Volume 58 Number 70
Produced: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 04:52:06 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"statement of principles" regarding homosexuality (4)
[Freda B Birnbaum Mordechai Horowitz Avraham Walfish]
An American in Paris
[Ephraim Tabory]
Facing the Congregation (2)
[Wendy Baker Ira L. Jacobson]
Rashi (2)
[Ben Katz Perets Mett]
Who is a Posek? (2)
[ David I. Cohen Ben Katz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
Date: Sat, Aug 14,2010 at 10:01 PM
Subject: "statement of principles" regarding homosexuality
Orrin Tilevitz asks (MJ 58#69):
> I have a question, directed in part at signatories who are list members:
> would the same set of principles apply if each time the document said
> "homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions" (or the equivalent)
> one substituted the broader term, "alternative sexual lifestyles"? I
> have in mind, say, spouse-sharing, bigamy, polyandry, and more. If the
> same set of principles would not apply, why not?
Obviously I can't tell you what others would answer, and I'm not a
signatory, but I suspect that one might answer this question by saying
that in the case of your proposed substitutions, the situations are not
analogous because the choices to do the "right thing" are not as difficult
as for gay people. Most of the people who hold with a position similar to
the signatories' believe that the preference/orientation for same-sex
relationships is hard-wired, biological, and not simply "preference".
As an aside, I'd say, only slightly tongue-in-cheek, that they must be
doing something right because people both to the left of them and to the
right of them are mad at them! (The right, for bringing it up at all, or
urging any kind of acceptance, and the left for not endorsing same-sex
marriage, not "going far enough", etc.
Freda Birnbaum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <mrogovin118@...>
Date: Sat, Aug 14,2010 at 11:01 PM
Subject: "statement of principles" regarding homosexuality
Orrin Tilevitz asked (MJ 58 #69) if the statement of principles regarding
homosexuality would be applied to persons engaging in
> "alternative sexual lifestyles"? I have in mind, say, spouse-sharing, bigamy,
> polyandry, and more. If the same set of principles would not apply, why not?
>
I am not a signatory to the SOP (since I am not a rabbi or communal leader)
nor involved in its drafting, I can speak only as a reader. I do not
understand the basis for this question. Mr Tilevitz asks about actions
whereas the SOP refers to one's thoughts and innate desires (ie. sexual
orientation), and is explicit on the obvious, that acting on these desires
is assur [forbidden - MOD], on various levels of severity depending on the
action. Deviant sexual practices (as opposed to desires) are sinful acts and
should be treated as such, just like cheating on taxes, withholding a get,
eating pork etc are sins. Actually, a rabbi who frequents this list once told me
years
ago that he thought that, in terms of treatment in a synagogue, a mechalel
shabbat (sabbath violator) should be worse off than a homosexual since the
former is a separate halachic category that has consequences in things like
receiving honors in shul, whereas being gay is not (halacha does not
recognize a sexual identity).
I read the SOP as an indication that we should be careful not to treat gay
people any different than other sinners (assuming that they are engaging in
forbidden relationships) or others struggling with sinful desires (assuming
that they are not) and that their children should certainly not be treated
any differently from children of others who may not live up to orthodox
ideals. This strikes me as a common sense approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai Horowitz <mordechai@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 15,2010 at 12:01 AM
Subject: "statement of principles" regarding homosexuality
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote (MJ58#69):
> By now I am sure many or all of you have seen the "Statement of Principles on
> the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community" It is
> online at http://statementofprinciplesnya.blogspot.com/
>
> I have a question, directed in part at signatories who are list members: would
> the same set of principles apply if each time the document said "homosexual
> orientations or same sex-attractions" (or the equivalent) one substituted the
> broader term, "alternative sexual lifestyles"? I have in mind, say,
> spouse-sharing, bigamy, polyandry, and more. If the same set of principles
> would not apply, why not?
I don't see why this is such a big deal for either its supporters or
opponents. Media reports keep making out as if this is a group of Torah
Rabbis on the left endorsing gay marriage
It's not.
What's the chiddush?
>From the statement
3. Halakhah sees heterosexual marriage as the ideal model and sole
legitimate outlet for human sexual expression.....
4. Halakhic Judaism views all male and female same-sex sexual
interactions as prohibited. The question of whether sexual orientation
is primarily genetic, or rather environmentally generated, is irrelevant
to this prohibition.....
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
http://statementofprinciplesnya.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Walfish <rawalfish@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 15,2010 at 03:01 AM
Subject: "statement of principles" regarding homosexuality
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 58#69):
> By now I am sure many or all of you have seen the "Statement of
> Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our
> Community". It is online at http://statementofprinciplesnya.blogspot.com/
>
> I have a question, directed in part at signatories who are list members:
> would the same set of principles apply if each time the document said
> "homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions" (or the equivalent) one
> substituted the broader term, "alternative sexual lifestyles"? I have in ,
> mind, say spouse-sharing, bigamy, polyandry, and more. If the same set of
> principles would not apply, why not?...
>
> Is this document intended to have the halacha adapt to the societal attitudes
> reflected in this case, and no more?
>
The response to the second question is NO. Perhaps Orrin can cite verbatim
from the document which section seems to him to call for adaptation of the
halakhah, and then we can have a meaningful discussion of this point.
In response to the first question - in principle, my answer would be Yes,
and I would add the same for mass murderers and serial rapists: a
God-fearing halakhically-observant Jew should roundly condemn the actions,
but should respect the *kevod habriyot* [human dignity - MOD] even of such
individuals (par. 1).
The halakhah - not contemporary "societal attitudes" - commands us to treat
condemned criminals with dignity and "to choose for him a *mitah yafah*" (a
dignified death - Sanhedrin 45a and parallels; translation based on Rashi).
Moreover, a God-fearing Jew should certainly offer empathetic support
to individuals struggling to "live their lives in accordance with halakhic
values" in the face of powerful urges to commit adultery, murder, or bank
heists (par. 7), and we need not coerce them to make their orientations
known to the general public (*ibid*).
I could continue the thought experiment, and we would find many more
paragraphs that would apply to other kinds of halakhic violations,
and several paragraphs that would need modification - for example, the
paragraph that addresses the well-known controversy among mental-health
professionals regarding the effectiveness of therapy would need significant
modification. In my estimation the main overarching issue that would need
modification relates to the question of attitude - the premise of the
document is that, despite the Torah's characterization of homosexual
behavior as *toevah* [abomination - MOD], abhorrence is not the attitude that
should be adopted towards those of homosexual orientation or even those who
actually practice homosexual behavior. There is certainly room to question this
position - at least the second part of it - and I welcome open debate on this
issue. But this (very important) aspect of the document cannot be automatically
extrapolated to other kinds of violations. I think that, given what we know
today about the nature of homosexual orientations (a good presentation of
this from a Torah perspective may be found in Rabbi Chaim Rapoport's book*,
Judaism and Homosexuality - an Authentic Orthodox View), the Torah
community today needs to stress the *yamin mekarevet* [the right hand draws near
- MOD] more than the *semol dochah*,[the left hand pushes away - MOD] and this
is not automatically true of other halakhically problematic forms of sexual
behavior or other transgressions.
Avie Walfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ephraim Tabory <tabore@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 15,2010 at 04:01 AM
Subject: An American in Paris
If one stays in a building with a code for the entrance doors, is there any
halchik way to overcome them, or hall lights that automatically go on when
sensing movement, do French orthodox Jews never leave their house on shabbat? I
was lucky enough yesterday to have a ground floor aparment and so left window
unlocked qnd put small child through to open front door but
a) I may not have ground flooor apartment next time
b) The small child is growing fast and is getting too big to put through window
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Sat, Aug 14,2010 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Facing the Congregation
Perry Dane <dane@...> wrote (MJ 59#69):
>
> I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Historically, both Western
> Catholic and Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests did face in the same
> direction as the congregation for most of the important parts of the
> service (except for the sermon/homily). Western Catholic practice
> changed in the 1960's after Vatican II, but more traditional Catholics,
> significantly, still argue for a return to the older practice for some of
> the same reasons that many Jews believe the chazzan should face the
> Aron. In any event, in whichever direction the priest is facing, his prayers are
> definitely directed to Hashem ...
>
> The Jewish practice of the chazzan facing the congregation probably was
> influenced by the Protestant model, but the reasons were more aesthetic and
> sociological than theological. I actually do believe that the chazzan should
> face the Aron and not the congregation.
I think that one of the main reasons for having the chzzan face the
congregation in Conservative and Reform shuls is also that more of the
congregation have difficulty saying and even following the service. Having
the chazzan facing them makes it easier for them to follow. Perhaps in
Reform, where there has traditionally been less Hebrew used, the imitation
of Protestant practices might have been more of an issue. Remember that Reform
introduced the use of Geneva bands, collection plates and, for a while in some
congregations, services on Sunday. They have now moved far from those
practices, using much more Hebrew, traditional music, optional use of
talleisim and kipot, etc.
Wendy Baker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 15,2010 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Facing the Congregation
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> stated (Vol.58 #67):
> Is the Baal Koreh facing the congregation a practice in any shul
> recognized as Orthodox?
I don't know, but it is clear that our prayers are directed towards
HQBH, while the Torah reading is towards the people. I heard many
years ago that a shul in Manhattan called, I think, Anshe Hessed (or
Anshe something) the hazzan faces the aron qodesh in prayer, while
the Torah is read towards the congregation. I don't know the
affiliation of that synagogue then or now, whether it still exists
and what their practice is today.
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <BKatz@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Rashi
Perets Mett <p.mett@...> wrote (MJ 58#68):
> Orrin Tilevitz wrote MJ 58#60):
>> I"d bet plenty of charedim think Rashi spoke Yiddish.
> And they would be essentially correct. Rashi almost certainly spoke a
> language which ultimately transformed into Yiddish.
I believe Mr. Mett is incorrect. Rashi likely spoke medieval French. Nearly all
of his laazim (foreign words) are French. The German ones were likely added later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sat, Aug 14,2010 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Rashi
Martin Stern wrote (MJ:58 #69)
> Perets Mett <p.mett@...> wrote (MJ 58#68)
>
>> Rashi almost certainly spoke a language which ultimately transformed into
>> Yiddish.
>
> I cannot understand why Perets thinks Rashi spoke some sort of
> proto-Yiddish.
>
> AFAIK, Rashi spoke Old French, evidence for which is that his lo'azim
> (translations) are in that language. Yiddish seems to be derived from Old
> German, which Rashi describes as Lashon Ashkenaz, not Old French even if a few
> words were borrowed from that language.
The Yiddish-language scholar Solomon Birnbaum (and others) consider Zarphatic (Judeo-French) to be the forerunner of Yiddish.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David I. Cohen <bdcohen613@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Who is a Posek?
Ben Katz wrote (MJ 58#65):
> As a historicist (as well as a Maimonidean) I believe the only way to
> know how Orthodoxy works is backwards through the lens of history.
> Whatever observant communities accept becomes part of Orthodoxy.
> Chassidut worked. Bais Yaakov worked. Sermons in the vernacular worked.
> Conservative and Reform Judaism did not. I believe it is too early to
> tell about partnership minyanim.
While I agree that most "innovations" become accepted through a
quasi-democratic process, i.e. eventual acceptance by enough of a critical
mass of adherents to become the norm, in many, if not most instances,
approval by someone recognized for their erudition and "gadlut" was a
catalyst. For example, the opposition to Bais Yaakov melted away when the
Chofetz Chayim came on board. Chassidut, although vehemently opposed by the
Vilna Gaon was started by the Baal Shem Tov, a Talmud Chacham in his own
right. As far as vernacular drashot are concerned, I have no specifics, but
certainly shiurim in Yeshivot also began to be given in the vernacular as
the Roshei Yeshivot began to be home grown in the USA and Israel.
It is reported that Rav YB Soleveitchik began to give his shiurim at YU in
English when he found out that one of his students did not understand
English.
I have no idea what will happen with Partnership services, but without the
eventual approval of a rav of recognized stature, it will probably remain a
fringe concept.
David I. Cohen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <BKatz@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Who is a Posek?
Michael Rogovin <mrogovin118@...> wrote (MJ 58#68):
> Ben Katz may have misunderstood (I think) the intent of my post (MJ 58#65).
>
> What I referred to in 'how orthodoxy does not work' is the case where one
> has a posek (or in this case, a group of rabbis that are regularly consulted
> for what is and is not halachicly appropriate) and one turns to him/them for
> years and has stated that they are the moral exemplars of the community in
> question on issues of women's participation in ritual matters. Suddenly,
> someone suggests a new way to approach ritual. So far so good. The idea
> is circulated in the community, including these rabbis. They unanimously say
> no, it is assur (prohibited) or if not assur per se, it should not be done
> and they oppose it. Then those who want to and are not satisfied, look
> around until, ah ha, they find someone to whom they had never turned to
> before as their posek (even if he is a posek in his own community) but he
> thinks it is mutar (permitted) and in fact favors the idea. So now, the
> other rabbis are discarded as poskim for this community and the new rabbi
> is adopted.
>
> I agree with Ben that ultimately, it is what happens that ultimately counts.
> But the idea that someone abandons her posek when she is disappointed and
> then runs to find someone else, the way JOFA has done, makes me question the
> sincerity and orthodox bona fides of the organization under its current
> leadership. This is true even though I may personally be sympathetic to the
> ideas they promote. And this is true even though I have been and remain a
> supporter of JOFA and a regular attendee at its programs.
WADR I did not misunderstand anything. While it may not be appropriate to
cherry-pick poskim, many things develop whether or not poskim weigh in on them
one way or another. The example I gave about chassidut I thought was a good
one. Chasidut flourished despite the vehement opposition of the gadol hador,
Elijah of Vilna.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 70
