The (Spiritual) Battle of New Orleans

As the naval gunner fired the cannon, his ship immediately began to sink, for he did not grasp that the cannon was aimed downward…

Aggressively continuing the homosexual entitlement advocacy of several of his fellow graduates of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (see, for example, here and here), Rabbi Gabriel Greenberg, who leads a congregation in the New Orleans area, recently directed his fire toward Louisiana’s Marriage and Conscience Act. In an op-ed in The Times-Picayune, R. Greenberg compared the homosexual community to our oppressed ancestors in ancient Egypt and argued on behalf of homosexual liberation in the name of Orthodox Judaism.

R. Greenberg wrote:

Throughout our Biblical and later rabbinic texts, the experience of oppression in Egypt serves as an imperative reminder to take care of those in our own day and age who endure oppression, who live on the margins of our own society. Commandments such as the following in Deuteronomy 10:19 are common in the Bible: “Remember the stranger, for you were strangers in the Land of Egypt.”

It is, therefore, quite disconcerting to watch Gov. Bobby Jindal‘s recent foray into the “religious liberty” fight, in his outspoken support for House Bill 707, the “Marriage and Conscience Act.” Jindal stated in his New York Times op-ed that the bill does not “create a right to discriminate against, or generally refuse service to, gay men or lesbians.”

…As an orthodox Jewish man and a rabbi, I find Jindal’s pursuit of this bill’s passage to be sacrilegious and offensive. Why would our political leadership – and particularly those who identify as religious – choose to seek further action and legislation against the very sectors of our society who are already marginalized and persecuted? Gay people have suffered for thousands of years, vilified, hated, feared and murdered. Just as they are on the verge of gaining national rights afforded to the rest of us, why would we possibly seek to take further steps to sanction oppression against them? Should their liberation not be our own cause – independent of our own personal beliefs about how marriage functions within our own religious worlds?

…Because for every Biblical precept about one’s sexual activities, there are a dozen more that speak of the imperative to fight for those who are disenfranchised and discriminated against. It is up to the religious individual to navigate between these religious values – and Gov. Jindal, along with certain faith leaders around the state, have chosen to emphasize the former over the latter.

One of the key ideas of the Passover holiday meal, is the notion that “one must see themselves as if they had personally experienced the traumas and Exodus of Egypt.” This is not just a moment for child-like imagination. Rather, this is a difficult and fundamentally important task – to fully empathize with folks who lived thousands of years ago, and experienced total subjugation and humiliation at the hands of those with more power than they.

In a letter to the editor responding to R. Greenberg ‘s op-ed (link to letter should be available shortly), I wrote in part that:

Judaism does not detach laws from moral values. The Biblical position on homosexuality is not a mere legality; it is a moral value, and God forbid that we encourage the state or the nation to do anything that would compel private citizens and private businesses to accede to the acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle.

Yes, we dare not discriminate against anyone, but to require people to violate their religious conscience and be compelled to provide services or benefits within the private sphere to interests that conflict with their Biblical, moral values is itself a form of discrimination and a desecration.

Our challenge is to articulate Torah values even if they are unpopular and do not conform with contemporary societal mores. Furthermore, to embrace positions that undermine Torah values is to undermine our own religious commitment, for if we cannot put our money where our mouth is and take a brave and heroic stand, Torah degenerates into a culture of feel-good nostalgia, apologetics and comfort, and it no longer daringly drives our actions and our life mission.

There are the words of Rav Soloveitchik zt”l about the proper Orthodox attitude toward societal acceptance of homosexuality (The Rav – Thinking Aloud on the Parsha: Sefer Bereshis, pp. 91-94), delivered in Boston in 1974 as part of a shiur on Parshas Noach:

One system of morality that paganism preaches, as a way of life, is based on an oversensitivity to unredeemed, carnal beauty… The Dor Ha-Mabul (Generation of the Flood) was a permissive generation, [which] surrendered to beauty and to carnal pleasure, to comfort, to convenience…

…What do they preach here is American society, Western society? What do they preach in Eretz Yisroel, rabbosai (gentlemen), if you read the articles in Haaretz? There is only one thing, one topic. What do they preach? Permissiveness. That nothing should interfere if man wants to enjoy life. No norm, no command, no responsibilities, no restrictions. If man thinks this is the way to enjoy life, and he wants to derive pleasure, he has the right. This is part of his freedom. He has the right to gratify all his carnal needs. He doesn’t have to surrender to any law. Nothing defiles a person, nothing contaminates a person. A person should do simply one thing: satisfy his desires. This is the philosophy.

A philosophy of [homo]sexualism is being preached throughout the Western world, to such an extent that a certain rabbi came to me and said, “How can we defend ourselves against it?” I told him, take out a Chumash and read a pasuk. ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה. (“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.” -Vayikra 18:22) We are on the defensive, you understand. Why? And the same is true of abortion and so forth.

I can never predict what modern society will come up with. Everything is possible. The most abnormal, obnoxious, repellent ideas may be introduced in the form of legislation to Congress. And now, since it is modern to be liberal, it’s quite in vogue to be heretical, so any law can be adopted. The Supreme Court in America is the most unpredictable body. Did you see, did you read carefully, the decision about abortion?

This is b’nei basar (“children of the flesh”). B’nei basar are oversensitive to beauty, to unredeemed beauty. We ourselves cherish beauty, but redeemed beauty. Unredeemed, vulgar, coarse people. And simply what the b’nei basar preach is non-interference on the part of ethics and morality. This man wants to enjoy life, that’s all. Because actually the pagan way of life rests upon the idea of egocentric hedonism. The latter was declared by the pagans to be morally desirable. In other words, free man is expected to reject any restrictive norm interfering with his hedonic freedom. The permissive society is the pagan society, which heads toward disaster. The permissive society consists of the b’nei basar, the children of the flesh, who are obedient to the flesh and its biological pressures.

The main sin of pagan society consists in its exploiting nature for the sake of man’s enjoyment without the latter accepting responsibility for the very act he enjoyed. In a word, hedonic society, the Dor Ha-Mabul, drove itself and the environment to annihilation. That is exactly what happens to the Western part of the world, the so-called “democratic world” or the “free world”.

What is the motto of modern man? ויראו בני האלהים. Modern man is very mighty… He is a wizard, as far as intellectual achievements are concerned… But the same wizard, a בני אלהים, is a fallen angel… He is tempted by vulgar beauty… ויקחו להם נשים – he surrendered.

The man whose mathematic equations proved to be true 500 million light years from there surrendered to the בנות האדם, to vulgar beauty, to enjoyment. This is no way of life. This was the eser doros me’Adam v’ad Noach (ten generations from Adam to Noach) that were misgalgel (systematically declined) until they reached the bottom…

And here is what Rav Soloveitchik stated about our topic (The Rav – Thinking Aloud on the Parsha: Sefer Shemos, pp. 6-10) during a shiur on Parshas Shemos in 1974:

…So God told him (Moshe), “If you want just to see the beauty and grandeur (of the S’neh, the Burning Bush), you are welcome, you can come as close as you want, because the closer you’ll be, the more inspired you’ll be. But if you’ll try to understand the rationale of Jewish history, so then אל תקרב הלום (do not approach close to here). Don’t try to come too close to the halom. Jewish destiny will always remain a riddle which no human being will be able to resolve. של נעליך, take off your shoes, abandon your usual everyday stance, your routine processes of understanding, analyzing, and conceptualizing. כי המקום אשר אתה עומד עליו אדמת קדש הוא, for the ground is holy, the destiny of the people is a Mysterium Magnum. Different categories are necessary, new methods, as yet unknown concepts must be applied in order to grasp the concept of Jewish existence.”

…Moshe responded immediately, ויסתר משה פניו… He hid his face, he covered his face. What did he want to demonstrate? That I don’t want to understand, I don’t want to rationalize. I don’t want to ask the question of “why”.

You see, there are three questions which exist when something is not understood. One question is “what”: what is it? Another question is “how”: how does it operate? The last question is “why”: why is it all necessary?

Which questions did the Torah accept, and which question was rejected by the Torah? “What” – yes. “How” – also yes. But the “why” – the Torah did not welcome this question of “why”…

The question is “what” – I’ve got to understand reality in a descriptive way, and understand how it operates. The whole of physics and chemistry says how it operates. The dependence between two phenomena, two processes. The same is true in Torah. You’ll ask me what is the law, what is Hilchos Shabbos (the Laws of Shabbos). All right, Maseches Shabbos (the Talmudic tractate Shabbos) you want to study, it’s right here. “What” is a legitimate question. “How” – certainly, Halacha l’maaseh (practical Halacha). But “why” Shabbos? There is no answer. The only answer is what the Torah gives, כי ששת ימים עשה ה’ את השמים ואת הארץ את הים ואת כל אשר בם וינח ביום השביעי (For six days God created the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is therein, and He rested on the seventh day… – Shemos 20:11).

When you ask the question of “why”, and you try to interpret the question of “why” – why Shabbos, why Kashrus… – to answer it, there are two alternatives. Once you pose the question of “why”, you get two results, both of which are negative.

Now people are questioning the basic principles of morality, sex morality. The very moment you ask why – why homosexualism is forbidden – you have no answer. But you can get away with two results; you”ll obtain two results.

One result will be kefirah (heresy): since I don’t understand why, so let’s abandon it. This is the answer you get. Since I cannot understand why homosexualism is ugly lefi Yahadus (according to Judaism), why Yahadus, the Bible, hasn’t tolerated it, so you have to say you abandon the law of the Bible.

Another way is to sentimentalize all that… So what do you get from it? Platitudes, clichés, superficialities, cheap sentimentalism.

We accept the Torah’s mitzvos and values regarding sexual norms because Hashem mandated them, whether or not they would otherwise have naturally resonated with us. To reason our way around these Torah principles and distance ourselves from their ethos will end up undoing our acceptance of the Torah and dulling of our sense of authentic commitment to its doctrines. It is not only the legalities of the mitzvos, but their values as well, that must animate us and become profoundly and firmly embedded at the core of our religious sensitivities and mindset.

Avrohom Avinu confronted the world, spoke out and dared his fellows to embrace the divine moral code, as unpopular and uncomfortable as its message may have been to society at large. This is the holy yet challenging and at times lonely mandate of the Jew; may we always merit to boldly and proudly carry it forth.

You may also like...

43 Responses

  1. lacosta says:

    YCT grads are causing spiritual harm all over the US as they masquerade as O, and the official MO establishment is doing little to them , the Maharat movement , and associated heresies…

  2. Raymond says:

    It is one thing when secular society approves of male homosexual behavior. After all, we cannot expect anything else from those who do not have the Torah. Far more disconcerting to me, however, is when an Orthodox Rabbi not only approves of male homosexual behavior, but encourages his followers to do the same. If we cannot trust Orthodox Rabbis for the truth, then who can we trust?

    Thank G-d for Rav Soloveitchik, although sadly if he were alive and well these days, he would be called a homophobe by society at large. One thing that he said in the above paragraphs that I question, though, is that he seems to assume that the Torah ban against male homosexual behavior is not necessarily a rational law, a law that can make any logical sense to us. I disagree with this, and my reasons are very simple and obvious ones: two men, no matter what perverted acts they do together, can never, ever produce a child from their efforts. Only a man and a woman engaging in intimate acts can produce life. Furthermore, at least common sense dictates, that male nature is very different than female nature. A child has his or her best chance of thriving, when taken care of by one male and one female, namely the child’s parents. If a child has two fathers and no mother, then how will that child experience the more nurturing type of loving care that only a mother can provide? If a child has two mothers and no father, then how can one feel protected, provided for, guided by focused logic, and so on? Frankly, I do not understand why society feels the need to destroy the basic family unit. All I can come up with to explain it, is that the real goal of the Secular Leftists, is to turn Torah values upside down whenever possible.

  3. Rabbi Dov Fischer says:

    I do not blame Chovevei Torah. THose of us in the mainstream of Modern Orthodoxy know that they are outside the pale. Rather, I blame Orthodox Union — the “O.U.” — for giving them and their “Open Orthodoxy” Women Rabbis pulpits, under the banner of the Orthodox Union, to propagate their stuff.

  4. Y. Ben-David says:

    I am afraid that Rav Gordimer is greatly underestimating the degree of Orthodox cooperation, which could even possibly be construed as complicity, with those who are at the forefront of pushing sexual permissiveness and immorality on the American public at large. It is not limited to Open Orthodoxy or YCT, who seem to be on the fringes of the Orthodox world, but rather goes to the very heart of the Orthodox world.
    The American center of the Torah world today is in New York. It is also New York that is the ideological, cultural and media center for the spreading the ideology of sexual permissiveness. It is politicians in New York who are at the forefront of demanding political recognition and even encouragement of this ideology. One would think that since the Torah speaks so clearly opposing this behavior EVEN FOR NON-JEWS, that Orthodox Jews would try to steer clear of those who are the biggest advocates for this ideology. However we see prominent Orthodox leaders supporting these same politicians. One Rabbi, here at Cross-Currents, stated that while there may be some “difficulty” for Orthodox Jews in living in an environment that “sanctifies” sexual permissiveness and immorality, those politicians who are the greatest advocates for it are also willing to make political alliances with at least parts of the Orthodox community for political advantage. This Rabbi stated that the Orthodox Jewish community is even “thriving” in such permissive societies just as he claims that Jews (supposedly) “thrived” in the past in Idol-worshipping societies so there is no real problem. He claims that people who are tolerant of sexual immorality can be tolerant towards the Orthodox community as well.

    I believe anyone who thinks this way is deluding one’s self. There can’t ultimately be a modus-vivendi between a Jewish community with Torah values and an sexually immoral outside society. Firstly, because those values ultimately seep into the Orthodox community (I was called a “Fascist” by an young Orthodox, yeshiva-trained fellow when I pointed out that the Torah doesn’t recognize the concept of homosexual “marriage”). Secondly, the current attempt by religious communities to reach an accomodation with those advocating state recognition of sexual immorality by accepting state support for these things in return for the religious communities being given an exemption CAN NOT LAST. Already we see religious groups who publicly state that homosexuality is immoral are being denounced as “racists” and indulging in “hate speech” and have even been summoned by the police in some cases. Yeshivot who refuse to hire homosexuals will be charged by the state with discrimination and there will be greater and greater state intrusion into those religions who attempt to maintain traditional moral values.

    I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the current degeneration of morality in the United States is going to force the Orthodox community to not merely “learn to cope” with such a surrounding society, but the re-evaluate their very presence in said society.

  5. Nachum says:

    Dov Fisher: When has the OU done that? Not saying they haven’t, but want to know what you mean.

    The funniest/saddest line for me was when he suggests that homosexuals are somehow repressed in American society today. They never had it so good.

    “Yes, we dare not discriminate against anyone”

    No, once you say that, you’ve effectively lost the argument. You’ve already basically conceded that the government may recognize homosexual “rights” and “marriages” by trying to limit damage to what they can force religious people to do. Why not take a stand against all of it?

    Second, once you conceded that discrimination is distasteful, you’ve conceded even what little you’re fighting for. After all, private businesses and individuals are regularly compelled to “not discriminate.” If gays are no different, you’ve lost. Best to take a stand against even the whole concept, but at least you can take a stand against this one area.

  6. mycroft says:

    “Thank G-d for Rav Soloveitchik, although sadly if he were alive and well these days, he would be called a homophobe by society at large. One thing that he said in the above paragraphs that I question, though, is that he seems to assume that the Torah ban against male homosexual behavior is not necessarily a rational law, a law that can make any logical sense to us.”

    The question of the prohibition against homosexual acts of whether it is different in kind from other prohibitions such as violation of Shabbos splits Orthodoxy. Many including many of those who were probably closest to the Rav tend to treat the prohibition of homosexual acts like Shabbos same penalty etc. Thus, clearly prohibited but to the extent that one would welcome a mechallel Shabbos one would welcome a homosexual. Obviously, just as a Rav couldn’t advocate chillul Shabbos one could not advocate homosexual behavior.

  7. Bob Miller says:

    What about the freedom to not sin?

  8. Chaim says:

    “The main sin of pagan society consists in its exploiting nature for the sake of man’s enjoyment without the latter accepting responsibility for the very act he enjoyed.”

    Does this statement from the Rav have broader implications outside of homosexuality? The statement seems to be concerned with a general approach to nature (“nature” needs to be defined as well as what it means to take responsibility in this context). How much energy or thought does Orthodoxy direct towards “accepting responsibility for exploiting nature”? I don’t think that this is a phrase that most people (Orthodox included) associate with orthodoxy.

  9. Sid Krimsky says:

    The response written by openly gay Rabbi Greenberg for Cong. Kadimah-Toras Moshe in response to the baal koreh’s question about reading the parsha in leviticus about a man lying down with a man as if it was a woman is a good example of “gayness narcissism.” A narcissist believes that the world should change because of his or her special circumstance. Rabbi Greenberg suggests a special prayer be recited before reading the parsha. He would prefer to delete the sentence in the Torah. After all, it is not his fault he is the way he is. He has suffered emotionally for it. However there are other parshas that tell Bnai Israel that they should be holy because the Almighty is holy. Should those parshas be deleted from the Torah. What about the command to be fruitful and multiply which childless couples cannot do? They are also suffering emotionally? Should we delete the words to our avos? The gay community wants to create special categories of protected persons. Other categories of emotionally scarred people also deserve protection such as agunot or unmarried straight persons. The Torah is an ideal document. Keep it as such. Besides deleting one word would change the “Torah Codes” and the gematria lessons.

  10. ben dov says:

    Avi Weiss and Asher Lopatin remain, to my knowledge, members of the RCA. Why is this allowed? YCT is a Conservative, not an Orthodox, seminary.

  11. Tal Benschar says:

    The question of the prohibition against homosexual acts of whether it is different in kind from other prohibitions such as violation of Shabbos splits Orthodoxy. Many including many of those who were probably closest to the Rav tend to treat the prohibition of homosexual acts like Shabbos same penalty etc.

    Mycroft, while I cannot definitively state what Rav Soloveichik’s position would be, I think your position over-simplifies the issue and, I speculate, would not be his position.

    When I was in yeshiva, we had a discussion with our Rosh Yeshiva, R. Yehudah Parnes, about how Orthodox shuls should relate to intermarried couples. Some argued, as you do, that the shuls welcome Shabbos violators, so what is the difference, especially since Shabbos has more severe penalties. In response, he noted that not all laws in the Torah can be lined up from least to most severe for all purposes.* He quoted Rav Soloveichik (IIRC, he had spoken on the same topic) who noted that a Cohen who is mechallel Shabbos may go up to duchen, but a Cohen that is married to a divorcee may not. How does that make sense – chillul Shabbos is a capital offense, while a Cohen marrying a gerushah is a mere lav? The answer is, a Cohen who is married to a gerushah is doing something that directly contradicts and undermines his kedushas kehunah (there is an aseh of kedoshim yiyhu), which chilluls Shabbos does not do. So the less severe aveirah disqualifies him from duchening which the more does not, because there is another aspect – undermining kedushas kehunah. Not everything is linear.

    Extending that to intermarried couples, marriage is not just a matter of issur v’heter, it very much has a social character. Couples join shuls together, and are related to as a social unit. This has been a basic part of Jewish society for millennia. (And, I might add, the Torah calls one’s wife beisoh his house. They are viewed as a social unit.) Accordingly, he was very much against letting intermarried couples join Orthodox shuls as members, even if mechallelei shabbos can.

    The application here is obvious. Accepting homosexual marriage, like accepting intermarriage, undermines the social fabric of Jewish society in a way that chillul shabbos does not implicate. I shudder at the thought of, for example, an Orthodox shul accepting a same-sex couple as family members.

    To further illustrate, would we accept an adulterous couple because, after all, chillul shabbos is chayyav sekillah, while most adultery is only chayyav chenek? I think most of us understand that there is a difference that goes beyond the severity of misas beis din the Torah prescribes.

    While I sympathize with the need to be mekarev sinners of all kinds, I think it is an oversimplification to treat all aveiros that are chayyav sekillah the same.

    (I should also add, that homosexuality has an aspect that Shabbos does not: it is forbidden to non-Jews as well. As a friend of mine once pointed out, chillul shabbos is a Jewish problem; homosexuality is a human problem.)

    _____________
    *Obviously, the rule of ha kal ha kal techillah does line them up that way, but that is for one purpose, i.e. deciding which to violate be shaas oneis.

  12. Rafael Araujo says:

    What I can’t believe is that a somebody who self-identifies as Orthodox would criticize legislation that essentially protects religious freedom. I wonder if also believes that clergy exemptions, which seems to be standard (for now, at least) in legislation permitting homosexual marriage, should be done away with. If OO clergy struggle with the Torah’s issurim of Homosexuality, and therefore would not say a word against it, how could they in good conscience defend the right of another Orthodox Rabbi to rail against homosexual marriage?

  13. Reb Yid says:

    Quoting the Rav in the 1970s about this topic is missing the point. For that matter, there were plenty of rabbis in the American South during the Civil War that used “Torah” justification for slavery.

    Relatively very few Americans were “out” in the 1970s. Most people did not have any interactions with family members or friends who identified as gay/lesbian/transgender, at least outwardly. Their struggles and challenges were largely unknown. Many more states than today found homosexual activity to be illegal in the eyes of the secular law back then as well.

    The world has changed. To assume that the Rav would be writing what he did today is highly questionable.

  14. Nachum says:

    “The world has changed.”

    So what? It hasn’t changed for the better. A true leader can recognize that and refuse to change.

  15. Rafael Araujo says:

    “The world has changed. To assume that the Rav would be writing what he did today is highly questionable.”

    Nachum is spot in which his response. So many times when I was in my early 20’s did I hear “this is the 90’s!” (as in 1990s – the decade) to justify tolerating or accepting immoral conduct. We as Orthodox Jews should resist change, and not live our lives as to how we can embrace the latest Liberal trends.

    Are there any social conservatives among the OO? From what I am reading about Chovovei Torah and its musmuchim, I very much doubt it.

  16. Reb Yid says:

    Orthodox leadership has already recognized important changes in this realm.

    Used to be that this was viewed as a “lifestyle” issue, and the Rav’s references to “hedonism” are of a similar theme.

    And at one time, RCA leaders supported so-called “conversion therapy” by groups like JONAH. But ignorance and fear eventually led to a more informed, scientific and sensitive investigation, which caused Rabbi Gordimer’s very own RCA a few years ago to repudiate this completely.

    http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105723

  17. dr. bill says:

    I assume that Nachum’s (unanswered) question to Rabbi Fischer, relates to the inclusion of various synagogues in the OU. Talk about a slippery slope. A synagogue that provided a platform to a scholarly “apikores.” Or a synagogue with a female clergy person. Or a synagogue with Rabbi from Chovevai. In its history, going back to the middle of the last century, the OU had a number of synagogue members who, by orthodox standards, were outside the pale (even then.) A number of these synagogues, years later, became NCSY strongholds, with excellent results. while attacking / isolating others may be easier, cogently addressing the issues they raise is more important.

  18. joel rich says:

    Dr. Bill,
    I would guess it’s JLI on campus positions.
    KT

  19. Steve Brizel says:

    I wonder how the YCT grad in question spoke about the Krias HaTorah of last Shabbos. For RYBS’s approach-see Machzor HaRav for YK on Page 688. It is a disgrace that someone who bills himself as a MO rabbi could write such grossly inappropriate apologetics and distort a major, if not central, premise of the exodus from Egypt, namely the acceptance of the Torah and living a life defined by Kedushah, which Rambam defines in the Yad as adhering to the laws of Arayos, marriage and Maacalos Asuros.

  20. Steve Brizel says:

    Reb Yid wrote:

    “The world has changed. To assume that the Rav would be writing what he did today is highly questionable.”

    This is classical LW revisionism-dismissing what we know RYBS said to suit today’s Zeitgeist.

    Sid Krinsky wrote:

    “The response written by openly gay Rabbi Greenberg for Cong. Kadimah-Toras Moshe in response to the baal koreh’s question about reading the parsha in leviticus about a man lying down with a man as if it was a woman is a good example of “gayness narcissism.” A narcissist believes that the world should change because of his or her special circumstance. Rabbi Greenberg suggests a special prayer be recited before reading the parsha. He would prefer to delete the sentence in the Torah”

    This is what happens when we attempt to bend the Torah R”L to the current secular climate. One wonders R”L what the same quoted clergyman would say about the rest of the Parsha of Arayos.

  21. Dovid says:

    Dr. Bill and Joel –

    The OU/JLIC used to have many more YCT grads as Campus Rabbis, currently they only have 2. One of the YCT musmachim they do employ is a speaker by JOFA conferences and publicly congratulates recent Mahrat “musmachim”. Not sure whether y=to view the situation half empty or full.

  22. Reb Yid says:

    Steve Brizel:

    I refer you back to the RCA link in my previous post. Note what it states in its final paragraph:

    “Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, Chancellor of Yeshiva University and author of the 1974 Encyclopedia Judaica Year Book article, “Judaism and the Modern Attitude to Homosexuality,” the first contemporary article to address the issue from the perspective of Jewish law and philosophy, had originally commended the work of JONAH. In response to the negative reports about JONAH’s activities and concerns expressed to him by respected mental health professionals, Dr. Lamm withdrew his endorsement of JONAH.”

    If the Chancellor of YU could change his views since 1974, it is certainly reasonable to contemplate that the Rav might have changed his views written during that same period if he were alive in the 21st century.

  23. Dovid says:

    sorry im a new poster .. meant to say ” THe wife of one of the YCT musmachim they do employ is a speaker by JOFA conferences and publicly congratulates recent Mahrat “musmachim”. Not sure whether you view the situation half empty or full.

  24. Nachum says:

    Rafael: I sometimes suspect the opposite: The reason OO hold the positions they do is *because* they are social liberals. A social conservative doesn’t worry about accommodating all these trends, because he’s used to resisting them already.

    Red Yid: So what? So assuming that Jonah’s practices don’t work, does that make homosexuality OK?

    (Of course, the absolutist pro-homosexual position taken by the medical and psychological world for the past forty years has made any real research into cures impossible. Even illegal, in the last few years. I blame them, not those who are trying.)

    I imagine the OU and RCA simply keeps their existing members. Admitting new ones is a different story. I’d cut them some slack there.

  25. Reb Yid says:

    Says Nachum:

    “Of course, the absolutist pro-homosexual position taken by the medical and psychological world for the past forty years has made any real research into cures impossible. Even illegal, in the last few years. I blame them, not those who are trying”

    Sorry, but facts are stubborn things. Like climate change. Or our President’s religion.

    For some, ideology trumps all, even when confronted with stubborn facts.

  26. Rafael Araujo says:

    “Like climate change”.

    Welcome to Cross Currents Al Gore. Its quite an honor…!

  27. Steve Brizel says:

    Reb Yid-take a look at an article in Hakirah about someone who had been involved in a same gender relationship, and the results of his treatment and teshuvah. I think that the rush to judgment as to JONAH was mistaken. While R Lamm is entitled to his POV on the issue, the RY of RIETs ( see Torahweb and at YU Torah) clearly disagree with the idea that homosexuality should be “tolerated”.

  28. Nachum says:

    “Like climate change. Or our President’s religion.”

    And there we are.

    For the record:

    1. Of course climate changes. Climate has been changing since this planet was formed. If you want to accuse me of heresy, at least be precise as to language.

    2. I don’t think Obama (“our President”- I love that) is a Muslim. I also don’t think he’s a Christian, which may even be worse.

    When Kinsey announced that many people are bisexual, it was hugely controversial. Now, to suggest such thing is heresy. No, anyone not 100% vanilla straight must be 100% homosexual, and to suggest that any of them may take on one identity over another makes one a reality-denying homophobe. Good to know.

  29. Mr. Cohen says:

    Midrash Rabah, Parshat Bereshit, Chapter 26, end of Paragraph 5:
    Rabbi Yehoshua bar Levi taught in the name of Rabbi Padyeh:
    Lot prayed all night for mercy for the people of Sodom,
    and his prayer was accepted.
    When they attempted to commit homosexuality,
    it was no longer possible to pray for them.

    Babylonian Talmud, tractate Kiddushin, page 29A:
    Rabbi Yehudah taught:
    All of the commandments that are responsibilities of a [Jewish]
    father towards his [Jewish] son, men are obligated in them,
    but women are exempt from them: to circumcise him, to redeem him,
    to teach him Torah, to marry him TO A WOMAN,
    and to teach him a trade.
    Some also say: to teach him to swim in water.

  30. mycroft says:

    “The response written by openly gay Rabbi Greenberg for Cong. Kadimah-Toras Moshe in response to the baal koreh’s question about reading”

    I am intrigued by KTM asking an openly gay Rabbi a sheila. I haven’t been in Boston for awhile but was familiar with KTM-even decades ago before the merger when TM basically ceased to exist because of changing demographics I attended TM in Roxbury more than a few times more than half a century ago-is this a change in Boston or only in one schul? What has happened to Boston in the past few decades?

    “This is classical LW revisionism-dismissing what we know RYBS said”

    Of course there is also classical RW revisionism-dismissing what we know RYBS approved and was publicly in favor of.

  31. L. Oberstein says:

    Pardon me if I try to analyse Open Orthodoxy in a dispassionate way and not just point out how different it is from “normative” orthodoxy. Open Orthodoxy is the approach of Avi Weiss and it’s main bastion is the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale. If you have never been there and you only judge them by the writings that Rabbi Gordimer correctly finds alien to contemporary orthodoxy,including YU, then you are missing the forrest for the trees Yeshivish and Chassidic orthodoxy is inward oriented and concerned about keeping the camp holy. HIR is totally concerned with Tikun Olam, chesed, inclusiveness for all including physically and mentally handicapped, the elderly and homebound, those who are on the fringes of society. It is a social justice oriented approach that is very invovled in every current cause.Going to demonstrations , joinng with non Jews in a social cause are common. A major diffrence is the equality of women in all aspects of communal and syangogue life. The people who go there,such as Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew (Yaakov Yosef Ben Yitzchok) would not want to be a part of rabbi Gordeimer’s segment. I fully agree that OO is much different from normative yeshivish orthodoxy . I don’t t hink they care too much what the critics say and it won’t make a bit of difference to them.Their audience is a different part of Klal Yisrael. If you want to excommuncate them, go ahead, it will only make them martyrs and they will raise more money for Chovevai. The above is not meant to pass judgement on anyone, only to point out the reality .

  32. Lawrence M. Reisman says:

    “This is classical LW revisionism-dismissing what we know RYBS said” “Of course there is also classical RW revisionism-dismissing what we know RYBS approved and was publicly in favor of.”

    With all due respect to both sides, RYBS often came out on both sides of an issue, depending on who was quoting him. Rather than claim “revisionism,” it would be more fruitful to admit that he took contradictory positions on many issues, and it will be impossible to resolve what he told one person or persons and what he told others.

  33. mycroft says:

    “I don’t t hink they care too much what the critics say and it won’t make a bit of difference to them.Their audience is a different part of Klal Yisrael. If you want to excommuncate them, go ahead, it will only make them martyrs and they will raise more money for Chovevai. The above is not meant to pass judgement on anyone, only to point out the reality .”
    Agree with statement-that does not mean that I am personally sympathetic to the general YCT approach. Re demonstrations when I was in YU I even helped stuff envelopes for SSSJ when Glenn Richter and Jacob Birnbaum came to YU. I believe in my heart that those two were the among most genuine people I have ever met. In the past half a century or so I have come in general to not be a believer in general in the power of demonstrations other than of course the power to publicize the organizers.

    “With all due respect to both sides, RYBS often came out on both sides of an issue, depending on who was quoting him. Rather than claim “revisionism,” it would be more fruitful to admit that he took contradictory positions on many issues, and it will be impossible to resolve what he told one person or persons and what he told others.”

    I don’t believe that the Rav in general took contradictory positions-it was often that he was nuanced in his answers-he answered the question he was asked one word could make all the difference in the world. It was known when the Rav was alive that sophisticated people could get different answers by asking similar questions with small differences. Thus, one could easily quote the Rav accurately but still be intentionally misleading.
    My advice is be very suspicious of the intent of something that the Rav said to any one person in private conversation that contradicts his public statements, public articles or public positions eg-Halachik Commission from his lifetime, his practices, his directions to institutions that he controlled. One must remember the Rav was a Brisker and Briskers loved to discuss chakiras.
    For a scholarly description of the revisionism on the Rav see Prof Kaplan who discusses Revisionism both from the left and the right.
    In general for most of the so called revisionism I believe it is different approaches that different people heard in different contexts from the same Rebbe -and tend to remember what is stated that agrees with their world outlook.
    The Rav wrote a lot be chayav and read everything that is essentially written by him and about him -you’ll probably get a more nuanced viewpoint.

  34. Lawrence M. Reisman says:

    Mycroft: You write “My advice is be very suspicious of the intent of something that the Rav said to any one person in private conversation that contradicts his public statements, public articles or public positions.” Previously, you wrote that, “It has been my impression that the Rav discussed public policy decisions on a case by case situation with those who had a practical need to know his position-thus if person X had to deal with communal issue Y he would discuss issue Y with person X. By its very nature students in a shiur were not ones who dealt with those issues on a practical basis. BTW in a similar way when the Rav learnt with certain people outside of YU shiur the same logic applied-learning his Torah at an age when one was not engaged in communal responsibilities would not be the time to learn how the Rav would rule on practical issues.”

    In other words, one should rely on the word of those who spoke to him in private, where they are the only ones who heard what he said, as opposed to the comments he made in his shiurim, which were heard by many. Which is it?

  35. mycroft says:

    “In other words, one should rely on the word of those who spoke to him in private, where they are the only ones who heard what he said, as opposed to the comments he made in his shiurim, which were heard by many. Which is it?”

    If there is a conflict rely on testimony of the many-thus when the Rav spoke publicly on issues -which was not the usual function of his shiurim in yeshiva- would have much greater credibility than statements that only one person heard in private.
    Policy decisions on a case by case situation need not have been private with one person-there were often many Rabbis meeting the Rav.
    Statements quoted before 1980 or so have much greater credibility than later publications-simply the Rav would have destroyed people who misquoted him. Sadly, it has been more than 30 years sin the Rav has been in active leadership. Recent publicizing of the “Ravs” positions which were not publicized earlier despite knowing about them raises credibility questions to pose it mildly.

  36. shaul shapira says:

    L. Oberstein-
    I disagree with you. The fact is that people like Gabriel Greenberg are stating “As an orthodox Jewish man and a rabbi…” He’s not saying “As a sensitive soul, who’s concerned ‘Tikun Olam, chesed, and, those who are on the fringes of society…'”

    When Rav SR Hirsch came out against Z Frankel one of his points was that he wanted everyone to know what is that the seminary in Breslau would be teaching.
    We can’t change everyone’s minds, but what people like R Gordimer are accomplishing is that anyone who cares to do 2 minutes of online research can know what members of OO- including some of its shining lights- are espousing. They can then at least make an informed decision about whether this movement is actually orthodox or engaging in Orthodox-identity theft.

  37. Shmuel Winiarz says:

    R’ Oberstein – As a friend of yours it is always good to hear you opinion though on this one I would take repsectually take issue with your analysis. I live in Riverdale so perhaps I add to the perspective. “Yeshivish & Chasidish Orthodoxy is inward oriented and about keeping the camp holy”. That is true to an extent. You and I both know that a lot of (if not a majoirty) of kiruv efforts in the US are from alumni of right wing yeshivos and Aish Hatorah, Artscroll, Camp Simcha Project Seed and community kollelim (even Lakewood ones) are part of a balance of maintaining a measured insularity form the world apart and taking responsibility for klal yisroel’s spiritual future. But aside from that there is a wide space between “yeshivsih” and OO/Neo-Conservative. From Modern yeshivish to the left of YU there are ppl who can be influenced to varying degrees and bh Rabbi Gordimer and other have helped in pretty much arresting OO’s spread. They have become marginalized and have limited influence. They are not becoming “martyrs” b/c of the criticisms leveled, on the contrary. Oh and btw Jack Lew’s son davens at the Young Israel (Rabbi Willig’s shul) b/c the future isnt with OO/NC.

  38. dr. bill says:

    Lawrence Reisman, I will try to restrain myself, but what you wrote about the Rav ztl is IMHO untrue. Example: Rabbi X asks if he should do Y. The Rav says no. Rabbi Z says to the Rav he intends to do Y. The Rav does not object and tells him to do what he thinks is correct. The Rav would often not impose his view or take a nuanced stance or state both sides of a complex issue. Despite that, many wanted to generalize and/or claim to speak for the Rav. I will tell you something I witnessed over 40 years ago: A prominent Rabbi asked a question to which the Rav replied – absolutely. The individual inferred something as a consequence; the Rav interrupted him mid-thought and said, ask me that as a separate question and do not try to draw your own conclusions.

  39. Lawrence M. Reisman says:

    Mycroft & Dr. Bill: You’ve both proved my point. A “nuanced” answer is one that can be interpreted in more than one way, which is exactly what happened. And in Dr. Bill’s example, both rabbi X and rabbi Y come out of their conversation with RYBS with the impression that they had a p’sak from him, even if the two contradict each other.

  40. dr. bill says:

    Lawrence Reisman, you wrote: “it would be more fruitful to admit that he took contradictory positions on many issues..” Nuanced positions are NOT contradictory; they most often depend on circumstances that are (perhaps subtlety) different. Your point is disrespectful and IMHO simpleminded.

  41. Lawrence M. Reisman says:

    Dr. Bill: Let me clarify. Nuanced positions can be interpreted in contradictory ways, which is exactly what has been happening. And while you have a right to consider me disrespectful, I am not simpleminded. My view of RYBS serves his memory far better than all those out there who point their fingers accusing others of “revisionism” and “misrepresenting the Rav’s position,” because those who do so are impugn the intelligence, if not the honesty and motives of hundreds (if not thousands) of those who knew, studied under, or came in contact with RYBS. And I am not distinguishing between the “right wingers” and the “left wingers” when I say that. All are guilty.

  42. Steve Brizel says:

    Mycroft-WADR, RYBS stated on numerous occasions that Maacalos Assuros and Ishus, are what Rambam classifies in the Yad as Sefer Kedushah because our adherence to these halachos is what separates a Jew from a Gentile. Like it or not, RYBS mentioned on the record that he spent much of his spare time learning with his grandchildren-R Moshe Twersky ZL HaShem Yimkam Damo and Yivadleinu Lchaim Tovim VAruchim, R Mayer Twersky . I see no basis for your dismissive comments by the above mentioned extraordinary Talmidei Chachamim or to anything quoted in RYBS’s name since 1980 since such an extreme POV if applied to any other Gadol BaTorah would not allow for the dissemination of many volumes of Chiddushei Torah that have been published after the Petriah of an Adam Gadol-such as the Chidushei R CHaim HaLevi Al HaRambam.

    You also wrote:

    “My advice is be very suspicious of the intent of something that the Rav said to any one person in private conversation that contradicts his public statements, public articles or public positions eg-Halachik Commission from his lifetime, his practices, his directions to institutions that he controlled. One must remember the Rav was a Brisker and Briskers loved to discuss chakiras.”

    Why not look as in the case of so many ShuT who was asking the question-an educated Ben Torah would get and deserve a different answer than a barely committed and educated layperson.

  43. mycroft says:

    “I see no basis for your dismissive comments by the above mentioned extraordinary Talmidei Chachamim”
    IAM NOT DISMISSIVE OF EITHER TWERSKY-both were/are great talmeidei chachamim-children of a great talmid chacham and scholar and grandchildren of a world class unique to his generation talmid chacham. There is no doubt that both learned with the Rav-however the Rav did not have much spare time-even forgetting his time at YU-he gave public shiurim in Boston Saturday night and Sunday morning. He wrote out his shiurim in long hand. They were also young. Their parents would have been intimately involved in the Ravs actions/ thus their father who passed away the day after Yom Kippur 1997 would have been a great source for knowledge of the Ravs actions.

    “or to anything quoted in RYBS’s name since 1980 since such an extreme POV if applied to any other Gadol BaTorah would not allow for the dissemination of many volumes of Chiddushei Torah that have been published after the Petriah of an Adam Gadol-such as the Chidushei R CHaim HaLevi Al HaRambam.”
    I wrote “Statements quoted before 1980 or so have much greater credibility than later publications-simply the Rav would have destroyed people who misquoted him. Sadly, it has been more than 30 years sin the Rav has been in active leadership. Recent publicizing of the “Ravs” positions which were not publicized earlier despite knowing about them raises credibility questions to pose it mildly.”
    Certainly, post ptirah publications have value but not as much credibility as those from when the person is alive. The Toras Harav Foundation is doing wonderful work-but if the Rav published himself during his lifetime it has even greater value.

    You also wrote:

    “My advice is be very suspicious of the intent of something that the Rav said to any one person in private conversation that contradicts his public statements, public articles or public positions eg-Halachik Commission from his lifetime, his practices, his directions to institutions that he controlled. One must remember the Rav was a Brisker and Briskers loved to discuss chakiras.”

    Why not look as in the case of so many ShuT who was asking the question-an educated Ben Torah would get and deserve a different answer than a barely committed and educated layperson.”
    To the extent that the Rav gave different explanations OK-but the Rav would not have said complete opposite things to different people.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This