Conservative Judaism and sexual orientation

Last updated

Sexual orientation has been a pivotal issue for Conservative Judaism since the 1980s. A major Jewish denomination in the U.S., Conservative Judaism has wrestled with homosexuality and bisexuality as a matter of Jewish law and institutional policy. As with other branches of Judaism debating the acceptability of sexual orientations other than heterosexuality, Conservative Jews faced both long-standing, rabbinic prohibitions on homosexual conduct as well as increasing demands for change in the movement's policies toward gays, bisexuals, and lesbians. Previously, the Conservative movement had changed its policies toward women, for example, by allowing the ordination of women as rabbis in 1983. Similarly, the Conservative leadership has been asked to stop discriminating against gay, bisexual, and lesbian people. This goal has been partially completed with the approval of the ordination of gay, bisexual, and lesbian rabbis in 2006 and of same-sex marriage ceremonies under Jewish law in 2012; However, the Conservative decision did not call same-sex marriages kiddushin, the traditional Jewish legal term for marriage, because that act of consecration is nonegalitarian and gender-specific. In the traditional kiddushin ceremony, a pair of blessings is recited and the bridegroom gives his bride a ring, proclaiming that he is marrying his bride “according to the laws of Moses and Israel.”. [1]

Contents

Conservative Halakhah on Sexual Orientation

In Conservative Judaism, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) of the Rabbinical Assembly makes the movement's decisions concerning Jewish law. The CJLS consistently refused to pass several proposed takkanot concerning the Levitical prohibitions on male-male anal sex, but also on all forms of homosexual intimacy in general. In 1992, the CJLS action affirmed its traditional prohibition on homosexual conduct, blessing same-sex unions, and ordaining openly gay, bisexual, and lesbian clergy. However, these prohibitions grew increasingly controversial within the Conservative movement. Regarding ordination, a major criticism for LGBT ordination is not that members of the LGBT movement are not decent individuals. Rather, a widely held view is that Rabbis must be an example for the community, and it would be in direct opposition to the prohibition of gay sex to ordain someone who violates that Jewish law. [2]

A variety of liberal proposals had been brought forth in the non-Orthodox community, including some by Rabbinical Assembly rabbis. Some argued that a change in Jewish understanding and law on this issue must change due to new information about the biology and genetics concerning human sexuality. Others argued that a change was required solely on ethical grounds. No such papers were accepted by the CJLS, as Conservative Judaism sees itself as bound by halakhah.

However, these arguments were soon expanded upon within more formal halakhic responsa, one of the most prominent by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson. He used historical, sociological and ethical considerations to argue that homosexuality, as it is now understood today, was not described by the Torah, or understood by traditional rabbis. As such, one would be able to restrict the understanding of the Torah prohibition to cases not being considered today. His views were considered important, but they were not accepted, by themselves, as halakhically convincing. A few years later Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff used these arguments in his case for re-evaluating Conservative Judaism's stand on sexual orientation, but held that Artson's paper was insufficiently halakhically rigorous. Dorff studied the issue of coercion, arguing that people who were innately homosexual due to biology were not to be regarded as sinning. His early papers on the subject began to gain acceptance among a minority of RA rabbis, but ultimately it was made clear that the CJLS would not accept this argument as sufficient.

Two additional papers, one by Rabbi Gordon Tucker and one by Rabbis Myron Geller, Robert Fine, and David Fine, went further than Dorff's paper. Tucker's paper stated that it is necessary to expand the definition of the halakhic process, and the Geller, Fine, and Fine paper redefined the corpus of Halakha as the representing the evolving beliefs and ideals of the Jewish people of a particular time and place as distinct from representing an infallible Divine will. While both papers had the support of at least 6 members, a majority of the CJLS found that both papers represented so extensive a change that they could not be accepted as a mere changes of Jewish law, but each should be regarded as a Takkanah that would uproot a Torah prohibition if passed. Under the CJLS rules, once a majority of the committee found a responsum to be a Takkanah, accepting it would require a majority of the Committee (13 of 25 votes), while an ordinary responsum could be accepted as a valid alternative with as few as 6 of 25 votes.

On December 6, 2006, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards adopted diametrically opposed responsa on the issue of sexual orientation. The CJLS's action permits each congregational rabbi and rabbinical school to decide which responsum to adopt and hence set its own policy on the subject. The adoption of dual, contradictictory responsa represents a straddling of the contemporary societal divide over sexual matters. It also represents a sharp change from previous Conservative policy, which in 1993 had adopted a consensus position reaffirming a blanket prohibition on homosexual conduct while welcoming gay, bisexual, and lesbian people as members.

The Dorff, Nevins, and Reisner responsum

One responsum, by Rabbis Elliot N. Dorff, Daniel Nevins, and Avram Reisner, reduced the extent of traditional restrictions and substantially changed Conservative views on homosexual conduct. It characterized most such restrictions as rabbinic in character. It found rabbinic restrictions subject to reconsideration by the CJLS under its interpretation of the principle of Kavod HaBriyot, the Talmudic rule of legal reasoning that rabbinic (but not Biblical) restrictions can be overridden on the basis of "respect for others" or "human dignity". Holding that the concept of kavod habriyot interpreted as human dignity reflects Conservative Judaism's evolving understanding of human nature, it found rabbinic restrictions on homosexual conduct inconsistent with human dignity contemporarily understood and accordingly declared such restrictions lifted. Finding that it lacked authority under the kavod habriyot principle to lift biblical prohibitions, it analyzed the Biblical passages involved and found that male-male anal sex was the sole De'oraitha (Biblical) restrictions. It held that as a Biblical prohibition such conduct remained prohibited in Conservative Judaism. The responsum permitted Conservative rabbis to allow same-sex union ceremonies, and gave the option for Conservative rabbinical schools to admit and ordain openly gay, bisexual, and lesbian rabbis. It held that same-sex couples should be presumed not to engage in prohibited conduct in the same way that Conservative Judaism presumes that married heterosexual couples observe sexual prohibitions such as Niddah. [3]

The responsum begins with a quote from Rabbi Abraham Yitzhak HaKohen Kook,

The light of the Messiah, when it blazes in the heart, teaches one to dignify all people: “It shall be on that day that the root of Jesse will stand as a sign to the nations, and peoples will seek him, and his consolation shall be dignity." (Isaiah 11:10) [3]

After a discussion of contemporary theories of sexuality and a warning against promiscuity, the responsum interprets Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as pertaining to male-male anal sex only:

Ancient authors employed euphemism when describing sex, making it difficult to prove exactly what activities they understood to be included within these verses. Is it possible that the biblical prohibition called mishk’vei ishah and later, by the Rabbis, mishkav zakhur, includes actions other than anal intercourse? These verses have been variously translated, but almost all readers conclude that they prohibit anal sex between men, with the first verse addressing only the insertive partner, and the second verse including the receptive partner. [3]
We have demonstrated that only one form of homosexual intimacy, anal intercourse between men, is prohibited at this level as an ervah. We must conclude that any Jew who seeks to fulfill the Torah's commandments must avoid this forbidden act. [3]

The responsum also insisted that Jewish law could not be interpreted any more permissively:

In contrast, our colleagues Rabbis David Fine, Robert Fine and Myron Geller have argued that the verses in Leviticus should be understood to prohibit only those sexual relationships that offer no possibility of marriage. In an age when gay marriage is permitted by some jurisdictions, they argue, the Torah's ban is no longer universal. Although they present their reading as “the p’shat,” there is nothing simple or contextual about this interpretation. Nowhere does the passage mention marriage. The list of forbidden sexual relations includes menstrual sex, which can occur within a marital context. It is hard to accept that the Torah forbids bestiality only because it offers no opportunity for marriage. This reading, too, is sui generis — unsupported by either ancient or modern commentaries. [3]

The responsum described rabbinic prohibitions on sexual relations as mere fences, many of which, it said, the Conservative movement had already lifted. It compared Rabbinic prohibitions on homosexual conduct to strictures on a husband approaching or touching his wife during the Niddah (post-menstrual) period:

However, our community does not enforce, and indeed does not accept, these severe prohibitions. We do not hold, as a matter of fact, that the laws of ”approach” are biblically mandated, but rather that they are in the category of rabbinic fences and borders that are all ultimately intended to protect against transgression of the fundamental biblical rules about sexual conduct. Just as the Sages of old exempted themselves from some of the severity of the laws against contact between the sexes between relatives,45 so have we concluded that average people can be trusted to maintain appropriate relations despite social kissing and hugging and moments alone together, even behind locked doors.

This teshuvah makes a distinction between a Torah mitzvah and later rabbinical fence laws. It argues (page 8) that:

"We conclude that there is only one prohibited sexual relation of arayot among homosexual behaviors, which is anal sex between men, and that other restrictions have no basis in biblical legislation. ...While some readers might conclude from the texts reviewed above that Jewish law imposes a universal and undifferentiated ban on all homosexual intimacy, we must emphasize the nuances found in this literature. ...The Torah's most severe sexual prohibitions are identified as ervah (plural: arayot). In antiquity, these were punishable by death as well as by the severe divine penalty known as karet. Of these sexual prohibitions alone did the rabbis teach, yeihareig v’al ya’avor, that one should die rather than transgress. We have demonstrated that only one form of homosexual intimacy, anal intercourse between men, is prohibited at this level as an ervah..."

The responsum questioned whether requiring celibacy for same-sex couples was feasible, quoting Deutoronomy 30:11–14:

For this mitzvah which I command you today is not too grand for you, nor is it far away. It is not in heaven, that it be said, ‘who will ascend to heaven to get it for us, and teach us how to do it?’ It is not across the sea,...

The responsum invoked and extensively commented on the concept of Kevod HaBriyot , "human dignity," noting that the concept is traditionally limited to Rabbinic enactments:

So great is human dignity that it supersedes a negative commandment of the Torah. Yet no sooner is this potentially radical principle enunciated than it is limited specifically to the commandment that establishes rabbinic authority, , לא תסור “do not stray from the law they [i.e., the rabbis] teach you right or left.” This concern for human dignity is cited in both Talmuds to override certain injunctions, but it is not considered capable of overturning an explicit biblical rule. [3]

After an extensive discussion of this principle, the responsum applies it to declare all rabbinic prohibitions on homosexual conduct overridden, leaving only what it finds to be the biblical one:

It is not possible to set aside the explicit biblical prohibition on anal sex that is stated twice in Leviticus and frequently reaffirmed by the Rabbis. As we have shown, the kvod habriot principle supersedes rabbinic, not biblical law. Of course, there is a theoretical way to overturn biblical law via the legislative mechanism of takkanah (decree). We do not find this mechanism to be appropriate in our case, because takkanah requires the consent of the majority of the population, and this subject remains quite controversial in the observant Jewish community.
However, the rabbinic restrictions upon gay men and lesbian women that result in a total ban on all sexual expression throughout life are in direct conflict with the ability of these Jews to live in dignity as members of the people of Israel. For this reason, the halakhic principle of gadol k’vod habriot must be invoked by the CJLS to relieve their intolerable humiliation. We must make open and rigorous efforts to include gay and lesbian Jews in our communities, to provide a proper welcome and a legal framework for the normalization of their status in our congregations.

In conclusion, the responsum declined to rule on the status of same-sex relationships, but declared that "the celebration of such a union is appropriate."

We are not prepared at this juncture to rule upon the halakhic status of gay and lesbian relationships. To do so would require establishing an entirely new institution in Jewish law that treats not only the ceremonies and legal instruments appropriate for creating homosexual unions but also the norms for the dissolution of such unions. This responsum does not provide kiddushin for same-sex couples. Nonetheless, we consider stable, committed, Jewish relationships to be as necessary and beneficial for homosexuals and their families as they are for heterosexuals. Promiscuity is not acceptable for either homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Such relationships should be conducted in consonance with the values set out in the RA pastoral letter on intimate relationships, “This Is My Beloved, This Is My Friend”: A Rabbinic Letter on Human Intimacy. The celebration of such a union is appropriate.

The Roth responsum

The CJLS also adopted two restrictive responsa, one as a majority and one as a minority opinion. The majority responsum, by Rabbi Joel Roth, [4] was also adopted by 13 votes. It maintained traditional prohibitions on homosexual conduct and forbade Conservative rabbis from blessing same-sex unions and rabbinical schools from ordaining gay, bisexual, and lesbian clergy. [5] On December 10, Rabbi Roth published an editorial in the Jewish Theological Seminary's newsletter JTS News providing some of the reasoning behind his responsum and explaining why he resigned following the CJLS's vote." [6]

According to Rabbi Roth, the central problem with the permissive responsum is that it adopted a claim that the Biblical prohibition on homosexual conduct is limited to anal sex only based on insufficient support in precedent, the view of only "one sage". Rabbi Roth argued that it is impermissible to adapt such a minority view:

What divided us was the question of our right to adopt a legal stance attributed to one sage that the prohibitions against sexual behavior other than male intercourse are rabbinic in status, d’rabbanan, and not biblical, which attribution is itself open to serious question and is denied by most decisors.

Rabbi Roth also said that "Even if the prohibition against sexual behavior other than male intercourse is rabbinic in authority and not biblical, what justifies our abrogating that prohibition?" He argued that the Talmudic concept of Kavod HaBriyot, which the permissive responsum used as justification for doing so, is simply not the same thing as the idea of "human dignity" in contemporary liberalism:

In almost all of the cases in which the category is invoked, the claim is that X may violate the law out of deference to the honor of Y. In the case under discussion, X is to be entitled to violate the law out of deference to his own honor, for which claim there is no real precedent.
What's more, such a claim is theologically weak, since no law-abiding Jew would ever entertain the possibility that his honor would supersede that of God. And in the few cases of application of the category which can possibly be understood to imply that X may violate the law out of deference to his own honor, X is always literally in a social context and in the presence of others.

Rabbi Roth stated that in his perception, the supporters of the permissive responsum were blinded by their predisposition to rule favorably and were unable to view the issue with a dispassionate legal mind.

How halachically defensible does an argument have to be before it can be considered within the halachic ballpark? We all understand and agree that decisors of Jewish law often approach the subject before them with a predisposition to give a specific answer. There's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. What, then, distinguishes a good decisor from a poor one? The good decisor is able to judge his decision with enough dispassion to see whether his predisposition has blinded him to the indefensibility of his answer, and the poor one is not. It is my opinion that my colleagues have here been blinded to the indefensibility of their conclusion. ." [1]

Rabbi Roth argued that the halakhic legitimacy of the Conservative movement was at stake:

What is at stake here, for me, and I believe for the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards as a body, is whether the Law Committee can continue to be seen as a halakhic decision-making body. For all of the breadth I believe that there is for pluralism within halakhah, some decisions are outside those boundaries. If we make such a decision, we are no longer legitimate halakhists, we undermine our authority as the interpreters of God's will, and we render the Law Committee halakhically irrelevant. [7]

Rabbi Roth ended by articulating what he regarded as the fundamental difference between the traditionalist and the liberal wings of the Conservative movement. From the traditionalist point of view, acceptance of the hypothesis that the Torah was transmitted through multiple manuscripts and redactors in no way changes its status as a Divine, "legally infallible" document, a "given" reality to which any theological theory must conform:

That, then, brings us to the following issue: Assuming that the type of biblical scholarship we have all been taught is correct, does that mean that the Torah is, in fact, not Divine and legally infallible? I believe that it does not mean that. The argument here is over the following issue: Is theology the dog which wags the tail called halakhah, or is halakhah the dog which wags the tail called theology? It cannot be both ways.
There can be no real doubt that normatively speaking the halakhic tradition is the given, and theology is required to fall into place behind it. Theology can, indeed, should, provide the narrative which makes the halakhic tradition intellectually persuasive and emotionally acceptable and satisfying, and that narrative can change as needed, and it need not be the same narrative for everyone. Narratives, after all, are aggadic, and thus, neither normative nor binding. That claim, incidentally, in no way diminishes their importance. Whatever narrative works is fine, so long as the narrative does not reverse which is the dog and which is the tail. In this enterprise we are again in a long chain: Sa’adia Ga’on did it, Yehuda ha-Levi did it, Maimonides did it, Samson Rafael Hirsch did it, David Zevi Hoffman did it, and Joseph Hertz did it. Our movement's thinkers and theologians are as competent to provide a modern and persuasive theology of halakhah as were the thinkers of the past. But, we, like they, cannot undo the foundational premise of the entire halakhic system – that the Torah is Divine and legally infallible. [7]

The Levy responsum

Rabbi Leonard Levy's responsum, adopted as a minority opinion by six votes, delineated ways in which to ensure that gays and lesbians would be accorded human dignity and a respected place in Conservative communities and institutions while maintaining the authority of the traditional prohibitions against same-sex sexual activity. [8]

The Tucker dissent

The CJLS rejected a proposed responsum by Rabbi Gordon Tucker which would have lifted all restrictions on homosexual conduct. Although it gained seven votes, the minimum to accept a responsum, it was classified as a takkanah (legislative decree) rather than a judicial interpretation. By CJLS procedural rules a takkanah requires 13 votes to pass. Accordingly, it was published as a dissenting opinion with a note that "concurring and dissenting opinions are not official positions of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards". [9] The fundamental premise of the dissenting opinion was that the Torah is not infallible, legally or otherwise, but is subject to reconsideration based on subsequent knowledge:

When someone says, “What can we do? The Torah is clear on the subject!”, what is being said amounts to a claim of infallibility and irrefutability for the text of the Torah. And that claim ultimately rests on the assumption that the words of Leviticus (and, of course, those of the other four books of the Pentateuch) express directly and completely the will of God. (Indeed, treating a text as infallible on any basis other than on such an assumption would surely count as a form of idolatry.) But that assumption (that the Torah is the direct and complete expression of God's will) is one that, for all its currency in parts of the Jewish world, is not accepted in our Conservative Jewish world. [9]
No, the time has come for a movement that has finally published a Humash commentary that reflects the theology our masters have taught us to “come out of the closet”. It is past time for us to be, in the prophet Elijah's words, “hopping between two opinions”. If the axiom behind this theological argument is to be accepted, then let us forthrightly admit that we have been misled by the teachers at whose feet we have sat. But if we confess that we do not accept the axiom of biblical infallibility, then let us honor our teachers by abandoning this theological argument, and by no longer permitting ourselves to say, when the matter of gays and lesbians comes up, “What can we do? The Torah is clear on the subject!” Could it perhaps be that critical study itself was given to us precisely so that we would not let the text of the Torah stand as an impediment to the acceptance, fulfilment, and normalization of God's creatures? [9]

The Geller, Fine, and Fine dissent

Rabbis Myron Geller, Robert Fine, and David Fine wrote a dissent arguing for complete abolition of strictures against homosexual conduct, and explicit recognition of same-sex religious commitment ceremonies, on grounds that strictures were no longer socially relevant and religious support was now socially required. The opinion characterized Halakha as

a historically based religious/legal system that reflects the values, ethics and circumstances of the Jewish people at any particular period and whose evolving judgments, including those recorded in Scripture, are expressions of Jewish ideals in a given place and time.

The responsum argued that so regarded, Halakah can and should be updated to reflect changed values and social circumstances as they arise. [10]

Aftermath of the 2006 decisions

The consequences of the decision have been mixed, both in the U.S. and elsewhere.

On the one hand, four members of the Committee, Rabbis Joel Roth, Leonard Levy, Mayer Rabinowitz, and Joseph Prouser, resigned from the CJLS following adoption of the change. [1] [11] On the other hand, the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies of the University of Judaism (now the American Jewish University) in Los Angeles had previously stated that it would immediately begin admitting gay, bisexual, and lesbian students as soon as the law committee passed a policy that sanctions such ordination. [12] The Masorti movements in Argentina and the United Kingdom and the Neologs in Hungary at first indicated that they will not admit or ordain homosexual rabbinical students. [13]

The Masorti Movement's Israeli Seminary also rejected a change in its view of the status of homosexual conduct, stating that "Jewish law has traditionally prohibited homosexuality." [14] However, the Seminary reversed its position in April 2012, when it approved the ordination of gay, bisexual, and lesbian rabbis in Israel. [15]

In June 2012, the American branch of Conservative Judaism formally approved same-sex marriage ceremonies in a 13-0 vote. [16] The British Masorti Movement voted to allow its rabbis to conduct same-sex marriages in 2014. However, each of the 12 Masorti communities will be free to decide, whether they want to conduct same-sex marriage or remain only with heterosexual marriage. [17]

Rights for LGBTQ Conservative Jews

The Torah mentions explicitly two times that an act is prohibited, in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. While the Biblical Hebrew phrase for the act is obscure and likely an ancient euphemism, [18] [19] a long history of traditional Jewish interpretation agrees that it specifically means "anal sex between men." [20] The prohibition has usually been extended to sexual relations between men in general, and often to sexual acts between women as well, in the history of the Conservative movement and Halacha overall. [21] While they are never discussed directly in Torah, the law has been extended to sexual acts between women based on principles of religious interpretation, or an assumption by some rabbis that the unspecified "sins of the Egyptians" referred to in Lev. 18:3 included sex between women. [20] The 2006 decision ruled on male anal sex in particular, leaving room for interpretation for Jewish lesbian couples. [22]

Progress has been made for same-sex couples in Conservative Judaism; they are now allowed to marry and receive guidance and support. In 2012, the U.S. Conservative movement endorsed gay marriage and provided guidelines for same-sex divorce. [23] While conservative Jewish rabbis may now bless same-sex marriages, men are expected not to have anal sex with each other because of the verses in Leviticus, and the movement recommends that people who do experience heterosexual attraction marry heterosexually (halachic law gives women the right to sexual satisfaction from a husband and men the obligation to have children, if they can). [24] The Torah verses prohibiting anal sex between men complicate the Conservative movement's position on homosexuality because many people confuse the two. In halachic law, the authority of a statement in Torah is higher than the authority of an agreement among rabbis. So it is much simpler for rabbis to change rules made in statements by past rabbis (prohibitions on ordaining gay rabbis or performing gay unions) than it is to issue new decisions about how to interpret statements made in Torah (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13). The Reform movement does not have this problem because Reform rabbis and synagogues do not abide by halachic law. Conservative Judaism also differs from the Reform movement on marriage; because a Jewish religious marriage includes kiddushin, an ancient legal action a man does to acquire a wife, the U.S. Conservative movement offers a new form of contract for same-sex couples, the Covenant of Loving Partners. [25] The Reform movement recognizes same-sex marriages as including kiddushin, and typically alters the ritual to be mutual for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Regarding rights, in 2013, the USCJ found these results in Conservative synagogues:

In Israel, many laws are governed by religious authorities, marriage included in this. Because religious law governs marriage, same-sex couples are not recognized as married by religious law. There are some non-profit organizations: Shoval, Bat Kol, and Havruta devoted to educating religious communities on acceptance and tolerance of the LGBT community in Israeli society. Among secular Israeli society, same-sex couples receive most of the same benefits as heterosexual couples. [27] However, among the religious jurisdiction, same-sex couples cannot legally marry in Israel, barring them from being recognized as married by the religious authorities.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conservative Judaism</span> Movement of Rabbinical Judaism

Conservative Judaism, also known as Masorti Judaism, is a Jewish religious movement that regards the authority of Jewish law and tradition as emanating primarily from the assent of the people through the generations, more than from divine revelation. It therefore views Jewish law, or Halakha, as both binding and subject to historical development. The conservative rabbinate employs modern historical-critical research, rather than only traditional methods and sources, and lends great weight to its constituency, when determining its stance on matters of practice. The movement considers its approach as the authentic and most appropriate continuation of Halakhic discourse, maintaining both fealty to received forms and flexibility in their interpretation. It also eschews strict theological definitions, lacking a consensus in matters of faith and allowing great pluralism.

Halakha, also transliterated as halacha, halakhah, and halocho, is the collective body of Jewish religious laws that are derived from the Written and Oral Torah. Halakha is based on biblical commandments (mitzvot), subsequent Talmudic and rabbinic laws, and the customs and traditions which were compiled in the many books such as the Shulchan Aruch. Halakha is often translated as "Jewish law", although a more literal translation might be "the way to behave" or "the way of walking". The word is derived from the root which means "to behave". Halakha not only guides religious practices and beliefs; it also guides numerous aspects of day-to-day life.

The subject of homosexuality and Judaism dates back to the Torah. The book of Vayikra (Leviticus) is traditionally regarded as classifying sexual intercourse between males as a to'eivah that can be subject to capital punishment by the current Sanhedrin under halakha.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in Judaism</span> Role of women in Judaism

Women in Judaism have affected the course of Judaism over millenia. Their role is reflected in the Hebrew Bible, the Oral Law, by custom, and by cultural factors. Although the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature present various female role models, religious law treats women in specific ways. According to a 2017 study by the Pew Research Center, women account for 52% of the worldwide Jewish population.

Joel Roth is an American rabbi in the Rabbinical Assembly, which is the rabbinical body of Conservative Judaism. He is a former member and chair of the assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) which deals with questions of Jewish law and tradition, and serves as the Louis Finkelstein Professor of Talmud and Jewish Law at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York City, where he formerly served as dean of the Rabbinical School. He is also Rosh Yeshiva of the Conservative Yeshiva in Jerusalem, Israel, an institution founded and maintained by the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism and under the academic auspices of JTS. In 2006, Roth took over as chair of the Hebrew Language department at JTS.

The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is the central authority on halakha within Conservative Judaism; it is one of the most active and widely known committees on the Conservative movement's Rabbinical Assembly. Within the movement it is known as the CJLS. The current chairman of the CJLS is Rabbi Pamela Barmash.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Steven Greenberg (rabbi)</span> American rabbi (born 1956)

Steven Greenberg is an American rabbi with a rabbinic ordination from the Orthodox rabbinical seminary of Yeshiva University (RIETS). He is described as the first openly gay Orthodox-ordained Jewish rabbi, since he publicly disclosed he is gay in an article in the Israeli newspaper Maariv in 1999 and participated in a 2001 documentary film about gay men and women raised in the Orthodox Jewish world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gordon Tucker</span> American rabbi

Gordon Tucker is a prominent rabbi, with a reputation as both a political and a theological liberal in Conservative Judaism. He is the former senior rabbi of Temple Israel Center in White Plains, New York. Since September 2020, he has served as the Vice Chancellor for Religious Life and Engagement at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

Although rare, there are instances within Jewish law that mandate a Jew to sacrifice their own life rather than violate a religious prohibition. One of these prohibitions is that no life should be taken, including one's own. Many more ritual prohibitions exist as well, which means that under limited circumstances a Jew has to self-sacrifice when the greater good calls for breaking a more minor dictate. This practice reflects the practical and perhaps malleable nature of Judaic law.

Conservative Judaism views halakha as normative and binding. The Conservative movement applies Jewish law to the full range of Jewish beliefs and practices, including thrice-daily prayer, Shabbat and holidays, marital relations and family purity, conversion, dietary laws (kashrut), and Jewish medical ethics. Institutionally, the Conservative movement rules on Jewish law both through centralized decisions, primarily by the Rabbinical Assembly and its Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, and through congregational rabbis at the local level. Conservative authorities produced voluminous Responsa literature.

Kevod HaBeriyot (Hebrew: כבוד הבריות; literally in Hebrew: "honor [of/due to] the [God's] creations " also variously translated as "individual dignity", "individual honor", or "human dignity" is a concept of Halakha originating in the Talmud which permits exceptions to Rabbinic decrees under certain circumstances. This concept has been used in a number of contemporary Jewish religious-law decisions in Orthodox and Conservative Judaism.

Criticism of Conservative Judaism is widespread in the Orthodox Jewish community, although the movement also has its critics in Reform Judaism and in other streams of Judaism. While the Conservative movement professes fidelity to Jewish tradition, it considers Halakha to be a dynamic process that needs reinterpreting in modern times. The criticism by Orthodox Jews and traditionalists within the movement itself revolves around the following:

Daniel S. ("Danny") Nevins is an American rabbi and a leader in the Conservative Movement who is head of school at Golda Och Academy in West Orange, NJ On January 29, 2007, Rabbi Nevins was named the Dean of the Rabbinical School of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, succeeding Rabbi William Lebeau. In 2021, it was announced that Rabbi Nevins would be stepping down as dean of the JTS Rabbinical School. He was previously the spiritual leader of Adat Shalom Synagogue in Farmington Hills, Michigan, where he served for 13 years in his first pulpit. He is an authority on Jewish Law who co-authored a responsum that was passed by the Conservative Movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards paving the way for the Conservative Movement to allow gay marriage and to ordain lesbian and gay rabbis.

The first openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clergy in Judaism were ordained as rabbis and/or cantors in the second half of the 20th century.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) affirming denominations in Judaism are Jewish religious groups that welcome LGBT members and do not consider homosexuality to be a sin. They include both entire Jewish denominations, as well as individual synagogues. Some are composed mainly of non-LGBT members and also have specific programs to welcome LGBT people, while others are composed mainly of LGBT members.

Same-sex marriage in Judaism has been a subject of debate within Jewish denominations. The traditional view among Jews is to regard same-sex relationships as categorically forbidden by the Torah. This remains the current view of Orthodox Judaism.

Forbidden relationships in Judaism are intimate relationships which are forbidden by prohibitions in the Torah or rabbinical injunctions.

Jewish traditions across different eras and regions devote considerable attention to sexuality. Sexuality is the subject of many narratives and laws in the Tanakh and rabbinic literature.

The prohibition of extracting semen in vain is a Biblical prohibition derived from, this is explained in the Midrash and Talmud. The prohibition forbids a male from intentional wasteful spilling of his semen. Unintentional wasting of seed is also a (lesser) sin according to the Oral Torah.

This is a timeline of LGBT Jewish history, which consists of events at the intersection of Judaism and queer people.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Conservative rabbinic group issues guidelines for same-sex wedding rituals". June 4, 2012.
  2. ↑ "Denominational Perspectives". KeshetUK. Retrieved October 5, 2018.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Elliott N. Dorff, Daniel Nevins, and Avram Reisner. Homosexuality, Human Dignity, and Halakha. Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, Rabbinical Assembly, December 6, 2006" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 4, 2007.
  4. ↑ "Rabbi Joel Roth, Homosexuality Revisited, Rabbinical Assembly, December 6, 2006" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 22, 2007. Retrieved January 23, 2007.
  5. ↑ "The Forward - Conservative Panel Votes to Permit Gay Rabbis". Archived from the original on December 8, 2006. Retrieved December 10, 2006.
  6. ↑ "Rabbi Joel Roth, "Op-Ed: Law committee in its gay ruling stepped outside halachic framework", JTS News, December 10, 2006". Archived from the original on February 5, 2012.
  7. 1 2 "Rabbi Joel Roth, Homosexuality Revisited, Rabbinical Assembly, December 6, 2006" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 22, 2007. Retrieved February 12, 2007.
  8. ↑ "Same Sex Attraction and Halacha" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 13, 2007. Retrieved February 12, 2007.
  9. 1 2 3 Rabbi Gordon Tucker, Halakhic and Metahalakhic Arguments Concerning Judaism and Homosexuality. The Rabbinical Assembly, December 6, 2006 Archived June 13, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  10. ↑ Geller, Myron, Fine, Robert, and Fine, David. The Halakhah of Same Sex Relations in a New Context. The Rabbinical Assembly, December 6, 2006 Archived June 13, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  11. ↑ Ben Harris (December 6, 2006). "Conflicting Conservative opinions expected to open the way for gays". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Archived from the original on December 11, 2006. Retrieved December 7, 2006.
  12. ↑ "Conservative Panel Votes To Permit Gay Rabbis" (PDF). The Forward. Archived from the original on February 7, 2012.
  13. ↑ "Overseas Seminaries Set To Reject Gay Ordination". The Forward. December 16, 2006.
  14. ↑ "No gay ordinations in conservative seminar". Ynetnews. March 28, 2007.
  15. ↑ "Jewish movement in Israel OKs gay rabbis". Archived from the original on April 22, 2012.
  16. ↑ "Conservative Jews approve gay wedding guidelines". Fox News. June 1, 2012. Retrieved April 21, 2021.
  17. ↑ Simon Rocker, "Masorti makes history as rabbis approve same-sex marriage", Jewish Chronicle, October 22, 2014
  18. ↑ "Is this person's translation of the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 accurate?". Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange. Retrieved May 26, 2019.
  19. ↑ "Leviticus - Bible Abuse Directed at Homosexuals". www.stopbibleabuse.org. Retrieved May 26, 2019.
  20. 1 2 "Dear David". www.bmv.org.il. Retrieved May 26, 2019.
  21. ↑ Kalir, Doron (August 5, 2015). "Same-Sex Marriage and Jewish Law: Time for a New Paradigm?". Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
  22. ↑ Dorff, Rabbis Elliot; Nevins, Daniel; Reisner, Avram (Spring 2012). "RITUALS AND DOCUMENTS OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES" (PDF).
  23. ↑ "US Conservative Jews approve gay weddings". Ynetnews. February 6, 2012. Retrieved December 3, 2018.
  24. ↑ "How Rabbis Are Trying To Make The Conservative Movement More Gay-Friendly". The Forward. Retrieved December 3, 2018.
  25. ↑ "US Conservative Jews approve gay weddings". Ynetnews. February 6, 2012. Retrieved May 26, 2019.
  26. ↑ "LGBTQ Inclusion | USCJ". October 10, 2018.
  27. ↑ "LGBTQ and Same-Sex Couples in Israel | Nefesh B'Nefesh". Nefesh B'Nefesh. February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 3, 2018.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.