TheologicaI Perspectives on Homosexuality in Contemporary Orthodox Thought by Nathaniel Helfgot

A. Introduction

The sexual revolution that burst onto the scene in the Western world more than a half century ago transformed the basic assumptions and mores of societies that had been rooted for centuries in legal and moral attitudes based on the Judeo-Christian worldview (more Christian, of course, than Judaic). The core values of traditional societies stemmed from biblical interpretations in a range of religious traditions as mediated by law and the social attitudes of the modern nation state. For example, in the United States sixty years ago, divorce was highly disesteemed, with many formal legal obstacles to its use in place. Abortion was illegal in every state. Living as a couple without marital commitment was stigmatized, as was having children out of wedlock.

For homosexuals, core values shaped law in even more repressive ways. Homosexual congress was a crime that was regularly prosecuted, and revelation of one's homosexuality could end one's career and lead to discrimination in housing, employment, health care and other areas of civic life without any legal recourse. Such treatment was not only legal but considered appropriate in dealing with "deviants" and "perverts," as gay people were referred to in common parlance.

Homosexuality was still considered a mental illness by leading mental health organizations, and people lived their entire lives “in the closet" so as to avoid the professional and personal repercussions of even rumors of homosexuality.

1 Sixty years later, in one of the most startling and swift cultural, societal, and legal shifts that any society has experienced, the entire classic traditional moral underpinnings of Western society have been turned on their head. Abortion, at least at some stages of pregnancy, was legalized decades ago throughout many Western countries, divorce is rampant and accessible, and living together before marriage or having children without marriage are common practices, largely devoid of stigma. Perhaps most startling, sixty years on, not only is homosexuality no longer considered a mental illness, but it is celebrated and depicted in popular culture and throughout large swaths of society as a fully legitimate and alternative life to traditional heterosexual family life. On the legal front, not only is homosexual congress no longer a criminal offense, but gay marriage is now legal throughout the United States and other Western countries, a development that would have been unthinkable barely a decade ago. This swift and total transformation in the legal and cultural landscape has, as with any cultural and legal shift in moral sensibilities, brought many of these issues to the forefront of the American Orthodox community that lives, works and breathes the air of modern society and has been fully integrated into it for the last half century as native, fully American citizens.

As members of the gay community began "coming out" and the stigmas dissipated in general society, Orthodox circles began to see similar movement in these directions. In the last two decades, parallel to general society, the walls of silence and denial fell, and high school graduates in college and beyond began coming out to their parents and communities. Now we have reached the point that kids come out in yeshiva high school if not earlier. Numerous support groups and organizations that advocate for gay Orthodox teens, adults and parents of

Orthodox gay people have arisen throughout the United States, and . At the same time, as the pace of change has accelerated, Orthodox poskim, thinkers, communal and ​ ​ communal activists have addressed the growing reality of openly gay members of the community.

Symposia, lectures, panels at rabbinic and educational conferences, articles and entire volumes have been written addressing various aspects of this phenomenon in the last two decades. Most of these writings and pronouncements have generally considered broad questions of halakhic and

2 communal policy, such as the level of inclusivity that Orthodox shuls, schools, camps and families should manifest to those who identify as gay, with various nuances depending on the level of non-halakhic behavior in which the person engages. Questions that have been addressed include whether someone who identifies as gay or has same-sex relationships can receive ritual honors in the , whether they be members in good standing of a community, whether one encourages psychological counseling (of various forms) to these individuals, whether people be encouraged to come out in their communities or remain closeted, whether gay people be encouraged to marry those of the opposite gender in the hopes that heterosexuality will "work out" for them or whether they should be vigorously discouraged from doing so. These and myriad other personal and communal questions – regarding hosting gay support groups for Shabbatonim or allowing gay youth to march at the Israel Day Parade -- have dominated the communal discourse and the various statements, writings, responsa and public declarations of the community.

A sizeable portion of the relevant writing has justifiably focused on the pastoral dimensions of this cultural shift, asking how families and friends should react to or engage with those family members who identify as gay. Less systematic thought and writing, however, has been devoted to the theological and philosophical dimensions that many people, whether gay or not, struggle with in reconciling the reality of the existence of good, loving, ethical gay people -- themselves, friends, or relatives -- and the explicit biblical and rabbinic opprobrium directed at homosexuality. Such attempts at reconciliation necessarily interrogate the "fairness," justice, eternity and inerrancy of

God's word as interpreted in . As one educator puts it:1 ​

This may surprise many adults, but the reconciliation of the ’s discussion of homosexuality represents the single most formidable religious challenge for our young people today. More young people are “coming out” than ever before, and that repeatedly puts a face to this theological challenge… As they go off to college, students invariably face the painful moral dilemma created by the seemingly intractable conflict: believing in the primacy and validity of the Torah on the one hand, and following their hearts’ sense of morality with regard to loving and accepting their gay friends – or perhaps “coming out” themselves—on the other. All too often, this earnest challenge results in our children quietly losing faith in the Torah as a moral way of life.

1 See https://shalhevetboilingpoint.com/opinion/2016/09/14/the-biggest-challenge-to-emunah-of-our-time/ ​

3 In other words, this theological challenge does not feel like a marginal or distanced point for many ​ young people today but as the central challenge to their belief system.

At first blush, a reflective individual familiar with classical Jewish and general religious thought may be tempted to question the uniqueness of this issue. Shouldn't considerations of homosexuality simply be part of the general (and eternal) question of theodicy: the existence of suffering in a world created by a just and loving God? On one level, such parallels hold true.

However, on a sociological level, this issue (together with women's exclusion from certain ​ religious roles) seems to bring greater pain and questioning to religious people (especially young people) in contemporary society than does the existence of suffering in general. This may have to do with the fact that evil caused by human beings, "allowed by God" so to speak, seems to be more intelligible as classical religious thought views God as created human beings with free will and autonomy, whose use may result in a negative and harmful impact on other human beings.

The suffering caused by natural disasters or illness seem to many to be more philosophically troubling as they are part of the inherent nature of the world and fully in God’s control and God’s

“fault” and responsibility. The fact that God would create human beings with same-sex attractions and then via the law, His word, shut them out from any ability to have meaningful intimacy seems ​ to many people to be especially troubling. For many individuals, intellectual accommodation of ​ ​ this legal phenomenon challenges the conception of a commanding God who is merciful and righteous. This ethical and theological discomfort may be exacerbated by the sociological reality of living in a culture that is deeply rooted in human rights and freedom as the ultimate yardsticks of morality. ​ This paper aims to address this tension by mapping the major Orthodox theological approaches to this question, both explicit and implicit, in the various statements and pronouncements that have emerged during the last 30 years. Through this exploration, I will address the cogency of each view and whether it provides satisfactory approaches to outlining a theological structure that can work on an intellectual, ethical, and emotional level for the

Modern-Orthodox Jew struggling with cognitive dissonance when considering these issues. After delineating these various perspectives, I will outline what appears to me the most compelling

4 perspective in addressing this dilemma theologically and what I believe stands the best chance of resonating within a Modern-Orthodox high school setting.

Today’s reality unfortunately includes significant pain, ambivalence, anger and alienation among many of our sons and daughters (both gay and straight). Some are leaving our community and the world of shmirat hamitzvot entirely because of the challenges outlined above. This paper ​ is an attempt to address that reality and these caring young people’s questions in as intellectually inclusive a way as possible within the framework of traditional Jewish categories. It is my hope that having theological categories to work with will help our students to remain within the community, even as they continue to grapple with these and other theological questions. Even as a single paper, even a carefully considered one, cannot solve this range of complex problems, the effort to take people and their concerns seriously and with empathy more than justifies the endeavor. Hazal recognized that sometimes the law creates suffering for real human beings ​ through no fault of their own. That ethos permeates the famous rabbinic comments that God is attentive to the cries of those who cannot marry halakhically through no fault of their own, such as mamzeirim:

(Ecclesiastes 4:1): And I returned and considered all the oppressions (that were done under the sun; and beheld the tears of those that were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressor there was power, but they had no comforter):' Daniel (Hanina) the Tailor interpreted this verse as mamzeirim: "And behold the tears of the ​ ​ oppressed, their fathers committed a sin and these humiliated ones are removed'?! This one's father had illicit sexual relations - What did he [the child] do? Why should it make a difference for him? They had no comforter, but from the hand of their persecutors there is strength," this is the Great Assembly of Israel which comes against them with the power of the Torah and removes them based on "no mamzer shall enter the congregation of the Lord" (Deut. 23:3). And they have no comforter, Thus, God says, "I have to comfort them," because in this world they are refused, but in the Messianic Age ... they are pure gold. (Vayikra Rabbah 32:8)

As human beings and charged to follow in the ways of God, we must be compelled by this ethos of compassion and understanding. Even if we cannot change the law in any significant way, compassion should animate us in our human interactions, as it animated Hazal, helping to dry ​ ​ some of those tears, even if only a few.

5

B. Approaches in Orthodoxy ​ ​

1 . Rejection of the Dilemma’s Premise ​

In a 1976 responsa,2 the late and revered Rabbi zt”l unequivocally lays out ​ ​ ​ the view that homosexuality is "disgusting" and rejects the possibility of any desire for homosexual intimacy. The only desire for such activity must be driven by a purely evil desire to "rebel against the will of God," he asserts, adding that even the gentiles recognize that there is no natural desire to engage in homosexual activity. Moreover, even the gay person himself, "the wicked," in R.

Feinstein's language, looks down on his partners and recognizes that he is engaged in a debasing and unnatural act. In a later passage in the responsa, R. Feinstein even castigates those who search for reasons why the Torah forbids homosexual relations because "they undermine the severity of the prohibition in the eyes of the evildoers who lust for this repugnant indulgence." In this paradigm, there can be no natural inclination to engage in gay sex, all societies frown upon it, and it is patently obvious that anyone can stop engaging in homosexual acts if they just summon up sufficient religious motivation to avoid sin. In R. Feinstein's model, no one is born inherently with homosexual tendencies, and there is no room for gay identity. A school or community adopting R.

Feinstein's rubric would struggle even to accept an openly gay student or adult into the walls of its institution if that individual has no intention of attempting to reign in his "evil" and "disgusting" inclinations, which are a direct "rebellion" to God and his Torah.

R. Feinstein's categorical statements are clear and sharp; however, an honest evaluation of our empirical reality seems to fly in the face of his contentions. There appear to be many people who sincerely experience deep same-sex attractions even from a young age. This percentage of the population, whatever number it may be, does not yearn to rebel against God and continues to experience same-sex attraction despite a sometimes fervent wish for heterosexuality and having undergone often damaging psychological counseling to change their sexual orientation. These men, women and teenagers deeply experience their sexual orientation as part of their very being

2 See Appendix at the end of this paper, source #1 for full text of the selection.

6 that was given to them by their Creator. They long for intimacy with a same-sex partner while wanting to connect to God, the Jewish people, Torah and mitzvot. And in many instances, contra R.

Feinstein, the gay person can only find such a union and intimacy with someone of the same sex.

Interestingly, a number of classical Jewish sources seem to stand in opposition to R.

Feinstein's contention. For example, Tosofot (Sanhedrin 9a), in one of the solutions to an unrelated

and thus -- יצרו תוקפו -- contradiction they raise, state that the homosexual desire is very powerful a person would not be disqualified from giving testimony, certainly implying that for a portion of the population there is a real desire for homosexual congress. This view is also implicit in the comment of Rav Kook, who writes that:

That small amount of desire (for homosexual relations) that might be found in an individual which is ineradicable, was foreseen by the sages. Regarding it they said: “Whatever a man ​ ​ wants, etc. It is comparable to a fish which comes from the fish market. If he wants, he eats it fried; if he wants, he eats it boiled.” Thus, they (i.e. the sages) plumbed the depths of human nature to the point of compassion on those perverted from birth. Nevertheless, they commented: “Why do crippled (infants) arise? Because they “overturn their table” (a euphemism for anal intercourse.)

In Rav Kook's view, many people have a small amount of desire for homosexual intimacy, which exists "from birth," and Hazal, in their wisdom, allowed for certain sexual behaviors within the ​ ​ context of legitimate heterosexual intercourse to allow for permissible outlets for those desires. ​

R. Feinstein gives great credence to the fact that even gentile society views homosexuality in a very negative light, and he uses this point to support his own. While this may have been true as a general statement for most of R. Feinstein life, it has certainly shifted in many segments of the

Western world in the last three decades, including multiple Christian denominations’ ordination of gay clergy, performance of gay wedding ceremonies, and acceptance of gay members.3 What ​ happens to Rav Moshe's theological structure when the social assumptions have changed so dramatically? His efforts to link Jewish practice and belief to Christian practice and belief no longer point logically in the direction they once did.

3 These include the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches, some subsets of the Baptist denomination, and a number of others. Pope Francis, the head of the international Roman Catholic Church, recently stated his support for same-sex civil unions.

7 Others who clearly differ from R. Feinstein on this issue include figures as diverse as the

Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, R. Aharon Feldman, and R. Yuval Cherlow.

R. Schneerson in a 1986 address cites Maimonides in Hilkhot Teshuvah who notes that people are ​ characterized by various moral dispositions and personality traits, some of which exist from birth but are not universal. Thus, one person may lack homosexual urges entirely while another may have such desires "from the beginning of his existence and correspond to his physical constitution." What is key for Maimonides and the Rebbe is that each human being also has free will and the ability to rein in those desires and traits. R. Aharon Feldman, in his celebrated letter to a gay baal teshuvah, writes in a similar vein: "I believe that the course you have taken is correct: ​ ​ you refuse to deny your nature as a homosexual while at the same time refuse to deny your ​ ​ Jewishness." This principle is made even more explicit in a short responsa of R. Yuval Cherlow, who writes:

The Torah's perspective on homosexuality does not claim "that it is unnatural" but rather that there is a need to struggle with phenomena that are natural and normal. In the same section in the Torah (discussing the proscription on homosexuality), the Torah also mentions many other natural things regarding (forbidden) relationships between men and women, and yet the Torah categorically forbids them. Even if we are speaking of things that arise out of normal /natural desires, the Torah does not simply accept nature as it is, but rather spreads its impact and attempts to shape it according to the foundations of holiness and ethics.

Clearly, R. Feinstein’s contentions were not universally adopted by contemporary rabbinic thinkers. Indeed, acceptance of the reality of an innate homosexual nature among some percentage of the population exists within Jewish tradition and thought. Rejection of R. Feinstein’s paradigm, which flies in the face of the lived reality of many people, can begin the process of creating an honest and convincing theological framework for our schools and community discussion.

2. Anyone Can Overcome this Challenge

In the summer of June 2010, a consensus document prepared by myself and Rabbis Yitzchak Blau and Aryeh Klapper, entitled "A Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual

8 Orientation in Our Communities,"4 signed by hundreds of rabbis and educators, was published ​ online, generating much discussion. Among the sections that were most discussed were these ​ ​ statements:

Whatever the origin or cause of homosexual orientation, many individuals believe that for most people this orientation cannot be changed. Others believe that for most people it is a matter of free will. Similarly, while some mental health professionals and rabbis in the community strongly believe in the efficacy of "change therapies", most of the mental health community, many rabbis and most people with a homosexual orientation feel that some of these therapies are either ineffective or potentially damaging psychologically for many patients.

We affirm the religious right of those with a homosexual orientation to reject therapeutic approaches they reasonably see as useless or dangerous.

These words indicated the ambivalence that existed at the time in the Modern Orthodox community to the effectiveness and morality of reparative therapy. The statement reflects the authors’ belief that not everyone can change and that, in many instances, such efforts at change are not desirable. This section of the document led more conservative, haredi-leaning members ​ ​ of the Orthodox community to craft a counter-statement entitled the "Declaration on the Torah

Approach to Homosexuality," published in late December 2011. This declaration5 made a number ​ of biological and theological claims, including:

1. The unequivocal view that homosexuality is not a permanent, inherent orientation but one that is entirely malleable. 2. God is a good and loving God and thus He would not command us in mitzvot that are impossible to fulfill.

3. Therefore, it is impossible that God would create human beings unable to fulfill their sexual and emotional needs within permitted parameters.

4. Through intensive teshuvah and therapy, every person can change from a homosexual ​ orientation back to the “normal” state of heterosexuality.

This forceful enunciation of a clear-cut theology was published a few weeks after the publication of an interview in Hakirah with R. Shmuel Kaminetsky, a leading American haredi ​ ​ ​ and one of the Torah Declaration’s creators. In the interview, R. Kaminetsky articulated a theology

4 The full text appears in the appendix, source #2 5 For full text of the selection see appendix, source #3.

9 that strives vigorously to defend the justice, morality and inerrancy of God's word by affirming that ​ a “homosexual” simply does not exist. God, he argued, would not create someone with such an inclination and powerful drive for companionship and yet forbid that person to actualize such a life. This would be a "cruel trick." In this model, the gay individual and his deep-seated beliefs, feelings and experiences, are ultimately not real, and the only option is for the individual to recognize that fact and change to match R. Kaminetsky’s view of God’s reality. Within this worldview, he explained, reparative therapy is the recommended course of treatment for every individual with homosexual feelings. This theological structure attempts to maintain the integrity of

God's justice at the price of rejecting the lived experience of human beings. On one level, it evokes certain religious thinkers who, in addressing theodicy, resolved the dilemma by rejecting the notion that evil was really "real" and asserted instead that it was merely illusory.6 The formulation ​ also echoes the popular American Christian adage that "God does not give anyone a burden that is too hard to handle."

These theological claims do not stand up to scrutiny in light of core Jewish teaching and the lived reality of people in the community. R. Chaim Rapoport in his important volume

“Homosexuality and ” has directly, and correctly, noted a number of deficiencies in this theological claim and its ramifications:

1. The empirical evidence undercuts the theological argument made by R. Kaminetsky. For

example, even many ardent proponents of reparative therapy admit that a significant

percentage (up to 50%) of gay individuals cannot change their orientation.

2. R. Kaminetsky admits that for many people the struggle to change their orientation is a

lifelong one, but this puts us back at square one. As R. Rapaport notes:

If “Hashem does not play cruel tricks on his creatures” why would He place people in circumstances wherein they have to spend their entire lifetime trying to change their orientation while throughout that same lifetime they remain constrained in a homosexual orientation with all the challenges that it entails? …If indeed, as Rabbi Kamenetsky clearly asserts, the individual cannot be blamed for not succeeding,

6 For the full citation from the interview see the appendix source #4.

10 because change is not necessarily in his control, why would G-d not facilitate change for such individuals?

3. Finally, R. Rapoport addresses the problems of R. Kaminetsky’s views from a purely

theological perspective:

a) Many heterosexual individuals are born or develop natural conditions or have halakhic

restrictions that do not allow them to ever experience the blessings of intimacy or

marriage. They too do not seem to ever have outlets or solutions to their struggles and

challenges within the halakhic framework.

b) The claim that there must always be a solution to every halakhic problem is

theologically problematic, as it does not align with the experience of human beings in

history nor with the theology that emerges from the Bible, Hazal or the great Baalei ​ ​ Mahshavah. As R. Rapaport notes: ​ As to why, from the human vantage point, G-d does apparently “play cruel tricks with His creatures,” one only needs to open up the Holy Scriptures to learn that Divinely inflicted suffering is ultimately beyond human grasp. In the Psalms and Ecclesiastes, as well as in The Ethics of Our Fathers and the , Prophets and Sages alike confront the issue of theodicy in different ways and provide a variety of theological strategies for dealing with “the suffering of the righteous.”

The views outlined by R. Rappaport are ones that I believe are fully in consonance with

Modern Orthodoxy and its educational system. In broad terms, we believe in confronting reality head on, looking at the best science of the time and exhibiting humility in the face of suffering.

Reparative therapy does not “work” in many instances and can often leave painful scars on those who are encouraged to pursue it, undermining the claim that every person with same sex attraction can, with enough effort, change their orientation. Moreover, on the theological level we do not educate our children that evil is not real or that God would not bring undo suffering on people. For example, in approaching the Holocaust, Modern Orthodox thinkers such as the Rav,

Dr. Norman Lamm, Rav Lichtenstein and Dr. Eliezer Berkovits reject classic theodicies that justify

God by attributing fault to the victims. These Torah luminaries reject such notions as incommensurate with the reality of evil, the actual state of suffering people, and our notions of the

11 justice of God. Similarly, the presentation of a gay person as not really existing, per R. Kaminetsky, is entirely unconvincing.

3. A Challenge that Ennobles the Soul ​

In the famous letter7 quoted above addressed to a gay baal teshuvah, R. Aharon Feldman, ​ ​ ​ currently Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Israel in and a leading contemporary hareidi thinker, ​ ​ stakes out a number of interesting theological positions. R. Feldman maintains that homosexuality may indeed be an inborn and essential part of the nature of the gay person. At the same time the

Torah commands us to refrain from certain forbidden sexual behaviors. in that context, R. Feldman lays out a classic theological claim found in some strands of literature of the Mussar movement that:

Life is meant to be a set of challenges by which we continuously grow spiritually. Any physical defect curtails the enjoyment of life, but, on the other hand, meeting the challenge inherent in such a defect can be the greatest source of joy and accomplishment. Challenges are what life is all about, and homosexuality is one of these challenges. It is difficult for us ​ to understand why certain people were given certain shortcomings as their challenge in life and others were not. We cannot fathom God’s ways, but we can be sure that there is a beneficence behind these handicaps.

This broad theological claim is rooted in the notion that overcoming a nisayon, a challenge, ​ ​ and holding back from acting on desires, even deeply ingrained desires, shapes us into better human beings and servants of God. This is a form of what has been developed by the late philosopher John Hicks as the theodicy of viewing this world as a "vale of soul making" (borrowing a celebrated phrase from one of John Keats’ letters). According to this approach, God desires the human being to achieve moral perfection and spiritual growth, which can be achieved only through the development of the human being’s moral and spiritual muscles. Suffering and challenges help one actualize their moral and spiritual potential. As R. Feldman notes, the human being cannot know the exact details of the Divine economy and why one person is given the

7 The entire letter is printed here: https://guardyoureyes.com/resources/ssa/item/a-letter-by-reb-ahron-feldman-to-a-gay-baal-teshuva

12 challenge of struggling with homosexual urges while others have to deal with other challenges to achieve their purpose in life.

The challenge to this theological construct applies to all forms of soul making theodicies, namely that one can still be troubled by the notion of the justice and fairness of a God Who creates ​ the world in such a way that the only way to reach beatitude is to experience suffering. Why cannot the means be just and more pleasant? The classic answer is that achieving spiritual heights through the crucible of suffering is “worth” more, allowing one to reach deeper growth than if God simply distributed these ends without struggle. Again, the challenge of this philosophy is that individuals, myself included, are left with deep questions about the fairness of God’s world and the need for so much pain in order to achieve some possible perfection, whether here or in the afterlife.

4. Homosexuals Play A Unique Role in Jewish Society

A second suggestion appears in an earlier section of R. Feldman’s letter where he suggests an alternative divine rationale for the existence of gay people tied specifically to the fact that they cannot find heterosexual satisfaction. R. Feldman makes the stunning claim that the observant gay person can play certain roles in society, specifically in Jewish society, that the married individual,

“burdened” with the responsibility of raising a family, may have a hard time fulfilling. For example, a gay person can bring Judaism to far-flung communities without the concerns of where his children will receive a proper Jewish education.8 (This comment, of course, reflects the fact that, in ​ the 1990’s, the notion of a gay couple raising a children through adoption or surrogacy was less common.)

R. Feldman does not directly claim that filling these roles is the purpose for God’s creation of the homosexual, but it can certainly be interpreted as an explanation for God's "plan." This approach accepts the reality that there are homosexuals whose sexual orientation is inborn and sees ultimate purpose for all of God’s creations. One challenge to R. Feldman's suggestion is that it

8 For the full citation see the Appendix source #6.

13 posits that whole categories of people are, prima facie, from the very outset of God's plan for the ​ world, destined to be exempt from the divine directive to engage in marriage and procreation.

These persons would have been created with a built-in exemption to a foundational element of the human experience as outlined in the Torah's first chapters and embedded in the halakhic system from time immemorial. This sweeping understanding does not, to the best of my knowledge, appear in any source prior to R. Feldman's letter and is surprising in its implications.

Of course, while some gay people, like anyone else, may find fulfillment in doing such community work, many do not see their life's destiny in these areas. These people would be denied both the fulfillment of companionship and the fulfillment of meaningful work, given their lack of desire to be pigeonholed into a career on behalf of the community. If they would be forced into such a life because of their sexual orientation, their free choice and autonomy would be totally undermined as well.

5. The Prohibition of Homosexuality as a Chok ​

Many have come to adopt the view that there is no rational explanation for why loving, committed, gay couples cannot come together in intimacy and love. As R. Chaim Rapoport wrote more than a decade ago, “We may say that homosexuality may be perceived as a rationally compelling ​ ​ commandment -- a mishpat -- in certain cases, whilst in others it may well be perceived, rightly ​ or wrongly, as a commandment that transcends human logic -- a chok.” This insight highlights that ​ ​ the loneliness, pain and suffering that many halakhically-committed homosexuals experience is ​ ​ highly theologically challenging. As R. Rapoport writes:

God surely could have brought about whatever Divine purpose there is in the emotional trauma, depression, despair and suicidal feelings that homosexuals... may be subject to, without suffering and evil malaise. Ultimately, therefore the fact, that human beings have to endure intense misery, even if it is in order to receive the subsequent good, remains at a certain level -an enigma.

This acknowledgement of divine mystery places the dilemma into the larger context of theodicy and God's justice, discouraging further discussion of the underpinnings of this law. For many people, this resignation to enigma may be the only rationale with which they can live, but it too

14 carries educational and philosophic challenges. The dangers of treating the prohibition as pure chok have been eloquently articulated by R. Aryeh Klapper in a lengthy post on the website of his institute.9 ​

R. Klapper identifies a common trend in many Modern-Orthodox circles and one to which many students may subscribe: there is no clear rationale for the prohibition on homosexual congress except that it is a type of gezeirat hakatuv, like the laws of shatnez. As Orthodox Jews, ​ ​ ​ we are committed to living and accepting the binding nature of the entirety of the system, even the parts we don’t understand or with which we don’t agree. Religious prohibitions on homosexual activity fall into this category of law. As such, there is no moral opprobrium attached to the act nor should the people involved be viewed in any jaundiced light. Given this destigmatized perspective, for many students and young adults in the Modern-Orthodox community, the entire discussion around acceptance of some form of secular same-sex marriage is obvious and unproblematic. ​ Loving, committed, same-sex couples in consensual adult relationships should have no restrictions in the secular realm. Moreover, given that the prohibition, even in religious terms, is seen as a pure gezierat hakatuv, it should be limited to the actual act of prohibited sexual relations and should not

Thus, gay people should be .אין בו אלא חידושו-be expanded in any way, or to use halakhic language fully integrated into Jewish communal life, and their loving relationships should be celebrated as heterosexual relationships are celebrated, even the relationships of those who fail to live up to other norms of the community. Moreover, in an Orthodox community concerned about the shidduch crisis and people not experiencing love and companionship, the reality of finding existential soul mates in same-sex relationships is seen, in this approach, as something to be valued and appreciated.

Thus, for many young people, recent controversies over whether a shul bulletin should include mazal tov announcements congratulating gay couples married in secular ceremonies become unintelligible. As long we are not engaging in the actual violation of the sin of homosexual congress celebrating that private behavior, “what’s the big deal?” This acceptance of secular gay

9 See source #6 in the appendix at the conclusion of the paper.

15 marriage has taken deep root in the consciousness of many Modern Orthodox Jews, but, at the same time, it raises profound educational questions for the future. As R. Klapper notes, can the perception of the prohibition on homosexuality as a gezierat hakatuv alone stand up in the face ​ of the strong cultural winds that so dominate the modern Western society’s sexual ethic? Will the prohibition erode and eventually disappear? Will one be able to teach normative Jewish texts with their vigorous heteronormative assumptions and aspirations, which privilege, both legally and existentially, huppah vekiddushin between a man and woman with the goal of bringing children ​ into the world?

In light of that profound heteronormativity in Jewish texts, it is clear to me that the

Modern-Orthodox educational system cannot not simply accept this direction and trend but has to address it head on in an overtly counter-cultural way. While affirming respect for gay Jews and educating towards full inclusion in the community, the educational system needs to reaffirm and educate towards a more robust conception of sexuality that is not simply about consent but also highlights the themes of kedusha as understood throughout the continuum of Jewish texts and ​ tradition. (It is not for naught that Rambam places the laws of forbidden unions in the book of

Kedusha). This effort would require heightened emphasis on unpacking the concepts of sanctity in the use of our physical bodies, values of restraint and sacrifice in our experience of physical pleasure, and sexual pleasure and fulfillment as one value among many competing and constraining values.

6. Homosexuality: A Rationale and the Lo Plug ​

In private conversations with a number of rabbis and thinkers over the last few years, a number of people have raised the following theological model for discussion:

1. The Torah's prohibition on homosexual behavior is absolute and binding in all instances and generations irrespective of what rationale we can divine.

16 2. The Torah's prohibition on homosexual behavior is rooted in a number of possible rationales, none of which are mutually exclusive, and all of which should be presented in our educational settings:

a) The desire of the Torah to focus sexual intercourse on the potential for

procreation, which does not exist in homosexual congress.

b) The danger to the marital bond and relationship when men look for

sexual fulfillment outside of the marriage.

c) The historical fact that many homosexual liaisons were non-consensual and involved

masters coercing slaves or young men to serve them or pleasure them in a relationship

of unequal power.

3. The Torah was not primarily addressing the concept of a committed monogamous relationship between two consenting adults, which did not exist for most of human history in most of the world; even those who engaged in homosexual behavior were, to use modern terminology, heterosexual or bi-sexual, not exclusively homosexual in orientation. Yet, given the nature of legislating such laws and the difficulty in identifying exact parameters, the Torah legislates an ​ absolute prohibition on all homosexual congress, in a type of biblical lo plug that is binding in all ​ ​ ​ situations.

4. One result of this absolute law is that a small percentage of people in society who are exclusively homosexual may suffer as a result of the "greater" purpose of the law, which serves as a prime example of Maimonides' famous assertion in the Guide for the Perplexed (Part 3: Ch. 34):

Among the things you ought to know is the fact that the Law does not pay attention to the isolated. The Law was not given with a view to things that are rare, for in everything that it wishes to bring about… it is directed only toward the things that occur in the majority of cases and pays no attention to what happens rarely or to the damage occurring to the unique human being...(Nevertheless) the governance of the Law ought to be universal, including everyone, even if it is suitable only for certain individuals and not suitable for others.

In other words, there are exceptions to the law that are not considered by the law, and yet the law remains universal. This theological structure does not change the force of the law in any way, but it

17 can affect our sensitivity towards those homosexuals. This idea has also been articulated in a private communication by a prominent educator and scholar:

As Rambam teaches in the Moreh, the Torah is given for the majority of cases in history and sometimes individuals suffer. what if one were to conjecture that the Torah prohibited all homosexual congress because it wanted sexual expression to be limited to the marriage arena and not outside of it in any way and focused on procreation or that potential? …The Torah made a kind of biblical lo plug that, even if one could create a loving monogamous ​ ​ relationship in the context of homosexual love, it was still forbidden because of the overwhelming majority of cases… But in the eyes of God, the person who is a gay and monogamous… will be understood on those terms, even though in the real world we cannot celebrate such a union or give it equal legitimacy to heterosexual marriage… [This perspective] allows us to recognize that while we cannot sanction or encourage homosexual behavior, we certainly see a monogamous, committed relationship with companionship and loyalty as infinitely better and more valued than a promiscuous homosexual lifestyle of hooking up that is disconnected from family and commitment.

R. , veteran communal rabbi and Rosh Yeshiva of Ohr Torah Stone, seems to share ​ this view, stating in an interview in the Hebrew newspaper Makor Rishon (August 8, 2017) that: ​ ​

We cannot permit that which the Torah forbids. On the other hand, there is a concept of Oness Rahamana Patrei: God exempts those who are coerced to commit a sin from punishment for that sin. I would like to propose the following: The verses that discuss homosexuality speak of it as a toeivah, which the Talmud interprets as a toeah ata bah --- ​ ​ acting in a mistaken fashion…Regarding such a person [who makes a choice to be a homosexual] it is stated: toeh ata bah. Oness Rahamana Patrei applies only to someone ​ ​ ​ who cannot have sexual satisfaction in any other way.10 ​ R. Michael Broyde in a private communication noted that this construct is not without philosophical problems:

If this approach were a correct read of the will of the Almighty, an easier lo plug would ​ ​ have been to mandate an appropriate kiddushin for same sex couples. Of course, the ​ ​ Rambam’s basic approach is that halacha (law) cannot adjust for the individual case; ​ Rambam argues that this is in the very nature of law, so even God could not have mandated a different law that wouldn’t have edge cases. But this is uniquely inapplicable in matters of sexuality, since God created a nature that at least sometimes includes homosexual love… God could have chosen not to do such a thing which obviates the point of the Rambam here to a great degree… Indeed, one could claim exactly that the problems ​ ​ in same-sex relationships is because society deprives them of the marriage writ, exactly flipping this approach on its head.

10 https://www.makorrishon.co.il/nrg/online/11/ART2/889/279.html ​

18 In spite of critiques such as these, I believe that the basic theological claims outlined at the beginning of this section are the most cogent arguments. They sketch a coherent theory of God’s rationale and purpose in forbidding homosexual congress. The Torah aims to privilege heterosexual bonds that foster procreation and the classical nuclear family structure that are the key to sustaining and perpetuating a nation in pure biological terms (which was certainly the reality in most of human history until the last decades). Moreover, the Torah privileges the traditional family structure, seeing sexual intimacy as exclusively part of that classical bond between married husband and wife, which helps cement that family structure as the incubator for transmitting the values and essence of Jewish life to the next generation. The Torah did not know of the modern-day notion of a committed monogamous gay relationship and addressed itself to the general cases of homosexual congress as practiced throughout almost all of human history, forbidding all such sexual relations in the broad and absolute strokes of codified law.

This last model of “rationales and lo plug” are also most likely, in my view, to resonate most ​ ​ meaningfully with committed teens and adults who are struggling to integrate the traditional teachings of Torah and halakha on homosexuality with the lived reality that they experience. Such ​ a theological construct, coupled with a rich affirmation of the values of Jewish sexual morality as outlined in the previous section, can provide a path for the committed Modern Orthodox teen or young adult who is trying to navigate this issue with integrity, compassion and fidelity to the commanding voice of the tradition. Laying out such an educational and philosophical model alongside genuine openness, inclusivity, empathy for and acceptance of the gay young adult and his or her partner may be the best we can achieve at this moment in history as we confront these difficult human, moral and religious challenges.11 ​

11 The bulk of the research and writing of this paper was completed in Fall, 2018 and does not reflect philosophical or halakhic discussions that have been published since that time. My sincere thanks to Dr. Gillian Steinberg for her meticulous editing of the original draft.

19

20

APPENDIX

Full Citations of Secondary Source Material Cited in the Paper:

1. Selection of Translated text of Responsa of Rav Moshe Feinstein (1976):

The first thing you need to know is that homosexuality has the severe punishment of stoning and kares and it is also called disgusting by the Torah itself. It is one of the most debased sins and it even is prohibited for non-Jews. This knowledge is a strong bulwark against the yetzer harah. Secondly it is inexplicable that there should be a lust for it. That is because in the creation of man himself there is no natural lust for homosexuality… The desire for homosexual relations is against natural lust and even the wicked do not have a desire for it itself. Rather their entire desire for it is only because it is something prohibited and the yetzer harah seduces them to rebel against the will of G-d. This knowledge of what is the will of G-d is a powerful protection against the yetzer harah... The third thing is that homosexuality is an embarrassment even to the common man. Because the entire world – even the wicked - ridicule those who are homosexuals. Even in the eyes of the wicked who participate in these acts, he looks down on the one who did it with him and ridicules and insults him... …Awareness of how debasing a sin is, is a good advice to strengthen oneself against the desire to do a sin which is disgusting and ridiculed such as this one. Because not only is it against the Torah which prohibits it with the most severe punishment, but it is also the greatest embarrassment to his whole family.

2. Text of “Statement of Principles on The Place of Jews with A Homosexual Orientation in Our Community” (2010)

We, the undersigned Orthodox rabbis, rashei yeshiva, ramim, Jewish educators and ​ ​ ​ ​ communal leaders affirm the following principles with regard to the place of Jews with a homosexual orientation in our community:

1. All human beings are created in the image of God and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect (kevod haberiyot). Every Jew is obligated to fulfill the entire range of mitzvot between ​ ​ person and person in relation to persons who are homosexual or have feelings of same sex attraction. Embarrassing, harassing or demeaning someone with a homosexual orientation or same-sex attraction is a violation of Torah prohibitions that embody the deepest values of Judaism.

2. The question of whether sexual orientation is primarily genetic, or rather environmentally generated, is irrelevant to our obligation to treat human beings with same-sex attractions and orientations with dignity and respect.

3. Halakhah sees heterosexual marriage as the ideal model and sole legitimate outlet for human sexual expression. The sensitivity and understanding we properly express for human beings with other sexual orientations does not diminish our commitment to that principle.

4. Halakhic Judaism views all male and female same-sex sexual interactions as prohibited. The

21 question of whether sexual orientation is primarily genetic, or rather environmentally generated, is irrelevant to this prohibition. While halakha categorizes various homosexual acts with different degrees of severity and opprobrium, including toeivah, this does not in any way ​ ​ imply that lesser acts are permitted. But it is critical to emphasize that halakha only prohibits homosexual acts; it does not prohibit orientation or feelings of same-sex attraction, and nothing in the Torah devalues the human beings who struggle with them. (We do not here address the issue of hirhurei aveirah, a halakhic category that goes beyond mere feelings and ​ ​ applies to all forms of sexuality and requires precise halakhic definition.)

5. Whatever the origin or cause of homosexual orientation, many individuals believe that for most people this orientation cannot be changed. Others believe that for most people it is a matter of free will. Similarly, while some mental health professionals and rabbis in the community strongly believe in the efficacy of “change therapies”, most of the mental health community, many rabbis, and most people with a homosexual orientation feel that some of these therapies are either ineffective or potentially damaging psychologically for many patients.

We affirm the religious right of those with a homosexual orientation to reject therapeutic approaches they reasonably see as useless or dangerous.

6. Jews with a homosexual orientation who live in the Orthodox community confront serious emotional, communal and psychological challenges that cause them and their families great pain and suffering. For example, homosexual orientation may greatly increase the risk of suicide among teenagers in our community. Rabbis and communities need to be sensitive and empathetic to that reality. Rabbis and mental health professionals must provide responsible and ethical assistance to congregants and clients dealing with those human challenges.

7. Jews struggling to live their lives in accordance with halakhic values need and deserve our support. Accordingly, we believe that the decision as to whether to be open about one's sexual orientation should be left to such individuals, who should consider their own needs and those of the community. We are opposed on ethical and moral grounds to both the “outing” of individuals who want to remain private and to coercing those who desire to be open about their orientation to keep it hidden.

8. Accordingly, Jews with homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions should be welcomed as full members of the synagogue and school community. As appropriate with regard to gender and lineage, they should participate and count ritually, be eligible for ritual synagogue honors, and generally be treated in the same fashion and under the same halakhic and hashkafic framework as any other member of the synagogue they join. Conversely, they must accept and fulfill all the responsibilities of such membership, including those generated by communal norms or broad Jewish principles that go beyond formal halakha.

We do not here address what should do about accepting members who are openly practicing homosexuals and/or living with a same-sex partner. Each synagogue together with its rabbi must establish its own standard with regard to membership for open violators of halakha. Those standards should be applied fairly and objectively.

9. Halakha articulates very exacting criteria and standards of eligibility for particular religious offices, such as officially appointed cantor during the year or baal tefillah on the High Holidays. ​ ​ Among the most important of those criteria is that the entire congregation must be fully comfortable with having that person serve as its representative. This legitimately prevents even the most admirable individuals, who are otherwise perfectly fit halakhically, from serving in those roles. It is the responsibility of the lay and rabbinic leadership in each individual community to determine eligibility for those offices in line with those principles, the

22 importance of maintaining communal harmony, and the unique context of its community culture.

10. Jews with a homosexual orientation or same sex attraction, even if they engage in same sex interactions, should be encouraged to fulfill mitzvot to the best of their ability. All Jews are ​ ​ challenged to fulfill mitzvot to the best of their ability, and the attitude of “all or nothing” was ​ ​ not the traditional approach adopted by the majority of halakhic thinkers and poskim throughout the ages. ​ ​

11. Halakhic Judaism cannot give its blessing and imprimatur to Jewish religious same-sex commitment ceremonies and weddings, and halakhic values proscribe individuals and communities from encouraging practices that grant religious legitimacy to gay marriage and couplehood. But communities should display sensitivity, acceptance and full embrace of the adopted or biological children of homosexually active Jews in the synagogue and school setting, and we encourage parents and family of homosexually partnered Jews to make every effort to maintain harmonious family relations and connections.

12. Jews who have an exclusively homosexual orientation should, under most circumstances, not be encouraged to marry someone of the other gender, as this can lead to great tragedy, unrequited love, shame, dishonesty and ruined lives. They should be directed to contribute to Jewish and general society in other meaningful ways. Any such person who is planning to marry someone of the opposite gender is halakhically and ethically required to fully inform his or her potential spouse of their sexual orientation.

We hope and pray that by sharing these thoughts we will help the Orthodox community to fully live out its commitment to the principles and values of Torah and halakha as practiced and cherished by the children of Abraham, who our sages teach us are recognized by the qualities of being rahamanim (merciful), bayshanim (modest), and gomelei hasadim engaging in acts of ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ loving-kindness).

3. Text of “Declaration of Torah Principles” (2010)

From a Torah perspective, the question whether homosexual inclinations and behaviors are changeable is extremely relevant. The concept that G-d created a human being who is unable to find happiness in a loving relationship unless he violates a biblical prohibition is neither plausible nor acceptable. G-d is loving and merciful. Struggles, and yes, difficult struggles, along with healing and personal growth are part and parcel of this world. Impossible, life long, Torah prohibited situations with no achievable solutions are not.

We emphatically reject the notion that a homosexually inclined person cannot overcome his or her inclination and desire. Behaviors are changeable. The Torah does not forbid something which is impossible to avoid. Abandoning people to lifelong loneliness and despair by denying all hope of overcoming and healing their same-sex attraction is heartlessly cruel. Such an attitude also violates the biblical prohibition in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:14 “and you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind.”

The Process Of Healing

The only viable course of action that is consistent with the Torah is therapy and teshuvah. The

23 therapy consists of reinforcing the natural gender-identity of the individual by helping him or her understand and repair the emotional wounds that led to its disorientation and weakening, thus enabling the resumption and completion of the individual’s emotional development. Teshuvah is a Torah-mandated, self-motivated process of turning away from any transgression or sin and returning to G-d and one’s spiritual essence. This includes refining and reintegrating the personality and allowing it to grow in a healthy and wholesome manner.

These processes are typically facilitated and coordinated with the help of a specially trained counselor or therapist working in conjunction with a qualified spiritual teacher or guide. There is no other practical, Torah-sanctioned solution for this issue.

4. Text of Interview with R. Shmuel Kaminetsky in Hakirah ​

“Everyone is capable of overcoming an inclination that is prohibited by the Torah,” said Rav Kamenetsky. Change is not only possible, but, according to the Rosh Yeshiva, it is imperative and crucial for every G-d–fearing person. The Rosh Yeshiva recognizes two distinct types of “change” (which he used interchangeably with the word “control.”) To accomplish such change, he said, “counseling is the best thing—if a person is willing to engage in it.” Two separate and distinct types of change relevant to mishkav zachar may occur: (a) virtual elimination of the thoughts, feelings, and behavior, or (b) significant decrease of the desire, combined with knowledge of the tools necessary to redirect one’s feelings if the desire returns. He indicated that all of us face challenges of one sort or another but as humans we have been given by our Creator the capacity to overcome them. In March 2000, he forcefully expressed this sentiment when he wrote in a letter endorsing JONAH, “Anything that the ​ Torah forbids, the human being is able to control.” The Rosh Yeshiva further indicated that ​ ​ ​ ​ Hashem does not play cruel tricks on His creatures, nor does He create impossible situations for a human being that would cause the individual to violate a Torah prohibition. The ​ Gemara (Avodah Zarah 3a) affirms this concept: “Because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deal imperiously with His creatures.”

5. Citations from R. Chaim Rapaport, “Homosexuality and Judaism”

If “Hashem does not play cruel tricks on his creatures” why would He place people in circumstances wherein they have to spend their entire lifetime trying to change their orientation while throughout that same lifetime they remain constrained in a homo sexual orientation with all the challenges that it entails? And if “Hashem does not play cruel tricks on his creatures” why would He not enable some people to find the “space” that would enable them to change? If indeed, as Rabbi Kamenetsky clearly asserts, the individual cannot be blamed for not succeeding, because change is not necessarily in his control, why would G-d not facilitate change for such individuals? What “outlet that is acceptable within Torah” do such people have?

Rabbi Kamenetsky also acknowledges that some people that have persevered with long-term therapy may not yet have found a suitable therapeutic modality for them or “may not yet be in the right space to achieve his/her goal. For some it requires hitting rock bottom to be in that space. For others, they may not yet have been in the space that enabled them to release certain blocks. This is not about blame in any way, but rather an explanation of the reality of

24 why some people succeed and some don’t. The fact that a person has not yet achieved healing, even after major effort, is not proof that s/he cannot eventually achieve healing.” Rabbi Kamenetsky also acquiesces that “some people may have to work longer or harder. For some it may even be a lifetime undertaking, but that does not excuse the person from engaging in the necessary counseling.” The suggestion that there ‘must’ always be a remedy to every problem and there is always a halakhically viable outlet for every drive is not only at odds with the facts, it is, in my opinion, theologically dangerous.

Rather than making absolute claims about the possibility of sexual reorientation based on supposedly inviolable dogmas about the nature of divinely imposed challenges, I would recommend that rabbis preach a more nuanced and true-to-life formulation. Such a statement would concede that G-d has clearly imposed on some people, whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, asexual or bisexual, “lifelong, Torah prohibited situations with no achievable solutions.” This position is not essentially connected to challenges of a sexual nature. For example, Divine Providence has historically placed many people in positions in which they have had to live their entire lives in extreme poverty in order to remain loyal to the commandments mandating the observance of Shabbos. Many couples have been deprived of the blessing of children and as a result have endured acute lifelong suffering, simply because G-d created them with a biological nature to ovulate prematurely: in such a situation those who do not transgress the laws of niddah remain childless for life.

6. Excerpt from R. Aryeh Klapper

When halakhic premises become unintelligible to the society outside our community, they will likely become, or have already become, unintelligible within our community. One core premise: let us identify it with the Noachide commandment against forbidden sexual relationships, or arayot—that is no longer intelligible to many Americans is that sexuality can be evaluated in non utilitarian terms, that a sexual act can be wrong even if no one gets hurt. We have replaced sexual morality with sexual ethics. Conversations on topics such as chastity, masturbation, and adultery are wholly changed from what they were even two decades ago, and tracts from back then can seem less contemporary than prehistoric cave art. There are many reasons that traditional rationales in the area of sexuality have moved rapidly from self-evident to unintelligible. Here are two: (1) Effective birth control and in vitro fertilization have broken the connection between intercourse and procreation. It is no longer self-evident to speak of intercourse as potential recreation, or as inevitably associated with the risk of pregnancy. (2) Many human beings with homosexual orientations have told compelling personal stories of pain and alienation. In the secular world, the natural reaction to a premise’s social unintelligibility is the repeal of any laws that depend on it. In the Orthodox world, where immediate repeal is rarely a viable option, one reasonable reaction is what I call “chokification,” or the declaration that laws that once depended on the now-unintelligible premise should be regarded as either beyond human comprehension or else as arbitrary rules intended to train us to obedience. Chokification generally has two consequences: It forestalls attempts to change the law while discouraging any attempt to extend the law’s reach by applying it to new situations. Over time, as reality diverges more and more from the law’s original situation, the law will become less and less relevant practically. A trend toward chokification of the halakhic prohibitions against homosexuality has been evident in Modern Orthodoxy for some time, and as in the general society, it is more pronounced among the young. This suggests that rationales seen as self-evident in the past are no longer intelligible to them. My suspicion is that this is true as well for a significant percentage of the Charedi world. The question is whether chokification is an effective long term strategy, or only a holding pattern. Even if it is sometimes an effective long-term

25 strategy, the case of homosexuality may be harder, as the laws generated by the original premise are now seen by many within our community as deeply wrong ethically rather than only incomprehensible. Perhaps chokification can help hold the halakhic line only if it is rooted in unshakeable belief that this law, as is, represents the will of G-d.

26