Orthodox Responses to Conservative Homosexuality Responsa
The RCA released a statement, available here, and Agudath Israel sent out a release that I’ve pasted below.
AGUDATH ISRAEL LAMENTS
CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT DECISION“An Abandonment of All Pretense of Fealty to Judaism”
NEW YORK – Noting with sorrow the Conservative movement’s “Committee on Jewish Law and Standards”’ shameless endorsement of a position permitting “commitment ceremonies” between people of the same gender and the ordination as Conservative rabbis of people living openly homosexual lives, a spokesman for Agudath Israel of America called the decision “an abandonment of all pretense of fealty to Judaism.”
Rabbi Avi Shafran, Agudath Israel’s director of public affairs, stated that “this ruling doesn’t conserve the Jewish tradition, it defies it.”
“The entire corpus of halacha, or Jewish religious law,” he said, “makes abundantly clear that homosexual behavior is sinful. That a movement claiming to uphold the Jewish religious tradition can arrogate to stand halachic Judaism on its head is tragic. It will no doubt cheer those who place contemporary mores above the Jewish mandate, but in the end, it seals the fate of a movement long mired in muddle and malaise.”
“While every Jew is precious in the eyes of Heaven,” Rabbi Shafran continued, “and while some of us may face more difficult challenges than others as we strive to live by the Torah’s prescriptions, that striving is the very essence of what it means to be a Jew committed to Judaism.”
December 13th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
And if present trends continue Orthodoxy will be a very small blip on the screen of Judaism. Shafran is fighting the wrong people.
December 13th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
It strikes me as very odd that Agudah is concerned with an Halachic decision of the Conservartive movement. It’s unfortunate that Agudah doesn’t give as much time and effort to issues of Agunah as the Conservative movement devotes to the issue of homosexuality in their community.
December 13th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
“Several Orthodox rabbis reached for comment said they felt they did not know enough about the teshuvot in question to give a statement regarding those decisions. One rabbi also felt the comments should come from the Conservative rabbis and their congregations since they are who is affected by the decisions.”
From the St. Louis Jewish Light. ...
December 13th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Shafran has an obsession with the Conservative Movement - he considers them the arch enemy of Agudah.
His campaign is contentless - all rhetoric. He keeps saying that the Conservatives are not Orthodox. Well DUH. Only he says it in a sarcastic and pompous way.
Clever sarcastic statement: “this ruling doesn’t conserve the Jewish tradition, it defies it.”
Pompousity incarnate: “The entire corpus of halacha, or Jewish religious law,” he said, “makes abundantly clear that homosexual behavior is sinful.”
Rhetoric with no content: “Abundantly clear” - but obviously not clear enough.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Is Shafran’s obsession with the Conservative movement any less than Tzvee’s obsession with Shafran?
December 13th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
So he has the time to comment on this, while the arrest of a single individual is not something worth commenting on.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
I heard that 4 rabbis from the Rabbinical Assembly quit after the announcement was made. Mr. Weiss, can you find *their* statement?
December 14th, 2006 at 6:32 am
I have trouble with the statement “homosexual behavior is sinful.” First, because it presumes a universal agreement over the existence of such a thing; Second, because it is distressfully short on detail.
Is homoerotic behavior, such as kissing, hugging and spending hours and days in study and leisure sinful?
Altogether, I dislike the use of “sinful,” which sounds so Catholic, and much prefer statements like against, or inconsistent with halacha. But that’s a different debate altogether.
But most unbecoming is an halachic approach which suggets any sexual relation between two males is equally forbidden. There’s much to be learned about degrees in homosexual sex from the Rashi in Va’Yikra — and as halachic persons we should be discussing means of quantifying homosexual behavior — as the Conservatives have done, basically.
Also, once and for all, I would like to hear Orthodox rabbis get all riled up about the public desecration of Shabbat — which gets the same death penalty as buggering — in the same heated and zealous terms as they do homosexuality. Is there tacist approval of chilul Shabbat because, well, everybody’s doing it? Or is it because chilul Shabbat don’t go so good with our allies the Evangelists?
December 14th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Tzvee is a spokeman for his own opinions, not for those views of a radical right wing Orhodox organization. As the Agudah spokesman, Shafran has a greater responsibility to engender ahavas yisroel — something which he rarely does in his writings. That’s why I criticize him, not that it makes any difference to him.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
“I would like to hear Orthodox rabbis get all riled up about the public desecration of Shabbat — which gets the same death penalty as buggering — in the same heated and zealous terms as they do homosexuality. Is there tacist approval of chilul Shabbat because, well, everybody’s doing it? Or is it because chilul Shabbat don’t go so good with our allies the Evangelists?”
For one: Desecration of Shabbat is not referred to as “Toeiva”.
Here is an article attacking Shmuel Boteach for holding that position. ...
December 14th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
This is ridiculous. Since when is it news that the Conservative movement’s halachik arguments are problematic that it should require a press release from the RCA? And, the issue isn’t even being gay, which is at least halachik, but ordaining gay Rabbis which actually has nothing to do with halacha.
The sad part about this is not they okeyed gay Rabbis but that they did not for religious reasons but for PR reasons.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
I heard that 4 rabbis from the Rabbinical Assembly quit after the announcement was made. Mr. Weiss, can you find *their* statement?
As far as I know in public coverage of this issue, the rabbis who resigned the CJLS have not offered a public statement on their action.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
The Rabbis, as far as I am aware, only resigned from the Law Committee, not from the RA.
Rabbi Roth explains his decision here: ...
December 15th, 2006 at 4:29 am
For one: Desecration of Shabbat is not referred to as “Toeiva”.
The reference to toeiva is made once more regarding sex in connection to a divorced couple who remarry after the wife has had relations with another man (Deut. 24:4).
Otherwise, Toeiva is referenced exclusively in the avoda zara context (Deut. 7:26, 14:3) . In neviim that’s certainly the case, Toeiva in Navi is basically another word for idolatry.
To go with Rambam’s view in the Guide, part III, that the root of the “irrational” negative mitzvot is the forbidden behavior being part of avoda zara, the statement that homosexual sex is Toieva doesn’t mean “really very bad” but it associates it with idolatrous ceremonies — which of course was the case (just like the other sexual toeiva, which was connected to heterosexual orgies).
This brings us to my original dismay at the fact that our spiritual and halachic leaders are prepared to forgive tacitly public chilul shabbat by millions of Jews, but would not let slide private sexual crime (after all we very rarely are made to witness mishkav zachar even by gay reform rabbis, while the Friday night programs at the 92nd St. Y are out in the open).
December 16th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
How long until the Conservative “Rabbinnical” leadership allows for incest, animal/human & polygamy? Probably when demographics once again show the movement shifting into the abyss of irrelavency and in need of a temporary quick fix. Unfortunately for Jack the only “judaism” which will be a “small blip’ in the future is one who bases its halachic decisions on the New York Times opinion section and not the torah tradition which has maintained Klal Yisrael throughout history.
December 16th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
shmuel,
except for a takanah, polygamy would be mutar…but you are right in the statement that halacha should never go by societal mores…if that were the case, there were many other times in history (especially under rule of the greeks, romans, and persians) where homosexuality would have allowed.
as for yori’s straw man argument…conservative judaism hasnt kept shabbat for generations….should the orthodox rabbinate put out statements on a weekly basis condemning this fact? what point would that make?
this is a recent happening, and it was done by subverting both halacha and the torah
im not sure why conservative judaism doesnt just throw out the concept of sin altogether….reformed already has.
December 16th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Yori –
We have established that the term “Toeiva” (whatever it means) is used in Tanach to refer to two types of sins: Idolatry and (certain types of) sexual immorality. These two, along with murder are Yehoreig Veal Yaavor. Forbidden even upon threat to life. Further, these three, along withe several others are not only part of the Jewish tradition but are considered part of the Sheva Mitzvot Benai Noach–part of the laws incumbent on ll humanity.
December 17th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Bearded & bacci40 –
You are absolutely right in asserting that msot Conservative Jews are not shomrei Shabbat and that homosexual sex is one of the highest prohibituions. However:
While chilul Shabat in public is, by definition, public, homosexual sex is, by definition, private.
We are not allowed to accept edut from the wicked against themselves (ein adam mesim atzmo rasha), and since all the edut we have on one’s homosexuality comes from himself, we are not allowed to prosecute until the individual performs this act in public.
At the same time, chilul Shabbat is out in the open, it is cited by neviim and midrash as the key cause keeping Moshiach away (there’s no statment on how, should the Jews avoid buggery for two weeks Moshiach will come, but keeping two consecutive Shabbatot will do the trick).
All of which means that, as halachic men and women looking to heal that which is ailing our society, we must accept that chilul Shabbat b’farhesia is by far a more injurious than private acts of buggery. We are not allowed to accept the testimony of a JTS graduate that he engages in homosexual activity; at the same time, we can see with our own eyes the chilul Shabbat in so many public Jewish places.
December 18th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Yori -
“We are not allowed to accept edut from the wicked against themselves (ein adam mesim atzmo rasha)”
Hodaas baal din kmaeah eidim domi.
“At the same time, chilul Shabbat is out in the open, it is cited by neviim and midrash as the key cause keeping Moshiach away (there’s no statment on how, should the Jews avoid buggery for two weeks Moshiach will come, but keeping two consecutive Shabbatot will do the trick).”
Medrashim are nice, but not lehalacha. My comments above are.
“All of which means that, as halachic men and women looking to heal that which is ailing our society, we must accept that chilul Shabbat b’farhesia is by far a more injurious than private acts of buggery.”
Much of the chilul Shabbos one sees is either midirabonon, for example carrying in a ‘public’ space (as nearly every space is a karmelis). The fire component of smoking might be a psik reisha delo nicha lei, as the kavana is for the smoke, etc etc.
(I might also reference the famous shu”t binyan tzion re tinokes shenishbu that might apply to Shabbos to a greater degree than homosexual activity…)
However, the public acceptance of homosexuality is a challenge to some foundational premises for society (as defined by Torah). Starting with: Al kein yaazov ish es oviv veimo vedovak beishto vehoyu lebosor echod.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:31 am
Bearded -
We should team up, you’ll be melamed zchus on mechaleli Shabbos and I on feigalach and together we’ll bring peace to a torn nation…
Down with Helenism,
YY
December 19th, 2006 at 10:48 am
shmuel:
nice use of the slippery slope argument. i am glad to see that LOGICAL FALLACIES still fly in “rational” circles.
if you didn’t catch the sarcasm, bad argument.
“why?”, you ask, your beard in a twist. well, i’ll tell you.
the “conservatives” (by that i assume you mean Conservative Jews) will never allow the horrible things you mentioned, because they do not fall under the category of a loving relationship between 2 consenting adults. you feat change because you are scared that the whole enterprise will come crashing down if it’s not like it was hundreds of years ago.
WAKE UP, SHMUEL. things have changed. any serious student of history will tell you that.
bacci-
halachah has gone by societal mores since time immemorial. your refusal to see that is classic and i suppose totally expected. why else do you think polygamy was made assur? and if you ever read any halakhic literature (and i mean the rishonim, not some artscroll book o’ crap), then you’d know that, often, a poseik has to rule on the basis of the people and what they will (not) do.