Volume 59 Number 09
Produced: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:55:51 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality (3)
[Orrin Tilevitz Robert A. Book Michael Rogovin]
Fixed Seat in shul (3)
[Joel Rich]
Genetic origin of Homosexuality (2)
[Lisa Liel Martin Stern]
Mental Illness
[Carl Singer]
Reish Lakish
[Avraham Walfish]
Who is a religious Jew?
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 30,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
Lisa Liel wrote (MJ 59#08):
> They [i.e., halachic principles] do not justify assuming that people who are
> gay, even if they are in committed relationships, are committing sins in
> private.
Let's say a man lives in a apartment with three unmarried women (I think that
eliminates the automatic issue of yichud). Let us further assume that it is
known that none of the women go to the mikveh. One sees no public displays of
forbidden physical contact between the man and any of the women. At what point,
if any, may one assume that they are committing sins in private? If there is
such a point, how is that case different?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert A. Book <rbook@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 30,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
Lisa Liel <lisa@...> wrote (MJ 59#08):
> No one ever persecuted straight people for the crime of being straight.
> No one ever suggested to straight people that they should be ashamed of
> who they are. If you had, perhaps you might feel a need to demonstrate
> that you will *not* be ashamed of who you are.
This is most emphatically NOT the case. Maybe it's only because I
went to college in the U.S., but I've been extensively ridiculed and
subject to attempts at humiliation of that type.
I've been told I'm a "cancer on the planet" for being a "breeder"
since having children is environmentally irresponsible (lately it's
the "carbon footprint" but in previous decades it was pollution, the
food supply, habitat encroachments, whatever).
I've been told that waiting until marriage is "unnatural" because
animals (who are by definition natural) don't get married, and that
waiting for marriage, and of course monogamy, are therefore
perversions of which I am guilty.
I can only imagine what I might have been accused of if these folks
had known about taharat/s hamichpacha.
Going beyond my personal experiences, there are many institutions that
attempt to "educate" so-called straight people by subjecting them to
public humiliation to "sensitize" them. (The most recent widely
publicized program of this sort was at the University of Delaware;
there have also been instances in public K-12 schools.)
Perhaps this isn't the the case in insular communities, but in the
rest of society those of us who choose to channel our sexual
inclinations in a manner consistent with halacha are certainly subject
to ridicule or worse. The same applies, of course, to Christians with
similar notions of appropriate sexual behavior.
In the wake of Proposition 8 in California, there was a widespread
movement to ridicule those who voted for it as "Haters" (sometimes
spelled "H8ers"); there were some people who very publicly lost their
jobs over this issue. The antisemitic undercurrents were hardly
veiled; the "argument" was that anyone who went by the Bible on this
issue was as irrational and bigotted as people who go by the Bible's
prohibition on eating shrimp. Now, what group of people do you know
who does that?
--Robert Book
<rbook@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <mrogovin118@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 30,2010 at 03:01 PM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
Thanks to Lisa Liel for her honest and respectful reply. She wrote, in part
(MJ 59#08)
> Not *all* Orthodox lesbians. Not monolithically. So you probably don't
> want to judge everyone by one small group [referring to Bat Kol].
Of course not. I did not intend to suggest I was judging anyone; only than
the actions described in the article.
> [T]he comparison [straight pride vs gay pride] is kind of silly. No
> one ever persecuted straight people for the crime of being straight. No one
> ever suggested to straight people that they should be ashamed of who they
> are. If you had, perhaps you might feel a need to demonstrate that you will
> *not* be ashamed of who you are. Pride, in this case, simply means "not
> ashamed and not willing to be ashamed". I'm not "proud" of being gay. But
> I am not ashamed of it, either. Nor should I be, and neither should I be
> told that I ought to be. So I sympathize with the idea of a pride parade.
I hear you and anticipated that my comment might provoke a response such as
this. I agree with what your wrote, except that society (mostly due to
Christian mores and views on sexuality) DID attempt to impose shame on most
forms of sexual expression, including heterosexual acts, and in particular
anything that went beyond so-called "missionary sex." Any other act, or even
women seeking physical pleasure in sex, was deviant and considered something
to be ashamed of, certainly to express in public. This changed during the
so-called sexual revolution of the late 1960s and everything became grist
for the public mill. Look at television today (there are times when I pine for
I Love Lucy and the separate beds). While there have been some benefits, to
be sure, I am not sure if public expressions of sexuality and pride have made
us a better society. From a Jewish perspective, the Talmud is replete with
examples suggesting a very different approach to sexuality that is certainly
more open minded and pro-feminine than the Christian model of sin, but it
too regards these as matters that do not belong in the agora, and certainly
not in a parade.
> But at the same time, I think the people who attacked them physically, and
> even the views of a number of people on this list during this discussion,
> are things that are shameful in the extreme. And made worse by the fact
> that the people who have acted in such a way apparently don't feel the
> slightest bit of shame in it.
I find the violence directed at gays, women of the wall, women on buses,
sabbath violators and other groups and individuals to be appalling and
cannot understand how anyone would or could justify or excuse it, even when
I find fault in the actions of those who became victims. We must have a zero
tolerance for violence, no matter how provoked people feel.
> There are certainly halakhic issues, but they do not justify maltreating the
> children of same sex couples. They do not justify the ostracism of frum
> Jews who happen to be gay. They do not justify assuming that people who are
> gay, even if they are in committed relationships, are committing sins in
> private.
There is no justification for doing anything to the children who commit no
sin and ostracism based on orientation (as opposed to public violations or
advocacy of non-halachic behavior) is also wrong. The Talmud teaches us that
we should always give people the benefit of the doubt, and we do not believe
a person who asserts that he or she is a sinner -- only if there are
witnesses. I support the SoP not because I agree with any agenda, or even
every possible interpretation of how it might be implemented in a particular
situation, but because the SoP speaks against senseless hate over who a
person is, while stating the halacha for what it is, rather than what people
imagine it to be. The SoP does not endorse non-halachic behavior, and it
challenges those who think we live in a bubble to deal with the complexities
of life that is not always the way we imagine it is or should be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 30,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Fixed Seat in shul
A few thoughts on the topic:
1. The source is Talmud (Brachot 6b) based on Avraham Avinu - it's unlikely he
had a fixed seat in shul but rather a specific "area" where he prayed
2. The commentaries on that gemara discuss whether it refers to praying outside
a shul (why have a makom kavua? In order to enhance focus/sanctity)
3. or does it also apply in a shul (maintain order, stability).
If you are in doubt how to handle a situation, I suggest you consider what Kach
mkublani mbeit avi abba (I received as a tradition from the house of my
grandfather) - the Talmud (Rosh Hashana 17a) states the following : Amar Rava,
kol hamaavir al midotav, maavirin lo al kol pshaav - Said Rava, he who waives
his due, (the heavens) waive all his (rebellious) sins. Simpler translation -
move to the next closest open seat (psak I received years ago - within 4 amot is
certainly no issue)
Ketiva Vchatima Tova
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 30,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Fixed Seat in Shul
Batya Medad (MJ 59#08) brings up another point -- paying for seats:
> Those of us with set/named seats were the lucky few and it was expected
> that a guest would get up if sitting on someone's seat. It's not that
> we're nasty, just if you pay for a seat you don't want to be stuck standing.
I believe that's another key component. In many American shuls one pays
membership, but seats are only "sold" for Rosh HaShanah & Yom Kippur. In
some, membership includes Holiday seats. Our synagogue received benches
from another synagogue and several seats had small brass plaques indicating
that they were purchased (endowed?) by individuals.
I believe the issue of capacity (or over capacity) is trying, especially
trying when there's a simcha and many guests attending same.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 30,2010 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Fixed Seat in Shul
Pitting mitzvahs against each other is not very fruitful -- some clearly
take precedent -- for example if someone gets hit by a car on Shabbos, call
an ambulance.
Several posters have discussed the importance of having a makom kevuah
(their own special place) in shul. I have one and since I usually arrive
early, I seldom have any issues with someone sitting in it. But I recall
once leaving my seat to put away some seforim and returning to find my seat
and the adjacent two seats occupied by a family (3 generations) -- I found
someplace else to sit for that day.
Does anyone contend that occasionally not sitting in one's makom kevuah (for
a supposedly valid reason) negates that mitzvah, or that the mitzvah (if it
is one) of giving one's seat to a guest (thus the mitzvah of welcoming a
guest or a stranger) should be ignored at the expense of this mitzvah?
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 30,2010 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Genetic origin of Homosexuality
Marilyn Tomsk <jtomsky@...> wrote (MJ 59#07):
> I remember reading a few years ago about gene heritage of
> homosexuality. That these people were born with an extra gene and
> how it affected them. It was noted in certain athletics when tested
> for gene identification with the knowledge available at that
> time. Something along the lines of "XXY" for a male or "XXX" for a
> female. The extra "X" chromosomes. I don't remember if there was
> an extra "Y" like "XYY." I do remember that there was a difficulty
> in some identification.
That's gender; not sexual orientation. Whether it is caused by
genetics, natal hormones, environment, or any combination of some or
all of those, is something we simply don't know. Nor, I think, would
it have any bearing on the halakha. An act which is forbidden
remains forbidden even if there's an innate tendency towards it.
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 30,2010 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Genetic origin of Homosexuality
Marilyn Tomsk <jtomsky@...> wrote (MJ 59#07):
> I remember reading a few years ago about gene heritage of homosexuality. That
> these people were born with an extra gene and how it affected them. It was
> noted in certain athletics when tested for gene identification with the
> knowledge available at that time. Something along the lines of "XXY" for a
> male or "XXX" for a female. The extra "X" chromosomes. I don't remember if
> there was an extra "Y" like "XYY." I do remember that there was a difficulty
> in some identification.
AFAIK there is no known linkage between these genetic disorders and
homosexual orientation. In The Science of Genetics by George W. Burns, there
is the following information (my summary):
XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) is found in about 1 in 500 "male" births. Most
individuals are infertile and mentally retarded.
XXX (Poly-X) females is found in between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 2000 "female"
births. Some are essentially normal but others are retarded and/or show
abnormalities in primary and secondary sex characteristics. Apparently all
are fertile.
XYY males have been reported to have a disproportionate representation in
criminal institutions suggesting that they are more aggressive than normal
males but the evidence is not conclusive.
In none of these cases is there any mention of such individuals being
disproportionately homosexually inclined.
In any case, since they tend to be of lower than average intelligence, it is
simply untrue to state about such people with genetic aberrations:
> In fashion/style or art or hairdressing or poetry or literature these people
> have a greater sensitivity and perception to art, than the average person.
> They are very creative and even brilliant in their creations.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 30,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Mental Illness
Robert Rubinoff (MJ59#08) gives an example of a person whose depression was
transient.
> I personally know of a case where someone who had been diagnosed with
> depression by a therapist went to a psychiatrist to get medication, and
> the psychiatrist decided (after a session talking with the patient) that
> the person was in fact not depressed, at least not enough to need medication,
> and declined to prescribe medication. The patient then went to another
> psychiatrist who did some extensive testing and came to the conclusion that
> the original problem had been a transient event and needed only continued
> emotional support from family members. (I'm oversimplifying quite a bit
> here, but the basic point is that no medication was given, and in fact the
> original diagnosis was rejected.)
Anecdotal evidence is of limited value -- I've no doubt that if we look
hard enough we will find someone who was "cured" of <fill in the blank --
illness> because they began davening with more kevonah, or started keeping
Chalov Yisroel. (Perhaps an indication that the Ribono Shel HaOlem performs
miracles - or perhaps an indication of the importance of positive mental
attitude.)
More to the point, mental illness and depression are two extremely broad
catch-alls covering a plethora of conditions.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Walfish <rawalfish@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 30,2010 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Reish Lakish
Leah S.R. Gordon wrote (MJ 59#07):
> N. Yaakov Ziskind <awacs@...> wrote (MJ 58#99):
>
>> As I recall (from reading Meam Loez), Resh Lakish told Rabbi Yochanan,
>> "Use your good looks for women." Hardly sounds like something a
>> homosexual would say.
>
> On the contrary, consider two men attracted to each other, in flirtatious
> banter - one says to the other, "use your smarts for good things [Torah]"
> and the other says back, "use your beauty for women [instead of flirting
> with me and kind of being hostile about how I apply my various skills]".
> It sounds totally believable to me. Non-M.J commentators, as I've
> mentioned, frequently discuss the interplay between RY and RL as flirtatious,
> homoerotic if not more.
The source from which Me-am Lo'ez took his quote (which literally would
translate: "Your beauty - for women". Rashi explains: "is worthy of women")
is the gemara Bava Metzia 84a.
Unfortunately, the decisive proof that there is nothing homoerotic whatsoever
about this dialogue between R. Yohanan and Reish Lakish is not found in the
printed versions of the gemara, but it is preserved in all manuscript versions
with which I am familiar and in other textual witnesses, which read as follows
(my translation):
"One day [R. Yohanan] was bathing in the Jordan; Reish Lakish saw him AND
THOUGHT HE WAS A WOMAN. He stuck his javelin in the Jordan and jumped in after
him..."
There is definitely something erotic about this passage, but hardly
homoerotic. In light of the reading confirmed by manuscripts, I think that
"Your beauty - for women!" can only be read as frustrated disappointment
that the beautiful woman whom he sought to impress/seduce (worse?) turned
out to be a man!
Even without the manuscript reading, I think a "flirtatious banter" reading of
the dialogue doesn't fit the context. Remember that R. Yohanan and Reish Lakish
represent two different cultures, and this "banter" is a culture clash - R.
Yohanan is striving to bring Reish Lakish to abandon the "bandit" culture
(elsehwhere the Talmud tells us that he worked as a gladiator), and Reish Lakish
is resisting and striving to maintain his identity. R. Yohanan succeeds only by
enticing him with his yet-more-beautiful sister (decidedly a woman).
If you continue reading and studying this fascinating and profound narrative,
you will see that the cultural clash follows the two Sages into the beit
midrash, resurfacing when Reish Lakish displays in a halakhic discussion too
profound a knowledge (perhaps too profound an appreciation) of weaponry. There
is much much more to be said about this story, but I think that enough has been
said to lay the "homoerotic" reading to rest.
As Leah has noted, there have been readers who have adopted it (with scholars
such as Daniel Boyarin and Admiel Kosman leading the way), but it fails to convince.
Avie Walfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 30,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Who is a religious Jew?
Mark Symons <msymons@...> wrote (MJ 59#08):
> Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...> wrote (MJ 59#04):
>> ..."A" is what is commonly called a "religious Jew," who prays three times
>> a day, learns Talmud daily,
>
> These would clearly seem to be "good" behaviors, or mitzvot.
>
>> but also - as a minister in the Israeli government - is ruled by the
>> courts to have taken kickbacks to award lucrative contracts to friends,
>> for which he is sentenced to a prison term...
>
> These would clearly seem to be "bad" behaviors, or aveirot.
>
>> "B" Is not known as a "religious Jew," but when his factory burned down
>> continues to pay his employees' salaries out of his own pocket.
>
> This would clearly seem to be a "good" behavior, or mitzva.
>
>> And now the question - given the above scenario, who is a "religious
>> Jew"?"
>
> To me this highlights the pointlessness and inappropriateness of the whole
> exercise of trying to classify/judge/label someone as a "religious Jew" or
> not. I think this is the point that R. Adin Steinzaltz was making at
> a Seudah Shlishit in Melbourne some years ago when he said that there are 2
> types of Jews: those who keep mitzvot and those who keep more mitzvot -
> which obviously really means that there is only one type of Jew. We all do
> some mizvot and some aveirot. Some examples like those above are clear which
> category they fall into, whereas other behaviors may not be so clear how to
> classify.
I think that the point may be why is a person doing a mitzvah. Is he
doing it because he actually wants to follow what Hashem has
commanded, in which case he is "religious"? Or is he doing it because
he has been trained that way or society expects it of him, in which
case I would not call him "religious"? Note that I do not mention a
motive for doing aveiros because I will assume that everyone wants to
do the "right thing" but has a weakness. In our current society, most
people who keep kashrus and shabbos tend to fall into the category
that the definitions above would call "religious". As a result, people
who are not "religious" but want to appear to be so would tend to
concentrate on those aspects.
Since we cannot read everyone's mind in order to see the motives, we
tend to classify people based on appearances.
Sabba - ' " - Hillel
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 59 Issue 9
