HEALING THE SO-CALLED "TEXTS OF TERROR" - A REINTERPRETATION OF THE SUPPOSED PROHIBITION ON HOMOSEXUALITY
IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES
AS THERE IS NO REASON, BIBLICAL, ETHICAL NOR MORAL, TO CONTINUE TO DENY ANY CIVIL RIGHTS
TO GAYS AND LESBIANS, ESPECIALLY IN TODAY'S WORLD. ALL HONORABLE PEOPLE SHOULD STAND IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING EQUALITY OF ALL
LEGAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS TO GAYS AND LESBIANS.
As a result of his early teaching to continually wrestle with the Sacred texts and to
seek to bring the texts into relevence in the modern world, since 1994, Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill has been seriously involved
in a compassionate study of the so-called "anti-homosexual" verses found in the Book of Leviticus. He has searched extensively
in the Hebrew Scriptures, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, and in other Jewish historical
With the help of not only his own Jewish sources, but also those of Roman
Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Latin Rite linguists and scholars, plus an LDS (Mormon) Biblical Languages student at Emory
University, Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill has also been able to study original translations of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin
This serious study has also involved reviewing the various Biblical manuscripts and translations, Talmudic
responsa texts and other materials of a collateral nature to the subject matter being studied; i. e. history, anthropology,
archaeology, philology, etymology, etc. It has required, often times, an attempt to reconstruct the ancient mindset of the
pre-Babylonian conquest (586 BCE) Israelite people.
As a result of this serious research, Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill is
completely convinced that THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXTS OF THE TORAH (the Hebrew Chumash - the Five Books of Moses) HAD ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING TO SAY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY AS WE UNDERSTAND THE TERM "HOMOSEXUALITY" TO MEAN IN TODAYS WORLD!
the reality of our human history is that the texts of Leviticus (and Deuteronomy) which were utilized by the teachers and
rabbis of the Jewish tradition to condemn homosexuality, were so employed under a direct and constant danger and THREAT from
the dominant and controlling Christian governmental and ecclesiastical authorities who needed to have the "perceived" Jewish
interpretation of the texts, as taught by the Jewish rabbinical authorities, to be in accordance with their own Christian
commentaries and teachings on homosexuality and what they believed (falsely) to be sexual perversion. Thus, they kept a close
watch on what the Jewish rabbis wrote about subjects sensitive to Church dogma.
This period of the condemnation of
homosexuals, coincides with similar condemnation edicts against witches, healers, and heretics which began mostly in the 4th
to 6th centuries of the common era (CE), which was at least 1500 years after the original texts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was
codified into the Hebrew Torah. This condemnation was largely misplaced and did not represent the actual views of the writers
and compilers of either Leviticus or Deuteronomy.
The Torah, itself, is a document designed to (metaphorically)
teach us the progression of mankind from its creation in the Garden of Eden and, full circle, back again to
the Garden of Eden (when we die) when we have hopefully learned what it means to "... become as one of us, knowing the
good inclination; (the yetzer hatov; succumbing to our godly nature) and the bad inclination; (the yetzer hara; succumbing
to our animal nature) ..." (Genesis 3: 22). Knowing the Good and the Bad (evil) required us to be cast out of the wombplace
of the Garden so as to experience both Good and Bad, Life and Death, and to learn how to apply both in the course of
One of the evidences on this Eternal Path of progression towards
becoming more "godlike" in our actions will be realized when we "cease to hate your brother in your heart" (Leviticus 19:
17) and "Do not render an unfair decision ... judge your brother fairly" (Leviticus 19: 15). Denying equality of civil and
legal rights to gays and lesbians constitutes rendering unfair decisions and hating our brother in our heart, just exactly
as it did when we denied equality of marriage and other civil rights to people of color and also to those who sought
to create interracial marriages and social connections.
In the discussion below, we begin with a statement on
homosexuality written by the foremost modern authority on the Book of Leviticus, Rabbi Jacob Milgrom. Following that very
interesting statement, will be added the opinions and viewpoints of Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill, followed by the opinion
of his teacher and Rav, Rabbi Gershon Winkler. That opinion is then followed with an article by Rabbi Michael Lerner.
That we may disagree on minor issues related to this very
important subject is to be expected. In fact, Judaism encourages sincere dispute and amicable dialogue. It is
our obligation as Jews to question and wrestle with the use of these Torah texts in the continued discrimination of gays and
lesbians. And, it is most important to see where we agree, not so much where we disagree.
The four Bible scholars and teachers quoted below have each
come to a slightly different conclusion about whether homosexuality is actually prohibited in the text and time period of
* Rabbi Jacob Milgrom says that, YES, the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior. However, only
in the land of Israel and only for males, and, possibly, only in certain interfamily relationships.
Gershon Steinberg-Caudill believes that the so-called "homosexual" act in the Bible that is prohibited is
actually an act of HETEROSEXUAL SUBSTITUTION of a male in place of a female by a heterosexual male, and, possibly, may
even need to be done in an idolatrous worship scenario.
Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill posits that even if Moses taught that God
did command against homosexuality in the Torah (which Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill does not believe that God did), that
command, like other commandments that Moses claimed as God given Torah commands, such as the command to kill the
"stubborn and rebellious" son (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21), the rabbis negated totally a century after the beginning of the Christian
era. The Talmudic rabbis declared that God did not say such a command through Moses. Similarly, any vestige of a
supposed Torah prohibition against homosexuality also would need to be negated for this new day and age.
Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill believes that the Hebrew word that orginally
conveyed the concept of what we today refer to as "homosexual" is the word סריס (saris), commonly translated "eunuch".
Simply put, homosexuality is defined as a man desiring another man for his sexual partner. In ancient
times, a eunuch was chosen to guard the king's harem. The eunuch could be trusted to guard a king's harem,
often because he had been castrated and could not produce offspring.
But, the question is raised, did the king just not want other men producing offspring with his wives, or did
he really want a guard that did not desire to have sex with the king's wives? It is my contention that what the English translators
thought of as a EUNUCH, in many cases, was what the ancient Israelites thought of as equal to what we today
would call a homosexual. Who better to guard the harem than a man who has no sexual desire for a woman?
A castrated man (the traditional eunuch) would still be capable of having the desire to have sex with the king’s
wives. A eunuch for the sake of heaven is a man who believes that the Kingdom of God
is coming soon and therefore if he punishes himself by vowing to refrain from all sexual contact, an act that he sees as quite
pleasurable, he will help hasten the coming of the Kingdom.
* Rabbi Gershon Winkler states in his article (found in the middle of the page) his belief
that the only "homosexual" act that is prohibited by the Torah is anal sex, and that female homosexuality; lesbianism,
is permitted by the Torah.
* Rabbi Michael Lerner's article is found towards the bottom of the page.
THE BIBLE PROHIBIT HOMOSEXUALITY, by Rabbi Jacob Milgrom, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of California, Berkeley
course it does (Leviticus) 18: 22; 20: 13), but the prohibition is severely limited. First, it is addressed only to Israel, not to other nations. Second, compliance with
this law is a condition for residing in the Holy Land, but is irrelevant outside it (see
the closing exhortation, 18: 24-30). Third, it is limited to men; lesbianism is not prohibited. Thus it is incorrect to apply
this prohibition on a universal scale.
pointed out by my erstwhile student, Dr. David Stewart, both occurrences of the prohibition (18: 22; 20: 13) contain the phrase
"as one lies with a woman" (lit. "lyings a woman"), an idiom used only for illicit heterosexual unions. Thus one could
argue that carnal relations are forbidden only if their correlated heterosexual unions would be in these lists. For example,
the Bible lists the following prohibited relations: nephew-aunt, grandfather-granddaughter, and stepmother-stepson. Thus,
according to this theory, nephew-uncle, grandfather-grandson, and stepfather-stepson are also forbidden. This implies that
the homosexual prohibition does not cover all male-male liaisons, but only those within the limited circle of family. However,
homosexual relations with unrelated males are neither prohibited nor penalized. Admittedly, more than two occurrences
of the phrase "as one lies with a woman" (Gen. 49: 4; Lev. 20: 13) [mishkevey eeshah משכבי אישה -]
are needed before accepting this argument as definitive.
I mentioned above, in the entire list of forbidden sexual unions, there is no prohibition against lesbianism. Can it be that
lesbianism did not exist in ancient times or that Scripture was unaware of its existence? Lesbianism existed and flourished,
as attested in an old (pre-Israelite) Babylonian omen text (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 4, 194: XXIV 33') and in the work
of the lesbian poet Sappho (born c. 612 BCE, during the time of the First Temple), who came from the island
of Lesbos (hence "lesbian"). But, in the eyes of the Bible, there is
a fundamental difference between the homosexual acts of men and women: in lesbianism there is no spilling of seed. Thus life
is not symbolically lost, and it is for that reason, in my opinion, that lesbianism is not prohibited in the Bible.
from the Bible, we can infer the following: the female half of the world's homosexual population, lesbians, are not mentioned.
Over ninety-nine percent of the remaining gays, namely non-Jews, are not addressed. This leaves the small number of Jewish
gay men subject to this prohibition. To those who argue that the Bible enjoins homosexuality, a careful reading of the source
text offers a fundamentally different view. While the Bible never applauds homosexuality, neither does it prohibit most people
from engaging in it.
pgs. 196-197, by Jacob Milgrom, 2004)
* Jacob Milgrom is Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. The author of
five scholarly books, including "Studies in Levitical Terminology" (1970), "Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly
Doctrine of Repentence" (1976), "Numbers" (JPS Torah Commentary- 1990), and "Leviticus (Anchor Bible, 3 vols.,-1991-2001),
and more than two hundred articles. He was named a fellow of the Guggenheim Foundation, a fellow of the Institute for Advanced
Studies in Jerusalem, and a senior fellow of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research. Now retired, he and his wife,
Jo, live in Jerusalem (as of August 2001).
HOW DID THE EARLY TALMUDIC SAGES DEAL WITH OUTDATED OR IRRELEVANT
BIBLICAL LAW? (And how does that relate that to the question of modern day homosexuality)? by Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill.
the question of modern committed homosexual relationships, wherein two men or women enter into a committed relationship with
each other, had been put before Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi (135-220 C.E.), the editor of the Mishnah portion of the Talmud,
in Tiberias, Israel, or Rabbi Ashi (c.352-427 C.E.), one of the compilers of the Gemara in Babylon, it is my belief that the
Talmud would have had similar stories to the ones depicting Rabbis Shimon and Eliezer and Elazar, son of Rabbi Eleizer as
having handled the so-called proof texts of Leviticus in a similar manner as they handled the questions of "A Stubborn and
Rebellious Son," "An Idolatrous City," and a "House Contaminated with Blight (Nuga)" in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin,
The Hebrew Bible, in Deuteronomy 21: 18 - 21 records the Word of God when it states that God
told Moses on Mt. Sinai: "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious
son, who does not obey the voice of his father; or the voice of his mother, and when they have chastened him, will still not
hearken to them....they shall bring him out to the elders of his city...And all the men of his city shall stone him
to death: so shall you put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear and fear."
the Torah EXPLICITLY has God stating that a stubborn and rebellious son should be stoned to death, these rabbis of the Talmudic
period strongly disagreed. They knew that the way that the Law of the Torah of Moses' day (the 14th century BCE) was practiced, was
not the way that the Law was to be practiced as LAW in the Talmudic Period, almost 1500 years later, in the 4th or 5th
The text of the Babylonian Talmud that discusses the killing of the Stubborn and Rebellious son,
tractate Sanhedrin 68B starts out the Mishnah with the statement; "A stubborn and rebellious son - from when does he become
a stubborn and rebellious son?"
It ends the intricate discussion on just what constitutes a "Stubborn and Rebellious
Son" five pages later on page 71A by resolving the halakha (the Way the Law is practiced) according to the
decision of Rabbi Yehudah, who states: "THERE NEVER WAS A REBELLIOUS SON, NOR
WILL THERE EVER BE."
Thus, the rabbis of the Talmud put fences around the Torah
"Voice of God" to negate the Capital punishment that the Torah requires.
However, the anonymous redactor of this
Mishnah in the Talmud asks: "Then why was it written?"
Talmud responds: "So that people might study it (wrestle with it), and receive
reward for their efforts."
However, the Talmud also records both sides of the discussion for the Talmud now
records the objection of Rabbi Yonatan, who states: "This
is not so, for I once witnessed a rebellious son being tried, and I sat on his grave."
This same series of
discussions continues as to whether there can exist an "Idolatrous and Condemned City" as per God's Word in Deuteronomy 12:
The result is again that the halakha is that "THERE NEVER WAS A CONDEMNED CITY, NOR WILL THERE
EVER BE" based upon the argument of Rabbi Eliezer.
Again, Rabbi Yonatan objects with:
"I once saw a city declared a condemned city, and I sat upon its rubble after it had been destroyed."
the Sages turn to the question of a house infected with nega (erroneously translated as leprosy) which the Torah demands that
it be torn down (Leviticus 14: 37).
Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Shimon, renders the halakha as: "THERE NEVER WAS A LEPROUS HOUSE, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE."
the Talmud records the objections of Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Tzaddok and Rabbi Shimon of Kefar Akko, that they personally
visited a place where the stones of a Leprous House had been desposed of. This is a strong argument as it has two witnesses
(Deut. 17: 6).
Yet, in all three of these cases, the established halakha (the Way the Law is practiced) is
that "THERE NEVER WAS..., NOR WILL THERE EVER BE" followed by: "WHY WAS IT WRITTEN
IN THE TORAH?" This was answered by: "So that people
might study it, and receive reward for their efforts."
In other words, in Rabbinic methodology, they were saying:
"EVEN IF THERE WAS SUCH A THING AS A REBELLIOUS SON, A CONDEMNED CITY, OR A
LEPROUS HOUSE, IN A PAST TIME, WE STATE THAT WE WILL NOT OBSERVE THESE HARSH COMMANDS OF GOD IN THIS AGE AND TIME OR FROM
THIS TIME ON." (Perhaps they were also inferring that Moses might have misheard what God really said). In any case,
they did not accept that the death of a stubborn and rebellious son was what God desired in their own time period and going
The Sages of the Talmud looked at the Written Torah in much the same way as modern American jurisprudence
looks at the American Constitution, which some people hold to also be a sacred document.
The Sages of the Talmud operated
in much the same manner as do the American Supreme Court Justices. They determined, based upon the needs of their own time
period, the Rules of Ancient Law that are still mandatory upon the Jewish people in their own time period, and their rulings
operate in the same manner as do Amendments to the Constitution or The Bill of Rights.
When this is resolved in a
Responsa, with both a majority opinion and a minority opinion, it becomes halakha, Law. Thus, halakha is synonymous with continuing
The purpose of revelation is to bring ancient law into modern practice, or, in other words, to bring the
people into balance with the Will of God. If this means reinterpreting a text, or even doing as the rabbis of the Talmud did
and putting the text as to being no longer relevant, and thus, in the place of "THERE
NEVER WAS ............, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE"
This does not mean that they ignore or negate the original
text. They still continue to argue the issues using the text in later baraitot as examples, but they do not use
the text to carry out a sentence of judgement.
Within the weekly Hebrew Torah readings of Parashat Achare
Mot (Leviticus 16: 1-18: 30) and Parashat Kedosheem (Leviticus 19: 1-20: 27) are found the particular verses utilized for
the past sixteen centuries, by both Jewish and Christian fundamentalist teachers to erroneously (and purposefully) persecute,
torture and punish a small portion of the human population.
These specific verses read:
(1) Leviticus 18: 22; which
states: ואת זכר לא תשכב
משכבי אשה תועבה
הוא "Do not lie (sexually) with a male like as you would with a woman, since this is an idolatrous
perversion (תועבה TOEYVAH)".
(2) Leviticus 20: 13, which states: ואיש
אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי
אשה תועבה עשו שניהם מות יומתו
דמיהם בם "If a man has sexual intercourse with a male person, like as
with a woman, they have both committed a תועבה TOEYVAH
(aמ idolatrous perversion). Their death is their own fault".
These verses were written in the Book of Leviticus
originally sometime about 1350 BCE. This was a full millennium prior to Jews being in contact with a hedonistic, militant
non-Semitic culture that had a Syrian-Greek-Hellenistic AND A missionizing Hellenizing religious premis that was openly promiscuous
and a bi-sexual modality. This public display of what Jews held as sacred and private behavior was why the very first Talmudic
references are to PUBLIC DISPLAYS of homosexual like, sexual activity, mostly by non-Jews, which was spoken of as an idolatrous
perversion (תועבה TOYEVAH) of JEWISH mores
and religious practice (Sanhedrin 54a) if practiced by Jews.
Again, according to the rabbi and Bible scholar, Professor
Jacob Milgrom, the prestigious translator and commentator of the scholarly Anchor Bible Series Translation of the Book of
Leviticus, and the Jewish Publication Society Commentary on the Book of Numbers; the ORIGINAL Hebrew Bible Leviticus texts
are referring to NON-ISRAELITE, RELIGIOUS cultic ritual sexual and sexual abuse practices that Israelites were not to imitate
when they entered into the Land of Israel. It has nothing at all to do with what we today term as being homosexuality per
se, but with cultic religious fertility rituals.
The ORIGINAL LEVITICUS documents of the biblical texts that are
today used by the uninformed to deny a spiritual connection to God for homosexuals were not written to address either homosexuals
or homosexuality. These documents are actually referring to a prohibition against imitating non-Israelite, foreign CULTIC
sexual substitution fertility rituals, and do not condemn anyone who does not use substitutional and/or incestuous sex as
a method of gaining Divine favor.
In fact, the text of the Book of Leviticus
was originally written as an instruction manual for the priestly tribe, and referred to PRIESTLY prohibitions only. The original
name of the Book of Leviticus (which name comes from the Greek Septuagint) was in Hebrew "ספר תורת הכהנים SEFER TORAT HAKOHANIM"
(The Instructions of the Priestly Officiants).
Among the Israelites the Priestly class
was required to be קדוש
"Kadosh" (Holy; see Lev. 22: 8; Ezek. 44: 31), "set apart" from the rest of the people, just as the Sabbath
and Festivals are set apart as קדוש "Holy" from
the rest of weekly time.
During Ezra's time period (5th century
BCE) this same text of Leviticus was then edited, added to, and made to apply to all the returning Jews, who were now to be
a "nation of kings and priests." "You shall be Holy (קדש set apart), for I, ADONAI, your God, am Holy"(Lev. 19: 2).
The Hebrew word for a Eunuch, סריס, is the generic word that probably included those who were homosexual,
a term unknown to Jews of the 1st century. It simply referred to those who would not produce offspring, not just castrated
individuals. Though I am NOT a Christian in any way or form. AND I believe
that the Nazarener Rebbe, Jesus, the son of Joseph, was not a Christian either. Thus I offer the following quotation:
יש סריסים אשר
נולדו כן מבטן אמם ויש
סרסים ויש המסרסים על-ידי
אדם ויש סרסים אשר סרסו
את-עצמם למען מלכות השמים
"For there are some who are homosexuals, which were born
so from their mother's impregnation: and there are some who are castrated ones, which were made eunuchs by men:
and there be those who are celibates by vow, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Rabbi Jesus
ben Joseph of Nazareth, 1st century CE; Matthew 19: 12)
See also Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth, Chapter 8 (folio 79b-80a)
סריס as a synonym for "homosexual"
There is a question as to whether the
ancient sages who wrote the Torah would have seen סריסים (sarisim - eunuchs) as equivalent to what we would call today “homosexuals,”
as well as others who did not propagate. Did the word סריס (saris) connote more than one meaning to the ancient Israelite? Did they lump in their own minds
those who they saw as either physically, mentally, or in any other way, unable (or unwilling) to create offspring as “eunuchs?”
And, did they give this class of their fellow tribesmen negative connotations?
They certainly did not call them by the
English word, homosexuals. Karl-Maria Kertbeny first coined the term homosexual in 1869 in a pamphlet when arguing against
a Prussian anti-sodomy law. The Hebrew speaking people who wrote the original text of Leviticus did not see homosexual actions
as a sexual orientation of any consequence. In fact, they viewed homosexuality as something that was of little or no real
concern to the normal operation of the tribal group, thus it was not singled out as a single class identity as were Priests
כהנים, Levites לויים, and Nazarites נזירים.
Mr. Faris Malik's article, “The Ancient Roman and Talmudic
Definition of Natural Eunuchs,” convincingly shows that the ancient Hebrews did indeed refer to what we today call
homosexuals by the term סריס-eunuch.
What is the effect of this? The effect is to show most definitely that the so-called anti-homosexual passages in Leviticus
and Deuteronomy COULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO HOMOSEXUALITY, just as Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill has long contended. Rather, these
passages refer to sexual substitution by HETEROSEXUAL men as symbolic acts performed originally in idolatrous ceremonies.
It makes sense that the ancient sages of the Jewish people knew
what homosexuality was. After all homosexuality is a natural human condition that has been on the earth as long as the species
itself. The only question is by what terminology was it known to them? As the text of the Hebrew Torah (from which comes Jewish
Law) is as much as 3500 years old, many of the words used then to describe people, acts, and actions are not clearly understood
today. It is easier for religious fundamentalists as they take the King James English most literally as the inerrant text
of the Bible "just as it was given to Moses on Mt Sinai." The scholar and Truth seeker, however, knows better. One need only
take a look at the latest Jewish Publication Society translation of the Torah (from Hebrew into English), and see the number
of times the notation "Hebrew meaning unknown" is beside a word, to get the drift that sometimes the true meaning of a specific
word in the ancient language has been lost over time. This loss of the original meaning has happened in all languages as words
go out of favor or usage, or change in the way they are used.
The New Testament records Rabbi Jesus
ben Joseph of Nazareth as saying: "For there are some eunuchs who are born so from their mother's womb (homosexual?), and
some eunuchs who are made eunuchs by men (castrated), and some eunuchs who make themselves become eunuchs (celibates) for
the sake of the kingdom of the heavens. Let him who is able to receive it, receive it" (Matthew 19:12). It is evident that
in his day he (or the writer of his words) saw several different classes of non-procreating men as part of a group that he
lumped together under the generic term “eunuchs – sarisim (pl) סריסים.
It has also long been known that "The God Fearers," who were Gentiles
that worshipped at Jewish synagogues and kept the Jewish Laws, and from whom the earliest "Christian" Church was formed, failed
in becoming "completed Jews" by conversion to the tribal religion due to their fear of circumcision, which they thought made
them less competent in bed. This equation of circumcision with castration and with loss of sexual potency left a void in the
spiritual beliefs of these "God Fearers" that Paul of Tarsus took advantage of
For a well written argument by Mr. Faris Malik in favor of the Hebrew term "Saris" as referring to homosexual persons as well
as to castrated persons, click here:
It is thought that the Dead Sea community of Zadokites (Zadukeem
- Sadducees), who are considered by most scholars to have written and hidden most, if not all, of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
evidently thought that the Book of Leviticus was ESPECIALLY important for their community. Sixteen separate manuscripts (none
totally complete) of the Scroll of Leviticus have been discovered in the Qumron caves.
Of these sixteen manuscripts,
three manuscripts show no deviation from what we read in the Masoritic text of the Book of Leviticus today. Interestingly,
however, four manuscripts were written in the Paleo-Hebraic script in use prior to the exile of the Judeans into Babylon.
Although both chapters 18 and 20 are present in these manuscripts, our particular verses do not seem to have survived.
It is the opinion of Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill
that, like all other indigenous tribal societies of people, including Native American Indians, the Jewish people were not
overly concerned about homosexuality as a sexual modality within the community, where-in two married or widowed men might
come together in a loving, companionship that well may have included a sexual relationship. As a rule, it did not get any
notice. Why? Because, just as long as these men had also fulfilled the command to take a wife and be fruitful and multiply
and replenesh the earth (to have at least one child of each sex), their "other sexual activity" did not make a difference.
No condemnation of King David's relationship with Jonathon, nor of Judah's tryst with Tamar is recorded in the Hebrew Bible.
THE TIME OF THE TORAH, ALL MALES WERE COMMANDED TO MARRY
The first commandment in the Torah is considered to be fruitful
and multiply [Sefer HaHinnuch Vol. 1, pg. 7] and one who fails to marry is considered to have neglected one of the most fundamental
of Jewish laws. In fact, the Sages tell us, when a person comes up for judgment after his death, he will be asked: "Did you
get married?" "Did you raise a family?"..Thus we are told, " A man who does not have a wife is not a proper man," and "A man
who has no wife lives without joy, without blessing and without goodness" [Yebamot 62b].
King Hezekiah was told by the Prophet Isaiah that he
would die and his soul would perish because he had failed to observe the first commandment, the command to marry and preserve
the species (Talmud, Berachot 10A). It was because of this failure that, though he was destined to be the Messiah and bring
peace to the world, that it did not occure in his day (ibid).
In ancient traditional Jewish society, ALL males were viewed
as under the command of Heaven to marry and to have children. No provision was made for a completely celibate or a completely
homosexual orientation. A man could, but was not required to, obtain a divorce from a woman who was unable to produce him
children. He could also take a second wife (polygamy) or even a "common-law" wife (a pelegesh - a concubine). A person who
failed to keep a commandment that applied to him (i.e. to marry and have children) was seen as a danger to the welfare of
the entire community; because of his disobedience of a positive commandment, the rains would fail to come and the herds would
abort their young. Only after a man had fulfilled the command to marry and bring forth children could he dedicate his
life to a vow of celibacy, if he so chose.
According to the Jerusalem Talmud in Tractate Ketubot,
Rabbi Chisda (3rd-4th century Babylonian Amora) said; "I am better than my colleagues because I was married when I was but
sixteen years old. Yet, if I had married at age thirteen, I would not have had (a single wasted seminal emission) and would
have spit in the Adversary's (HaSatan) eye." In other words, a young married man will not spill semen in vain.
Sages further taught that the commandment to marry and to have children is more important than the commandment to build the
Temple. It is considered as the VERY FIRST COMMANDMENT (Genesis 1: 28 & 2: 24). A Jew who willfully did not marry was
considered a sinner and needed to offer a sin sacrifice. He could even be FORCED by his community to take a wife if he was
still unmarried by the age of 20 (Rokeach 12, as quoted in the 18th century Sephardic Commentary on the Bible, MeAm Lo'ez,
Vol. 1, page 124).
The Sages taught that a boy should be under the obligation to marry at an early age, he should
have already signed the prenuptial document by his thirteenth birthday. This was the origin of today's Bar Mitzvah ceremony.
If he had not married by his twentieth birthday, the court could compel him to marry (ibid.)
THE COMMUNITY OF "ESSENES" WAS NOT A STRICTLY CELIBATE COMMUNITY
to Josephus, there existed a group of Jews (during the pre-Roman war of 64-70 CE, that culminated with the destruction of
the Temple, called the "Essenes." He refers to celibacy as one of the practices of this community. Recent excavation at the
cemetary of Qumron has turned up graves of not only men, but also of women and children. It is an error based upon a superimposing
of the monastic tradition of the early archaeologist, Fr. Roland De Vaux upon the community who inhabited Qumron.
Some of that community, AFTER they had fulfilled their proceative
duties, and their children had grown up, took upon themselves celibate vows similar to the vows a Nazarite takes. They believed
that by denying themselves this "pleasure," they would hasten the coming of the Kingdom of God.
In the Dead Sea Scroll, "The Messianic Rule," (1QSa,I, 9-11); "At the age of twenty years old, a youth shall be enrolled (in the Community) to enter
upon his allotted duty to raise a family and to be joined to the Holy Congregation. He shall not lay with a woman before then
for he does not yet know the difference between good and evil." Thus, you see that a youth of 20 years of age had to
marry and assume the duty to raise a family in order to be "joined to the Holy Congregation." Being married and a father of
children was viewed by the Essenes as a REQUIREMENT, just as in normative Pharisaic Judaism.
From the above texts we
see that within both the Pharisaic-Sadducean Judaism, and Essene Judaism, as represented by the Talmud and the Dead Sea Scroll
texts, EVERY Jewish young man was to be married to a Jewish young woman by the time they were sexually active, no matter what
their true sexual orientation was. In fact, the signing of the prenuptial documents, the ketubah, was part of a child's coming
of age (B'nai Mitzvah) ceremony.
Although both the Essene community and the Priestly element of Sadducean Judaism
were obsessed with sexual purity and seminal emissions, one cannot find specific references to male homosexuality as having
been a prohibited activity for Jews in any of their sectarian writings. It seems that the married Essenes lived in the cities,
near the walls, while, possibly, those who had already raised their families, or were widowed, or were no longer married may
have lived at the community at Qumron.
In a closely knit religious community of this kind, true homosexuality, wherein
two persons of the same sex live together in a committed, sexually active relationship, is usually accepted without fanfare
or public notice. Snide remarks might be made but the relationship is usually just ignored.
THE TORAH IS NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE REFER TO AS THE PRACTICE
Almost all Jewish halakhic authorities agree that nowhere in the specific texts of the Five Books
of the Written Torah does the Torah prohibit homosexual acts by WOMEN (see the writing on this by Rabbi Yosef Hayyim of Chief
Rabbi of Baghdad, 1834-1909), in The Halachot of the Ben Ish Hai, Chapter "Shoftim," on lesbianism). This fact proves that,
to these later rabbis, homosexuality itself as a sexual orientation is not the intent of the subject verses in the Book of
The intent of the verses in question was to prohibit male upon male sexual idolatry in the imitation of
the practices of Canaanite and Egyptian cultic fertility rites by Israelite heterosexual men (see Leviticus 18: 1).
the 3rd century CE, the Babylonian Talmud records that Rabbi Huna (the miracle working rain making-sacred circle drawing rabbi)
tried to get the Sanhedrin to legislate against female homosexuals (lesbians) being able to marry a High Priest, a Cohen,
but his colleagues ruled against him (BT Yebamot 76a). The Sanhedrin said that it was not permissible to prohibit what the
It logically follows that if the Torah was referring to homosexuality in general, as a sexual preference
or as an sexual orientation, why would it just address only the MALE homosexual activity and not also the female homosexual
JEWISH EXEGESIS METHODOLOGY
On the basis of the exegesis of Baraitha d'Rabbi Ishmael in the Sifra,
on Leviticus, written in the mid-second century of the Common Era, Rabbi Ishmael says:
"The Torah is interpreted by
means of thirteen rules.... When a generalization is followed by a specification, only what specifies applies (Miklal u'frat)."
In our texts of Leviticus the generalization is the text; "A man shall not lay with a man," ואת זכר לא תשכב and the specification
is the text; "as you would lay with a woman" משכבי
Based upon Rabbi Ishmael's method of Jewish Torah exegesis, we can clearly
see that the biblical passages in Leviticus 18: 22 and also in Leviticus 20: 13 can not refer to true homosexual activity
at all, as at least one of the males is a heterosexual or perhaps a bisexual male. Otherwise the text need not supply the
words, "as (you would) lay with a woman."
Rabbi Jacob Milgrom has said that these Leviticus texts are in reality,
referring to foreign religious, cultic, ritual and promiscuous sexual practices, as practiced by the idolatrous religions
of Egypt and Canaan, which featured the substitution of others, including relatives, animals, and members of the same sex
for cultic ritual fertility purposes.
It should also be noted that it is not the normal homosexual practice for a
man to lay with another man as though he were laying with a (preferred) woman. This is HETEROSEXUAL SUBSTITUTION for sexual
gratification. The norman homosexual man has no desire for sex with a woman.
Thus, if a man were thinking of using
his sexual partner as though that partner were a woman, and not the man that he is, it would not be a true homosexual relationship,
as one of the parties involved is PRETENDING that the person he is laying with is a preferred woman. Why should he lay with
a man when he could find many willing women that would lay with him?
SUBSTITUTIONAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR NOT PERMITTED
is a second possible explanation that the situation described in our Leviticus texts are actually a permissive sexual situation
in which the first man does not have control over his sexual emotions, but uses others to satisfy his sexual desires. If we
read the Torah this way, it is warning this kind of person that certain types of substitutional sexual behavior are not permitted.
The way that the text is written also provides us with a clue that sexual substitution is what is being referred to when it
says: ואת זכר לא
תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה
הוא.The writing of the last word as הוא, which means
HE, and yet is vowelled so that it is to be pronounced as HEE, היא,
which means SHE, instead of the correct HU, for the masculine tense, shows that the male is substituting as a female
instead of the male that he is.
In the Greek texts reference to Lev. 18:22 from the Septuagint
(translated in 3rd century BCE), the words are: "koimithisi koitin gynaikos" (you may not lie as with a woman).
is the way it is usually rendered. The above translates into Greek the Hebrew words mishkevey, (to lay sexually with - The
Hebrew consonants are: מ-ש-כ-ב-י) and
eeshah, (woman : א-י-ש-ה).
is attested in three of the earliest papyri, A, B, and F, which support the word "gynaikos" -- (as with a woman). It implies
a substitution of some sort. Later Christian Greek renditions have used "arsenos" (young male) instead of gynaikos, which
shows a decided anti-Hellenistic or a pro-Gentile Christian, anti-Jewish Christian bias.
The Torah itself tells us
it is not referring to homosexuality but to idolatry by its opening statement in chapter 18 of Leviticus wherin YHVH God states;
"I am is YHVH your Creator Force! You are not to follow the practices of Egypt where you lived, nor of Canaan, where I will
be bringing you. Do not follow any of their customs."
If we wish to determine what kind of customs the author of Leviticus
is referring to as being prohibited, we must ask ourselves: What were the supposed homosexual practices of the religions in
Egypt and in Canaan in the 14th century-10th century BCE (the time represented by Leviticus)?
According to the Alexandria,
Egypt Jewish philosopher Philo (1st century CE); "They [the pagan TEMPLE PRIESTS] would apply themselves to deep drinking
of strong liquor and dainty foods and forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for WOMEN [these were heterosexual
men] did they violate the marriages of their neighbors, but also these men mounted males [they were promiscuous men].... Then,
little by little they accustomed those who were BY NATURE MEN to submit to play the part of women.... (On Abraham, Chapter
26, pages 134-136.)
This Egyptian cultic religious practice is a SUBSTITUTION of the male body for a female body in
male to male promiscuous sexual activity. It is not homosexuality! The practices being referred to are those of CULTIC ritual
promiscuous sexual behavior.
Genesis 19: 4-5: 4 They
had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the MEN of Sodom, young and
old—all the people to the last MAN—gathered about the house. 5 And they shouted to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring
them out to us, that we may be intimate with them.”
This text in Genesis 19: 4-5, used to erroneously give the nomenclature
of “sodomy” to homosexual sex is from the 17th or 18th century BCE biblical account. This text actually does not
refer to an act of consensual sex, or to homosexual sex at all. It refers to an act of sexual violence, degradation, and male
rape, as also does the passage in Judges 19: 22. These sexual acts committed by the men of Sodom are acts of VIOLENCE and sexual brutality,
used to show the hatred and FEAR of the men of Sodom for those
they consider as strangers, who they are thereby degrading and humiliating. This act of forced sex is not an act of love,
nor is it one of caring, nor is it based upon either parties sexual orientation. There are religious ministers and rabbis
who view this degradation and humiliation as an act of homosexuality. They could not be further from the truth. That they
do so speaks more to their own bias and lack of understanding than to their desire to be true to the meaning of the original
The Hebrew Prophet, Ezekiel, who wrote his writings much closer to the
writing down of this Torah story, actually addresses directly the question of what the sin of the people of Sodom was.
He writes in his chapter
I live—declares the Lord GOD—your
sister Sodom and her daughters did not do what you
and your daughters did. 49 Only
this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her
daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquillity; yet she did not
support the poor and the needy.
In chapter 13 of Genesis,
we are told that the land of the Jordan Plains upon which the cities of Sodom
and Gomorrah stood was like “God’s own Garden.”
Now, the people of Sodom were wicked and given to sin; towards Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh especially (they practiced idolatry). The Hebrew word “Sodom”
(סודם) is etymologically related to the Hebrew
word (שדה), “fertile field.” The implication is that Sodom
was a fertile farming area, good for grazing animals. The Hebrew word “Gomorrah”
(עמורה) derives etymologically from the word (עומר) meaning “sheaf of grain.”
By using these names for these cities, the writer is implying that the area of Sodom and Gomorrah was good for the growing of grains like, wheat, barley, oats,
rye, etc. This is also why the Prophet Ezekiel states: “She and her daughters had plenty
of bread and untroubled tranquility.” So, what then were the sins of Sodom
The sins of Sodom were - social
injustice, waste, over-indulgence, and insolence. These were the crimes of Sodom,
the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Pirke Abot, chapter 5, section 9, it states “At four periods pestilence increases: in
the fourth year and in the seventh year, and in the year after the seventh year, and at the end of Sukkot every year. In the
fourth year – because of [neglect of] the Tithe for the Poor in the third year; in the seventh year – because
of [neglect of] the Tithe for the Poor in the sixth year; and in the year after the seventh year – because of [transgressing
the laws of] Shemitah produce; and at the end of Sukkot every year – because of stealing the gifts due to the poor.”
Rabbis are telling us that if we neglect the gifts due to the poor, we will incur “pestilence” because of it.
The gifts due the poor are not considered as belonging to us, so if we keep them, we are stealing from the poor. A part of
the obligation of being able to make a living from raising animals and growing crops was the responsibility to see that the
Poorman’s Tithe was properly done every third and sixth year, and that the fields were allowed to not be harvested in
the seventh year (Shemitah Year), with the crops that grew on their own being harvested by the poor.
Abot, chapter 5, section 10, states: “There are four attitudes among men: He that says, “What is mine is mine
and what is yours is yours” – this is the average attitude; but some [Sages] say that this is the attitude of
Sodomite is described here as being a person who accepts no responsibility for the poor in his community. He owes them nothing.
Thus we see
that the sins of Sodom were the failure to provide for the homeless, the hungry, and the poor - AGAIN,
"social injustice, waste, over-indulgence, and insolence." These were the crimes of Sodom and
homosexuality! It is THESE sins that should rightly be labeled as SODOMY.
THE ENTIRE BIBLICAL REFERENCES TO SODOM AND TO GOMORRAH BEGINING WITH CHAPTER 13 OF GENESIS UNTIL THEIR
DESTRUCTION IN CHAPTER 19 IS TO CONTRAST THE HOSPITALITY OF AVRAM AND SARAI WITH THE SELFISH AND GREEDY NATURE OF THOSE WEALTHY
CITIES OF THE JORDAN PLAIN, SODOM AND GOMORRAH. A NATURE THAT CAUSED GOD TO PUNISH THEM BECAUSE OF ARROGANCE, BECAUSE OF GREED,
AND NOT BECAUSE OF HOMOSEXUALITY.
BIBLICAL REFERENCES THOUGHT TO REFER TO HOMOSEXUALITY
male prostitutes הקדשים mentioned in the English translation of I Kings 14: 24, 15: 12, and II Kings 23:7 (proscribed
in Deuteronomy 23: 18) are described in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 54b) as providing homosexual sex, but other early Bible
translators were of a different opinion.
The translator of the 2nd century CE Babylonian Aramaic Jewish translation of the Hebrew texts,
theTargum Onkelos, read the quoted Book of Kings text to show that the male prostitutes provided sex to the FEMALE visitors
to the idolatrous temples. If this is the case, there is some question whether these male prostitutes were providing male
on male sex or if they were also, or only, providing heterosexual sex to women.
In any case, the male rapes of Genesis 19 and Judges 19: 22, and the promiscuous male sexual activity
of I & 2 Kings does not describe monogamous, loving and caring homosexual relationships anymore than the case of Lot and
his daughter's act of incest in Genesis 19: 31-38, describes monogamous, loving and caring heterosexual relationships.
IS A CATEGORY RELATED TO IDOLATROUS PRACTICES
Now let us examine the meanings of the Hebrew word - תועבה -TOEYVAH (abomination, detestable, idolatrously
unfit, a horrible deed, a shameful vice, idolatry, idols- related to the Phoenician תעבת, derived from Old Hebrew תעבה).
A look at the internal evidence shows that the words (toeyvah hee תועבה
הוא), which are translated as "an abomination" or "a disgusting perversion," means much more than
The Hebrew word TOEYVAH תועבה
is used in the Torah to describe three CATEGORIES of actions in the Torah that are considered abominations or disgusting
These are (1) laws around IDOLATRY; as in Deuteronomy 17: 4; (2) laws around the eating of forbidden
animal species or bodily fluids (blood, semen), as in Deuteronomy 14: 3; and (3) laws around the male cultic sexual prohibitions,
as in Leviticus 18 & 20, which include incestuous relationships, bestiality, and same sex substitution.
the opinion of Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill that the three catagories around the word TOEYVAH תועבה are, in reality, but ONE category, that
of things prohibited because of their association with idolatrous worship. Thus, the word TOEYVAH תועבה
(or a form of the word), is a CATEGORY of IDOLATROUS forbidden action, and is used in that manner over 100 times in
the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).
The word TOEYVAH תועבה
is used only 26 times in the Torah; 2 times in Genesis; 1 time in Exodus; 6 times in Leviticus; 0 times in Numbers;
and 17 times in Deuteronomy. In all these cases it refers to a form of (idolatrous) substitution. The one time תועבה is used in Exodus (8: 22), it refers
to the concept that what Israelites sacrifice are considered to be by the Egyptians; an ABOMINATION, a תועבה.
We thus learn that the Hebrew word TOEYVAH refers
to a concept akin to adultery against God, by substituting the idolatrous sexual behavior of another religion's fertility
practice as a method of worshipping the Israelite concept of God.
The word TOEYVAH תועבה
is in the Major Prophets 57 times. 5 times in 1 & 11 Kings, 3 times in Isaiah, 8 times in Jeremiah, 1 time in Malachi
and 41 times in Ezekiel. It is not found AT ALL in the Minor Twelve Prophets.
In the Writings, TOEYVAH תועבה is found once in Psalms and 25 times in Proverbs.
In every case that תועבה is
found, it is referring to a prohibitted activity centered around some concept of IDOLATRY.
In today's world, most
traditional rabbinical halakhists would not see the Christian concept of Trinity as a toeyvah form of idolatrous belief (as
the Torah saw Egyptian and Canaanite beliefs), but rather they would accept that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship
the SAME GOD even if by different Names and concepts of understanding the nature of that same One God.
There are certainly
no authorities within mainline, traditional Judaism that would consider any of the variants of Christian or Moslem faiths
as "a disgusting perversion or abomination," with the possible exception of those groups that advocate violence or hatred
based upon race, religious differences, ethnicity, or sexual orientation (and ALL religions have their zealots).
the eating of a forbidden animal, bird and fish species, as well as eating a kid cooked in it's mother's milk is considered
toeyvah in Deuteronomy 14: 4, as well as the eating of blood (forbidden even in the early Jewish-Christian community, see
Acts 15: 20 & 29), yet we do not hold non-Jews guilty of being idolators because they eat these Torah forbidden substances.
According to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888), the founder of Modern Orthodox Judaism, in his extensive
five volume work Translation and Commentary to the Torah, states (page 44)... in commenting on Genesis 1: 28; "The four sections
of man's mission - כבשה, מלאו, את
הארץ, רבו, פרו embody his whole free-willed moral development.
פרו refers to marriage; רבו
refers to the family; מלאו refers to society; and
כבשה refers to the aquisition of property."
of these thing are obtainable by gays and lesbians as well as by straights. The WORD "MARRIAGE" is just that - a word. It
does not, by itself, mean just a man and a woman unless that is how we define it. I choose to define it as two loving people
who have come together to create a bond between themselves that allows them to be able to trust that the other partner will
be faithful to the Covenant of Marriage that is between them.
Anthropological studies and modern genetic and social science has
shown that homosexuality is a natural state of being for some human beings and other animal species.
is truly the case, and it is Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill's belief that it is, then it is the God who created the human
species who is responsible for the condition of homosexuality just as it is God who is responsible for the condition of heterosexuality.
To say that homosexuality is a deviant behavior is to say that God made a mistake when God created the אדם, the singular Earth Creature, זכר ונקבה (both male and female). "He (God) created him; to be male and female, He created
them. And God blessed them.... And God saw all that He had made, and He found it to be VERY GOOD טוב מאד! (Genesis
1: 27 - 31).
Rabbi Ted Alexander (A Conservative rabbi) of the San Francisco,
California's Jewish community has stated that; "This is the way God has created
them (as homosexuals), and if God has created them this way, I'm willing to give them the blessings (of marriage). Furthermore,
anyone who has any hesitation to give blessings to same-sex people should not say the Sabbath Psalm, 'How great are Your works,
oh God,' because that includes everybody." Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill is in agreement with this statement.
March 2000, the 111th Convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, representing The Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
(Reform), passed a Resolution On Same Gender Officiation whereby they resolved to support a Reform Rabbi that would perform
same gender marriage rituals. They also supported the right of Rabbis to choose not to perform same gender marriage rituals.
As a totally Jewish Rabbi who considers himself "Flexodox", Rabbi Gershon commends the Reform Rabbis for taking this
important step towards full Jewish religious equality in our communities. He prays for the day when the other communities
of Jewish thought; Conservative, and Orthodox, also follow suit.
In the San Francisco Bay area, as well as other
areas of intellectual progressive thinking, some Rabbis belonging to the Conservative movement have begun performing same-sex
marriages. Rabbis of the Renewal, Reconstructionist, and Flexodox areas of Jewish thought are also performing same-sex
It is of utmost importance for those who are students of the Torah to reclaim the texts that have
been kidnapped by the fundamentalist, Taliban types among the Jews, the Moslems, and the Christians and then twisted
them, and used these texts to hurt the innocent and to make them afraid.
We must follow the example of our blessed
Rabbis of Talmudic times and retranslate the Torah in EVERY generation so that we might live in it and not die by it. The
Torah is our life and length of days. It is Eternal! It is TRUE!
The Hebrew Torah is the CONSTITUTION of the Jewish
people, but it is the Rabbis who, like the Supreme Court, tell us how the Torah directs us in our current generation. The
INTERPRETATION of the Torah is a New and Everlasting Continuing Revelation (kabbalah).
In fact, Rabbi Hayyim Palachi
writes that: "...the Torah gave permission to each person to express his opinion
according to his understanding.... It is not good for a sage to withhold his words out of deference to the sages who preceded
him if he finds in their words a clear contradiction.... A sage who wishes to write his proofs against the kings and giants
of Torah should not withhold his words nor suppress his prophecy, but should give his analysis as he has been guided by Heaven."
Rabbi Palachi notes that "even though Rambam wrote with Divine inspiration,
many great sages of his generation criticized his work. There are numerous examples of students refuting their teachers: Rabbi
Yehudah haNassi disagreed with his father; Rashba disagreed with Ramban; The Tosafists disagreed with Rashi. Respect for the
authorities of the past does not mean that one cannot arrive at an opposing opinion." (See Hikekei Lev, vol. 1, O.
H. 6 and Y. D. 42.)
Rabbi Marc Angel (an New York Orthodox Sephardi Rabbi, and past President of the Union of Sephardi
Congregations, and past President of the Modern Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America) writes: "Diversity
of opinion is a reality well recognized in Jewish tradition. The Talmud (Berakhot 58a) records the ruling that one is required
to make a blessing upon seeing a huge crowd of Jews, praising God who understands the root and inner thoughts of each individual.
Their thoughts are not alike and their appearances are not alike. God created each individual to be unique; He expected and
wanted diversity of thought." (Seeking Good, Speaking Peace.)
Rabbi Hayyim David Halevi, and Rabbi Yaakov Emden
both gave their opinions that; a student should question their rabbis teachings as best they can. In this way, truth is clarified.
(See Aseh Lekha Rav, 2: 61 and Shehlot Yavetz, 1: 5)
Rabbi Halevi further quotes Rambam (Hilkhot Sanhedrin 23: 9),
who states the principle that "En le-dayan ella mah she-enav ro'ot"
(A judge has only what his eyes see). In other words, a judge must base his opinion solely on his own understanding of the
case he is considering. No legal precedent obligates him, even if it is a decision of courts greater than he, even of his
In Judaism, we teach that ALL the Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, and that even the most future
Responsa of a future Rabbi was included in that Revelation.
We do not change the past teachings arbitrarily, but examine
the present needs, look at all the past teachings on the subject, closely inspect the inner meanings of any textual materials
that are relevant to determine if we can deduce a new and the true meaning of the texts, and with a prayer towards the concept
of unifying the Jewish people so that they last on into the coming generations, we do what needs to be done.
Gershon Winkler, who was ordained as an Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi in Jerusalem, has written that:
"Asked the Sages of France (11th century), how can the ruling of both parties be the Word of God when this one permits and
this one forbids? And they answered with the following midrash (sermon): When Mosheh ascended the mountain to receive the
Torah, the Holy Blessed One demonstrated to him concerning every commandment 49 different angles (literally "faces") from
which a matter might be declared forbidden and 49 angles from which a matter might be declared permitted. And he asked the
Holy Blessed One about this, and God said: "This knowledge shall be transmitted to the spiritual teachers in every generation
so that the decision on any matter shall be theirs" (13th-century Rabbi
Yom Tov ben Avraham Isbili (Ritva) on the Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 13b).
Had the Torah been given already sliced
(Rashi: with its laws already set and absolutized and void of any process of learning to one side of an issue or the other),
no leg would have anything to stand on (Rashi: the world could not survive, because the Torah requires us to interpret her
many faces this way and that, and both these and those are the Words of the Living God)... Said Moses to the Holy Blessed
One: "Teacher of the Universe! Show me how the halachah is determined (Rashi: so that there will be no question about the
application of any of the laws." But God then said to him: "That is impossible, because the Torah requires us to interpret
her many faces this way and that, and if I disclose to you the final halachah the Torah would then never be interpreted based
on her many faces), for there are 49 ways of interpreting the Torah so that a thing is rendered impure, and 49 ways of interpreting
the Torah so that a thing is rendered pure" (2nd-century Rabbi Yannai, in Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4: 2)."
From the preceeding we see that the Jewish rabbis and sages of the
Talmud, our Jewish Supreme redactors on what the Torah means to convey to us in our own generation, as a living document for
a living community, did not believe that how they, or a generation 1000 or 2000 years down the road saw the Torah to mean,
would be how the Torah SHOULD mean at some still future date in time.
WHY DOES THIS MATTER TO ME, RABBI GERSHON STEINBERG-CAUDILL, A HETEROSEXUAL RABBI?
THE REBBE'S DREAM.
the early 1990s, the legislature of the State of Idaho was presented with a bill that would deny civil rights to gays and
lesbians. A lesbian member of my congregation asked me to represent the Jewish community by being present in a march against
that oppresive legislation.
As rabbi of Boise's single unified Jewish community, I was presented with a conflicting
internal wrestling match. On the one hand, no segment of any population ought to be denied their civil rights based solely
upon their sexual orientation, and on the other hand, I had been taught that homosexual acts were expressly prohibited by
the teachings of the Torah as being not just sinful acts but acts that were abhorrent to God.
I resolved my own inner
conflict by deciding to follow the Torah dictate of "tzadakah v'chesed" (justice tempered with mercy), and support the gay-lesbian
desire to obtain and keep the civil rights that were rightfully theirs as citizens of the United States of America and of
the State of Idaho.
The Torah stipulates 32 times that one shall not oppress the "stranger" that dwells among you.
To deny any person, or group of persons, their civil rights was definitely a form of oppressive behavior.
my immidiate quandary, I then began to actively support in public the gay-lesbian rights movement as a friend of the gay-lesbian
community and as a representative of Boise's Jewish community.
This public action on my part led to a speaking engagement
at a retreat that was being held by one of Boise's more gay-friendly churches. It was my intention to address the Torah concept
of the oppressive nature that any legislation passed by the State against any segment of its population represented. I did
not intend to address the issue of my own personal beliefs as to the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality within Judaism.
However, evidently God had other ideas. That evening I retired to my room to study and sleep. I recited my evening
and bedtime prayers and began to read a new book that I had received just that day (Paradigm Shift, by Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi)
while I lay on my bed.
In the course of the night, I began to dream about the Kabbalistic Tree of Jacob's Ladder and
how EVERY person possessed within themselves the energies of this Tree, which is an inner psychological Tree. This Tree was
represented in my dream by a visual "Shiviti" ( a mandala) that was pictured in "Paradigm Shift."
I dreamed that in
bringing the individual's inner energies through the various energy centers within this inner Tree; through the masculine
oriented places and through the feminine oriented places; to the central balancing places, from the "Heavenly realm" to the
"Earthly realm," one unified the Sacred Name of God; Yod, Heh with the Vav, Heh.
Suffice it to say that along with
the visual representation seen in the dream, I also received audio explanation. This "Voice" told me that it was God who determined
the sexual orientation of every person on earth who is created in the Divine Image as a physical-spiritual representative
of the Divine on earth, as represented by their head being associated with the Yod of God's Sacred Name, their shoulders and
arms with the Heh, their spine and torso with the Vav, and their hips and legs with the final Heh.
So impactful was
this dream on my consciousness that upon awakening I jumped out of my bed and ran to the Art Cabin where I drew the representation
of the dream on the back of the sweat shirt that I was using as a pajama top due to the extreme cold night Fall temperatures
of 4:00 A.M. in McCall, Idaho.
That morning, at my lecture, I threw away my notes and instead I used the pajama top
as a visual aid representation to describe the dream of the previous night and its meaning for me. That dream had taught me
to be totally accepting of homosexuality as a God based and God ordained sexuality and not as an "abomination." Several of
those who attended my lecture told me that my explanation cleared up for them why they knew that homosexual orientation was
the way that they had been born and not a learned behavior.
Kol brakhot tobot (May you receive all good blessings)
Copyright 2000 by Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill, (the EcoRebbe) Updated March 2009.
IT IS TIME FOR THE GLBT COMMUNITY TO SEE ITSELF AS "THE CHOSEN PEOPLE"
After approximately 1600 years of being degraded, persecuted, put
down, murdered, encloseted, and in many other ways caused to be thought of as depraved and deviant, it is high time that Gays
and Lesbians recognize that they are just as much loved by God as ANY other member of the human specie.
idea of God singling out a group of people, and in It's covenant with that group of people, referring to them as "My Chosen
People," is to cause that previously hated group of people to gain confidence in themselves as human beings capable of loving
and being loved, and through that confidence, lifting themselves up as spiritual people who care about other human beings
and sentient creatures. One can only show love for others if one feels that one is worthy of being loved him or herself. The
term "Chosen People" is one way that God used to cause the Jewish ex-slaves to raise their feelings of self worth up so that
they could see themselves as valuable and worthy of being a FREE people. It is time for the homosexual community to lift up
it's feelings of self-worth and value.
On the Chosen People Syndrome
Regarding the question about the Jews claiming to be the chosen people, and how that has led to antisemitism:
my feeling is that we never claimed to the world to be the chosen people. We claimed it to ourselves, no less and no more
than did the Celts claim that they were the chosen ones, or the Hopi Indians, or the Lakota Sioux or the Egyptians, or the
Greeks. It is not our fault that Christianity TOOK our personal diary from us and published it all over the world. It is the
early Church in its claim to be the only true religion that used our scriptures to prove this by quoting about how we were
chosen by God, so that by replacing us, they became automatically the NEWLY chosen ones.
But we Jews never publicized
to the world that God had chosen us over any other. On the contrary, throughout the Tenakh we were reminded again and again
that we are not THE chosen people, but A chosen people, meaning a people chosen amongst many others.
Here are a few
examples from the Tenakh, the private diary of the Jewish people:
"In that day shall Israel be third alongside Egypt and
Assyria, as a blessing on earth; for God will bless them, saying: 'Blessed be my people Egypt, my handiwork Assyria, and my
inheritance Israel'" (Isaiah 19:24).
"Are you not just like the Children of the Ethiopians unto me, O Children of
Israel? Did I not bring out Israel from the Land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caf'tor, and Aram from Kir?" (Amos 9:7).
From the Talmud:
"It is written, 'There never again arose among the Israelites a prophet as great as Moses' (Deuteronomy
34:10) --among the Israelites there never again arose a prophet as great as Moses, but amongst other peoples, it is certainly
probable!" (Midrash Bamid'bar Rabbah 14:19).
Martin Buber put it this way: "As a historical people, Israel enjoys
no precedence over any other. Like Israel, the other peoples were all wanderers and settlers; they came 'up' from a land of
want and servitude into their present homeland. The one God, the Redeemer and Leader of the peoples, strode before all of
them upon their way -- even the hostile neighboring peoples -- protecting them by His might. He guided their steps, gave them
power, let them 'inherit' the soil of a people that had been ruined by its sins and abandoned by history." (From "Martin Buber
On the Bible", edited by N. Glatzer [Schocken Books, 1982], p. 80).
I believe that we believe that God does not discriminate
between one people and another. That God loves the Palestinians as much as [God loves] the Israelis. Sort of like a mother
who writes six letters to her six children, and in each letter she writes "You are my favorite. I love you more than anything
in the world!" This is why we never went out missionizing to people. We believed every-one had their own divine revelation
and each their path is sacred as long as they don't use it to destroy others. A tzadik (righteous person), the Talmud teaches,
is not someone who is a holy Jew, but someone of ANY faith or [ANY] people who is righteous by their actions. A tzadik is
not determined by belief or religious affiliation but by how they live their life.
So, no we are not any more chosen
than the aboriginals of Australia. We are equally chosen. And when we say "asher bachar ba'nu mee'kol ha'ameem" (who chose
in us from all the nations) we mean that we thank God for choosing us, too, from among all the other nations, meaning from
among all those other peoples who were chosen long before we were.
Of course the average traditional Jew will think
about this differently. I believe that is because we have as a people been persecuted for so long that our religious teachers
kept impressing upon us how precious we were to God in order to lift up our downtrodden spirits. A people oppressed for close
to two thousand years needs to hear that they are important, chosen, the highest of the high. But theologically it is totally
incorrect. We are different than most, yes. But we are not more important to God than most. God likes us because we are funny.
We gave the world more comedians than anyone else.
We are not hated because we claim to be chosen. We are hated because
of the venom spread against us by the New Testament story of the Jews calling for the crucifixion of Jesus, which has been
proven again and again as historically and theologically fictitious, but it is already a poison well-entrenched in every-one
influenced by the Church, whether Christian or not, which is practically the entire world today.
I think another factor
of this chosen people problem is not anything we say or said to the world as much as what the world assumes we say about ourselves
or think about ourselves, because the world sees us as uncompromising, tenaciously clinging to our peculiar and often politically-incorrect
ways, even when those ways clash with the rest of the world. We have always been different, and always refused to conform
to the religious and cultural ways of those who have conquered us, whether Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Christian, etc. which
led them to assume that we thought ourselves special. Why don't the Jews give in? They couldn't understand it. Everyone else
who was conquered adopted the conqueror's ways. Everyone but the Jews. Which may naturally lead people to think that we think
we are too special, chosen by God or the gods. Our crime was our stubborn refusal to compromise our beliefs and our ways,
and so we chose death more often than any other conquered people, rather than conform or convert.
Our crime was not
our claim to be chosen. Our crime was our claim to the right to believe as we wished.
And for that we have paid dearly.
San Francisco Gay-Lesbian Synagogue Congregation Shaar Zahav (link) click here
Gay-Lesbian friendly BEYT TIKKUN SYNAGOGUE (link) click here
Conservative Congregation B'nai Emunah (link) click here