Recently, Yeshivat Ma’ale Gilboa has been in the news after they wished, and then retracted, a “mazal tov”, to an alumni of the yeshiva, upon his engagement to another man. The yeshiva explained that the initial mazal tov had been a mistake, based on a misreading of the name of the man who was not from the yeshiva. I have no interest in examining the story and agreeing or disagreeing with the yeshiva’s actions. It is easy to pontificate from 6000 miles away, saying what I would have done. One of the Roshei Yeshiva, Rav David Bigman, has said that he will be addressing this on his own, and I look forward to hearing what he says. What I would like to do is to think aloud about the reaction to this story.
One thing that ought to be clear is that wishing someone a mazal tov has no halachic status. Simply put, it is the Hebrew equivalent to saying “Congratulations!”. As such, it should be recognized that any analysis of the propriety of saying “mazal tov” to a gay couple, be it from a yeshiva or from an individual is not a halachic issue. Wishing mazal tov to a gay couple should not be conflated with the halachic status of homosexual behavior, as it is separate issue. I am certain that we would all be okay wishing a mazal tov to somebody who is not observant upon their marriage, despite the realization that the couple will not be following the laws of taharas hamishpacha. I am trying to figure out why there should be a difference in the two cases.
One suggestion which I have heard from several people is that by wishing a mazal tov to a gay couple, we are validating or giving legitimacy to the marriage. I find this objection rather odd. What exactly is the concern? Do we really believe that there are gay couples who wish to marry who are refraining from doing so due to the fact that they think the Orthodox community is opposed to their actions, who will now do so after we say mazal tov? Does saying mazal tov to a non-observant couple legitimize not keeping hilchos taharas hamishpacha? Does it legitimize premarital sex? Other issurei kareis?
Others have suggested that a distinction needs to be made between what individuals do privately, versus what a yeshiva does publicly. Again, I wonder why this would be so. If there is value in being supportive, kind and understanding to someone who is struggling with their homosexuality , or for that matter, someone who is accepting of their homosexuality, why should the yeshiva be different? I am not suggesting that every yeshiva must wish mazal tov in this case, but at the very least, why shouldn’t a yeshiva that wants to, do so? Is it better for the yeshiva to stay involved in a talmid’s life, or to give a message that we only value you when you do exactly what we wish? Which approach is more likely to lead to this couple wanting to live as halachically correctly as possible?
As a community, there are certain questions that we need to ask ourselves. Are we being as kind and sensitive as possible to all members of our community? How do we act towards people who struggle differently from us? Are our feelings on matters like this based on ratzon HaShem, which includes kavod hberiyos, or just based on personal discomfort? While I recognize that there might be various responses to the questions I have asked, it is important that, at the very least, they be asked and dealt with an honest manner. I would hope that we are okay with struggling with complicated questions, rather than offering facile and simplistic answers.
Thank you for this post. It is very thought provoking as well as sensitive in nature. I think that many Orthodox LGBT people are in need of the sensitivity you clearly have and I hope this continues. One thing to note is that you use the term "homosexual" both on this blog and on facebook in your comments and generally speaking, that term is considered more offensive than gay or LGBT. Here is what GLAAD says with regard to that term: Offensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.)
ReplyDeletePreferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.); "gay person/people"
Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP & New York Times Style).
I'm sure there are people who might scoff at the request not to use this terminology, but you seem to have a sympathetic viewpoint for Orthodox LGBT people I'm thinking you wouldn't want to offend, even in this small way. Thank you.
Thank you. I changed it where possible. In a few places, I couldn't figure out how to do so without making the sentence unclear or imprecise.
DeletePerhaps one concern is not so much the tacit approval that well wishing offers vis-a-vis the couple themselves, but rather how it is perceived by those who look to us for guidance in such matters. An example, albeit imperfect: close family friends who are not observant had a relative's wedding in which the groom was marrying a non Jewish girl. My parents tried to persuade them not to attend the wedding (this was nearly thirty eyes ago) in an effort to demonstrate for their own children that despite their lack of observance this was one line that they could not cross. These friends demurred, assuring my parents that their children knew this value was unassailable and that they "had" to go. Not a single one of their children is married to a Jew today. It's possible that there is no causality between that occurrence and how their own children turned out, but one can argue that unequivocal communication about what is appropriate and acceptable is key, and the same goes for the opposite.
ReplyDeleteHard to imagine that their lack of attendance would have accomplished anything.
DeletePesach, your entire post surprises me, even makes me uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteThere are basically two views of the world, the secular & the religious. In the secular, if life is to be said to have a purpose, it’s to become happy - preferably without hurting others, or to progress the human evolutionary process. As such, you work to bend your world to satisfy your wants & needs, often trading the provision of the needs of others to satisfy your needs (or those of family or community, if that’s what your society has determined will bring the most happiness – or least misery - to the most people).
In the religious view, there is a specific purpose for humanity, for your community, your family & your Self. They may be the same purpose, or different people or groups may have different roles or even purposes that overlap or meld. That purpose is determined by the Deity, not by you. You may or may not have some autonomy in choosing your role, you may need to be involved in the process of uncovering what is your pre-determined role – but ultimately, it comes back to the Deity. If your wishes bump up against those of the Deity, yours are adjusted or even pushed aside to accommodate those of the Deity. If you do so, presumably you will be doing what you were meant to do, and will therefore most likely reach a state of happiness, since your Essence will be in sync with the World.
I choose not to fight the concept of gay marriage in the United States because there has been an understanding that Freedom of Religion includes the choice of living a secular life. Within the secular worldview, if my sexual energy hits a wall when dealing with those of the opposite sex, but flows freely when dealing with those of my own sex, I fully have the right to choose the path of least resistance, or the path most likely to afford me a life partner. Should the US Government now say that my partner can’t visit me in the hospital, or inherit my assets, etc., the Gov’t very well may be said to be impinging on my “Pursuit of Happiness”.
However, YOU are posting about a situation within the Orthodox community. Orthodoxy sees the Torah as Divine, not just divinely inspired. So, the Orthodox must look at a male-male partnering in the context of what the Deity says in His Torah is the Plan for Mankind. Then, those in the community must subsume their wants & needs to that Plan, even if it means misery for this moment or for a number of years.
If two members of the community – and by being members of this community, they’re essentially saying, “I accept that the Torah’s Plan is the correct way to live” – agree to a partnership that they hope will consecrate an Act that the Plan calls an abomination, and plan on doing that Act with regularity, they’re saying, “…BUT on this point the Deity got it wrong!” or at the very least, “I frankly don’t care what the Deity says on THIS subject because my will is more important here!”
To quote Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerona, “And if the servant shall say to his master, ‘All that you say to me I shall do, with but one exception!’, he has already broken the yoke of the master off himself.” How could a Yeshiva, dedicated to the study of Torah, give wishes of “Good luck with your relationship that flouts our entire stated Purpose in this World!”?
Y’yasher Koach, Yeshivat Ma’ale Gilboa, on the retraction, and on not giving in to the zeitgeist and its secular underpinnings!
I think you misunderstand what is being said. No one, gay or not, is saying that there are not certain Torah prohibitions. The gay couple would not deny that. They are not telling God they are wrong. They are saying there is a limit to their perfection of observance. We all have it, just in different areas. Rav Dessler zt"l discusses it in his essay on Nekudas HaBechira.
DeleteRE: Rav Dessler's nekudat bechira essay - I've always struggled with that particular idea, as it presents us with a slippery slope viz determinism vs. autonomy. To Rav Dessler's formulation a person could possibly divest himself of culpability after the initial transgression once he becomes accustomed to a mode of behavior - although he doesn't say this in so many words. I've spoken to a few Rabbeim at different points in my life about this and they couldn't really answer this question. Nonetheless, I find it difficult to fall back on his explanation when addressing issues like this, especially when it comes to questions about natural inclinations and the like.
DeleteOnce the idea of genetics comes into play, it makes it harder to make it simply about bechira.
DeleteGenetics? There is a genetic predisposition to being attracted by certain shaped genitalia? I didn’t know that was possible! Predisposed to being attracted to masculinity? Then marry a masculine woman. Predisposed to being psychically fragile? Then marry a very strong, even-keeled woman. (However, we’ve been assured that any fragility among gays is due to bullying, though we don’t have noticeably higher rates of suicide & drug and alcohol use among other bullied groups.)
DeleteGenetics that are determinative in sexual ideation? Even XYY & XXY anomalies, which are genetics down to the chromosomal level, are suggestive & influential, but not determinative. Even the collaborating researcher on the Xq28 chromosomal genetic markers – if we are to trust research that is begun HOPING for a certain result – admits, “When people say there's a gay gene, it's an oversimplification. There's more than one gene, and genetics is not the whole story. Whatever gene contributes to sexual orientation, you can think of it as much as contributing to heterosexuality as much as you can think of it contributing to homosexuality. It contributes to a variation in the trait.” (Alan Sanders, NWU) Even the lead researcher, Michael Bailey of Northwestern, whose pull quote was “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice,” then concluded, “It is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved!” Most psychologists peg genetics at about 30-40%, a figure I would guess is high.
By the way, how many Jewish homosexuals do you know that don’t fit the stereotype of being very, very close to their mothers, to the point of having a hard time sexualizing females? One? Two?
You are being disingenuous and setting up a straw man. Of course there is not A gay gene, but the complexity of genetics changes nothing. If it was not assur, is there any amount of money I could pay you to be attracted to a man? Your lack of empathy is very disappointing.
DeleteOf course there would be an amount of money you could pay me to be attracted to a man, were it not assur. While sexual attraction has a complicated balance of attractions and revulsions that keep us on a scale between "asexual" and "obsessed", money could definitely tip that scale, as practitioners of the World's Oldest Profession can attest.
DeleteAfter a month in prison, many men start finding other men attractive, then return to their wives upon release from prison. Sexuality is very fluid.
Your bringing empathy into a philosophical discussion is even more disappointing. I reserve my empathy for people, not concepts. I also reserve my empathy for their essential humanity, not for the direction in which their sexual energies are focused.
I empathize with the brother of the Ma'ale Gilboa bochur, I empathize with the Rosh Yeshiva who was placed into an awkward position. I empathize with people that can't look at an emotional issue objectively. I empathize with people who focus their empathy on those the New York Times says deserve empathy, not on those the Torah says deserve empathy. I'm drowning in the Milk of Human Kindness, and I even empathize with my attempts to stay afloat in it.
Still, a Yeshiva cannot be "mesayai'ah leYedei Ovrei Aveirah", and must retract their Mazel Tov. Empathetically, but emphatically!
Pesach, you should be blessed with abundant Parnassah, but I misunderstood nothing.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, even if their “Nekudat haBechira” was something non-sexual, like putting on Tefillin, & they came in to the Bet Midrash to tell me they had just joined the prestigious Non-Tefillin-Leigers’ League, an exclusive organization only 1 in 100 applicants are accepted into, I would not wish them Mazel Tov. I would, with a sad look on my face, bless them that Hashem should give them the strength to serve Him properly & completely.
But here, their “Nekudat haBechira” is quite clearly sexual. When I was growing up, someone who did general aveiros with regularity was referred to as a Rasha, wicked. Someone who did sexual aveiros with regularity or brazenness was referred to as a Mushchas, a corrupted human being.
Christianity, which dispenses with all other mitzvos dismissively as “living under the law”, accepts Biblical sexual morality, even extending it to prohibiting first cousins & polygamy. This is due to an innate understanding that sexuality is a powerful force that needs to be controlled – and perhaps refocused - for society itself to function. According to those Midrashic opinions that the sin of the Dor HaMabul was sexual immorality, rampant immorality is so corrosive that it’s necessary to actually “erase the board” & start over!
You’ve compared this “couple” to other aveira-doers, but I see them as being vastly different, as this is a sin that affects our very essence, and this coupling as institutionalizing their weakness.
Do you really mean to equate the desire for love and companionship, with the desire to not wear tefillin?
DeleteRegarding a Yeshiva not saying Mazel Tov to an inappropriate decision on either subject, yes.
DeleteI don't think it's a valid comparison for anything.
DeleteI think everything is a comparison for everything, as long as we isolate the essential point, which in this case I consider to be "subsuming your will to G-d's".
DeleteI purposely chose a non-sexual example, though I could have easily produced a sexual one, to remove much of the highly-charged issues of sexuality & homosexuality from the story. Those subjects twist thinking on both sides of the issue, due to the heavy involvement & investment of emotion.
Even you went into "love & companionship" mode, and I know how hard you work to remain honest and objective. Believe it or not, even a person with 100% homosexual ideations can have a life of "love and companionship" with a woman they admire, even a relationship with a lot of human touch.
Love & companionship, even among males like Dovid & Yehonasan, has always been religiously sanctioned. It's the attempt to make the sexual aspects religiously acceptable, even "consecrated by marriage", that no Yeshiva can sanction.
Please tell me that you are not suggesting that a gay man get married to a woman.
DeleteAgain, I'm just trying to tease apart muddied issues. I'm trying to show that "love & companionship" isn't synonymous and interchangeable with "committed legal relationship", as you intimated. No more.
DeleteAs to your question, it depends. I actually wouldn't recommend anyone marrying anyone to whom they weren't attracted sexually, because a good sex life is essential to a good marriage. However, you & I are aware of many marriages that continue even after sexual activity ceases, because at least some love (common history?) & companionship exists as glue. (I would guess that most people in their 20's enter the marriage more for the sex than the L&C, and that most people in their 70's stay in the marriage for the L&C rather than the sex.)
As to your presumption that the whole idea of a "gay" man marrying a woman is preposterous, just know that it's happened for millennia. Not only with your ex-governor Jim Greevey. More feminine men married very masculine women, and just "switched roles". Men who wanted children married, even if their sex lives were unsatisfying, and threw themselves into their work. Or they put in the very hard, almost heroic, work they needed to do to change, and then married. (Dr. Robert Spitzer’s career almost came to a grinding halt because he wrote a paper on [primarily religious] homosexuals, of which 66% of men & 44% of women reported "good heterosexual functioning" after therapeutic interventions. However, others have shown lower percentages.)
While there might be different ways to deal with the struggle, it is naive to think that there is one way that it must be dealt with.
DeleteI counted 4 in my last piece alone, so I guess I'm okay on that count. If you want, I'll add a few more.
DeleteWould you be OK with the yeshiva wishing mazel tov on an intermarriage? I I am trying to figure out why there should be a difference in the two cases.
ReplyDeleteAlso, isn't chanufah a halachic issue (cf. Sotah 41b)?
DeleteI don't know what I'm comfortable with. I wrote this two years ago, and I continue to struggle with issues like this. I don't have any good answers.
Delete