Conservative Halakhah on Sexual Orientation Conservative Judaism and sexual orientation

1 conservative halakhah on sexual orientation

1.1 dorff, nevins, , reisner responsum
1.2 roth responsum
1.3 levy responsum
1.4 tucker dissent
1.5 geller, fine, , fine dissent

conservative halakhah on sexual orientation

in conservative judaism, committee on jewish law , standards (cjls) of rabbinical assembly makes movement s decisions concerning jewish law. cjls consistently refused pass several proposed takkanot concerning levitical prohibitions on male-male anal sex, on forms of homosexual intimacy in general. in 1992, cjls action affirmed traditional prohibition on homosexual conduct, blessing same-sex unions, , ordaining openly gay, bisexual, , lesbian clergy. however, these prohibitions grew increasingly controversial within conservative movement.

a variety of liberal proposals had been brought forth in non-orthodox community, including rabbinical assembly rabbis. argued change in jewish understanding , law on issue must change due new information biology , genetics concerning human sexuality. others argued change required solely on ethical grounds. no such papers accepted cjls, conservative judaism sees bound halakhah.

however, these arguments expanded upon within more formal halakhic responsa, 1 of prominent rabbi bradley shavit artson. used historical, sociological , ethical considerations argue homosexuality, understood today, not described torah, or understood traditional rabbis. such, 1 able restrict understanding of torah prohibition cases not being considered today. views considered important, not accepted, themselves, halakhically convincing. few years later rabbi elliot n. dorff used these arguments in case re-evaluating conservative judaism s stand on sexual orientation, held artson s paper insufficiently halakhically rigorous. dorff studied issue of coercion, arguing people innately homosexual due biology not regarded sinning. papers on subject began gain acceptance among minority of ra rabbis, made clear cjls not accept argument sufficient.

two additional papers, 1 rabbi gordon tucker , 1 rabbis myron geller, robert fine, , david fine, went further dorff s paper. tucker s paper stated necessary expand definition of halakhic process, , geller, fine, , fine paper redefined corpus of halakha representing evolving beliefs , ideals of jewish people of particular time , place distinct representing infallible divine will. while both papers had support of @ least 6 members, majority of cjls found both papers represented extensive change not accepted mere changes of jewish law, each should regarded takkanah uproot torah prohibition if passed. under cjls rules, once majority of committee found responsum takkanah, accepting require majority of committee (13 of 25 votes), while ordinary responsum accepted valid alternative few 6 of 25 votes.

on december 6, 2006, committee on jewish law , standards adopted diametrically opposed responsa on issue of sexual orientation. cjls s action permits each congregational rabbi , rabbinical school decide responsum adopt , hence set own policy on subject. adoption of dual, contradictictory responsa represents straddling of contemporary societal divide on sexual matters. represents sharp change previous conservative policy, in 1993 had adopted consensus position reaffirming blanket prohibition on homosexual conduct while welcoming gay, bisexual, , lesbian people members.

the dorff, nevins, , reisner responsum

one responsum, rabbis elliot n. dorff, daniel nevins, , avram reisner, reduced extent of traditional restrictions , substantially changed conservative views on homosexual conduct. characterized such restrictions rabbinic in character. found rabbinic restrictions subject reconsideration cjls under interpretation of principle of kavod habriyot, talmudic rule of legal reasoning rabbinic (but not biblical) restrictions can overridden on basis of respect others or human dignity . holding concept of kavod habriyot interpreted human dignity reflects conservative judaism s evolving understanding of human nature, found rabbinic restrictions on homosexual conduct inconsistent human dignity contemporarily understood , accordingly declared such restrictions lifted. finding lacked authority under kavod habriyot principle lift biblical prohibitions, analyzed biblical passages involved , found male-male anal sex sole de oraitha (biblical) restrictions. held biblical prohibition such conduct remained prohibited in conservative judaism. responsum permitted conservative rabbis allow same-sex union ceremonies, , gave option conservative rabbinical schools admit , ordain openly gay, bisexual, , lesbian rabbis. held same-sex couples should presumed not engage in prohibited conduct in same way conservative judaism presumes married heterosexual couples observe sexual prohibitions such niddah.

the responsum begins quote rabbi abraham yitzhak hakohen kook,

the light of messiah, when blazes in heart, teaches 1 dignify people: “it shall on day root of jesse stand sign nations, , peoples seek him, , consolation shall dignity. (isaiah 11:10)

after discussion of contemporary theories of sexuality , warning against promiscuity, responsum interprets leviticus 18:22 , 20:13 pertaining male-male anal sex only:

ancient authors employed euphemism when describing sex, making difficult prove activities understood included within these verses. possible biblical prohibition called mishk’vei ishah , later, rabbis, mishkav zakhur, includes actions other anal intercourse? these verses have been variously translated, readers conclude prohibit anal sex between men, first verse addressing insertive partner, , second verse including receptive partner.


we have demonstrated 1 form of homosexual intimacy, anal intercourse between men, prohibited @ level ervah. must conclude jew seeks fulfill torah’s commandments must avoid forbidden act.

the responsum insisted jewish law not interpreted more permissively:

in contrast, our colleagues rabbis david fine, robert fine , myron geller have argued verses in leviticus should understood prohibit sexual relationships offer no possibility of marriage. in age when gay marriage permitted jurisdictions, argue, torah’s ban no longer universal. although present reading “the p’shat,” there nothing simple or contextual interpretation. passage mention marriage. list of forbidden sexual relations includes menstrual sex, can occur within marital context. hard accept torah forbids bestiality because offers no opportunity marriage. reading, too, sui generis — unsupported either ancient or modern commentaries.

the responsum described rabbinic prohibitions on sexual relations mere fences, many of which, said, conservative movement had lifted. compared rabbinic prohibitions on homosexual conduct strictures on husband approaching or touching wife during niddah (post-menstrual) period:

however, our community not enforce, , indeed not accept, these severe prohibitions. not hold, matter of fact, laws of ”approach” biblically mandated, rather in category of rabbinic fences , borders intended protect against transgression of fundamental biblical rules sexual conduct. sages of old exempted of severity of laws against contact between sexes between relatives,45 have concluded average people can trusted maintain appropriate relations despite social kissing , hugging , moments alone together, behind locked doors.

this teshuvah makes distinction between torah mitzvah , later rabbinical fence laws. argues (page 8) that:

conclude there 1 prohibited sexual relation of arayot among homosexual behaviors, anal sex between men, , other restrictions have no basis in biblical legislation. ...while readers might conclude texts reviewed above jewish law imposes universal , undifferentiated ban on homosexual intimacy, must emphasize nuances found in literature. ...the torah’s severe sexual prohibitions identified ervah (plural: arayot). in antiquity, these punishable death severe divine penalty known karet. of these sexual prohibitions alone did rabbis teach, yeihareig v’al ya’avor, 1 should die rather transgress. have demonstrated 1 form of homosexual intimacy, anal intercourse between men, prohibited @ level ervah...

the responsum questioned whether requiring celibacy same-sex couples feasible, quoting deutoronomy 30:11-14:

for mitzvah command today not grand you, nor far away. not in heaven, said, ‘who ascend heaven us, , teach how it?’ not across sea,...

the responsum invoked , extensively commented on concept of kevod habriyot, human dignity, noting concept traditionally limited rabbinic enactments:

so great human dignity supersedes negative commandment of torah. yet no sooner potentially radical principle enunciated islimited commandment establishes rabbinic authority, , לא תסור “do not stray law [i.e., rabbis] teach right or left.” concern human dignity cited in both talmuds override injunctions, not considered capable of overturning explicit biblical rule.

after extensive discussion of principle, responsum applies declare rabbinic prohibitions on homosexual conduct overridden, leaving finds biblical one:

it not possible set aside explicit biblical prohibition on anal sex stated twice in leviticus , reaffirmed rabbis. have shown, kvod habriot principle supersedes rabbinic, not biblical law. of course, there theoretical way overturn biblical law via legislative mechanism of takkanah (decree). not find mechanism appropriate in our case, because takkanah requires consent of majority of population, , subject remains quite controversial in observant jewish community.


however, rabbinic restrictions upon gay men , lesbian women result in total ban on sexual expression throughout life in direct conflict ability of these jews live in dignity members of people of israel. reason, halakhic principle of gadol k’vod habriot must invoked cjls relieve intolerable humiliation. must make open , rigorous efforts include gay , lesbian jews in our communities, provide proper welcome , legal framework normalization of status in our congregations.

in conclusion, responsum declined rule on status of same-sex relationships, declared celebration of such union appropriate.

we not prepared @ juncture rule upon halakhic status of gay , lesbian relationships. require establishing entirely new institution in jewish law treats not ceremonies , legal instruments appropriate creating homosexual unions norms dissolution of such unions. responsum not provide kiddushin same-sex couples. nonetheless, consider stable, committed, jewish relationships necessary , beneficial homosexuals , families heterosexuals. promiscuity not acceptable either homosexual or heterosexual relationships. such relationships should conducted in consonance values set out in ra pastoral letter on intimate relationships, “this beloved, friend”: rabbinic letter on human intimacy. celebration of such union appropriate.

the roth responsum

the cjls adopted 2 restrictive responsa, 1 majority , 1 minority opinion. majority responsum, rabbi joel roth, adopted 13 votes. maintained traditional prohibitions on homosexual conduct , forbade conservative rabbis blessing same-sex unions , rabbinical schools ordaining gay, bisexual, , lesbian clergy. on december 10, rabbi roth published editorial in jewish theological seminary s newsletter jts news providing of reasoning behind responsum , explaining why resigned following cjls s vote.

according rabbi roth, central problem permissive responsum adopted claim biblical prohibition on homosexual conduct limited anal sex based on insufficient support in precedent, view of 1 sage . rabbi roth argued impermissible adapt such minority view:

what divided question of our right adopt legal stance attributed 1 sage prohibitions against sexual behavior other male intercourse rabbinic in status, d’rabbanan, , not biblical, attribution open serious question , denied decisors.

rabbi roth said if prohibition against sexual behavior other male intercourse rabbinic in authority , not biblical, justifies our abrogating prohibition? argued talmudic concept of kavod habriyot, permissive responsum used justification doing so, not same thing idea of human dignity in contemporary liberalism:

in of cases in category invoked, claim x may violate law out of deference honor of y. in case under discussion, x entitled violate law out of deference own honor, claim there no real precedent.


what’s more, such claim theologically weak, since no law-abiding jew ever entertain possibility honor supersede of god. , in few cases of application of category can possibly understood imply x may violate law out of deference own honor, x literally in social context , in presence of others.

rabbi roth stated in perception, supporters of permissive responsum blinded predisposition rule favorably , unable view issue dispassionate legal mind.

how halachically defensible argument have before can considered within halachic ballpark? understand , agree decisors of jewish law approach subject before them predisposition give specific answer. there’s nothing wrong that, in opinion. what, then, distinguishes decisor poor one? decisor able judge decision enough dispassion see whether predisposition has blinded him indefensibility of answer, , poor 1 not. opinion colleagues have here been blinded indefensibility of conclusion. .

rabbi roth argued halakhic legitimacy of conservative movement @ stake:

what @ stake here, me, , believe committee on jewish law , standards body, whether law committee can continue seen halakhic decision-making body. of breadth believe there pluralism within halakhah, decisions outside boundaries. if make such decision, no longer legitimate halakhists, undermine our authority interpreters of god’s will, , render law committee halakhically irrelevant.

rabbi roth ended articulating regarded fundamental difference between traditionalist , liberal wings of conservative movement. traditionalist point of view, acceptance of hypothesis torah transmitted through multiple manuscripts , redactors in no way changes status divine, legally infallible document, given reality theological theory must conform:

that, then, brings following issue: assuming type of biblical scholarship have been taught correct, mean torah is, in fact, not divine , legally infallible? believe not mean that. argument here on following issue: theology dog wags tail called halakhah, or halakhah dog wags tail called theology? cannot both ways.
there can no real doubt normatively speaking halakhic tradition given, , theology required fall place behind it. theology can, indeed, should, provide narrative makes halakhic tradition intellectually persuasive , emotionally acceptable , satisfying, , narrative can change needed, , need not same narrative everyone. narratives, after all, aggadic, , thus, neither normative nor binding. claim, incidentally, in no way diminishes importance. whatever narrative works fine, long narrative not reverse dog , tail. in enterprise again in long chain: sa’adia ga’on did it, yehuda ha-levi did it, maimonides did it, samson rafael hirsch did it, david zevi hoffman did it, , joseph hertz did it. our movement’s thinkers , theologians competent provide modern , persuasive theology of halakhah thinkers of past. but, we, they, cannot undo foundational premise of entire halakhic system – torah divine , legally infallible.

the levy responsum

rabbi leonard levy s responsum, adopted minority opinion 6 votes, delineated ways in ensure gays , lesbians accorded human dignity , respected place in conservative communities , institutions while maintaining authority of traditional prohibitions against same-sex sexual activity.

the tucker dissent

the cjls rejected proposed responsum rabbi gordon tucker have lifted restrictions on homosexual conduct. although gained 7 votes, minimum accept responsum, classified takkanah (legislative decree) rather judicial interpretation. cjls procedural rules takkanah requires 13 votes pass. accordingly, published dissenting opinion note concurring , dissenting opinions not official positions of committee on jewish law , standards . fundamental premise of dissenting opinion torah not infallible, legally or otherwise, subject reconsideration based on subsequent knowledge:

when says, “what can do? torah clear on subject!”, being said amounts claim of infallibility , irrefutability text of torah. , claim rests on assumption words of leviticus (and, of course, of other 4 books of pentateuch) express directly , of god. (indeed, treating text infallible on basis other on such assumption surely count form of idolatry.) assumption (that torah direct , complete expression of god’s will) 1 that, currency in parts of jewish world, not accepted in our conservative jewish world.


no, time has come movement has published humash commentary reflects theology our masters have taught “come out of closet”. past time be, in prophet elijah’s words, “hopping between 2 opinions”. if axiom behind theological argument accepted, let forthrightly admit have been misled teachers @ feet have sat. if confess not accept axiom of biblical infallibility, let honor our teachers abandoning theological argument, , no longer permitting ourselves say, when matter of gays , lesbians comes up, “what can do? torah clear on subject!” perhaps critical study given precisely not let text of torah stand impediment acceptance, fulfilment, , normalization of god’s creatures?

the geller, fine, , fine dissent

rabbis myron geller, robert fine, , david fine wrote dissent arguing complete abolition of strictures against homosexual conduct, , explicit recognition of same-sex religious commitment ceremonies, on grounds strictures no longer socially relevant , religious support socially required. opinion characterized halakha as

a historically based religious/legal system reflects values, ethics , circumstances of jewish people @ particular period , evolving judgments, including recorded in scripture, expressions of jewish ideals in given place , time.

the responsum argued regarded, halakah can , should updated reflect changed values , social circumstances arise.