Is the Gay Jew Another Forbidden Fruit?

Throughout the past century, Judaism, as one of the most influential organized religions of the Western world, has been subject to a necessary evolution given the advent of modern times. The authoritative members of the Jewish community have dealt with such modern issues as the advancement of technology and legitimated specific parameters by which Jews may remain within the bounds of halakha. However, with the rising social acceptance of homosexuality throughout the world, Judaism as a whole has remained stunted in its progress. How is a gay male Jew within any community supposed to reconcile his place in the world when the Torah has been repeatedly interpreted as 'anti-homosexual' throughout the entire existence of Judaism as a way of life? For the purpose of validating the homosexual Jew's rightful existence in the world, it is necessary to recognize all potential meanings and interpretations of the Torah. Only then will it be possible for Judaism to thrive as a living religion rather than to falter as an exercise in obsolescence or unjust authority.

The popular Jewish conception that homosexuals live in opposition to God's will is rooted in specific passages from the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament. According to the New International Version of the Bible, Leviticus 18:22 reads:

"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'"
Later in the book, verse 20:13 reads:

"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is

detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'"

The qualification of the command, citing this act of 'laying' as "detestable," calls myriad elements of translation into question. Firstly, the original version of this passage, taken from the Torah, uses the Hebrew word "to'evah" to qualify this act. Depending on which version of the bible one reads, this Hebrew term is translated into several English words, including "abhorrent," "abomination," and "detestable," all of which carry separate layers of meaning. One translation goes so far as to read, "It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man."1 But because this is not so much a translation as it is a biased interpretation, one must focus on analyzing only those translations which are taken directly from the Hebrew. In Hebrew, the word "to'evah" comes from the root word of the letters 'tav, ayin, he'2, which means to wander or to stray. This, in and of itself, does not have a negative connotation. When analyzed within the context of the passages, the word "to'evah" may be read as that which causes a man to wander or stray from the Torah.

Thus, a homosexual man may read this passage as if to mean that those who perform this act may be tempted to stray from Judaism because of how other Jews may ostracize him for his abnormality within the community. Then, the other passage regarding the death penalty may also be explained as being a measure taken to ensure that those men whose behavior has driven them away from their people can not further contaminate the Jewish blood by mixing with other peoples. This concept of 'Jewish separateness' is essential in Judaism. Regarding many of the passages of Leviticus, Sayler notes, "The critical importance of keeping categories separate, of avoiding any kind of hybridization, is evident in repeated condemnations of mixtures or confusions as toebah-"abominations" (2005). Hence, it may be interpreted that it is not so much the act as the possible consequences of the act that
are being expressed in the Torah.

In reading such a passage as Leviticus 18:22, it is evident that an act which may be considered "abhorrent" or "detestable" to God might not seem so to human beings who are not educated in what God wants, according to these literal interpretations of the Torah. Regarding this concept, Rabbi Joel Roth, a member of the Council of Jewish Law, explains the context of the Hebrew word "to'evah," which has come to be translated into all these more literal, negative terms:

"The term [to'evah] in the Torah does not refer to an inherent quality of an act. Acts are [to'evah] because the Torah calls them [to'evah]. "Abhorrence" is not an inherent quality of the act, it is an attributed quality" (1992).

Thus, the Torah does not directly give Jews a reason why this homosexual act is considered as it is; it simply is because the Torah says it is. Regarding the word "to'evah" (or "toebah," as is phoeneticized here), author John Boswell, as interviewed by Gregory Koukl, host of the radio show "Stand to Reason," remarks:
The Hebrew word "toebah" here translated "abomination," does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft..., but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters (italics added)3.
Hence, while the act of a man "lying" with another man may be "detestable" and/or an "abomination" and/or "abhorrent," it is only considered wrong in a ritualistic sense for the Jew seeking to attain ideal halakhic conduct. It is, as Boswell describes, on the same level of "evil" as eating that which is not kosher. Thus, one may be ritually cleansed of it. This concept of a sex act as being only wrong in a ritualistic sense is constantly debated by more liberal religious authorities. According to one website:

"...many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."4
So, perhaps it is only when men involved in sacred ritual in a 'house of God' profane themselves this way that it should be punished by death.

Reading Leviticus 20:13 the more generic way, in which this type of "lying" amongst men at any time is decreed as worthy of capital punishment, is especially problematic when gay Jews are simultaneously taught that God is all-merciful and loving. But in analyzing these passages more deeply, it becomes evident that these verses are directed solely to a male who instinctively "lies with a woman" in the way presumed by the Torah. It is as if a homosexual inclination is only a possible as a choice, an alternative to "lying with a woman." The concept that a man may be born without the innate desire to "lie with a woman" is not even mentioned. If a gay man, unfamiliar with the Torah or any other part of the Jewish tradition, were to be read this passage, his thought may be: "According to this passage, I do not transgress at all as a homosexual, for I never lie with a woman as I do with a man."

There is an innate hetero-normative presumption by the majority of religious authorities who study the Torah that heterosexuality is the desire born naturally in every man. However, within a certain community, such as that of homosexuals, wherein the standard of normalcy is varied, the same meanings no longer apply. In the context of the gay male community (for example, without the assimilation of a heterosexual value system weighing on them), those reading the verses in Leviticus could interpret them as empowering-"not allowing a man to go against that sexuality which feels normal to him. Also, because a woman can not sexually penetrate a man, a man who is penetrated by another man is not "lying" as any man who is with a woman could. In this view, only the man who penetrates the other man is committing the transgression. But perhaps this decree contains a greater depth of meaning than merely that of sexual intercourse. Perhaps this is a comment on the necessity of maintaining gender roles within the Jewish community. Gwen Sayler comments:

"The lying of a woman"-"a literal translation of the Hebrew-"refers to the passive, penetrated position in sexual intercourse. [. . .] It seems clear that what is condemned is male/male anal intercourse. Why it's condemned is equally clear. Within the theological anthropology in which men are defined as penetrating agents, male/male anal intercourse is a mixing of gender-role categories that cannot be tolerated-"an abomination" (2005).

This interpretation, while it offers an explanation of the reasoning behind the decree, also insinuates the possibility that because a woman does not have the sexual organs of a man, it is permissible for a man to engage in any other form of sex with another man besides anal intercourse. Professor James Arnt Aune explains, "...it is not homosexuality per se that is condemned (since the Torah seems to focus on acts and processes rather than static conditions) but rather a specific act. One could obey this commandment simply by engaging in mutual masturbation or fellatio and avoiding anal intercourse (as in fact many Orthodox Jewish gay men do currently)" (2004).

This being the case, one could easily argue that the Torah is not against homosexuality at all; merely one specific act. In his parenthesis here, Aune references the documentary film "Trembling Before God" (2001), a study of how gay Jews who want to maintain an Orthodox lifestyle reconcile their homosexuality given their discrimination by both the religious Jewish community and the common anti-homosexual interpretations of the Torah. Shlomo Ashkenazy, a religious gay psychotherapist, discusses an interaction he has had with a "Gadol," one of the renowned rabbis of Jerusalem with high authority in the Jewish world. He explains that when he mentioned his homosexuality to the rabbi, the rabbi pointed out to him that he was not allowed to engage in anal sex. When Ashkenazy responded that he, in fact, did not engage in anal sex as a homosexual, the rabbi was confused and asked what else men could do together besides anal intercourse. Somewhat surprised at his ignorance, Ashkenazy explained that men could engage in hugging, kissing, mutual masturbation, and/or oral sex. After explaining the last of these to the rabbi, the rabbi remarked, "Why would a man want to put another man's shmecky [Yiddish term for 'penis'] in his mouth?" Ashkenazy retorted, "Why would any man want to put his penis in a woman's vagina?" The rabbi, surprised at his own realization, then remarked that he understood Ashkenazy's point because sex could not be explained, as it is a tayva [Yiddish term for lust or urge, from the Hebrew ta'avah], an illogical urge from above without rhyme or reason.5

This reaction of the rabbi is telling in that as a religious authority he is able to recognize that there are those urges, those tayvas, which God has given to some people in a different form from others. They can not be rationalized or explained. They are part of the mystery of human nature which only God can have the authority to explain.

In probing further into Leviticus, there is a definite distinction made between "lying with" and "having sexual relations with" as in the following:
"'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people'" (Leviticus 20:18, italics added)

Within this passage, the word "lies" is separated from "sexual relations," as though one is the pre-cursor to the other. According to this framing, the Torah does not recognize a man who "lies" with a man as even having had sexual relations with him, notably in the form of anal intercourse, as is surmised by several scholars and interpreters. Otherwise, the text would have made the same rather clear distinction in both Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 as it does here. This reading is even more potentially damaging to the homosexual, because then all forms of "lying" with a man are transgressions.

Ultimately, the way that the ancient principles of the Torah are applied to the modern day is completely a product of the authorities within a given community. Aune explains:

...Jews are empowered to argue about the legal implications of the text, because the letter of the law is open-ended in a way that permits Mahloket, or argumentative discussion. Even though Jewish behavior may be guided by the communal authority of Halakhah...Halakhah does in fact change, both in response to changing historical conditions...but also as the result of ongoing disputes among authorities.

Therefore, Judaism is structured in such a way that it is meant to evolve based on the evolution of society as a whole.

Dr. Paul Root Wolpe disagrees with the possibility that gay people can be legitimated within conservative Judaic practice on the grounds that homosexuality is not understood as innate and personal by the standards of the ancient religious texts; rather, it is a modern, culturally defined phenomenon. He states:
"First, the idea of there being such a thing as "a homosexual" is a modern, Western invention; the term itself did not exist until the nineteenth century. The behavior, of course, is ancient, but interpreting same-sex activity as being "who you are" rather than "what you do" is a new concept. [. . .] The existence of "the homosexual" is not a scientific fact, but a cultural definition.

"Second, seeing human sexuality as being fundamentally split into those who have same-sex relations and those who have opposite-sex relations is a Western elaboration derived from Judeo-Christian definitions of allowable and forbidden sexual contact" (1997).

Because the concept of "being" homosexual rather than just practicing homosexual acts is a modern understanding, there would be no way for an ancient text such as the Torah to accommodate it. In further analyzing Wolpe's explanation, one may conclude that by desiring a legitimate place within the Jewish community, homosexuals are seeking acceptance within the very ideology which has established their separateness as a people in the first place. Wolpe's argument could then be concluded as insinuating that the formulation of a definite place for homosexuals will only be the result of Judaism undergoing an overarching modernization.

There is also the argument of procreative potential. The ultimate duty of the Jew is to reproduce more Jews in order to sustain Israel as a living nation. This is highlighted in such as passages as Deuteronomy 25:5-6, wherein an unmarried Jewish man is obligated to marry the widow of his brother. It is written:
"'If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.'"

Granted, there are myriad ways in which this may be interpreted, one literal way being that it is questionable whether "living together" means living as contemporaries or living under the same roof. However, this passage indicates a situation in which a man is meant to marry a woman for which he may not have any romantic feeling. In such a case, a man's sole purpose in marriage is as procreator, regardless of his feeling for his wife. If procreation is the only hurdle to Jews not wanting to accept homosexual couples, the argument may be made that a gay man and a woman can marry solely to reproduce, and the man may continue to live as a homosexual. But why, by the same token, can a gay male couple not be married if they agreed, in doing so, to use a Jewish surrogate mother to produce a Jewish child? In this context they would not, technically, be conceiving the child out of wedlock.

If procreation is the main function of the Jewish marriage, what may be said of those who are sterile or somehow incapable of reproducing? Are these people allowed to be in a homosexual marriage, since they would not be able to create children anyway?

Sayler notes:
"...the books of Ruth, Esther, and Jonah as well as numerous prophetic oracles paint a much more inclusive picture of Israel and the nations...the post-exilic prophet Third Isaiah proclaims: [. . .] For thus says the Lord: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me, and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters. I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off..." (2005 and Isaiah 56:3-5).

Thus, because God offers a place to those unable to procreate, the homosexual may find solace in his inability to marry someone capable of producing children with him. Then, however, it becomes a question of potential. The opposing argument may be that if a homosexual is not technically a eunuch, not physically incapable, his choice not to marry a woman is unjustified. For a religious Jew, the idea of the homosexual as a 'psychological eunuch' may not provide sufficient justification for a life not spent married to a woman.

In the present day, the problem has remained that Jews of authority are not willing to consider homosexuality a valid way of being, regardless of sexual acts, as there is no mention of the possibility of a romantic homosexual relationship in any doctrinal texts. As Aune has stated, "...the Torah seems to focus on acts and processes rather than static conditions..." Being in love is certainly a "static" condition, wherein the "acts and processes" are generally demonstrations of the overall feeling. But because the Torah does not present homosexual relationships in this "static" form, anal intercourse aside, it has been determined that God does not prescribe homosexuality as a way of life.

Because the concept of homosexuality has evolved to the level at which society recognizes it today, the need for modernizing the Jewish conception of the 'same-sex relationship' within halakhah is of great importance as a response to, as Aune has termed, "changing historical conditions." A gay Jew should not have to abandon his level of Orthodoxy and become a "reform" Jew as the result of a narrow-minded literary tradition. Since much of Judaic tradition, including halakhah, has been dictated by the interpretations of authoritative rabbis, it is the job of the community to help demonstrate to them a new approach to interpreting homosexuality as a modern practice, unmentioned to any extent in the Torah. Cole Krawitz, transgendered Jewish scholar,
remarks:
"I call for a day when halakhah will not have been changed to "prove" our worth, because halakhah never reflected our worth in the first place. Our lives, our passions, our richness, our "worth" will never be measured accurately when gated by those who use their power over us, who see us as objects of their study rather than as decision-makers of our own destinies" (2004).

Gay Jews must go beyond the level of interpreting texts to the level of forging a new understanding of themselves as a people for the heterosexual, religious Jewish community. All Jews must realize that the evolution of homosexuality in society, like the evolution of technology, can not be directly explained or reconciled by the Torah.

Works Cited

Aune, James Arnt. "Justice and Argument in Judaism: A D'var Torah on Shofetim." Rhetoric & Public Affairs 7.4 (2004): 449-460.

Epstein, George L. & Zeldner, Max, Eds. Modern Hebrew Literature. Hebrew: New York, 1965.

Krawitz, Cole. "A Voice from Within: A Challenge for the Conservative Jewish Movement and Its Gay/Lesbian Activists." NASHIM, A Journal of Jewish Women's Studies and Gender Issues. (2004): 165-174.

Roth, Rabbi Joel. "Homosexuality." Responsa 1991-2000: The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative Movement (March 1992).

Sayler, Gwen B. "Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology." Dialog: A Journal of Theology 44.1 (March 2005): 81-89.

Wolpe, Paul Root. "If I Am Only My Genes, What Am I?: Genetic Essentialism and a Jewish Response." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7.3 (1997) 213-230.