Jump to content

Talk:Jewish views on homosexuality/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Orthodox NPOV

The Orthodox section needs an overhaul. Looking through the history, it had a more balanced and encyclopedic paragraph, although espousing a lenient POV. Then, it was changed to something that doesn't even state that this is a position (or set of positions) but seems to claim the "abomination of homosexuality" etc as a fact. I've changed the more obvious references but will try to do a more in-depth touch-up later. I think that a balanced paragraph on the Orthodoxy should include 1) the halakha as it is from the Tanach, Mishna, Gemara, Yad, Tur etc 2) strict/traditional moral judgements as extensions of the halakha (for eg the whole notion of orientation is quite post-Talmudic) and 3) a reference to some of the more lenient opinions/cases. Frikle 11:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's no such thing as orientation as far as halakha is concerned, apart from the fact that entertaining lewd thoughts (hirhurei ha-lev) is bad for homo- and heterosexuals alike. JFW | T@lk 15:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

True, - my point was that, while not an issue in halakha, there is a wide range of views in the Orthodox community (including Rabbis and people of some authority) as to how to actually deal with homosexuals in the community. Furthermore, there is some influence of the scientific notion of orientation on how to consider the issue. I think that in terms of responses, the article mentions Teshuvah, however that is not the exclusive and only approach by people and the prevalence of other approaches (such as counselling and the keeping of private things private especially as this relates to lashon hara) should be mentioned. Whether people like it or not, the issue has become at least somewhat more complex this century and that should be reflected in the article. Also I think in terms of halakhah, the reference to Sifra on lesbian acts and some of the Talmudic discussions should be mentioned briefly. Frikle 03:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right, Frikle. Actually, I inserted the Sifra link earlier, but Ezra Wax removed it when toughening up the tone of the article.
As for the "scientific notion of orientation", this is what we call yetzer ha-ra, and I'm not sure if this should be an issue.
As for the community's way of responding to gay Jews, this is worth mentioning only if you can identify any trends. Patchyness would ruin this very important section. JFW | T@lk 13:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, the recent updates in the article especially "Due to the small but growing tendency for some Orthodox Jews to engage in research on the sociology and biology of this subject, and the small but growing tendency to engage in conversation with homosexuals themselves, some Orthodox Jews have changed their minds on this issue" is exactly what I had in mind, as it identifies a trend while not exaggerating its prevalence, and hence is worth mentioning. Frikle 00:11, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:RK has been helpful in adding the material on the soul-searching by the Modern Orthodox element, but I disapprove of long direct quotes by someone who cannot be regarded as a spokesperson for Orthodoxy. A quote by Rav Elyashiv, Rav Metzger or any other authoratitive person would have done, but not someone whom I've personally never heard of and who is mentioned without affiliations. I have therefore removed the quote; perhaps you could use it as a reference without actually quoting this (politically highly incorrect) statement verbatim. JFW | T@lk 18:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have just added details of the Orthodox position(s) by two rabbis long known as spokespeople for Orthodoxy, Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits (former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom), and Rabbi Norman Lamm, former Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva University, and a defacto leader of Modern Orthodox Judaism. Given the length of Rabbi Lamm's original article in the Encyclopedia Judaica, I am sure that the quotes I have included, found within our original article, constitute "fair use", and are not even close to a copyright violation. (It is always fair use to copy several paragraphs from a many page essay, as long as these quotes are used as a small part of a larger original article.) However, if someone would like to read the entire article by Rabbi Lamm, and summarize it in their own words, we could add this original summary and reduce the amount of quoting. (We should not, however, remove all quotes.) RK

As someone who is well read in the responsa literature of Conservative Judaism, I find some points of interest: The rabbis of the Rabbinical Assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards all follow the lead of Rabbi Lamm's 1974 paper; however they go further in many ways due to the massive amount of scientific research that we have accumulated since then. Even Conservative rabbis who are strongly against changing any Jewish views on homosexuality admit that we are obligated to review this subject. Rabbi Joel Roth writes:

Each age may have its list of questions which seem unlikely ever to require serious discussion, yet subsequent ages may find it necessary to discuss those very questions. Answers which may have seemed a foregone conclusion years ago, may no longer be self-evidently true. However, willingness to discuss a question in no way predetermines what the answer will be. It is possible to discuss a question and reaffirm a longstanding precedent as it is to discuss it and abrogate the precedent. When a longstanding precedent is question by a sufficient number of people who cannot be dismissed as 'lunatic fringes', it may no longer be sufficient merely to assert the precedent stands because it is the precedent. Surely precedent will stand unless there is compelling reason for it not to stand. But it must be remembered that those who are questioning the precedent are offering what they believe to be compelling reason for overturning it. One who wishes to reaffirm the precedent must now respond to the claim that there is compelling reason to overturn it. If there is evidence that the 'compelling reason' is not as compelling as those who assert it claim, the precedent should stand. If one can offer equally compelling reason why the precedent should stand, then surely it should stand. And if, in the course of discussion and analysis, one comes to the conclusion that there is, indeed, compelling reason to overturn the precedent, one should support overturning the precedent. It is dangerous for halakhah to refuse to discuss a question for fear that legitimate discussion will result in the 'wrong' answer.
(Homosexuality, Joel Roth, accepted by the CJLS in March, 1992)
Published in Responsa 1991-2000: The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, Ed. Kassel Abelson and David Fine, The Rabbinical Assembly, 2002

I have lots of comments on a topic I know quite well. First of all, regarding Orthodoxy, it is impossible to cover this topic without dealing with Rabbi Steve Greenberg, beginning with his Yaakov Levado article and leading up to his book Wrestling with God and Man, which has made important waves in redefining the Orthodox position vis a vis homosexuality. Second, although it appears in the links section, greater mention should be made of Sandi DuBowski's film Trembling Before G-d, which took the issue of homosexuality in the Orthodox community right out of the closet. What Lamm wrote in the Encyclopedia Judaica thirty years ago was just that--written thirty years ago. There have been some remarkable developments over the past five years. As for lesbianism, it is sharply distinguished in rabbinic literature from male homosexuality--the biblical prohibition is only on male homosexuality (according to Rashi, anal sex), whereas women (known as nashim mesalselot) is at most a rabbinic injunction. There should be discussion on what the prohibition is, possible sources of the prohibition, and even Steve's discussion of responding to the prohibition. Furthermore, there should be discussion on Shlomo Riskin's discussion of embracing the sinner, not the sin. The Chief Rabbi of England also discusses the issue at length, and there are many articles by prominent rabbis discussing it. Right now, we just have a lengthy quote, that is quite out-dated. You may as well bring in the responsa of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein too. As for the Conservative movement, there are sharp differences between what is happening in Israel and what is happening in America under Schorsch. Five or six years ago, at a meeting of Conservative rabbis in Jerusalem, there was a meeting between Conservative rabbis and representatives of the gay community from traditional (i.e., observant) homes, which had a major impact on the local attitude. Speaking just yesterday with a member of Jerusalem's City Council, I was told that there is no way that there would have been a gay pride parade in teh city were it not for the fact that Jerusalem has an ultra-Orthodox mayor. There is quite a bit more tolerance, albeit perhaps not enough, even within ultra-Orthodox circles. Danny 00:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All excellent points which should be incorporated into the article. I agree that the current quotes are old, and newer ones needed to be added. The two added today are a start; more should be forthcoming. Was the meeting with the Conservative rabbis reported in any papers, or mentioned on TV or radio? (I assume so, since you note that it had a major impact.) RK 03:14, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

At the start of this talk page, I thought that there wasn't enough on the more lenient threads within Orthodoxy, but now I think there is too much. It dominates the article in a disproportionate way. Although many of the quotes are interesting and important, quoting several paragraphs seems too much. For instance, the Jakobovits quote repeats the first part of the section, espousing the traditional blanket condemnation. Perhaps some of the articles could be merely cited/linked/referenced? Frikle 04:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good point; most Orthodox Jews, so far as I know, are not having any significant re-evalualtion of their views on this subject. Many Orthodox Jews have perceived this movie, and the resulting discussions, as an attack on Judaism, and as part of a homosexual agenda. This reaction needs to be noted as well. What about adding the view of Rabbi Meir Fund? (In one of the articles below) He's pretty well known. RK


None of the rabbis cited are Halakhic authorities in any way, they are mere institutional or (public) pulpit rabbis who know how to make public statements. There is no "minhag" (custom) or law to be learned from them really. Besides, Rabbi Fund is not endorsing anything, as you may imply, he clearly states and acknowledges: "...“I do not detect the slightest move toward acceptance of the behavior, for the obvious reason that no matter how strongly the cultural tide crashes against the wall of Torah, that wall will not give way,” Rabbi Fund said...." Rabbi Fund is known to specialize in welcoming all sorts of people, converts and Baalei teshuva, and this category of gays is just another group of "rachmonus cases" ("pitiful people") he is trying to welcome or keep in the fold. In the end he hopes to have everyone fully halachicaly observant, no doubt it. He certainly is not on a jihad to gain acceptance for gays outright in Orthodox circles. IZAK 03:50, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First off, the articles do cite halakhic authorities. Perhaps they do not cite people that you personaly respect, but you do not speak for all Orthodox Jews. Secondly, you totally misunderstood what I wrote. I only agreed with Frikle that the article had now represented Orthodox Judaism as being too pro-gay, and I stated that for balance we needed to present the other side, which as far as I know is the majority of Orthodoxy. Thus, I stated that we should quote someone like Rabbi Meir Fund precisely because he does not accept or want a change in how the Orthodox Jewish community regards homosexuality! In other words, I agree with you, and that is why we need to cite well known Orthodox rabbis who hold this view. Why you imagine I said otherwise is beyong me; I certainly wrote nothing of the sort. RK

The statement by Rabbi Benjamin Hecht that "homosexual drive serves no purpose" lacks credibility, since in point of fact it serves many purposes, not the least of which is the need for intimacy and self-affirmation which is essential to the human experience. PM

Agenda

I protest. This article's agenda is to show that it is OK to be lenient, and that any Orthodox person who thinks otherwise is deliberately ignoring the facts. Ezra Wax

Improving this article

Reading over this about a year since I last did, this article is a mess. After doing some tweaks, I was thinking of bigger changes and one idea was to cut down on the verbatim quotations of resolutions, responsa, action plans etc etc. It seems to me that they clutter. This should not be a direct discussion or compendum of what people have actually said - a better approach would be to extract and collapse into the article (leaving references) thus creating more space for a more clear, logical and coherent article. An impossible dream for this particular article I must say...

Agreements? Criticisms? Suggestions? Curses and abuse? Frikle 11:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a dump of direct quotes, and with regard to Orthodoxy, focuses heavily on extreme minority positions. Without even looking at the history, I know with certainty who did that. Summarizing positions, with appropriate cites and links, would be much better. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Just wanting to clear up two changes I made that I think should be reinserted. The one about the prohibition of specifically anal sex from the Torah verse is from Rashi to the second verse about Mishkevei Zahar where he defines is as something like "inserting into a tube". Even if this isn't the plain meaning, Rashi's interpretation should be mentioned. The second one is about Rabinnic lashes. There are two kinds of lashes: mid'Oraita and mid'Ravanan. Lesbian sex cannot incur the first because there is no actual negative commandment (or at least the Rambam didn't seem to think so). Again I thought this should be made clear, perhaps in a subsequent statement. Frikle 06:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the Talmudic citation in the first paragraph "Homosexuality and the Torah", which must be from Nedarim 51a. However, since this is a word-midrash which has nothing to do with the Tanakh per se and isn't even explicitly connected to homosexuality in the Talmud, the reference could just as well be deleted altogether.

I added clarifications to the rest of the Orthodox section and put in a reference to Trembling Before G-d under recent Modern Orthodox responses.

I also deleted the last section "Levels of modesty required according to the Torah and Halakha" as having no particular connection to the topic of the article.

Shorespirit 2:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Text From Elsewhere

The article Homosexuality and Christianity had a reference to the Talmud, which was of course as out of place as a reference to the New Testament would be here. I'm moving it here in case anyone wants to make use of it.

Modern readers often understand Leviticus as prohibiting homosexuality as such. But homosexual orientation denoting same-sex love, homoerotic feelings and sexual intercourse at the same time, is not a concern of Leviticus at all. The biblical expression "lie with someone" may be a euphemism for the act of penetration. Therefore, non-penetrative sex was never considered to be unlawful by the Jewish law. "The Talmud understands the Torah's interdiction in Leviticus 18 and 20 to be limited to male/male anal intercourse. Other male/male non-penetrative sexual practices, such as intercrural intercourse, are included in the category of masturbation—a category that is condemned instead as "destruction of seed." To phrase the matter in contemporary language, the issue at stake in Leviticus and its later Talmudic interpretation is proper gender-role differentiation, not orientation or object choice. The text does not address the issue of homosexuality as that issue typically is framed in our conversations today" (Daniel Boyarin “Are there any Jews in ‘The History of Sexuality’?”, Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 5 no. 3 (1995) 337-39).

A.J.A. 21:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

sentence

If he does teshuva (repentance), i.e. he ceases his forbidden actions, regrets what he has done, apologizes to God, and makes a binding resolution never to repeat those actions, he is seen to be forgiven by God (in a similar manner to the other capital crimes, except murder).

Why except murder? Teshuva works for anything. Granted that you would still kill him but that does not mean that he is not forgiven by god (see Makot 13b). am I missing something? Jon513 12:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Liberal/UK Movements

This article doesn't mention the UK Liberal Movement, which recently started having same-sex marriage ceremonies, nor does it really mention any UK movements. It probably needs a whole new section, and I will leave it to someone who knows more about it to do. Thanks! Daniel (☎) 16:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Economic Injustice

this is tangental, but the first paragraph stated that homosexuality under jewish law was on par with "incest, idolatry, eating unclean animals, and economic injustice". What biblical verses forbid economic injustice? I am aware that a (jewish?) slave in ancient times must be offered freedom after 7 years of service and the tithing practice. What other laws are there on this subject?

Theft; lending to a Jew on interest; not taking care of the Levite, widow, Ger, orphan; taking the pledge of the poor overnight when they require it; not following the laws of the forgotten sheaf, peah etc; using false weights and measures; testifying falsely etc etc - in other words a huge array of laws dealing with the economy, trade, justice and the like. Not sure what "on par with" means in this context though. Frikle 13:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
In this context "on par with" was used because the very same word that is often (mis)translated as 'abomination' is used to describe all those acts.
While it is clear that Halakah frowns on homosexuality (the level of which is clearly debatable), it does so with the same language that it uses for forbidding eating shellfish or stealing office supplies.74.59.81.80 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section to Talk

Removed unsourced section to Talk. Sorry, but per WP:V the Bible itself can be used as a source only for meanings at the most literal and obvious level, and simply cannot be used as a source for interpretations of this nature. The idea that a close male-male relationship should be assumed to be sexual in nature would be laughable in many cultures, possibly including the one David and Jonathan lived in. --Shirahadasha 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

King David and Jonathan

There is some speculation regarding King David and Jonathan the son of King Saul. Relevant sources are as follows:
When Samuel, the prophet, requested that Yishai (Jesse) bring him his son David, the verse relates that "He was ruddy with eyes of beauty and good appearance."(I Samuel 16:12)
After David killed Goliath the giant and spoke with Saul. "Jonathan's soul became bound to David's soul, and Jonathan loved him as [he loved] his own soul. Saul took him that day and did not allow him to return home. Jonathan and David made a covenant because he loved him as [much as] himself. Jonathan removed the coat that was on him and gave it to David, and his suit and even his sword and even his bow and even his belt. David went wherever Saul sent him, and would be successful. Saul put him in charge of the soldiers. He was good in the eyes of the entire nation and in the eyes of the Saul's ministers."
Even though Jonathan was the crown prince, he was able to allow David to assume authority that was rightfully his own because of his great love for him.
On Jonathan's passing King David eulogized him: "I have great pain over you, my brother Jonathan, you were very pleasant to me, your love for me was more wondrous than the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26)
This verse doesn't say anything about either Jonathan or David's love of women. David did have an affair with Bat Sheva, whom he married. The Talmud says that the affair was not technically adultery, and that David was forgiven for it. That is the only relationship that David had that is regarded as improper according to the prophet Nathan in the Biblical narrative.

Higher Percentage of Gays/Lesbians Found in Modern Jews -- Research

I'm wondering if anyone has come across any serious scholarly research that has examined the fact that Jews tend to be quite overrepresented amongst the gay and lesbian populations in the modern World, particularly in the USA and Western Europe. I have read about this on certain Jewish websites and in a couple Jewish newsletters/newspapers, but have yet to find any academic research on this matter. I know that the worldwide Jewish community is generally very gay/lesbian friendly, but I am looking for information/statistics that can confirm the noticeably higher incidence of homosexuality/lesbianism in the (mostly secular) Jewish population. Thank you for any information that you can provide. --172.144.204.92 03:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt such claims. Obtaining reliable information on such a sensitive area is very difficult to begin with. My personal experience has been that gay people exist in all cultures. It might be speculated that non-Orthodox Jewish culture is more open to acknowledging gay sons or daughters than Christian culture, but I don't personally think that is the case. Even if Conservative and Reform Judaism are more accepting of gays than much of Catholic or Fundamentalist Protestantism, I think that most young people in a Conservative Jewish home are still quite frightened to reveal their sexuality. I grew up gay in a modern Orthodox household. In any event, data in areas such as this is notiously unreliable, IMO. It's like trying to obtain data on monogamy, whether straight or gay. There is too much difficulty in ascertaining the reliability of responses and in obtaining a proper sampling, for there to be any sense of reliability in statistics. Again, my opinion only. 66.108.105.21 09:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Dropped reference

In the Conservative section we lost the referenc to Rabbi Simchah Roth's responsum Dear David. The paper has been influential in allowing the 6 December decision to move forward, and will be used in an abridged form in other meetings regarding homosexuality. As the article stands I am not sure whether it still has a place, so I am simply noting it here for other editors to consider. Fiddle Faddle 15:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding Orthodox Jewish points of view

It is a mystery why no one has allowed the Orthodox Jewish community to describe its point of view, other than that of the Modern Orthodox community. Charedi Judaism has deep-seated feelings, which are based on their view of morality and God. They geuninely view homosexuality as a threat, often as a perversion, and sometimes as a rebellion against God. I have started a section. Lets use Orthodox sources to allow the Orthodox to describe their own views in an neutral POV. Mark3 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Previously the only material labeled "Orthodox" was an unreferenced and uncitet set of views from the Zohar. That is a valid, useful part of the article, but it belongs in a separate section. Mark3 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Mark3: Your question's underlying premise is misguided. The so-called "Orthodox" or Chareidi (on Wikipedia it's called Haredi) view is encapsulated in Homosexuality and Judaism#Homosexuality in the Torah because Haredim seek to abide by the 613 mitzvot, this one included. What is the mystery? Unlike the Reform and Conservative who try to do create intellectually dishonest and non-Halakhic "reforms" -- the Orthodox/Haredi position is to abide by the commandmenst of the Torah and its application through the Shulkhan Arukh. IZAK 11:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but what you say is an Orthodox point of view, and not a fact. Conservative Jews also claim that they are following the 613 mitzvot! In fact, even the most liberal Conservative responsa just one out of seven) still holds that the prohibition against mishkivei isha is binding. It is only Liberal Judaism, incl. Reform and Reconstructionist, that holds that the mitzvot of the Torah are non-binding. Mark3
I think you may soon have a problem with much of Orthodoxy itself. In the last generation some Orthodox rabbis have reversed their view on societal constraints against homosexuals; reversed their views on shunning homosexuals in the religious Jewish community; reversed their views on outeach to openly homosexual Jews; and reversed their views on discussing this issue in public, with an ear towards compassionate dialogue. According to many Charedim, this itself is a violation of Judaism! These are violations of rabbinic ethical norms, and previously have been seen as threatening the Torah itself. Yet now much of Orthodoxy is where Reform Judaism was only 25 years ago, and where Conservatism was only 15 years ago. If you think that this trend is going to suddenly stop dead in its tracks, you would probably be incorrect. I think there will continue to be very slow changes in how Orthodoxy understands this issue. Mark3 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Abraham period

Does anyone know about that? 62.128.42.30 06:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Basis to restore David and Jonathan section

I don't understand why David and Jonathan are not mentioned. It seems to me that some version of the section above should be restored and improved. Here are relevant sources:

In favor of the homosexual/erotic aspect of their relationship, among others: "See, for example, Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn, Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First Story (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993); Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998); Roland Boer, Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door: The Bible and Popular Culture (London/New York: Routledge, 1999); Kenneth Stone (ed.), Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 334; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001)." (taken from a footnote in Peled)

Against the homosexual aspect, among others: "Love at First Sight? David, Jonathan, and the Biblical Politics of Gender" Yaron Peleg, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.2005; 30: 171-189

Wikipedia doesn't have to adjudicate the scholarly dispute, but the debate over their sexuality is clearly notable. Thanks. HG | Talk 05:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion here is that we characterize the subject of these sources as contemporary academic views of David and Jonathan, as distinct from David and Jonathan themselves. A key difficulty is that classical sources and commentaries don't share these views, so they aren't traditionally Jewish views. My concern here is very simple: These sources may be reliable sources for academic views of the Hebrew Bible, but that's different from being reliable sources on Judaism or Jewish views. In order to present as views of some more liberal branch of Judaism, I think we would need to show that some reliable theological source adapted these academic views or used them to support a religious position. The views of academic Bible scholars don't necessarily have anything to do with Judaism; Judaism and specifically Jewish views as such is not the field of general academic Bible scholars, and they're not reliable sources on subjects outside their field. One needs a source by an expert on Judaism with the relevant interpretations or attribution of importance. Judaism hasn't traditionally thought of the story of David and Jonathan as having anything to do with homosexuality. It's entirely possible that there are Jewish circles where this view is accepted as a religious position, but we don't have any evidence of that. We had a controversy a while back on the Brit Milah article where an anti-circumcision advocates added an anti-Brit Milah section to the article sourced by medical doctors who thought circumcision medically unwarranted and web sites arguing that the Jewish practice was mere superstition. The concensus was that medical doctors' views of the medical merits of circumcision, and web sites discussing religion by non-religiously-affiliated anti-circumcision organizations, simply aren't the same thing as a Jewish religious view of the Brit Milah ceremony, and can't be presented as such absent evidence that the view has some prominence as a religious position in some significant Jewish religious community. I think the issue here is similar. It's entirely possible that these views are widely discussed/accepted in e.g. Reform circles, but we'd need a source for that. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can agree on this: There is a distinction between ancient Israel's Judaism and what we call Judaism (i.e., rabbinic Judaism) today. So the David/Jonathan section should go under "Homosexuality in the Torah" or, if we prefer, "in the Hebrew Bible." However, these sources are clearly discussing the biblical story in the context of Israelite and Near Eastern culture. (It's not a modern midrash thing.) I think it is adequate, per usual practice, to footnote the sources and to clarify that this is the Judaism of ancient Israel.
I recrafted the section and put it in the article. I think you'll find it acceptable or can edit it as needed. In any case, you'll hopefully AGF my intent to give you a sense of the section that I think fits the sources. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, there is some evidence of (rabbinic) Jewish readings of the text as homosexual/erotic. It's at least surfaced in Spanish Jewish poetry. Discussing the boy-love poetry of Ibn Gabirol, Samuel ha-Nagid, Judah ha-Levi, Foster writes: "The love of Israel's great poet-king David for Jonathan did not escape them." (Source: Spanish Writers on Gay and Lesbian Themes: A Bio-Critical Sourcebook. David William Foster. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999) Regardless of the David-Jonathan link, this poetry and that community's attitude toward homoeroticism does merit inclusion in the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 11:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this probably merits inclusion in the article somewhere, but saying the Bible uses "homoerotic terms" to describe the relationship goes too far. While it may be correct according to a strict definition, it has a strong homosexual connotation and so is misleading. (If it's not meant to have a homosexual connotation, what's it doing in this article?) There's no implication at all of a desire to have sex, and indeed it seems extremely unlikely that any Israelite scribe anywhere along the line would have written anything that they thought suggested that. My replacement may be clumsy, but I really think the word homoerotic should be avoided here unless it's clearly attached to a point of view held by some scholars.

I also have to say that I think the presentation is a little misleading here, or at least incomplete. This needs to be mentioned here (i.e., in an article specifically about homosexuality) because some scholars have attempted to attribute some kind of homosexual meaning to the passage. Obviously we don't quote Genesis 37:3 here or in Pedophilia and Judaism or Incest and Judaism just because it speaks of a father "loving" his son. Some argument needs to be made that the word "love" here is in some way sexual, and not purely a matter of extreme admiration and dedication. Otherwise it's not relevant to the article.

And it's definitely important to note that traditional Jewish sources have never acknowledged any sexual content in the passages. It may be the opinion of David William Foster that some particular Spanish Jewish poetry did imply some sexual content, but that's not really germane. First of all, it's his opinion alone, at least until you give some further textual evidence. Second of all, even if it were true, it would be overwhelmingly non-representative. I doubt any of the major commentators (Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, etc.) even mention the possibility of a homosexual connotation for these passages.

So this needs further work if it's going to stay in the article, IMO. If we could get a source for a statement like "A significant number of/many/most academic scholars believe that these passages indicate a homosexual relationship", that would be best. I'm not so familiar with academic treatments of the Bible, but I have to say I'd be surprised if much of anyone thinks they can draw conclusions from the passages. As for the opposing view, if it's desired, I would be happy to look through all the major commentators and provide the basis for a footnote saying that they don't see anything sexual here at all. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Simetrical. I like your comments and generally support your accompanying revisions to the section. Peleg (p3) himself indicates that Bible scholars generally support the "homoeroticism" of their relationship and he cites some who use that specific term. Still, I'm ok w/your revision for now. (But I removed your comment/question in the footnote -- better to keep the discussion here, ok?) Thanks for your assistance. HG | Talk 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
We regularly get Christian editors who try to add references to Bible passages they believe presage the coming of Jesus to various Judaism articles and then claim that because it's in the Hebrew Bible, and there are reliable sources who claim the interpretation is relevant, it must be relevant to Judaism. I honestly don't see this as being any different. If it's inconsistent with Wikipedia policies to use a "Judaism and..." article to present Christian interpretations of the Hebrew Bible with no evidence they have any relation to Judaism, it's equally inconsistent to use a "Judaism and..." article to present secular academic interpretations of the Hebrew Bible with no evidence they have anything to do with Judaism. In both cases, the sources involved are not reliable sources for Judaism and Jewish views. It would be a bit like presenting an academic view of early English history as being an influence on or relevant to Shakespeare's history plays. The view would be anachronistic. There'd be no evidence Shakespeare would have had the contemporary academic view in mind. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Shira, are you saying that secular/academic readings of the Hebrew Bible do not reflect Jewishh views? If so, then what does this imply about ancient Israel? Perhaps you are implying that ancient Israelite religion is not a form Judaism, or that the article should only address rabbinic Judaism. These are plausible positions (though I don't happen to agree with either), so please clarify. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If some scholars think that the text indicates some kind of homosexual relationship ― which I think is absurd, but I'm not surprised some claim that, and in any event I'm a reliable source ― then that has significance for ancient Jewish (i.e., Israelite) attitudes toward homosexuality, even if it has no relevance to later rabbinic attitudes. Also, I would be surprised if some Reform and maybe Conservative Jews didn't interpret the passages sexually to legitimize their attitudes toward homosexuals.

I'm primarily concerned with making sure that the view presented here is appropriately representative. Do scholars in the field of Israelite history generally agree on a sexual interpretation of the passages (whether heterosexual or homosexual), or is that a minority opinion? Of course, the traditional interpretation is at least as important as the academic one in the context of an article about Judaism, but the latter deserves mention. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's my impression that a homosexual/erotic analysis is not the standard academic view (probably most do not address the question at all), but a notable minority (i.e., by no means fringe in WP sense). I agree w/your last sentence, too. HG | Talk 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't had time for a detailed answer, sorry I haven't gotten back. I'll quickly point out a few issues --

  • I basically take the view that "Judaism" means the contemporary religion, with its history a matter of dispute. In many ways, which sources one thinks are determinative of Jewish history determines orientation to the religion.
  • Both traditionalists and academics think, for essentially opposite reasons, that contemporary Judaism is very different from the academic view of the religion of the ancient Israelites. Orthodox Judaism believes its tradition provides a reliable window into the past and rejects many academic views. And many academics take the view that contemporary Judaism is a relatively recent phenomenon so radically different from the religion of the ancient Israelites that the two shouldn't be given the same label. People who take neither view would form a distinctive constituency which isn't necessarily a majority. It seems to me the different views should be presented rather than one being made an editorial assumption by default.
  • The question of whether academic views of the Bible should affect contemporary Jewish views was a hot topic in the Conservative debate on homosexuality. Conservative Judaism has been much more accepting of academic views on history than its counterparts to the right, but has attempted to use a legal process that is based on traditional sources, although interpreting them much more liberally than Orthodox Judaism would. The essence of the Tucker dissent was a call for Conservative Judaism to come to terms with these two different approaches. Tucker argued in essence that the law committee should be more like the history faculty,. He argued the CJLS should accept academic views of the Torah over traditional commentaries as representing a more advanced knowledge of what the Torah means, and use them to make decisions. The CJLS, even the more liberal Dorff responsum, rejected the idea, holding that part of Conservative Judaism's self-definition was its reliance on traditional sources for legal decision-making, regardless of how academics viewed history. The more traditionalist Roth responsum said that regardless of what academics said about history, the law committee had to regard the Torah as Divine in origin and "legally infallible".
  • This debate within Conservative Judaism makes clear that the very idea that academic views of the ancient Israelites are "naturally" part of Judaism is itself a controversial idea. Given this debate, and the fact that the issue of homosexuality and Judaism was the topic that sparked it, I think that a presentation of academic views of the Bible should be accompanied by a discussion of the degree of acceptance of these kinds of views within different streams of Judaism, perhaps (given the article subject) including some mention of how their views affected how they dealt with the various Biblical passages regarding homosexul behavior.

Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that the CJLS is saying that, for instance, the religion of the 1st Temple is not Judaism. Instead, they probably are saying that non-(or pre-)rabbinic Biblical exegesis is irrelevant to halakhah. I'm pretty confident that within mainstream Jewish discourse, the 1st and 2nd Temple period (and often back to the patriarchs) is considered Judaism. I'm fairly well-read and I can't recall any Jewish argument against the Jewishness of the Temple periods. Your first bullet point requires further discussion because it would imply that the article can be renamed Homosexuality and Contemporary Jewish Views, or the like. (copied from user talk) Thanks again for your reply. HG | Talk 10:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sex in the Talmud

Apart from sex about the Bible, another topic that is arguably controversial is sex in the Talmud. There are all sorts of allegations that the Talmud promotes sexual immorality such as pedophilia and it would be good thing if we could clear up those charges. [http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/judaism-israel/31979-pedophilia-talmuds-dirty-secret.html] [http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_2.html] ADM (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Judaism has never, to my knowledge, considered pedophilia to be morally wrong per se. (Nor did most cultures specifically condemn before the last century or so, AFAIK.) However, this isn't relevant to an article about homosexuality. The Talmud's stance on homosexuality is unequivocally against. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
"Seduction of a minor is rape". Is that clear enough?Mzk1 (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sentence in header with extreme POV

The following sentence appears in the header: However, since Judaism regards love between any two people (including people of the same sex) as being positive, there is no prohibition against homosexuality outside of a sexual act.

I would say the almost all of Orthodoxy categorically rejects this. At any rate, it is very POV. For now I am putting in a [citation needed], but if I don't get a good argument soon I will take it out.Mzk1 (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it, it's clearly inaccurate. It might hold for the Reform, but certainly not for any Orthodox theology I've ever heard. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is a commandment, but it's not construed sexually! —Aryeh Gregor (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one:

According to[specify] Rabbinic interpretation understands the Torah prohibition of Lo tikrevu legalot ervah ("You shall not come close [to another person] to uncover nakedness") to forbid all sexual acts which can lead to forbidden intercourse, and prescribes the punishment of lashes.[citation needed] But according to[specify], this verse is not written in conjunction with homosexuality, rather it is referring to the forbidden incest marriages. The major sources of Halacha (Jewish law) such as the Rambam (Maimonides) and the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) only quote that law in reference to the forbidden family marriages.[citation needed]

This is the fringe view of Steven Greenberg, if I understand him correctly. The Shulchan Aruch is talking about rules here that apply to everyone; there is no prohibition of kurvah to people without the tendencies. In fact, one of the CHAPTER HEADERS of the Shulchan Aruch is "Jews are not suspected regarding the male and the animal" (Note the equation!)Mzk1 (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

'marry a the priesthood'

This is gibberish in English. Can someone correct it to whatever it was supposed to be?188.230.248.85 (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Anti-semitic twaddle snipped for good taste. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT issues

Per the LGBT project consensus, most articles on individual religions have been named "LGBT issues and xxxx" in order to allow broader scope (discussion of bisexuality and transgenderism). Hence i moved this one to match the others.YobMod 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources and blog publication

Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. However, things change, and when a large group of experts in a field choose to use a blog as a means of publicizing a dramatic new position, it must surely be considered a reliable source. I don't think it is even necessary to invoke WP:IAR in such a case, though I'm willing to do so if necessary.

I am referring to the recent publication of a Statement of Principles by over 100 well known Orthodox rabbis and lay people. This can be found here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If we do include this, it needs to be made very clear that the position outlined there is not necessarily representative of what most Orthodox rabbis believe. This is a small group of individuals, compared to the number of Orthodox rabbis in the world, and the statement is not endorsed by any large, well-known organization like Agudath Israel, the OU, the Rabbanut, etc. The original author, Nathaniel Helfgot, is apparently faculty of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, which is about as far from mainstream Orthodoxy as you can get. (Some would say it's outside Orthodoxy, or close.)

I do agree that rejecting it just because the authors chose to publish it on Blogspot is unjustifiable. WP:SPS makes it clear that the rule is meant to prevent using random people's opinions as sources, not to discriminate based on how the information is disseminated. This is a large enough statement to be worth noting here, but we need to be careful to provide context. (Ideally, a major organization will respond to it and make our life easy on all counts.) —Aryeh Gregor (talk • contribs) 19:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your changes were excellent. Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be removed as not generally accepted:
+ * Embarrassing, harassing or demeaning someone with a homosexual orientation or same-sex attraction is a violation of Torah prohibitions that embody the deepest values of Judaism."
I would think that this would have wide acceptance, although I am not positive about universal acceptance. Rabbi Lamm, for example would not accept this? We are talking about tendencies, after all, not practice or "celebration".Mzk1 (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
While I think that lip service may be given to this, it does not have wide acceptance. Continually trying to set someone gay up on a straight shidduch is definitely an embarrassment. And I don't think this is only talking about attraction. If you read through the whole statement of principles, it's saying that even couples should be treated like Jews, without embarrassing, harrassing or demeaning them. And I think that's pretty radically different from the mainstream Orthodox view. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course (although myself I would not do intentionally do that). I am talking strictly about that paragraph, and we are talking about principles here, not what happens in practice. The other paragraphs I agree belong. I think if you would ask most Rabbonim, unless they held extremely strictly to the quote here from Rav Moshe, they would agree that you may not (to say the least) disparge someone for his orientation, if he tries (hard) not to act on it and does not celebrate it.Mzk1 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe in theory. But in practice, it doesn't work that way. If a straight person says, "You won't believe what my wife said last night", it's not considered untoward. But if I say, "You won't believe what my partner said last night", I'm flaunting my lifestyle. If you put a picture of your family on your desk at work, everyone thinks that's charming. If I do the same thing, I'm rubbing it their faces. If you let people know that you're married, they don't immediately think to themselves, "Hmm... that means they have sex" and start imagining what that means. But if I let people know that I'm in a relationship with my partner, they absolutely do immediately think to themselves, "Ick! Forbidden sexual acts!" Never mind that I'm a frum Jew and wouldn't do forbidden things; apparently just being gay is enough to justify ostracism in most frum communities.
And I do think that what happens in practice is relevant here. And I've met numerous people who hold by Rav Moshe's teshuva. Which, I have to say, doesn't inspire a lot of respect in me for Rav Moshe or the people who whole by that teshuva, since it's patently untrue. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we are reading the section differently. I understood that as "someone should not be insulted for a tendency". That is, they are talking about someone who has an attraction towards someone of that sex, and that's it. NOT someone who has a "partner" or a "relationship". (Rather obviously, that would be discouraged among people of the differing sexes, also.) What you referred to as "being gay", I referred to as "celebrating". There are too many people (mostly kids) who will insult or reject a person because of something over which they have no control. Rabbi Lamm, many years ago, pointed out (as I'm sure you know) that there are many sorts of homosexuality, with different causes. I think this is an extremely common mainstream Orthodox viewpoint (yes, even in some Chareidi circles). Based on the statements preceding it, I do not believe the paragraph belongs, and I think if there is a question, it should not be there.Mzk1 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the paragraph, write to Rabbi Helfgot and tell him so. You can't take it out of Wikipedia just because you personally disagree with it. What are you thinking? In any case, in most frum communities, if someone is discovered to be gay, whether in a relationship or not, they are treated poorly. Plus, being in a relationship does not mean they're engaging in forbidden activities. That suspicion is exactly the kind of thing that paragraph is there for. You don't have any right to make such assumptions, particularly of fellow Torah Jews. Should Jews from outside of the US suspect frum Jews from the US of supporting premarital sex simply because that's so prevelent among Americans?
Btw, you italicize on Wikipedia by using double apostrophes, like ''this''. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? I was agreeing with the paragraph. I was saying that it does not belong in a list of things that mainstream organizations (at least some, such as the OU, or more correctly, the RCA) would disagree with. (And the whole section is unsourced, BTW.) I think we both know each others' views on the subject, and that I have a lot of respect for you. I'm sorry this tone crept into your reply.
Regarding what you said, I think the question is whether being "in a relationship" is, in and of itself, proper or permitted. And that does not necessarily apply only to people of the same sex. But this is not mine to judge, nor is it relevant to the subject under discussion. The question is, which of those paragraphs would be disagreed with by most mainstream Orthodox organizations. (Official positions, not people's actions.) I think that including this paragraph is going too far, because it isn't so far out of the mainstream (if it is at all so).
BTW, what is wrong with using HTML if it is supported?Mzk1 (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Transgender?

There is not a word in this article about Judaism's views on transgender people. Perhaps it would make more sense to call it "LGBQ topics and Judaism"? ("Q" for "queer".) Or to add something about that. I don't feel like I know enough to write something authoritative, but maybe someone else could. --TD Mak (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should more correctly (as per content) be entitled 'Homosexuality and Judaism'. Until some information is added by someone in the know, I don't believe the article title adequately reflects the content of the article and is therefore misleading. I came here wondering how Judaism might view transgender issues and am still none the wiser. -- Jenniferhynes (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it was left out because it was so obvious. I can't speak of "transgender people" (this is a broader issue, as to whether we are referring to people at all, or just practices - most would say the latter), but the Bible clearly prohibits cross-dressing, and the Rabbis understood this to go as far as prohibiting a man to shave under his arms or dye his hair. There are various contemporary discussions about this, such as whether a woman could carry weapons or wear trousers. If you want a section on the prohibition of k'li gever / simlat isha, I suppose someone could add it; sources are not hard to find. (P.S. The title was changed, I believe, in accordance of the wishes of the LGBT project.)Mzk1 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't believe it is obvious at all. If it is obvious due to the existence of Leviticus ****, then surely there would be no argument over Leviticus 18:22, which expressly forbids male homosexuality? I am now led to believe, for example, that much of Conservative and Liberal Judaism is supportive of transgendered people. I do feel that yes, the original idea (in the Torah) was to address specific practices (which obviously happened, even if they were not common), but the article in question refers quite deliberately in its title to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people, therefore the exclusion, for whatever reason, of the transgendered would seem to negate the correctness of the actual title. People using this to try and discover the interactions between trans people and Judaism will not find any information here. Until some evidence of how Judaism, in part or whole, treats transgendered individuals, I would respectfully suggest that the article title is incorrect and misleading.Jenniferhynes (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Two issues here, I think. Regarding the ommision, I think we should just ask it to be remedied, along the lines of both our comments. I have a few things ahead of it, but I could put it on my list, at least the traditional part.
As far as differentiating between people and practice, one would also need to ask whether by LGBT you are referring to the tendency or the practice. Furthermore, if you are going to insist that LGBT refers to people, then all of these articles are slanting the content in advance, since it sounds very different to say that one is against a practice than to say that one is against a person. I think it would be best to understand the term "LGBT" as referring to all of the above, practices, people who pactice them, people who have tendencies towards the practice, etc. The word people does not appear in any of these titles.Mzk1 (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Judaism and sexuality" article vs. this one

Someone created a new article entitled Judaism and sexuality, which he or she seems to be using as a platform for his or her own particular views especially on homosexuality. I've urged the editor in question to contribute to this article instead. More experienced editors than me who have worked on this page might be able to help sort out what would belong in Judaism and sexuality (or if that new page should just be deleted, which I think is probably right) and what would belong here. Thanks for your help. Hznhr (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Cúchullain t/c 16:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Judaism and sexual orientation → Judaism and homosexuality – It's not accurate to say that this article is about "sexual orientation". The article is almost entirely about homosexual relationships and sex acts, not about orientation. --Relisted Cúchullain t/c 13:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Azbartan (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conservative section outdated

[1] - I think this is already reflected in the main article & this one should be brought into line. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"World-ruining" bit deleted as per WP:SOAPBOX Shorespirit (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

New article on Orthodox Judaism and sexual orientation?

With all the material accumulating under that section, this could make sense by analogy with Conservative Judaism and sexual orientation -Shorespirit (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of interesting. My initial reaction when I saw the header was that that's way too much forking. But now that I see the Conservative article, I'm torn between whether that one is extraneous or whether we should have an Orthodox one as well. My inclination is to say that if one of them exists, it stands to reason that the other one should as well. Anyone else? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinion of Chaim Navon

Although I think it's a good idea to note that opinion is not monolithic within any grouping, nonetheless when quoting individuals I believe it important to establish that they are significant opinion-makers and aren't being given undue weight. Would it be possible to start an article on Chaim Navon to investigate evidence of his influence within the Hareidi community in Israel? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll need evidence that his opinion is important and respected enough within his community to warrant a lengthy quote. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Is this the Chaim Navon who's the author of Genesis an Jewish Thought? According to the "about the author" paragraph for the book on Amazon.com, he teaches at Midreshet Lindenbaum, a women's yeshiva founded by Modern Orthodox figures, and wrote a book on the philosophy of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, the intellectual giant of Modern Orthodox Judaism. This sure sounds like a Modern Orthodox rabbi to me. It certainly does not sound like a Hareidi rabbi. In addition to the issue of his importance, it doesn't look to me like his viewpoint should be presented under the heading Hareidi Judaism as representing a Hareidi viewpoint. It seems to be a Modern Orthodox viewpoint. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the above concerns, I'm removing the comment to the talk page for now. R. Navon's view is similar to R. Lamm's, already presented as a Modern Orthodox view. R. Lamm's stature within Modern Orthodox Judaism appears to be more clearly established than R. Navon's. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Chaim Navon, a community rabbi in Modi'in writes:

Many religious people think that if the Torah forbade homosexual relationships, it is necessarily because homosexuality is a despicable and unnatural perversion. Yet our faith in the Creator requires us to recognize that we cannot grasp the depth of his considerations. There are many bans in the Torah that do not feature any deviation from nature. For us, on the most primal level, we must not say that “it’s forbidden because it’s unnatural,” but rather, it’s forbidden because it’s forbidden.
Homosexual relationships are referred to in the Torah as “abomination” (Leviticus, 18:22.) Yet this harsh expression is also uttered in relation to food that is not kosher (Deuteronomy 14:3) and in relation to a man who returns his divorced wife after she’s been with another man (Deuteronomy 24:4). Would we treat someone who brought back his divorced wife with the same level of zealous revulsion?
We do not know why the Torah forbade homosexual relationships. There is clearly a reason for it, yet it is beyond our comprehension. Many try to argue that in a society where homosexuality is prevalent, the family unit breaks down. This may be true, yet clearly this does not exhaust God’s reasons for this ban. For us, homosexual relationships are forbidden because God said so.
Our attitude to homosexual tendencies should not be any different than the way we treat a person who has a tendency to eat meat and milk. As long as he is able to overcome his urges, he will be considered a hero. If he is unable to overcome his urges, he will be held accountable before the Creator.[2]
Finally, it appears that R. Navon may well merit an article. His book has gotten reviewed, see here, and his views have been published. So he's a notable figure and an authority, as long as he's correctly placed. That said, other more well-known authorities whose views have been published in scholarly religious journals as distinct from newspaper articles might be better sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Not only r. Navon's view is missing, but a profoundly basic document, issued by Hod and signed by 163 Orthodox rabbis- is lacking. I've added it now.נקטנבו (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of part of the Modern Orthodox views

I rewrote a large chunk of the section on the Modern Orthodox view for accuracy and neutrality. Major changes include

  • I tried to draw a clearer distinction in some places between homosexual feelings vs. actions. I think it's clearer now from the article that all Orthodox Jewish leaders, modern or not, consider homosexual activity to be completely prohibited. It should also be pretty clear that Modern Orthodox leaders today pretty much all agree that homosexual desires are not the fault of the one who has them. The dispute is only on how Orthodox communities should handle homosexuals (whether they're sexually active or not).
  • I added a statement by some roshei yeshiva of RIETS that I found. I tried to neutrally convey that they're major, mainstream Modern Orthodox leaders by calling RIETS "the largest and most influential Modern Orthodox rabbinic program in America", which I think is neutral and uncontroversial.
  • I tried to clarify who exactly supports the other 2010 statement. This was harder because it has a lot of undifferentiated names supporting it, so I had to pick a few to emphasize. I chose three of the most notable figures who signed it (Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Marc Angel, and Avi Weiss) and pointed out what they're noted for, in the hopes that this would neutrally give readers some idea of where the signatories stand within Modern Orthodoxy (i.e., on the far left). I also left the authors' names as redlinks, which will perhaps neutrally suggest that they're not as notable as the authors of the TorahWeb statement.
  • I left the discussion about the more left-wing statement in the Modern Orthodox section, but avoided the use of the word "Orthodox" in the section itself, because it's not neutral to describe some of the signatories as Orthodox. All the signatories self-identify as Orthodox, but the Agudath Yisroel statement that I linked to is pretty clear that they don't consider Avi Weiss to be Orthodox.

This kind of thing is hard to do neutrally, but I'm pretty sure the section's a lot better now than before I edited it. —Aryeh Gregor (talk • contribs) 17:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For a while, I've been having a lot of trouble with the split of the section into Chareidi and Modern. I am not aware of any other topic of Jewish Law with such a split, nor do I think it is warranted. Before recent changes, it implied that Charedim never take the relatively tolerant attitude of the statement you mention above, which is similar to that of American evangelicals. (Yes, in this context, Falwell is tolerant.) Instead, the only view presented blames homosexuals for their problems. This is based on an out-of-context citation of Igrot Moshe, and the understanding of this citation by some rabbi on some webpage (not exactly first rate RS), who doesn't even appear to agree with him. The actual context is not a halachic ruling at all, but a letter of encouragement to someone who had engaged in homosexual activity (does not say why) and had kicked the habit. It would be more correct to say both attitudes exist in both communities, with perhaps the latter attitude found more among Charedim than Modern - but the final clause is OR, of course.
What should be done is to blend the two sections, with the web-based quote replaced by a direct synopsis of the letter with a clear explanation of context, as well as the year. The reason I have not done this is that I wanted to go through Yad Moshe and review all of the Relevant quotes from Igrot Moshe on the subject, and I do not have a copy.Mzk1 (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the relevant section of the article for now.
It read:
"But Rabbi Benjamin Hecht writes that one Orthodox rabbi views homosexuality as a deliberate rebellion against God.
"Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Iggrot Moshe, Orach Chaim, Part 4, Responsa 115, adopted a very strong position against homosexuality. Human drives are necessary although they must be controlled. Since there is no purpose for the homosexual drive, Rav Moshe contends, it must not be a true drive. Therefore, the underlying reason for gay behavior, he argues, must be to rebel against God, to wish to do something forbidden (perhaps, implying some innate knowledge of its forbidden nature).<ref>Nishma Uodated June 1992. Inquiry with Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, "Homosexuality: Is There a Unique Torah Perspective?"</ref>"
Regards, TealHill (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant information in "Lesbian sexual activity" subsection

There is a paragraph in the "Lesbian sexual activity" subsection of the article that says:

"Classical rabbinic Jewish sources do not specifically mention that homosexual attraction is inherently sinful. However, someone who has had homosexual intercourse is considered to have violated a prohibition...."

The paragraph goes on to explain some laws of Teshuva citing the Rambam's Mishneh Torah. I'd like to question whether this paragraph should appear at all under "Lesbian sexual activity", since it's already clearly stated that "there is no direct textual prohibition of homosexual acts between women". Certainly it is belongs to one of the above sections, if it belongs here at all? Arabicas.Filerons (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved it up for now, although it's still awkward. Probably the whole section should be reworked. Shorespirit (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Homosexual behavior and Judaism → Homosexuality and Judaism – The article discusses orientation and not only "behavior." A change in title would more accurately reflect the content of the article for readers and give editors a clearer guideline as to what the article can include. I ignore, for now, the issue of conformity with other article titles because those are all over the place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree; move is a good idea. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Suggest In place of the present nastily worded LGBT and Judaism as per Category:LGBT topics and Judaism and Category:LGBT and religion and in similarity to the להט"ב ויהדות title on the parallel Hebrew page. Ping @Roscelese. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – The lead may need to be rewritten to be more comprehensive given the new name, but as you mention, the article goes on to later discuss homosexuality in general and not just behavior. --V2Blast (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Introductory paragraphs about ex-gay organizations: should they be kept, or removed?

Homosexuality and Judaism#Ex-gay organizations starts out with two paragraphs which explain what an ex-gay organization is and does. (These paragraphs are useful, because not all of our readers will know.) Then, it continues with five more paragraphs about specific ex-gay organizations.

User:Lisa feels that the two introductory paragraphs should be removed. I feel that they should be kept, for a few reasons:

  • They are a useful introduction to the section.
  • They provide a good short summary of the relevant parts of our Ex-gay movement article.
  • Perhaps most importantly: The rest of the section seems to imply that ex-gay organizations mainly provide conversion therapy. My introduction helps to dispel this false idea, and to show readers the truth: that these organizations do much more. This adds balance to the section. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Dear fellow editors: What are your thoughts? Should those paragraphs be kept — or deleted? After we hear from five or six editors, let's make a decision on what to do.

Regards, TealHill (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're using this article as a soapbox. "My introduction helps to dispel this false idea." I can hardly imagine a statement more at odds with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Those paragraphs are not relevant to this article. If you'd like to add them to an article about ex-gay organizations, feel free. But you need to gain consensus before adding off-topic material to this article. Until then, the paragraphs stay gone. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Midrash

The following text appeared in the section on Talmud and Midrash:

The Midrash is one of the few ancient religious texts that makes reference to same-sex marriage. The following teaching can be found twice in the Midrash:

"Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Joseph, 'The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote גמומסיות (either sexual hymns or marriage documents) for the union of a man to a male or to an animal.'"[1]

The references given are Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9. However, these sources do not say anything of the sort.

Genesis Rabbah gives this:

רבי הונא בשם רבי אמר: דור המבול לא נימוחו מן העולם עד שכתבו גמומסיות לזכר ולבהמה.

Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi [[[Judah the Prince]]]: The generation of the flood was not erased from the world until they wrote gemumsiot for man and beast.

Leviticus Rabbah gives this:

רב הונא בשם רבי יוסי אמר: דור המבול לא נמחו מן העולם, אלא ע"י שכתבו גומסיות לזכר ולנקבה.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The generation of the flood was not erased from the world except because they wrote gumsiot for man and woman.

The word gumsiot / gemumsiot could, in some cases, mean marriage documents, but if that's the intent here, what's the issue with drawing up marriage documents for men and women? The meaning of sexual hymns is pretty clear here. Neither source says anything about gemumsiot between men and men. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9

How far back we go.

QThe first sentence currently reads:


The subject of homosexual behavior and Judaism dates back to the Torah.


Excuse me, but the Torah itself says there were Jews centuries before the Torah, which could have been no earlier than Mount Sinai (don't get me started on that). Wonder if there's something to be said about homosexuality back then, before the Torah. deisenbe (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Homosexuality and Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Homosexuality and Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Homosexuality and Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Homosexuality and Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_views_on_homosexuality/Archive_1&oldid=1223034586"