Open Orthodoxy’s New Sanction of Lesbian Relationships

Open Orthodoxy has just endorsed lesbian marriage and intimate relations. No, this is not a typo or exaggeration.

Rabbi Jeffrey Fox, who was the first graduate of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) and now serves as rosh yeshiva at Maharat, the Open Orthodox school housed in Hebrew Institute of Riverdale that ordains women for the rabbinate, penned Nashim Mesolelot: A Teshuva, in which he ruled that lesbian marriage and intimate relations are permissible. This responsum was recently published as a book, and the book was formally launched just last night by way of a special symposium entitled Nashim Mesolelot: Lesbian Women & Halacha sponsored by Maharat and Eshel.

Even though the Rambam (Hil. Issurei Bi’ah 21:8), Semag (Lo Ta’aseh 126), Tur (Even Ha-Ezer 20) and Shulchan Aruch (ibid. s’if 2) all unequivocally prohibit lesbian conduct, Rabbi Fox rules otherwise. And even though the Gemara (Yevamos 76a) terms lesbian relations as “p’ritzusa” – licentiousness – Rabbi Fox concludes his responsum:

When two women seek to build a Jewish home together, with love and commitment, this can no longer be called (even) pritzuta. Rather, given the vacuum left to be filled, this should be understood as tzniuta (modesty) and perhaps even kedushata (holiness).

Rabbi Fox arrives at this mind-blowing ruling by way of extremely unconvincing and implausible arguments; even if one were to overlook the fact that these arguments completely contradict codified and unanimously-accepted Halacha and effectively cancel halachic authority, the arguments on their own merit are full of holes and unsupported assumptions that totally fail to prove their endpoints.

Although Rabbi Fox’ position is of course radical and overturns Halacha and Torah values, this development did not occur in a vacuum.

For over a decade, Open Orthodox clergy has advocated for gay marriage. Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz was among the first to do so, followed by Rabbi Avram Mlotek and then a host of others. Around the same time, a forthrightly gay Open Orthodox rabbinical student at YCT, which declined to ordain him once he became publicly engaged to his boyfriend on the stage of a rock concert, was instead ordained at a different Open Orthodox rabbinical institution; in light of the backlash against the former Open Orthodox rabbinical school, the school launched its LGBTQ+ Initiatives Project, directed by a member of the gay community.

For its part, Maharat is not new to this matter. Maharat’s website includes this profile of a student in its Core Semicha program:

… Sara prepares students from a wide array of backgrounds for their Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, and is particularly sought after as a tutor for students with learning disabilities.

A member of Anshe Sholom Bnai Israel, Sara serves her community in a variety of ways, including checking the eruv and as a mikvah attendant. She also recently served on the Rabbinic Search Committee and as the shul’s Vice President of Education. Sara lives in Chicago with her wife, Isabel.

Yes, Maharat plans to ordain a woman whom the school’s own website describes as married to another woman. (This Maharat student was one of the speakers at last night’s symposium and book launch, cited above.)

Maharat’s website even features a dvar Torah which seeks to identify Pesach Sheni as a day of gay inclusion and/or gay pride (!).

Rabbi Fox’ responsum is the next step in Open Orthodoxy’s departure from Torah. Almost identical to the development of the contemporary Conservative movement, in which senior faculty at Jewish Theological Seminary and ranking members of the movement’s Rabbinical Assembly penned responsa to permit driving on Shabbos, the marriage of Kohanim to divorcees and other halachic prohibitions, concocting spurious and unfounded rationales to reject and overturn Halacha, the Open Orthodox movement has adopted an approach of “psak” which utilizes specious arguments that yield preconceived conclusions and ultimately reform and negate Halacha.

The halachic system legitimately allows for differing opinions, novel insights and new applications; however, one can tap into this system only by submission to halachic precedent and authority and by working within the system’s axioms and hierarchal structures, rather than introducing and imposing one’s own mechanisms, contrivances and values, which ultimately end up deviating from Halacha and nullifying it.

Postscript: Due to my extremely tight schedule, and moreover, due to the Yemei Ha-Din (Days of Judgement) approaching, it was quite difficult for me to take out the time to focus and write on this topic. But since Rabbi Fox’ book was launched literally just last night at a very public and widely-advertised event, and the matter calls for an immediate response, im lo achshav, eimasai – if not now, when?

You may also like...

28 Responses

  1. Steven Brizel says:

    R Gordimer hits the nail on the head-this is yet another departure from Halacha by OO. The sanctioning of such relationships cannot be reconciled with the underlying premises of Chazal in Seder Nashim which is the building and maintenance of families composed of a father, mother and children and the rejection of both Greco Roman hedonism in all of its varieties and Christian monasticism and celibacy by championing the Kedusha of the Jewish family.

    • Simon Furst says:

      That’s an extremely subjectie interpretation of the values of chazal, one defined by the norms of today. While I don’t think chazal in any way would approve of lesbian marriages as they associated it with hedonism as you correctly point out, nowadays that we have more information about it that tells us that is an orientation, not a merely lustful and hedonistic activity by depraved individuals, I don’t know if chazal’s value judgement would apply (this extends to their statement about pritzusa that rabbi gordimer attacks rabbi fox’s approach). Chazal weren’t into this christian influenced concept of a ‘jewish home’ with a specific framework, that is something we developed throughout this long golus, and while it’s a nice value, i would not use it to override other important values, and I would attribute it to chazal.
      Now obviously this is all with regards to the hashkafic/value judgement aspect of this case; halacha is determined by rigorous analysis of the sources with some room for leeway within the halachic process. I haven’t yet gotten around to examining the tshuva in depth, but I’ve seen some points brought up which seem worthy of further analysis (from a completely traditional halachic perspective).

      • Bob Miller says:

        We have more false information concocted by interested parties. We can do without pseudo-halachic analysis based on such.

  2. Bob Miller says:

    (corrected)
    Open Orthodoxy remains a consumer fraud. Socially dangerous nonsense absorbed by fully assimilated Jews will propagate to Reform, Conservative / Reconstructionist, and Open Orthodox circles in due course as always. Our sacred literature will always be mined for concepts that can be suitably twisted to sabotage genuine Judaism. Our task is not so much to talk sense to the destroyers as to make their ignorant target audiences Torah-knowledgeable “educated consumers”. Orthodox-run institutions, including publishers, should not allow entry to OO fellow travelers, however glib and academically respected these may be. A lot of demonstrable foolishness now passes for enlightened, sophisticated commentary.

  3. Michael Mirsky says:

    They will rue the day they went down this path just as many in the Conservative movement now feel about their innovations.

    • lacosta says:

      no they won’t —they are not orthodox , they are woke leftists , and are moved not by avodas hashem , but by taavat habriyot . this is not the first iceberg off the glacier, and no where near the last. In days of yore there was effective use of cherem. Today it would be a badge of honour , a veritable hechsher…

  4. joel says:

    Rabbi Fox’ responsum is the next step in Open Orthodoxy’s departure from Torah. Almost identical to the development of the contemporary Conservative movement,
    ===========================
    Interesting. If one believes that OO is already outside the fold, then wouldn’t this be a positive development in that it would hasten the recognition of OO as a non-orthodox movement?
    bsorot tovot kvct

    • Bob Miller says:

      Maybe, for some. Orthodoxy as a label must still have wide appeal if these charlatans find it useful.

  5. Ze'ev Smason says:

    Rav Gordimer — thank you for expressing the authentic Torah perspective on this issue. ‘Religion’ may be the only enterprise in which one blatantly misrepresenting and falsifying a product can’t be sued for malpractice. B’H, we have Rav Gordimer to set the record straight on those guilty of misrepresenting Torah Judaism.

  6. Steven Brizel says:

    Take a look at the rabbinic respondents to R Fox’s article- ,they all, except for one respondent ( excluding the views of one lay respondent ) rejected his reading of the relevant sources, especially his reading of the Rambam that he discussed and his conclusion , which all of the respondents acknowledged was a rejection of the relevant views of the Tur and Mchaber who relied on the view of Rambam. as opposed to the views of other Rishonim who saw an Issur Drabanan implicated at the very least. , Their rejection of his reading of the sources and jhis conclusion may serve as a break on the practical application of this article in LW MO circles.

  7. Nachum says:

    Back in those primitive days when such things could still be discussed, “But it’s muttar to be a lesbian!” was a favorite “shtuch” of the pro-gay “Orthodox” crowd. To which the response was, first, no, it isn’t, and secondly, “So what? You’re going to tell the gay women they’re OK and tell the gay men they’re not? Is that your plan? Do you not realize that? Or are you just covering up your desire to make it all OK with this little act?”

    True then, true now.

  8. Robet says:

    Shocking? Not really. Since its beginning, OO has made its raison d’etre the “changing” of halachot to fit the pre-determined outcomes desired by liberal (read: leftist) secular political values.

  9. WILLIAM GEWIRTZ says:

    On the weekend that a significant chillul HaShem will take place, an attempt to twist a psak by some “rabbi” from an issur de’rabbanan into something mutar, is hardly newsworthy. Besides, the fact that neither OO nor the Agudah can police its members is broadly recognized.

    Eilu ve’eilu has limits. Where they are may be difficult in some situations, but not these. Unfortunately, absent a Sanhedrin or similar body, enforcement of boundaries is next to impossible.

  10. Steven Brizel says:

    What was the significant Chilul HaShem.? Thanks to amazing intelligence and technology and great execution by the IAF all of which shows that HaShem is evident in such matters a major terrorist leader who was fully subsidized by Iran or whatever is left with him sleeps with the fishes to quote a line from a great movie . I think the Kol Koreh and Asifah is grossly inappropriate but there is evidence of change from within on this issue while the IDF brass has yet to show that it can and is willing to accommodate the religious needs of Charedim

    • WILLIAM GEWIRTZ says:

      Change is often not the result of Rabbinic action; it occurs bottom-up. What we are witnessing wrt to service in the IDF or elsewhere in the State of Israel follows that pattern.

      The current head of the IDF is a shomer Torah u’Mitzvot. There are many accommodations made in order to facilitate the needs of religious soldiers.

      • Steven Brizel says:

        The current head of the IDF should be replaced for worrying more about the “day after” and pleasing DC via leaks to the mainstream media in Israel and the US and not being ready for 10.7 as opposed to doing what it takes to win the war , The current head of the IDF many in the high brass of the IDF brass fell in love with the concepts of static defense, a smaller and smarter army and overreliance on high tech, and disdaing intelligence reports of a massive build up on the Gaza side of the security fence which was easily breached by Hamas. Their performance was akin to the American brass after Pearl Harbor who ignnored the warning of General Billyt Mitchell in 1925 that air power could sink battleships and the French power who relied on the so called Maginot Line and never thought that the Nazis would attacjk through the ligthly defended Ardenne. The recent events in Lebanon have gone a long way to showing that the best defense is a strong offense, regardless of what DC or the so called international community says, thinks or writes. Blaming Charedim for such poor strategies and tactics is clearly an exercise in looking for a scapegoat.

        . Accomodations for Charedim entail would require deparate gender units, a higher level of Kashrus, and the allocation for their unique halachic needs. If these needs can’t be met or the IDF is unwilling to meet them, don;t blame Charedim as a class.

        As far as change ocurring from the ground up-I agree wholehearedledly and I remind readers of the following American analogy. In 1954, SCOTUS declared segregation in public educaton to be unconstitutional. Yet despite that ruling and the passing of the Civil Rights Acts, integration really took place in the South after a USC football team coached by John McCay and led by Sam Cunninghan clobbered a U of Alabama team coached by the legendary Paul Bear Bryant in Tuscaloosa Alabama. The next year there were African American starters for the Crimson Tide and the rest is history with the take away being that social change begins from the ground up

      • WILLIAM GEWIRTZ says:

        I was not aware that you were a military strategist as well.

  11. Bob Miller says:

    If the IDF doesn’t finally catch on that its successes all come from HaShem, and acknowledge them in public as such, they are missing an essential point. Otherwise, failures born of cockiness can’t be ruled out.

    • WILLIAM GEWIRTZ says:

      “all” is incorrect both practically and hashkafically. Ki lo machshevosai machshevosaichem reminds us that we cannot know what is the result of divine intervention and what occurs be’derech hateva as a result of hishtadlus.

    • mb says:

      Funny thing that. All are willing to quote the Rambam on same sex marriage(I’m not disagreeing) but completely ignore the Rambam on Hasgacha Pratis, and especially when it comes to wars.
      KVCT

  12. Steven Brizel says:

    William Gewritz wote :
    “I was not aware that you were a military strategist as well”
    I have been a student of politics and war as a means for advancing national security and peace for many years. As Clemenceau remarked , wars are too important to be left to the generals and as Santayana remarked, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” History is replete with examples of military failures that were predicated on strategic and tactical mistakes and the facts that led to what happened on 10/7 and in 1973 are two examples of huge strategic and tactical mistakes that the IDF was able to recover from, but at a huge cost. For hose interested in how the IDF brass has acted see https://www.jns.org/isa-idf-brass-are-concealing-the-pas-involvement-in-terrorism/ and the podcasts with Benny Morris and Gadi Taub here https://18forty.org/18-questions-40-israeli-thinkers-pod/

    • WILLIAM GEWIRTZ says:

      Generals, Rabbis, presidents, doctors, etc. all make, sometimes grievous, errors. Nonetheless, we continue to rely on them. After what has occurred with Hezbollah and Iran recently, generals are looking good: From the liver to the knee, not much left to see.

  13. Tal Benschar says:

    One wonders who exactly this “rabbi” thinks he is convincing. If he ruled it was assur, would anyone act differently?

    I prefer the more honest approach of a Reform rabbi, who when asked about the same issue, replied, “Well we already don’t keep many things in Leviticus, so why should this be different?”

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This