I was learning about the laws of Shabbos in a Talmud class at the local kollel, and I learned a fascinating halachic principle that seems relevant to Judaism's laws on homosexuality.
Briefly, an act of melacha (work) is only prohibited on a Biblical level on Shabbos if it is performed in the same way and for the same purpose that the act was performed in the mishkan (tabernacle). If the act of melacha is performed for a different purpose, it is only prohibited on a Rabbinic level, as the Rabbis extended a fence around the Biblical prohibition. For example, fire was extinguished in the mishkan in order to obtain the coals. Thus, extinguishing a fire for any other reason (such as a desire for darkness) would be prohibited on a Rabbinic, but not Biblical level.
There is one exception to this rule. The rabbis did not extend a fence around Biblical prohibitions "in places of distress" (במקום צער לא גזר רבנן). For example, there is a Biblical prohibition against trapping an animal on Shabbos for the purpose of slaughtering it. However, the Rabbis did not extend this prohibition to trapping a bee on Shabbos if one is eating outside (e.g. in a sukkah), and the bee is causing distress.
The Torah forbids anal sex between two men. The Rabbis extended a fence around this prohibition and prohibited all forms of sexual contact between two men. Yet perhaps they shouldn't have. Perhaps they unwittingly violated their own principle: "In a place of distress, the Rabbis did not decree." The Rabbis extended a fence around the prohibition of homosexual anal sex because they viewed homosexuality as devious behavior undertaken by heterosexual men. They did not conceive of the existence of individuals with an exclusively homosexual orientation.
Knowing what we now know about homosexuality and sexual orientation, perhaps we should apply the principle stated above. We cannot change the Biblical prohibition, but nor should we extend the Biblical prohibition and create "a place of distress." If tolerating a bee in one's sukkah is distressing, all the more so a life of celibacy! Perhaps the Torah intended for homosexuals to enter into monogomous relationships and engage in all sexual acts except anal sex. By prohibiting all forms of sexual contact between two men, the Rabbis overstepped their bounds and violated their principle.
"In a place of distress, the Rabbis did not decree."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
yea but what about spilling the seed?
Good point. However, it the context of heterosexual marriage, many poskim permit spilling the seed outside the vagina provided that the couple also engages in reproduction. We obviously can't engage in reproduction (at least not in the traditional way), but I feel these Rabbinic rulings on spilling the seed in heterosexual marriages can easily be applied to homosexual partnerships as well.
thats comparing apples to oranges.... or penises to vaginas
No it isn't, anon. If only the strictest interpretation of halakha is followed, then hetero couples shouldn't be allowed to "spill the seed."
The whole reason many poskim permit this allowance (or any allowance) is to not make halakha an unbearable burden and to reconclie halakah with real life. Those who are frum and gay should be afforded the same realistic interpretation.
Eli Jeremiah said:
"The whole reason many poskim permit this allowance (or any allowance) is to not make halakha an unbearable burden and to reconclie halakah with real life. Those who are frum and gay should be afforded the same realistic interpretation."
Amen!
"al ken ya'azov ish et aviv v'et imo ve-davak b'ishto" and what do the Sages say? To exclude zachor.
Homosexuality was known to be a major turn-on in the ancient world. Egypt, Greece, Hellenists knew gay desire. Yet, you argue your devekut will only happen with zachor; the Torah disagrees.
There's life in the here and now and metaphysically, for eternity.
Is lust rewarded in the hereafter?
Anon. said: '"al ken ya'azov...' etc. etc.
Though, I'm sure, you would disagree with some/much of Artson's other ideas he does explore the historical context of homosexuality and it's relation to today quite well in his essay 'Judaism and Homosexuality: a New Response for a New Reality', available here: http://www.ajula.edu/Media/Images/SCM/ContentUnit/4381_9_7827.pdf
I do not think that the monogamous, gay Jew is guilty of 'looking back,' as it were because neither homosexuality (as we understand it) nor ss-marriage were realities of hagoyim.
But surely you're here because you have questions? Always question as Hillel said 'the bashful person cannot learn.' (Avot 2:6) Be blessed in your learning.
And to Mr. Spiro, your statements are thoroughly thought-provoking.
Post a Comment