical year. In each and every case, as Judaism matured, and this includes Orthodox Judaism, biblical laws based on superstition and ignorance were revised and often altogether suspended. So too, the Levitical texts regarding homosexuality must be brought into alignment with our contemporary understanding of human sexuality. The letter of the law must be reinterpreted, understood in a new light, to preserve the spirit of the law - the spirit of justice, compassion, and inclusion.

Leviticus 18:22 states "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence." I am always surprised by people who want to seize on the literal translation of this particular text, treat it as if it were carved in stone, and not open to any other kind of interpretation. In Jewish exegetical tradition, however, the p'shat or simple interpretation of a text is typically viewed as the most unsophisticated level of understanding.

Is there another way to understand this text? Contemporary exegetes offer several possibilities: To begin with, the Hebrew word, to'eivah, is usually translated as "abhorrence". This word can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

a. A to'eivah is typically understood as something that is not a wilful act, but rather something that one is compelled to do. This mitigates the so-called "criminal" aspects of homosexuality by acknowledging that sexual orientation is an inherent part of who we are as human beings. Someone is compelled to be homosexual in exactly the same way as someone else is compelled to be heterosexual. It's not a conscious choice - it's just who we are. However, from the perspective of biblical tradition, pro-creative heterosexuality is the established ideal, so traditionalists argue that even though you may feel driven toward your own gender, one should not heed that compulsion. Essentially, it's okay to be gay as long as you don't act on it.

b. Others look at that particular interpretation and say it's ridiculous! Still following in the tradition of the reinterpretation of cheiresh, some contemporary exegetes suggests that to'eivah in this instance is referring to something that a person is being compelled to do by another person. I.e. this is not a reference to consensual homosexual relations, but is an injunction against homosexual rape.

c. Others argue, also in the tradition of the cheiresh, stating that we now have a much better understanding of human sexuality than our ancestors possessed and we must judge in light of that new knowledge. Therefore, we can accept that to'eivah is indeed, a natural compulsion and not a wilful act, which means there is nothing inherently wrong or evil in being gay. We are who we are. And each of us deserves to be accepted.

d. Lastly, on the subject of "to'eivah", we should also remember that the Bible condemns many practices as abhorrent including: the reading of horoscopes, the consultation of psychics, and eating cheeseburgers and shrimp. I'm not saying that using the Bible selectively is inherently wrong, but, we should at least be responsible about how we're doing it.

Leviticus 20:13 presents a little bit more of a challenge. The text reads: "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death - their bloodguilt is upon them." Again the word "to'eivah" comes into play, but we are also confronted with an apparent call for the death penalty. The Hebrew words for that penalty, by the way, are "mot yumtu", which more accurately are translated: "they shall surely die". Furthermore, the so-called "bloodguilt", which in the Hebrew text is "d'meihem", actually says "their blood is upon them". What is this referring to?

One possibility is a public act, which is deemed lewd. For the record, public fornication between heterosexuals was equally frowned upon with the same penalty. And I would argue that it must have been referring to a public act, because without spies checking out what's going on in people's bedrooms how would anyone know?

Another possibility hearkens back to the biblical ideal of pro-creative relationships. Given an age without invitro fertilisation and adoption agencies, the biological reality of gay and lesbian relationships is that they are not pro-creative. In Jewish tradition there is nothing more tragic than the loss of a child's life or the loss of the potential to create life. "They shall surely die" may, quite simply, be a reference to their loss of legacy due to the fact that these relationships can't produce children. Their blood is upon them, because they are the end of their bloodline.

From a historical-social-cultural perspective, it is important to be aware of the fact that these biblical texts were redacted in the shadow of classical Greek and Roman cultures which posed a very real threat to Jewish survival. Furthermore, these cultures were idolatrous. The Levitical passages may actually be injunctions against engaging in the worship practices of idolatrous cults - which may have included homosexual acts. The death penalty may have come from the association with idolatry rather than actually being connected to human sexuality. Furthermore, with regard to that death penalty, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the Bible also calls for the death penalty for murderers, and many other crimes. Yet, there is little historical evidence of the death penalty being carried out in ancient Israel. Even within biblical texts, there are very few accounts of executions. And among the judgements in Jewish courts since the time of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the rabbis have fastidiously argued against and circumvented the actual implementation of the death penalty.

And yet some - too many - still want to hang on to the p'shat, the simplistic understanding of biblical text. They point to the destruction of Sodom - from whence we get the terms sodomy and sodomite. As an illustration of the evil in Sodom, the Torah tells us about the men of Sodom who wanted to engage in relations with the visiting angels - who were masculine of course. We know that Sodom was ultimately destroyed for it evil, so there is a tendency to read the story and say look, there's God's just punishment for homosexuals. If you read a Jewish commentary on this story, however, the punishment of Sodom was due to its overall bad behaviour in all areas of social interaction. More specifically, in reference to the angels - the crime of Sodom is abusing visitors. Sodom is being judged, not because of homosexuality, per se, but because they wanted to forcibly engage in relations with the visitors. And although the argument ultimately proved futile, let us not forget that Abraham dared to call God to account for Divine actions.

The entirety of Jewish tradition is not encapsulated in two verses in Leviticus. As one of my teachers noted, there is one text, but it is not the only text. The call to justice and compassion is the true spirit of the Torah, of Judaism. So, even if I can't reinterpret the text to create a different rendering of the words, I can nevertheless follow in the path of my forefather, Abraham. I can look at this issue through the lens of the ethical and moral teachings of my faith and, like Abraham, dare to say: .. Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice?" Genesis 18:25

Kulanu - All of Us

In the mid-1970's the Reform movement in North America admitted its first gay and lesbian outreach congregation into our union. Several more followed. But, by the late 1980's there was a general feeling within the rabbinate that this was insufficient. Indeed, for myself and for many of my colleagues, the fact that there was a need for separate gay/lesbian congregations was nothing short of an embarrassment. We are a movement that has embraced egalitarianism, at least ideologically, since its inception. We were at the forefront of social justice and civil rights movements in Canada and the United States. We were at the forefront of advancing the role of women in the synagogue including women in the rabbinate, and in embracing interfaith families. We have made the historical commitment to inclusion and yet these congregations stood as a ringing indictment that we had failed on a very fundamental level. And so the time came to address this shortcoming.

In 1989, Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler, then president of our union, initiated a program known as "Kulanu" - "All of Us" - a program aimed at integrating gay and lesbian Jews and their families into mainstream congregations. Furthermore, my seminary adopted a policy of accepting openly gay and lesbian candidates for ordination. When I entered yeshiva in 1991 roughly 10% of my classmates were gay or lesbian. Although it caused a few raised eyebrows for my parents, I didn't think twice about it. It seemed perfectly normal to me - and more importantly it set a pattern for my daughters. I decided a long time ago that if one or both of my children came to the conclusion that she was gay, that would not be a sign of my failure as a parent, or as a rabbi. The only failure would be if they came to that conclusion and felt that they couldn't tell me about it. Now aged 16 and 18, they seem firmly entrenched in heterosexuality - having both gone at least a little boy-crazy now and then - but I have hosted several of their gay and lesbian schoolmates in my home. Something I couldn't imagine my parents ever doing during in my teen years.

And yet some - too many - still want to hang on to the p'shat, the simplistic understanding of biblical text. They point to the destruction of Sodom, from whence we get the terms sodomy and sodomite, as proof of the evil of homosexuality. As an illustration of the evil in Sodom, the Torah tells us about the men of Sodom who wanted to engage in relations with the visiting angels, who were masculine of course. We know that Sodom was ultimately destroyed for its evil, so there is a tendency to read the story and say look, there's God's just punishment for homosexuals. If you read a Jewish commentary on this story, however, the punishment of Sodom was due to its overall bad behaviour in all areas of social interaction. More specifically - with reference to the angels - the crime of Sodom is abusing visitors. Sodom is being judged, not because of homosexuality, per se, but because they wanted to forcibly engage in relations with the visitors. And although the argument ultimately proved futile, let us not forget that Abraham dared to call God to account for Divine actions.

By 1998, an Ad Hoc Committee on Human Sexuality had been formed by the Central Conference of American Rabbis. It addressed not only issues of inclusion and integration, but also the question of same-sex partnerships.

Mishebeirakh:

In 2000, the CCAR adopted a formal resolution supporting rabbis who choose to officiate at same-sex ceremonies. My congregation beat them by two years. We established our policy 4 years ago, anticipating that there might be a demand one day and electing to be pro-active, rather than reactive. The policy, by the way, was passed unanimously by our board and greeted with much pride by my congregants.

This year, 2002, our first openly lesbian couple joined our synagogue. One partner is Jewish, the other is Christian. Their joining the synagogue did cause some anxiety - not for us - but for the Jewish partner who has spent far too many years living in the shadows and feeling unwelcome. The focus of our other member's attention on this couple has not been on their gender, but rather on ensuring that the non-Jewish partner feels comfortable and welcome in a Jewish setting. As for the Jewish partner, she confided a few weeks ago that we have indeed created a space where she feels welcome -- where they both feel welcome. I am proud of my movement's accomplishments. And I am proud of my congregation's determination to be open. But, I realise we are still very much at the beginning, with a long way to go.

Issues of sexuality are so personal. They cross all genders, nationalities, religions, and races. Humans are sexual beings - we can't escape that fact. So there will be for some time, I think, a continuation of discord among those of us who wish to reach out and embrace and among those who only feel secure in their faith when it is narrowly defined. There are a lot of wounded souls out there -- souls that need nurturing and healing.

I would like to close with a blessing. The text for this blessing was written by Debbie Friedman, based on the traditional Jewish prayer for healing.

Mishebeirakh Avoteinu, M'kor hab'rakha l'imoteinu,
May the source of strength who blessed the ones before us
Help us find the courage
To make our lives a blessing
And let us say, Amen.

Mishebeirakh Imoteinu, M'kor habrakha l'avoteinu,
Bless those in need of healing with refuah shleimah
Renewal of body, renewal of spirit
And let us say, Amen.