This page has been translated into English and is an archived copy from the personal web site www. aniyostsef .com .

     You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print, in your Newsletter, on your website, or in your E-Book, as long as the author's Resource Box (the "About The Author" and hyperlink info) is included with the article. 

Gay Jews And Same-Sex Marriage - Didn't You Know?  The Torah Actually Supports This!  Curious to learn how?

      The ground-breaking, illuminating essay you are about to read below specifically addresses the religious, social, and legal issues that are of concern to lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals seeking marriage commitments within the Jewish community.  Though written with the Orthodox and Conservative movements of Judaism in mind, the teaching within this essay is for all Jews and is clearly not limited to just the Jewish people.  It applies equally to all people who love differently and to those who love these people.  If you are in this social category, then this essay is a must read!

      Jews and Alternative Lifestyles clearly demonstrates that halakhically (by Jewish Law) the Torah demands the sanctification of gay, lesbian, and bisexual marriages, and further encourages the entire Jewish community to support the civil and sacred responsibilities of edifying committed relationships.  This essay is very detailed, covering all the arguments thoroughly, thus it will take about an hour to read.  But, reading it will deeply educate you on this subject and most likely change your life for the better.  For the sake of tsedek/justice within our midst, I present to you....

Jews and Alternative Lifestyles, A Halakhic Proposition for the Traditional Jew

By Joseph Tsefanyahu Farkasdi

     As a traditional Jew who is very aware of the emotional controversy within our culture over gays and halakha (religious-civil law), which forbids the acting out of homosexual tendencies, and the growing voice of those who love differently within our communities, I wish to offer a perspective that badly needs to be heard.  I have given this subject matter a lot of thought and research, and I urge you to consider now what I have to share.  Most of us, if not all, have been taught that homosexual relations (specifically between men) are forbidden by the Torah.  But, what if it might just be possible to clearly demonstrate halakhically that the Torah does not prohibit all homosexual relations between men? 

      I would suggest that if we are really interested in addressing the Jewish community's concerns over homosexuality, especially among the more traditional communities, and how to relate with homosexual and bisexual Jews within our midst, we need to open our minds to the possibility that we are interpreting mitzvot (legal obligations) within the cultural mindset of our times.  A moral mindset that the ancient Jews of the Torah might not have necessarily shared or intended in its total present form as we understand it today.  If you'll allow me, within this essay I will attempt to clearly demonstrate this difference in understanding and interpretation between the ancient view and the modern over what is considered forbidden sexual acts between men.  I will also propose for discussion, a potential halakhic ruling that will bring kedusha (holiness) into the committed relationships of individuals who's intimate relationships are presently in violation of halakha. 

      In the next few paragraphs we are about to journey into the reasons homosexuality is an issue to begin with, and what the ancient BC Era thinking really was on this subject.  We will then get into the specific laws of Torah that has been used to justify modern Jewish denouncement of same-sex relations.  And, with accuracy and honesty I hope, provide discussion that will allow us to view these mitzvot in the manner that the ancients viewed them, a manner we can then compare to our modern interpretation.  To achieve this, we must go to the sources of halakha - the Talmud (the early C.E. rabbinical rulings) and the TaNaKH (commonly known as the Jewish Bible).  Even more specifically, we must go to the heart and address the Torah (literally, the Teaching), which contain the legal customs of our people and set the stage for all further halakha.  I must warn you now, you might find yourself having to suspend for a moment the way you are accustomed to viewing the world.  I ask and encourage that together we do just this.  With this said, let's us begin.

The Source of Jewish Concern

     The very first step to achieving the above objectives is to first address the Jewish social-emotional uneasiness that makes the issue of homosexuality such a touchy topic to begin with. In the more halakhic emphasizing communities, there are generally two outward responses to raising of same-sex questions in relation to halakha.  One is to avoid the subject as best as possible, deeming it an irrelevant issue sense the halakha is so  clear on the matter.  And, the other is to have sympathy for those challenged with this issue, but firmly re-iterating the present halakhic stand that forbids homogenital relations without further discussion or analysis.  The I truly feel sorry for you, wish I could do something, but there is nothing we can really do for you - other than to offer life-long abstinence or a relationship that comes in contrast with the inner inclination.   But, these are outward expressions, and it is important to have some kind of understanding of what is at the heart of such unwillingness to argue the halakha (a trade-mark of our people) when it pertains to homosexuality.

     We are an ethnicity that highly values the concept of family.  So much so, that the very first blessing given to humans within the Torah, which traditionally has been accepted as a sacred obligation, is to be fruitful and multiply.  And, one of the sacred tenets behind this obligation to have children is so that we may pass down the Covenant of our people with G!D through the unbroken chain of parent to child, generation to generation.  The obvious reality is that no children will be born through a same-sex relationship.  At least, not without a surrogate of some sort (a separate halakhic issue among strict observers).  It is also greatly emphasized within our tradition the important roles given to fathers and mothers.  Jewish tradition is established around the family in such a way that it is extremely hard for traditional Jews to see redeeming value in a relationship that involves two people of the same gender.  Not to mention, the fast held belief that a child deserves at the very minimum a father (male) and a mother (female).  And, though I happen to agree with the latter, I do not take lightly the need to find a truly workable solution for those who are unable to fulfill the relationship lifestyle pursued by the majority of Jews.

     The usual halakhic response to a Jew "coming out" about his gayness is to first encourage his keeping it a secret, getting married, and raising children.  If the gay Jew is unable or unwilling to do this, the encouragement is to remain relationship-less (celibate).  But, neither of these encouragements raises sparks of holiness from within the individuals affected, and creates potential un-holiness within family relationships when the first response is acted upon. We are not going to get into the endless debate over whether gayness is a choice or fact of biology.  Enough commentary on this is available to those who wish to inform their own personal view.  Whether by choice, by act of nature, or by deliberate design of G!D, the issues in gay and bisexual male lives is the same.  There is a very real sexual attraction to those of the same sex, which draws these individuals to not only want to be physically intimate with other males, but to seek emotional and long-term relationship-oriented commitments with the male they have found attraction towards.

     Denying homosexuals a halakhic way to recognize and honor their committed, fidelitous relationships is not going to change the reality of their forming same-sex relationships.  In this age of democracy, wherein it is now a real possibility for homosexuals to conceive of and create family-oriented same-sex marriage relationships (simply not conceivable of in the B.C. era or early C.E.), it is becoming less and less of a reality for gay Jewish males to opt for the encouraged closeted lifestyle preferred by the community.  Knowing that it is now possible to have a fulfilling relationship with the partner of your choice, many Jewish homosexuals are having to make the decision in their lives whether to deny ones inner needs for the sake of avoiding social scrutiny and judgment, or to seek wholeness and fulfillment through relationship - even if this means separating oneself from the Jewish community.

     Further, it does not benefit the halakhic Jewish community to encourage or require that gay males get married in the traditional sense (to a woman) to preserve the continuity of modern Jewish tradition.  The reason for this is simple.  Though children will be born within most of these compromised relationships, there are two factors that impede these relationships from being a relationship in kedusha (a state of holiness).  The first is the deception the gay male carries into and maintains throughout the marriage life.  He harbors a secret that for the sake of his wife and family he keeps hidden unto himself.  Thus, they may relate with each other and even have children, but they do not really "know" each other as the Torah encourages.  The possibility of secretive gay affairs occurring on the side, without the wife and children's knowledge, is high.  And, when these affairs happen, the issue of gayness does now become an issue comparable with adultery. 

     Even if the gay husband manages to remain disciplined against his inner inclination and not have same-sex relationships on the side, there is still yet another issue.  He's having procreative sex with his wife, but during this most sacred of activities, the act of lovemaking, he's often fantasizing about a man and projecting this image of a man upon his wife to reach an orgasm.  This disrespects the rights of his wife, in that he is obligated by mitzvot to please her emotional-sexual needs.  Further, it outright disrespects her as an individual and the children that are brought forth from this type of relationship.  And, this is understandably an issue of concern for homosexual Jews who are weighing their options for a holy relationship that can and will be blessed by the community.

     Is it really a wise approach to encourage relationships that are based on an outward deception for the sake of avoiding disapproval from the greater community?  At, the very least and for sake of encouraging a family life where openness and intimacy is not simply imitated, it then makes sense that we should clearly encourage a gay male to admit his homosexual tendencies before getting married.  But, then, what woman would marry him after such an admission?  Children pick-up on the difference between false and genuine family oneness very early in life.  They have an uncanny way of knowing when things are not quite right with mommy and daddy, and they will learn the habits of keeping secrets just from their daily observation of their parent's behavior.  And, though they may not share it directly, it has an effect upon their development - their feelings and attitudes towards family relationships, towards themselves as individuals, and towards their Jewishness.  From a halakhic standpoint and for the sake of kedusha, the traditional options provided as a response towards the homosexual Jew's desire for a sanctified relationship does not achieve the highest standard we as a covenanted people strive for.

Looking for the Whole Picture

     For us to achieve a halakhic response to the needs of homosexual and bisexual Jews, we must be careful to base our decision in such a way that it becomes an act of tsedek/justice and parnasah/livelihood, rather than a mere act of mishpat - looking at the lettering of the law and not weighing in real human factors.  To achieve this, it is necessary for us to consider the deeper sides of human nature before studying the applicable laws and attempting to render a halakhic decision.  This is well understood among Rabbis and scholars alike, and Jewish tradition has throughout strongly emphasized this approach.  Above we have addressed real human concerns over the desires of homosexual Jews.  We must now weigh the modern issue of homosexual Jews seeking a sanctified same-sex committed relationship in light of what the sacred Teaching presents to us.  So, what does the TaNaKH really have to say about homo-genital behavior?

     In Bereshith 19.1-11, we read:

     "The two messengers came to Sedom at sunset, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sedom.  When Lot saw them, he arose to meet them and bowed low, brow to the ground and said: Now pray, my lords, pray turn aside to your servant's house, spend the night, wash your feet; (starting-early) you may go on your way.

     They said: No, rather we will spend the night in the square.  But he pressed them exceedingly hard, so they turned in to him and came into his house.  He made them a meal-with-drink and baked flat-cakes, and they ate.

     They had not yet lain down, when the men of the city, the men of Sedom, encircled the house, from young lad to old man, all the people (even) from the outskirts.

     They called out to Lot and said to him: Where are the men who came to you tonight?  Bring them out to us, we want to know them!"

     In this passage the Hebrew use of `we want to know them' is unmistakably an intent on the part of the men of Sedom to be sexual with the messengers that Lot has taken into his home for the night.

     "Lot went out to them, to the entrance, shutting the door behind him and said: Pray, brothers, do not be so wicked!  Now pray, I have two daughters who have never known a man, pray let me bring them out to you, and you may deal with them however seems good in your eyes; only to these men do nothing, for they have, after all, come under the shadow of my roof-beam!

     But they said: Step aside! and said: This one came to sojourn and (wants to) judge, play-the-judge?!  Now we will do worse to you than (to) them!  And they pressed exceedingly hard against the man, against Lot, and stepped closer to break the down the door.

     But the men put out their hand and brought Lot in to them, into the house, and shut the door.  And the men who were at the entrance to the house, they struck with dazzling-light -- (all men) great and small, so that they were unable to find the entrance."

     What is this story about?  Is it about the wrongness of men having sexual intercourse with men?  Or, is the use of sexuality in this passage, and extremely intimate act, designed to emphasize an extremely important point on proper Jewish etiquette towards strangers?  Note the use of the words "all the men" in this legend, men "from every area of the city" seeking to have sex with the messengers that Lot has taken in.  A clear indication that this story is not about homogenitally driven men, but rather about the character of the men of this city in general.  So, what is the message this legend is designed to teach us?

     In the commetary section of the Artscroll Chumash, used by traditional Jews, for Parashas Vayeira (the section of Torah that shares this legend) we read the following:

     "... their reason for so mistreating strangers was to keep impoverished fortune-seekers away.  The Sodomites were notorious for every kind of wickedness, but their fate was sealed because of their selfishness in not helping the poor and needy..."

     Whether they regularly engaged in the practice of raping strangers who entered the city or just lost their heads in hate for these particular messengers, the sin acted out is rather self-evident.  On one hand, we have Lot who demonstrates extreme hospitality for his guests and, on the other hand, we have every male of the city converging on Lot's home with the sole purpose of committing rape in mind.  The message is clear that they possess extreme inhospitableness towards others, and that this is a grave sin - worthy of death and destruction.

     The prophet Ezekiel (16.49-50) expresses the sin of Sedom as being a moral wrongness, with no allusion to right or wrongness of homo-genital behavior:

     "Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance!  She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy.  In their haughtiness, they committed abomination before Me; and so I removed them, as you saw."

     The issue the Torah raises in this story of the fall of two great cities is the issue of hatred toward others.  And, the extremeness of their hate is demonstrated by their attempt to physically rape the messengers that came to their city.  The use of sexual rape in this story is very specific and clear, and does not give evidence to an overall Torah disapproval of intimate male-male sexuality. For this we must look elsewhere.

     So, we move on into Nevi'im (the Prophets), specifically the book of Judges (19.22-29), to find the only other story in the TaNaKH that specifically alludes to an attempt by men to engage in sexual intercourse with other men.  This is a story that replicates the events of Sedom, and only makes more clear the TaNaKH's concern in regards to sexuality between males:

     "While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the town, a depraved lot, had gathered about the house and were pounding on the door.  They called to the aged owner of the house, `Bring out the man who has come into your house, so that we can be intimate with him'."

     Again, as in the Sedom story, the intent of these men is clearly sexual and their unfolding sin is the same as with the men of Sedom.

     "The owner of the house went out and said to them, `Please, my friends, do not commit such a wrong.  Since this man has entered my house, do not perpetrate this outrage.  Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine.  Let me bring them out to you.  Have your pleasure of them, do what you like with them; but don't do that outrageous thing to this man.

     But the men would not listen to him, so the man seized his concubine and pushed her out to them.  They raped her and abused her all night long until morning; and they let her go when dawn broke."

     `Don't do that outrageous thing' is the cry of the old man and was the cry of Lot in Sedom.  What was the outrageous thing?  Hate demonstrated through sexual rape.  The men of Gilbeah proved the `state of mind' of the men of Sedom.  When the man pushed his concubine out to them, they raped her all night long and left her where she lay - they left her to die.  And, they were satisfied with this, even though their original intent was to rape him, the man.  Again, the issue the Torah raises is not with gay sex itself, but with a specific misuse of sexual intercourse.

     Maybe, to be even more direct, it can be said that the TaNaKH does not even really distinguish the difference between the act of a man having sexual intercourse with a man and a man have sexual intercourse with a woman, beyond the obvious fact that a woman will become pregnant from this.  At this time, I'm strictly talking about the physical act itself of penetrating into the inwards of one who is or has become submissive or submitted.  Disregarding for a moment the social issues of men's higher status in those times, to the TaNaKH the act of sexually penetrating is the same act regardless who has been submitted to this act, because the focus is on the use of the male reproductive organ.   So much so, that the above story clearly demonstrates this with the men of Gilbeah not being concerned whether it is aperture of a man's rear or of a woman's vagina that they are raping.   In their case as with Sedom, it's all about the act of forced penetration - the rendering of a human to a state of helplessness, shame, and impotence.  Another issue this passage reveals about the ancient mind set concerning the physical act of sexuality is that the TaNaKH does not distinguish between orientations (example, homosexual verses heterosexual).

     If we were to look upon just the sexual aspect of this story, disregarding the rapist mentality for a moment, the book of Judges clearly demonstrates the men of Gilbeah as being capable of being fluid in their sexuality, capable and willing to have sex outside of the set rules of culture (for example, with women only) and achieve sexual satisfaction from this.   Using our modern science-based terms for this, these men are in their ability to "get it up" neither heterosexual nor homosexual in nature, but rather bisexual.  Can it be demonstrated that the Torah has a general lack of knowledge of either/or when it comes to what men find sexually arousing?   That possibly the ancient worldview simply recognized that the basic sexual nature of man allowed for the desire to be sexually engaged with women, men, children, and beasts?   And, hence the reason for any and all of the sexual mitzvot - to help guide the fluidly multi-sexual-oriented males to curbing their sexuality to a more stringent and specified, and thus holy, determined number of acts?

     Consider the time frame in which this sacred text was written.  The social dichotomies of what is `right and wrong', of what is `natural and unnatural', that are socially imbued from birth and thus generally taken for granted in our time, was only just being "institutionalized" in the time of the Torah.  The point being made here is that the Torah views each and every male as being capable and inclined to transgressing every sexual prohibition binding upon Jewish males.  Hence, possibly, the need to penalize for such "inappropriate" behaviors with either banishment or death.  In our time, such punishments are not really necessary, because everybody just knows that a man having sex with a man is outright wrong - right?  Or, is it that this is what we are being taught?!

Another Issue of Concern

     We have thus far determined that the TaNaKH is particularly biased against the raping of a man.  It is a great sin in the eyes of the ancient Jews and in the eyes of G!D.  What else does the TaNaKH have to say about men having sexual intercourse with other men?  In book one of the book of Kings (14.22-24) we read:

     "Judah did what was displeasing to the Lord, and angered Him more than their fathers had done by the sins that they committed.  They too built for themselves shrines, pillars, and sacred posts on every high hill and under every leafy tree; there were also male prostitutes in the land.  [Judah] imitated all the abhorrent practices of the nations that the Lord had dispossessed before the Israelites."

     Though there is no mentioning of a specific singular type of sex in this passage, there is a clear pretense that the men of Judah were having sexual relations with male prostitutes - males dedicated to sacred sexuality, wherein they offer their bodies sexually and the men of Judah engaged in sex with these prostitutes to acquire blessing through pagan deities.  In the Etz Hayim Chumash, commentary on the use of prostitution for sacred ritual is expressed in the following way:

     "The Israelites were a young, impressionable nation, and the Torah is concerned that the highly sexualized, orgiastic fertility cult of the Canaanites would be irresistibly seductive for them.... Even decent people can be vulnerable to sexual temptation, which is why the Torah speaks out in such extreme, uncompromising terms against the Canaanite cult."

     In chapters 15 (11-13) and 22 (46-47) of book one of the book of Kings, we see further emphasis towards a Jewish bias of prostitution in general and male prostitution in particular:

     "Asa did what was pleasing to the Lord, as his father David had done.  He expelled the male prostitutes from the land, and he removed all the idols that his ancestors had made.  He also deposed his mother Maacah from the rank of queen mother, because she had made an abominable thing for [the goddess] Asherah.  Asa cut down her abominable thing and burnt it in the Wadi Kidron."

     "As for the other events of Jehoshaphat's reign and the valor he displayed in battle, they are recorded in the Annals of the Kings of Judah.  He also stamped out the remaining male prostitutes who had survived in the land from the time of his father Asa."

     And, as if this wasn't making the point clear enough, the second book of Kings (23.5-7) only exemplifies further the TaNaKH's strong disapproval of male prostitution:

     "He [King Josiah] suppressed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had appointed to make offerings at the shrines in the towns of Judah and in the environs of Jerusalem, and those who made offerings to Baal, to the sun and moon and constellations -- all the host of heaven.  He brought out the [image of] Asherah from the House of the Lord to the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem, and burned it in the Kidron Valley; he beat it to dust and scattered its dust over the burial ground of the common people.  He tore down the cubicles of the male prostitutes in the House of the Lord, at the place where the women wove coverings for Asherah."

    Beyond this and the three mitzvot we are about to explore next, the TaNaKH has nothing more to say on the issue of homo-genital sex.  Thus far, the TaNaKH's only concerns are with the sexual raping of a male and the use of a male for sacred prostitution.  It is at this point that I believe Rabbi Bradley Artson best expresses the next point to made:

     "There is not a single case in the Tanakh which deals with homosexual acts in the context of homosexual love.  Every biblical case treats heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts as an expression of idolatry, of power (such as rape), or, presumably, for fun....The Torah was not speaking about the constitutional homosexual because it had no awareness of the possibility of such a person."

     Based on what we've studied above, we can take this further to demonstrate that the Torah is not even "aware" of the existence of heterosexuals.  Hetero- and homo- are words that have been derived through our modern scientific exploration into the inner workings of human beings, and express the inner nature or orientation that draws individuals to want intimacy with members of a particular sex.  Or, in the case of bisexuals, with members of both sexes.  The TaNaKH is only looking at the outwardly manifested physical activities and only concerns itself with these activities under very specific conditions.  Beyond this, the Torah is not any more concerned with gay sex than it is with lesbian sex - it is simply not an issue.  And, this is understandable when we note the TaNaKH's general attitude that the average man will "do it" with whatever is available - woman, man, child, beast, father, mother, sister, etc.  Which is an ancient awareness of male nature that to this very day is still being proven as accurate and true.  Hence, the need for clearly spelled out sexual laws in the Torah, to guide the average Jewish male to living a life where sexuality is acted out only in ways that encourage social responsibility to the Jewish people.

Putting the Mitzvot into Perspective

     In light of the TaNaKH's concerns regarding male rape and male prostitution, is it any wonder that there are prohibitions in the Torah's laws on sex that concerns males having sex with males?  Let's now take a look at the specific prohibitions themselves, and ask the all-important question of what is the intent of these prohibitions:  Are they, as the halakhic Rabbis have said, a clear and unquestionable prohibition against sexual contact between males?  In Vayikra (Leviticus) 18.22 we read:

      "With a male you are not to lie (after the manner of) lying with a woman, it is an abomination!"

     This prohibition is echoed once again two chapters down (20.13), this time with penalty attached:

      "A man who lies with a male (as one) lies with a woman -- abomination have the two of them done, they are to be put-to-death, yes, death, they have done perversion, their bloodguilt is upon them!"

     When approaching these strong words with an attitude of mishpat, it seems pretty clear - no sexual intercourse with a man.  But there are two issues that need to be raised here, issues that are specific to the way these passages are expressed in the Hebrew.  Both passages contain an important phrase, mishk'vei isha, which when literally translated means lyings-of woman.  To help in understanding the point about to be made here, it is best to render a more literal English translation of the two mitzvot.  Vayikra 18.22 reads, "Ve'et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey ishah to'evah hee.  And, male no lie-down-with, lyings-of woman, abhorrent he."  Vayikra 20.13 reads, "Ve'ish asher yishkav et-zacher mishkevey ishah to'evah asu shneyhem mot yumatu dmeyhem bam.  And, male that lie-down-with male, lyings-of woman, abhorrent to-do, two-of-them death by-execution, extreme-guilt in-them."

     A rabbi once told me, "ha'torah lo shee'ool/the Torah does not cough."  In the Talmud (Mas. Sanhedrin 54a, 28-32) is a discussion of these two mitzvot (specifically Vayikra 20.13). Wherein the rabbis teach that this verse is not only a prohibition on being sexual with a man, but that it refers to two ways of being sexual with a woman. It reads:

     "Where is the prohibition of a male?  Because it says, `if a man,' a man and not a minor.  And it says, `lie with a man,' whether the passive partner be an adult or a minor.  And it says, `as with a woman,' from which we learn that there are two modes of lying with a woman."

     This teaching is derived from the fact that the Hebrew for "lying" is in the plural within these verses.  Some have raised the point that a common feature in the ancient Hebrew way of writing was to pluralize a verb, abstraction, or object to give the word emphasis - to make it stand out, though it is meant to be understood in the singular.   In his book The Jew and the Christian Missionary, Gerald Sigal explains this view in the following way when addressing the use of elohim in the TaNaKH:

     "In biblical Hebrew, many singular abstractions are expressed in the plural form, e.g., rahamim, "compassion" (Genesis 43:14, Dueteronomy 13:18); zequnim, "old age" (Genesis 21:2, 37:3, 44:20); n'urim, "youth" (Isaiah 54:6, Psalms 127:4)....The underlying reason for the grammatically plural form 'Elohim is to indicate the all-inclusiveness of G-d's authority as possessing every conceivable attribute and power.  The use of the plural for such a purpose is not limited merely to 'Elohim, but also applies to other words of profound significance.  For instance, Isaiah 19:4 uses 'adonim ("lords") instead of 'adon ("lord"): "Into the hand of a cruel lord" (literally "lords," even though referring to one person)....the words of the woman to Saul when, upon seeing Samuel, she exclaimed: "I see 'elohim coming up out of the earth" (1 Samuel 28:13)? Here, 'elohim is followed by the verb in the plural.  Yet only a single individual is referred to...."

     And, here we have in Vayikra 18.22 and 20.13 a singular object, isha, with pluralized verb, mishk'vei/lyings-of; thus leaving us with literally "male no lie-down-with, lyings-of woman, abhorrent he."  When read on its own, separated from the rest of the Torah, no further context is immediately available within this law to explain what is meant by lyings-of woman or the reason lyings is in the plural here.  Is the use of the plural form of lying in relation to woman meant to be taken as an emphasis, which conditions the act of lying with a male to a singular way specific to lying with a woman?  The Talmud seems to clearly disagree with this grammatical observation when addressing Vayikra 18.22 and 20.13.  In not only the Talmud passage quoted above, which raises the issue for the sole purpose of bringing "illumination" to the problem of pederasty (of raping a male child), there are other Talmudic passages that make it very clear the Rabbis see this verb as being pluralized for a reason.

     For example; in addressing bestiality, the Talmud says,

     "R. Nahman, son of R. Hisda stated in an exposition: In the case of a woman, there are two modes of intimacy, but in the case of a beast, only one.  R. Papa objected: On the contrary, since sexual intercourse with a woman is a natural thing, guilt should be incurred only for a natural connection, but for nothing else, whilst, since a connection with a beast is an unnatural thing, one should be punished for every such act, however it be done." (Mas. Sanhedrin 55a, 1-2)

     [It is important, as well, to realize here the meaning of 'unnatural' acts as it was understood in ancient times.  In our times, unnatural is assumed to mean something that occurs as an aberration of nature (the laws of the universe).  Meaning that it occurs in contrast to or somehow through but outside the naturally structured fabric of life (a highly questionable concept to begin with, and not a Jewish view of life).  In the BCE and early CE eras, the ancients understood 'unnatural' as simply meaning something that occurs that is not customary to the normal nature of the group or the majority.  This difference in understanding is very significant, in that it does not mean that the ancients ever viewed 'unnatural' acts as an act done in defiance of the very fabric of nature itself or occurring outside the physical natural order of things.  Rather, the ancient view of life is anything occurring in nature is a physically possible act (and thus is a natural act), it just isn't in certain social groups the natural behaviors of this group.  Hence, such acts being an 'unnatural thing.']

      The Talmud also addresses prostitution with these specific mitzvot in mind.  All in all, like the TaNaKH, the act of forming a loving, committed sexual relationship between men is not even brought into thought within the Talmud.   This is a key point being made here.   Modern halakhah (religious-civil law) among the more traditional movements of Judaism employ this Torah-Talmudic understanding, and take it one step further by saying that homogenital behavior is prohibited under all circumstances (rather than the questionable situations raised by the Torah and Talmud).  This is a common halakhic practice - to make a fence of space between the core legal obligation specified by Torah and the cultural-religious expectation on what is acceptable behavior.  This approach is taken to protect us from the chance of violating the mitzvah in its literal sense.  What is clear in both the Torah and the Talmud passages is that the act of a man having sex with a man is being made an issue conditionally, under specific conditions where the act of homogenital behavior between men becomes clearly morally and physically questionable.

      It is here that we must address one additional and very important interpretation used to explain this prohibition.  Many within the Traditional Jewish community would point out that the above Talmud passages (along with all the many statements within the Talmud regarding sodomy) only validates their stance that the Torah prohibition clearly prohibits male-male sexual contact.  This argument seems to be a logical conclusion, but only when you take the prohibition out of its context within the greater Torah.  It is possible to say the following: There are three ways to engage in sexual intercourse with a woman, and the Talmud identifies only two of them within this prohibition.  Since a man, by obvious design, does not possess a vagina, the Talmud must be referring to oral intercourse and anal intercourse - both of which are halakhically permissible with a woman.  Makes sense, but there is a catch when looking at the prohibition within its proper context.  Nowhere within the Torah and the Talmud is there any explicit example raised about a man or men engaging in oral intercourse with another man, but there is plenty examples for sodomy.  So, this conclusion that the other mode, oral intercourse, since it is not coming from the Torah, where is it coming from?  The simple truth is that the Torah's prohibition with its pluralized verb for being sexually intimate is not referring to specific sex acts between two individuals, it is referring to a social condition which leads men to two specific abominable sexual behaviors involving other males. 

      Now that we've clarified our understanding on the use of this verb, mishk'vei, we must now ask the ultimate question: What are the two concerns over homo-genital behavior raised by the TaNaKH itself?  Is it now clearly possible to demonstrate that there are specifically two forms of sex being referred to in the Torah that is common between male-female sexual partners and male-male sexual partners?  From our earlier study into the TaNaKH's views on same-sex sexual encounters, which have revealed an utter disdain for two forms of homo-genital sex - male prostitution and the raping of a male - the answer is a clear and emphatic yes!  "Lyings-of" is pluralized for a reason, folks.  And, like the rest of the TaNaKH, the issue of gay sex in and of itself is not an issue within the Torah.  And, it is only an issue in the Talmud outside the context of a meaningful life-affirming relationship between two committed individuals.  Even the Talmud's statement on sodomites knowing better than to write a ketubah (marriage contract) for themselves so that they can legally engage in anal intercourse is stated with a clear precedence that this is the only reason for these sodomites to even consider such a thought.  The issue of committed same-sex relationships is simply not addressed.  Let's move on.

     The final prohibitive mitzvah in the Torah is specifically addressing the issue of cultic male and female prostitution. Wherein, the use of sex rituals in temple rites is directly forbidden.  For these kind of rites limit the most sacred example of spiritual union - eroticism - strictly to the world of sex acts and, thus, undermines its holy presence in all facets of human interaction.  In D'varim (Dueteronomy) 23.18-19 we read:

     "There is to be no holy-prostitute of the daughters of Israel, there is to be no holy-prostitute of the sons of Israel.  You are not to bring the fee of a whore or the price of a dog (pagan priest)  to the house of YHWH your G-d, for any vow; for an abomination to YHWH your G-d are the two-of-them!"

     And, to make our study here thorough and complete, we must address the issue of spilling seed.  Yes, the Torah prohibits male orgasms that result in the semen being spilled on the outside of the partner's body.  But, it does not specify any further.  The Talmud looks upon this prohibition as a stand against masturbation and many forms of illicit sexual activities outside of marriage.  This prohibition is commonly used by modern traditional Jews as additional validation to the belief that homosexual forms of intercourse are strictly prohibited.  But, if the Oral Law does accept a man having other-than-vaginal forms of sex with his wife (which it does) and does not classify this as spilling seed, then how can we honestly apply this prohibition to the discussion of sexual contact between men who are in a committed relationship with each other and receive within them the semen of their partner?  So,...

The Search Has Just Begun

     Where does this leave us in regards to the desire of homosexuals and bisexuals to have their relationships recognized as an act of kedusha?  Is there any reference within the TaNaKH that would have us reconsider even further the TaNaKH's view concerning same-sex relationships?  To answer this we must briefly look into the books of Samuel.  Here we will find a story about a very special relationship between two men, David and Jonathan (beginning with book one, chapter 18.1-4).

     "When [David] finished speaking with Saul, Jonathan's soul became bound up with the soul of David; Jonathan loved David as himself.  Saul took him [into his service] that day and would not let him return to his father's house.  Jonathan and David made a pact, because [Jonathan] loved him as himself.  Jonathan took off the cloak and tunic he was wearing and gave them to David, together with his sword, bow, and belt."

     There is clearly a special out-of-the-ordinary kind of love between these two men.  The text makes this very clear.  And, even though there is no specific mentioning that their love for one another was acted out physically, the possibility that this type of relationship was occurring is not necessarily ruled out.  When looking at the text, we first notice the conflicting feelings within King Saul concerning the shepherd boy David, the intimate friend of Saul's son.  He originally accepts David into his house, and then he puts considerable effort in trying to kill the shepherd boy (19.9-10).

     "Then an evil spirit of the Lord came upon Saul while he was sitting in his house with his spear in hand, and David was playing [the lyre].  Saul tried to pin David to the wall with the spear, but he eluded Saul, so that he drove the spear into the wall.  David fled and got away."

      The feelings of the King grew more and more hateful as he began to realize David as a threat to his very throne.  His attitude towards his own son grew hateful over the relationship between his son and David (20.30-33).

     "Saul flew into a rage against Jonathan.  `You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!' he shouted.  `I know that you side with the son of Jesse -- to your shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness.'"

     The intentional use of wording in this passage suggests that Saul's intent here is to make it clear to Jonathan that he knows it's sexual between them.  First he insults Jonathan's mother, then he expresses an awareness of sexuality occurring between the two men that, in his opinion, brings shame directly upon Jonathan's mother's sexual nakedness.  It is important to note here that this does not mean that the TaNaKH shares King Saul's viewpoint, as we shall see.

     "`For as long as the son of Jesse lives on earth, neither you nor your kingship will be secure.  Now then, have him brought to me, for he is marked for death.'  But Jonathan spoke up and said to his father, `Why should he be put to death? What has he done?'  At that, Saul threw his spear at him to strike him down; and Jonathan realized that his father was determined to do away with David."

     King Saul did his best to break up the relationship between Jonathan and David, to trick David into getting himself killed in battle, and eventually went so far as attempting a direct `hunt-him-down' assault upon the warrior David.  The ultimate casualty between the three turns out to be Jonathan, to David's great remorse (ending with book two, chapter 1.25-26).

     "How have the mighty fallen in the thick of battle - Jonathan, slain on your heights!  I grieve for you, my brother Jonathan, you were most dear to me.  Your love was wonderful to me, more than the love of women."

     Even if one can argue away all possibility of an actual sexual relationship having occurred between the two, still yet the point is served.  The TaNaKH is not only very specific in its mentioning of homogenital sex but, as we can see, is rather open-minded in its sharing about a relationship between males that is intimately close.  When read on its own terms, from the Hebrew worldview of the 5th Century BCE, the Torah assumes that all males are potentially fluid in their sexual attractions.  The Torah also recognizes that some sexual activities are not conducive to the stability of Jewish family/society life, thus mitzvot addressing sexual issues have been established to achieve a level of kedusha in the community of (primarily) male Jewish life.

Addressing the Real Issues

     How can Rabbis and the Jewish community, as a whole, halakhically defend anti-homosexual bias when it is not supported in the very source of halakhic tradition - the Jewish TaNaKH?  To answer this, we must once again return to the modern social "discomfort" towards gay people within Jewish community.   Specifically, the realization that people in general and males specifically need a distinct set of moral obligations to function and progress effectively as a community and nation.  This is Judaism's most unique gift to the world of human civilizations, and is the most significant factor that led to the rise of the Western world.  That marriage is a moral obligation, not a natural inclination, that must be socially conditioned into males from birth and consistently emphasized from generation to generation.  Elsewise, as is demonstrated again and again in every society, men simply would not get married - make babies yes, but the burden of child raising would be nearly solely on the mother.  Further, that sex must be kept within the boundaries of who you are married to, which is another moral obligation that must be consistently socially conditioned into the psyche of males.  And, that the primary purpose of marriage and sex is to form families and beget children.  This is what makes a sexual relationship one that is in kedusha, a state of sacred holiness.

      Lastly, because of the biological make-up of human beings, the ideal relationship for achieving just this set of obligations is a marriage between a man and a woman.  There is no denying this.  Same-sex relationships can achieve most of the requirements of this enlightened purpose towards the sacredness of sexual expression and marriage, but the biggest stumbling block is the man-woman issue, which doesn't exist in a gay marriage.  Thus, in the majority straight world, no real and serious effort is placed upon insisting that gays get married to their lovers.  But, this very insistence of marrying each other is exactly what it is that we must as a social community and society place upon gay males who clearly are not going to form the "ideal" relationship, if we ever have any hope to alter the promiscious "bathhouse" lifestyle that is so common among gay males and that has had such disastrous ramifications upon the public sexual health of modern civilization.  It is the failure to appropriately address the moral issues of sexual fidelity in a manner that edifies the natural bend (orientation) of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals that has led to the sexual crisis modern society has experienced through same-sex behaviors. 

      Now, to be fair, we must note here the failure of straight males to keep their sexual behaviors within the boundaries of marriage.  This has had an equally negative affect upon the public sexual health of modern society.  And, it is a subject worthy of its own discussion.  So, with the number of homosexually oriented men seeking same-sex marriage being on the rise, I raise the question that is at hand: How do we address this societal discomfort in general and more specifically the traditional Jewish discomfort with same-sex relationship, to help regain a level of tsedek/justice towards Jewish gay and bisexual males who want community recognition of their same-sex relationships?  And, how do we address the relationship issues and needs in ways that sanctifies the relationships and fulfills the community's need for these relationships to continue the survival of the Jewish people?  As Rabbi Nilton Bonder would put it kabbalistically, how do we properly tax gay and bisexual partnerships/marriages with the responsibilities to the Jewish people that are expected in heterosexual Jewish marriages?

The Halakhic Proposal

     First and foremost, we must morally insist that sexual behavior is only holy when expressed within the boundaries of marriage.  And, for males who for one reason or another are simply incapable of forming a heterosexual relationship and bring holiness into the world through the responsibilities that come with this marriage (because they are clearly outright gay), that they be still yet obligated to get married to either another gay male or (addressing the socially hidden, but very common issue of bisexual male behavior in society) to a man and a woman who are mature enough to handle a polyandrous marriage arrangement.   Meaning, she is okoge, attracted in an intimate friendship way to gay men, and he is the typical socially hidden bisexual that make up most of the male population - and together the gay man, the okoge woman, and the bisexual man form a marriage relationship that emphasizes the same goals and desires, to include the birthing of children, that is expected and is attractive about heterosexual marriage.  There are more of these kind of relationships occurring within marriages and without the bonds of marriage than is socially realized and recognized.  The point being made here is that we must find ways to resolve these halakhic relationship issues that are simply not going to be going away.  We must provide sanctified alternatives.

      Another possible addition to this answer is to strongly emphasize the need for individuals engaged in a same-sex marriage to take up the role of being a Big Brother or Big Sister to children in need of strong role models, and there are plenty of these children in every society and country.  Another possibility is requiring that gay same-sex marriages or bisexual marriages (the committed morally responsible version of the ménage-a-trio) that for some reason do not naturally lead to procreation, take on the responsibilities of adopting children and raising them in the way of our people.  Maybe this should also be a requirement for straight marriages that for one reason or another are unable to procreate children.  As I've mentioned earlier, tradition emphasizes the need of a child to grow up in an environment that possess both a father image and a mother image (physically speaking as much as in ideal).  And, preference in adoption should go to opposite-sex married partners first.  But, there are always the children in society who heterosexual families simply do not want to adopt.  Hence, the reason to consider committed same-sex partners as potential adoptees.

      Further, maybe it should be the community's responsibility to assist and insist, but not force, these "families" in achieving such a noteworthy and desirable goal.  To fully include homosexual and bisexual Jews in the responsibilities of maintaining the Covenant by which our people continue to find life.  The benefits of this to both the traditional Jewish community and societal community at large are clear.   By avoiding the issue of alternative relationships, we as a people have only hurt ourselves and questionably lessened our numbers over the years.  There is a saying in the Talmud that to save the life of one Jew, to keep him/her and his/her abilities-to-benefit within the Jewish tribe, is as if we've saved the world.  This is how important every single Jew is to the Covenant between G-d and Yisra'el.  To say it from the perspective of the TaNaKH, by accepting and involving the foreigners and "eunuchs" - non-heterosexuals already within our midst, we encourage kedusha and increase our numbers upon the land.  Shall we listen to the words of the prophet?

     As with whether orientation is chosen or mandated, we will not get into a discussion of what is the proper family structure for raising children in this essay.  Our own history as a people demonstrate a variety over time on what is culturally the ideal marriage arrangement.  But, to start your own exploration into the hows and whys of including alternative lifestyles as acceptable expressions of tradition, I highly encourage you to read Rabbi Artson's article Gay and Lesbian Jews: An Innovative Jewish Legal Position (see bibliography).  Another very informative source of study is the Jewish Renewal manual Points to Consider in Counseling Same-Sex Couples for Marriage/Commitment Ceremonies, written by Susan Saxe and obtainable through ALEPH: Alliance For Jewish Renewal.  Given the obvious that same-sex marriages are a growing reality throughout the world among those who are sexually oriented in this way, isn't it time to open our eyes and our hearts as a covenanted community and really address these issues in a spiritually thoughtful and physically practical way?

     Sof sof, we are here.  It is now time to fulfill the objective we have set out in this article to achieve.  I would like to propose a potential halakhic ruling for discussion by the Jewish community at large:

     We recognize as a halakhic community that the Torah's concern regarding sex between men is a specific disapproval of abusive sex, sex that leads to inhospitableness towards others and to idolatry of the heart.  And, that in Vayikra 18.22 and 20.13 the Torah very specifically forbids two forms of sex between men - that of male rape and male prostitution.  We learn that this is so through the Talmud, where the rabbis point out to us that the use of mishk'vei (the plural form) teaches us that the Torah has two specific modes of lying with a woman in mind when commanding us (males) to "no lie down" with a male.  We recognize that beyond this, the Torah itself speaks no further - other than to reiterate the sexual prohibitions binding upon all Jews, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.  We further learn through Torah and Talmud that, though the ideal relationship is between a man and a woman, it is necessary and imperative that we instill the moral obligation to embrace marital relations that are not the "ideal," but still achieve the symbolic impression necessary to maintain consistency in the social life of civilization at large and the Jewish people in particular.  Further, we will sanctify same-sex marriages through the Laws of Moshe as we do with heterosexual marriages.  And, to ensure that the continuity of passing our language, traditions, and way of life through childrearing is not lost in partnerships where procreation is near unlikely, we will as a People strongly emphasize the important need of either symbolically adopting a child, as in the manner of big brother/big sister role model (preferably), or legally adopting and raising children within these non-procreative marriages when suitable male-female couples are in short supply.  This will encourage Jews who are committed to a non-procreative marriage to take full advantage in participating in the most crucial task within the community - the raising of future generations of the Jewish People.  

Teasing Out a Hiddush

     I would like to close this article with a quote from Orthodox Rabbi Stephen Greenberg, the first openly gay Rabbi within the traditional communities:

     "Within the living Halacha are voices in tension, divergent strands in an imaginative legal tradition that are brought to bear on the real lives of Jews. In order to know how to shape a halachic response to any living question, what is most demanded of us is a deep understanding of the Torah and an attentive ear to the people who struggle with the living question. Confronting questions can often tease out of the tradition a hiddush, a new balancing of the voices and values that have always been there. There is no conclusive psak halacha (halachic ruling) without the hearing of personal testimonies....one wonders what the impact might be if Orthodox rabbis had to face the questions posed by traditional Jews, persons they respect and to whom they feel responsible, who are gay."

     It is in this light that what is here has been written.  The valid question is posed and it does need an open, honest answer.  The TaNaKH teaches that the Jewish people are to be a light unto the nations.   As a covenanted people, we have the opportunity to once again in this new area to set the example for the rest of the world.  To ensure everyone in our communities is afforded the opportunity to fulfill their responsibilities to G-d, Torah, and am yisra'el.  Shall we continue to turn our backs on individuals who inner desire is to be a real participant in such a blessed opportunity?  Shalom u'vrachah.

Joseph Tsefanyahu Farkasdi

Originally written on 13 Tammuz 5761 - July 4, 2001.  Revised to add further clarity on 6 Adar II 5763 - 10 March 2003.

About Translations

Translation of Torah from The Schocken Bible: Volume I, The Five Books of Moses

Translation of Nevi'im from JPS Hebrew-English TaNaKH

Translation of Talmud passage, Mas. Sanhedrin 55a, 1-2, from Soncino Talmud

Translation of Talmud passage, Mas. Sanhedrin 54a, 28-32, from Gay and Lesbian Jews: An Innovative Jewish Legal Position*

*The Soncino Talmud translates Mas. Sanhedrin 54a, 28-32 in the following way:

"GEMARA. Whence do I know that pederasty is punished by stoning? - Our Rabbis taught : [If a man lieth also with mankind, as the lyings of a woman,29 both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,]30 A man - excludes a minor; [that] lieth also with mankind - denotes whether an adult or a minor; as the lyings of a woman - this teaches that there are two modes of intimacy,31 both of which are punished when committed incestuously. R. Ishmael said: This verse comes to throw light [upon pederasty] but receives illumination itself.32 They shall surely be put to death: by stoning. You say, by stoning: but perhaps some other death decreed in the Torah is meant? - Their blood shall be upon them is stated here, and also in the case of one who has a familiar spirit or is a wizard."

Special Thanks

And, a very special thanks to Rabbi Gorman who unknowingly seeded deep into my other-than-conscious awareness "The Torah does not cough! Every word in there is in there for a reason, folks."

Bibliography

The Stone Edition Chumash, Artscroll Series, 1994, Mesorah Publications, Ltd.

Etz Hayim Torah and Commentary, 2001, The Jewish Publication Society

The Soncino Talmud, 1991, Judaica Press, Inc., Brooklyn, NY

The Schocken Bible: Volume I, The Five Books of Moses, 1995, Schocken Books Inc., New York

JPS Hebrew-English TaNaKH, 2000, The Jewish Publication Society

Gayness and G-d, Author Stephen Greenberg, 2001, Independent Gay Forum Inc.

Points to Consider in Counseling Same-Sex Couples for Marriage/Commitment Ceremonies, 2000, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, Philadelphia, PA

Gay and Lesbian Jews: An Innovative Jewish Legal Position, Author Bradley S. Artson, Winter 1990, Jewish Spectator

Biblical Literacy, Author Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, 1997, William Morrow and Company, Inc.

The Jew and the Christian Missionary, Author Gerald Sigal, 1981, KTAV Publishing House, Inc.  

About the Author

     Joseph Tsefanyahu Farkasdi is an Irish Jew who loves differently.  His interests include writing, the study of ancient history and sacred writings, and business investments.  He has served in the military, having a record of service that is more than honorable.  Joseph is presently a business and investment entrepreneur, whose focus is on green industry development and physical health improvement at all ages of life.  He would like for you to learn more about him.  Visit his introduction profile at aniyostsef.com today!

Article Source:  http://www.aniyostsef.com/ambisexual_jews.html

Web Visitor Comments - To post your comments about this page, fill in the form below and click 'submit'.

From: AniYosTsef Date: 14 Aug 2009 -- Read the comments of others who have visited this page. And, then, share your thoughts! We really want to know ... What do you think/feel about the expressions shared on this page?