Homosexual Ordination and Marriage

A watershed day in the history of Judaism, the Conservative Movement's Law Committee just passed three of five papers on the subject of homosexual ordination and marriages. Two of the papers upheld the ban on both and the third paper, by Rabbi Elliot Dorff, allows limited ordination and marriage of homosexuals provided they never engage in anal sex and remain monogamous. The two papers that would have uprooted the law against homosexual relations were defeated. Multiple decisions are not binding as each community can decide which of the accepted opinions to adopt for their community.

Note that these papers are slightly different than the three discussed last time around (see my posts from, I think, March of this year). Think of these results as the passing two of the rightist opinion (and one of them is Rabbi Roth's) and the middle opinion, which remains largely unchanged.

I have not seen any of the papers yet but they should be published soon, with votes recorded as passed opinions must become a matter of public record. The two leftist papers, however, will probably never be published publicly.

Matt

Here is an article from the AP:

Conservative scholars ease gay rabbi ban
Decision upends thousands of years of precedent while stopping short of fully accepting gay clergy

Associated Press Published: 12.06.06, 22:34

Conservative Jewish scholars eased their ban Wednesday on ordaining gays, upending thousands of years of precedent while stopping short of fully accepting gay clergy.

The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, which interprets religious law for the movement, adopted three starkly conflicting policies that nonetheless gave gays the chance to serve as clergy.

One upholds the prohibition against gay rabbis. Another, billed as a compromise, permits gay ordination while continuing to ban male sodomy. The third upholds the ban on gay sexual relationships in Jewish law and mentions the option for gays to undergo therapy aimed at changing their sexual orientation.

That leaves seminaries and synagogues to decide on their own which approach to follow.

It will also test what Conservative Jewish leaders call their "big tent," allowing diverse practices by the movement's more than 1,000 rabbis and 750 North American synagogues.

The 25-member panel made its decision in a two-day closed meeting in an Upper East Side synagogue. Students from a gay advocacy group at the Jewish Theological Seminary, the flagship school of Conservative Judaism, stood vigil nearby while the results were announced.

Conservative leaders are struggling to hold the shrinking middle ground of American Judaism, losing members to both the liberal Reform and the traditional Orthodox branches.

Reform Jews, as well as the smaller Reconstructionist branch, allow gays to become rabbis; the Orthodox bar gays and women from ordination.

The last major Law Committee vote on gay relationships came in 1992, when the panel voted 19-3, with one abstention, that Jewish law barred openly gay students from seminaries and prohibited the more than 1,000 rabbis in the movement from officiating at gay union ceremonies.

Canadian congregations to consider idea

The debate focuses on Leviticus 18:22, which states, "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman," echoing the fight in mainline Protestant groups about the Bible and sexuality.

It's unclear whether any congregations in the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the synagogue arm of the movement, will break away over the gay issue.

A handful of Canadian congregations, which tend to be more traditional than their US counterparts, have said they would consider the idea. However, leaders believe it's more likely that individuals who object to the change will leave to worship in Orthodox synagogues.

Arnold Eisen, incoming chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, personally supports ordaining gays. But he said in a Nov. 22 e-mail to the seminary community that faculty will vote on how the school should respond to the committee's decison.

Rabbi Elliot Dorff, vice chairman of the panel and a supporter of gay ordination, is rector of The Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies in Los Angeles, which also trains Conservative rabbis. The school was expected to admit gays now that the committee allows it.

Another one, from the Jewish Forward:

Breaking: Conservative Panel Votes To Permit Gay Rabbis
Four Committee Members Resign To Protest Decision
Rebecca Spence | Wed. Dec 06, 2006

In a historic vote, leaders of Conservative Judaism on Wednesday approved a rabbinic opinion allowing ordination of gay and lesbian rabbis and sanctioning same-sex unions.

The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards — the 25-member lawmaking body of the Conservative movement — opted to follow the rabbinic tradition of approving separate, mutually contradictory opinions, each of which is now sanctioned as normative Conservative practice. Of the three papers approved, the most permissive, authored by Rabbi Elliott Dorff, opens the door for gay rabbis and same-sex unions, but retains certain biblical bans on homosexual activity. Also vetted were two opinions that uphold the ban on ordaining gay rabbis, one submitted by Rabbi Joel Roth, and another, more extreme opinion submitted by Rabbi Leonard Levy.

Four of the most conservative members resigned the committee in protest: Roth, Levy, Mayer Rabinowitz and Joseph Prouser.

While the decision of the law committee marks a major turning point, it is now up to the individual Conservative seminaries and congregations to decide how to implement the ruling.

And at the movement’s two seminaries, situated on opposite coasts, the approaches are markedly different. The University of Judaism in Los Angeles has long maintained that it will immediately begin admitting gay and lesbian students as soon as the law committee passes a policy that sanctions gay ordination. But at the Jewish Theological Seminary — the movement’s flagship seminary in New York — the law committee’s decision will have to be weighed by the faculty, who plan to deliberate whether or not to begin accepting gay and lesbian students who want to become rabbis.

Judith Hauptman, a professor of Talmud and rabbinic culture at JTS and a prominent supporter of gay ordination, cautioned that the faculty there would not necessarily lean in favor of accepting gays and lesbians. “We can go either way on it,” said Hauptman. “We’re not making a decision about Jewish law, we’re making a decision about the school.”

Hauptman also said that many members of the faculty had not publicly disclosed their views on gay ordination, making it anyone’s guess what the final outcome would be. As for her own views, Hauptman expressed unflagging support for accepting gay students. “As soon as it is possible to ordain gay rabbis,” she said, “it becomes morally imperative on us to accept gay candidates for ordination.”

This week’s decision marks the final chapter in a divisive debate that has roiled the Conservative movement since 1992, when the law committee first took up the question of gays and lesbians becoming rabbis. That debate resulted in the adoption of an opinion that effectively banned gay ordination and unions. The committee’s current consideration of the issue began with the submission of nine papers in the spring of 2005, which were ultimately combined into four separate papers.

The wide gulf between the stances of JTS and of U.J. can be explained in part by the positions of the institutions’ faculty and leadership. The dean of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at U.J., Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, authored the1992 paper advocating gay ordination and unions, which was defeated at the time. That rabbinic opinion, known as a teshuvah, took the most liberal position in that it also lifted the ban on homosexual anal sex.

Rabbi Joel Roth, a professor of Talmud and Jewish law at JTS, wrote the opinion paper opposing gay ordination that gained approval some 15 years ago. In addition, the former chancellor of JTS, Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, has long argued that sanctioning gay ordination and unions would fracture the movement, with those who opposed it joining the ranks of the Modern Orthodox and those who supported it ultimately converging with Reform Judaism, America’s largest stream.

The appointment earlier this year of Arnold Eisen, a proponent of gay ordination, as the new chancellor of JTS signaled to many that the movement was now on track to open its doors to gay and lesbian clergy. Eisen, who is not a rabbi, is widely expected to turn to the pews in order to bolster support for the movement’s retooled approach to homosexuality.

At Wednesday’s vote, held at Manhattan’s Park Avenue Synagogue, five teshuvot were on the table, covering a diverse spectrum of opinion. The teshuvot in favor of upholding the ban on gay ordination and same-sex unions included an expanded version of Roth’s 1992 paper, as well as one written by Rabbi Leonard Levy, making the case that homosexuality is an illness that can be cured.

Rabbi Elliott Dorff, the rector of U.J., authored the paper that sanctions same-sex unions and allows for gay ordination, but falls short of deeming intercourse between men to be compatible with halacha, or Jewish law. An opinion submitted by Rabbi Gordon Tucker of Temple Israel Center in White Plains, N.Y., which advocated full equality of gays and lesbians in Conservative Judaism, with no restrictions on sexual behaviors, failed to pass after being turned into a takanah, an amendment to Jewish law rather than an interpretation. In an interview at his Los Angeles office, Dorff framed the debate in generational terms. He contended that most Conservative Jews on the younger side of the spectrum would support the decision to allow gay and lesbian rabbis, while older people who grew up in a society far less accustomed to people openly expressing their homosexuality might be opposed to the change. Dorff also noted that of the 25 members of the law committee, only two are under the age of 40.

In recent days student groups advocating a change in policy ramped up their activism in advance of the vote. Last week, U.J.’s pro-gay ordination group, Dror Yikra (Hebrew for “call to freedom”), sent each member of the law committee a copy of a letter in support of gay ordination that was signed by three-quarters of the student body.

“As future rabbis, we feel bound by the tenets of halakhah and moved by the ethical challenges posed by our new scientific knowledge and modern understandings of sexual orientation,” the letter stated. “We believe that there is a halakhically acceptable way for our movement to ordain gays and lesbians and for our rabbis to consecrate their love through Jewish commitment ceremonies.”

The group’s co-founder, Rachel Kobrin, a fifth-year rabbinical student, said that her decision to attend U.J. stemmed from its more liberal position on homosexuality. “I came here and not JTS because of this issue,” said Kobrin, 32. “Because I knew that Rabbi Artson was a serious advocate for change.” Indeed, according to Dorff, Artson accepted the job as dean of the rabbinic school on the condition that U.J. would begin accepting gay and lesbian students if and when the law committee ruled in favor of an inclusive policy.

While the majority of the student body at U.J. favors gay ordination, a quiet minority stands in opposition. One student who chose not to sign the letter, Ben Goldstein, a second-year rabbinical student from Rochester, N.Y., said that while he was conflicted in his views on the subject, he did not attach his name to the petition because he did not think that both sides had been given a fair hearing at U.J. Goldstein said that Dorff’s view had been fully parsed, but that Roth’s opinion upholding the ban had gotten short shrift.

“There are other people who feel the same way I do, but they won’t tell you,” he said, citing an atmosphere in which it was frowned upon to oppose gay ordination.

Meanwhile, at JTS, the student organization that advocates full inclusion of gays and lesbians, Keshet, hosted seminars on homosexuality in Judaism while the law committee deliberated. Students wearing rainbow ribbons and buttons proclaiming “ordination regardless of orientation,” participated in educational sessions on such diverse topics as the history of lobbying in the process of deciding Jewish law as well as gay interpretations of the classic Yiddish play, “The Dybbuk.”

The law committee’s decision to allow gays and lesbians to be ordained as rabbis and to sanction same-sex unions comes as other mainstream religions are grappling with similar internecine debates. In recent weeks a southern California diocese of the Episcopal Church (U.S.A.) moved to distance itself from the church over its ordination of gays and women, when it voted to identify as a member of the worldwide Anglican Communion, rather than a member of the American arm. That vote could portend a complete break from the church, which recently elected its first female bishop.

Rabbi Roth on CJLS Current Events Part II: The Centrist View

I decided to take a different approach and brouhgt my laptop this time to take notes to be directly posted to my blog. Here goes:

Rabbi Roth on CJLS Current Events Part II (3/26/06):

Man can’t marry brother, father, son but can marry any other man?

As of this week:

13 is to establish something as a takkanah!

13 is to pass a takkanah

Postscript to Maimonides question from last time

unsure about what Rambam would say about reinstituting sacrificing

Judaism Recognizes difference between refraining and abrogating

Shev v’al taaseh (refraining from fulfilling the command) ie: no lulav on Shabbat even if it is first day of sukkot, no shofar on Shabbat (though Torah tells you to take it first day and to blow it

Kum v’aseh (active abrogation): I do an act which is the violation rather than not doing the act, which is the mitzvah (much more difficult)

Rambam might have said don’t do what the torah says rather than do what the Torah says not to do

(Homosexuality is Kum V’Aseh)

The Torah stands!

Reactions from the Right (and part of the Center):

1. there doesn’t seem to be a stitch of evidence that that is what those chapters are about. They sound like ABSOLUTE PROHIBITIONS, not linked to “sanctification” (ie: marriage ceremonies)

2. It is well-known that a scholarly position offered today may be three years from now in the trashbin of has-been scholarship.

Such a radical step on the basis of what is not clear in the Torah. Does not make the most conceivable ..

3. It put a lot of faith in societal perceptions of what is acceptable. If it eventually becomes acceptable for a brother to marry his sister…

Question: should Torah be taken at face value? What about “Eye for Eye?”

Difference in Leftist and R’ Artson1992? (latter was not validated)

Artson’92:“only type of homosexuality that the Torah knew about is the same as the only kind that anyone else knew about: more powerful against less powerful, victor in war would rape soldiers”

CENTRIST POSITION:

Originally 3 different papers, were combined, and combination worked IMHO better than the combo of 4 leftists

Cannot discuss centrist position without being blunt.

Position argues that since it undermines the authority of the Torah, we must leave the authority intact. Therefore, verses in the Torah, whereas they don’t speak with bluntness “Don’t lie with a man mishkavei isha”

Biah Shelo K’Darka: biblical prohibition is restricted to penetrative anal intercourse.

This behavior, position argues, remains forbidden, and no two men are legally allowed to engage in penetrative anal intercourse. All other sexual behavior, which would include manual stimulation, oral stimulation, intercrural (between the thighs), are prohibited d’rabbanan.

Change of behavior by therapy is infinitesimally small

Demand of celibacy is a very non-Jewish demand

The general attitude of people who want to be part of the Jewish community, besides this, is that they want to be part of the community

Therefore, apply to them, Kavod HaBriot, human dignity, demands that we remove the issurei d’rabbanan and only maintain the Torah prohibition

The locus causicus is in B. Brachot 19b, so great is human dignity is that it can supercede even a negative commandment baTorah. “gadol kvod habriot”

But wait, they interpret this to be Torah B’Al Peh, only supercedes rabbinic laws, not Torah

Such forthrightness is not problematic because they have also affirmed the issurim they are going to supercede are issurim d’rabbanan

Concludes with the essence: “in the same way as I, do not put cameras in people’s rooms (as a former Dean of Rabbinical School and former Congregational Rabbi) to see if they are going to the mikvah, I will do the same thing here: Tell men that Homosexuality is assure but I will make the same assumptions, that there is no reason that one should refuse ordination to homosexuals. Also have commitment ceremonies that they will NOT call it “marriage”. If bisexual, halachic preference given to heterosexuality. Man should find release in a woman rather than a man, even if he likes men

Reactions from right and left

First reaction from both: that we will hold ourselves up to almost unavoidable ridicule by saying “you can do all sorts of things but this you may never do”.

When I say “can’t have sex with wife when she is niddah” at least allows for half a month each month for sex. Homosexual sex is NEVER okay

“I believe that the teshuva on driving, until now, is the WORST idea the law committee has ever come up with it. We can become the greatest movement ever and we would STILL never live it down”

There are not five Jews in the world who know that it is only to drive to Shul! (and originally only to NEAREST shul)

In 1950s no sociologist in the world thought that Orthodoxy would survive out of Mea Shearim. Protect Shabbat.

Their intent was absolutely pure. The result should have been (with Monday Morning Quarterbacking) seen in advance.

Left: downright unfair that we should forbid a behavior which is in a certain manner one of the most common behaviors of homosexual men. It should be taken into account that a significant percentage never have anal sex

Halachic arguments against:

To point out to center that term “penetrative anal intercourse” conjures up in the mind of people that which the law is NOT about. This means more than genital contact but insertion.

HaARaAh: the first stage of genital contact

There is no tannaitic definition of HaARaAh, and there is an Amoraic makhloket

We speak of them euphemistically, though this leaves some ambiguity, therefore need to go for the gold and use the real phrases

HaARaAh of Shmuel: Neshikat Eiver (not kissing, but literally genital contact) (“I can’t put my finger on my lips without it going in slightly)

HaARaAh of R’ Yochanan: Hachnasat Atara (inserting the crown of the penis)

Forbidding the brushing up of the penis of the male to the anus of another male, whether or not there is penetration

It is not at all self-evident that Biah Shelo KDarka is limited to anal sex

Rashi: Shelo Bimkom Zera (non-vaginal) (the anus qualifies as non-vaginal, but so does the mouth) (does this mean no Oral sex?)

If you don’t know whether it means both oral and anal forbidden, or neither, or one or the other, then you have a Safek D’Oraita.

Safek D’Oraita LCHUMRA! Interpret doubts in Torah stringently

If you go for Meykil, lenient, then you may violate the actual law of the Torah

Braita: All sexual behavior is forbidden that might in some way lead to forbidden behavior, then that behavior is forbidden. Asur DORAITA!

Makhloket between Nachmanides and Maimonides.

Maimonides says all sexual behavior forbidden DOraita in Sefer HaMitzvot

And summarizes laws in Sanhedrin (which is requoted in Tur & Shulchan Aruch)

The three most important Jewish codes disagree with Center

Nachmanides calls it an asmachta

But you are favoring the RambaN over Rambam and Tur and Shulchan Aruch, the latter two who knew of the RambaN’s response?

Sefer HaMitzvot. Some sort of sexual behavior. If a man and his son or daughter are sharing a bed and there is some sort of genital contact, that’s what Maimonides is talking about?! Mishnah Torah says it is with the taavah, the intention of sexual activity

#3 of Right against Center: You may be mistaken with Kavod HaBriot. Every grant of permission on grounds of Kavod HaBriot is TEMPORARY.

If I a kohen go to a funeral (not going to the cemetery) and the family goes across a field toward their home, that if I follow I will become Tamei, because of Kavot HaBriot, I can follow until we get to their house, but no more after that

In the majority of cases where Bavli and Yerushalmi permits Kavod HaBriot, that x is allowed to violate the law out of deference to the honor of y. I, the Kohen can jump over coffins out of deference in honor for the king.

You argue that not only that the law would be permenant, but that x will be able to break the law for his own purposes

3. Pillars

Only penetrative intercourse is forbidden d’oraita

Others are only prohibited d’rabbanan

All of that can be superceded because of Kavod HaBriot

Right to center: you are either WRONG on all of the three counts or that each of the three is doubtful. One should not base himself on highly debatable things

One of the authors of the center is a relatively young rabbi, and who probably has a tremendous future, and has every potential to be a great posek, and he was a student of one of the authors of the right and of the left, both of whom teach at the seminary. These two authors sat next to each other at the retreat and almost always agree on the meaning of text, only disagree about Category3, how halachic system works, and look to each other for approval.

“I’m absolutely losing sleep over both of you. I wanted a paper that both of you would agree with and instead “

I don’t want it validated by 6 or 7 votes or to squeak through. I don’t want to have a permissible thing, I want it to be the position of the Law Committee.

You’ll never read these papers in the Newspaper articles. They’re too complicated to be in a newspaper.

Argument between right and left: how does halachic system function

It is davka to please the right to keep in the prohibition in the center of homosexual prohibitions

PS on the categories: (1 & 2: eilu veilu divrei Elokim chayim) the question is this:

Is it possible that an argument that is couched in anylitical discourse is so weak an argument that one disputant could say to the other “it is only because your predisposition blinded you that you could offer such an undefendable argument”. It if is possible, is this that case? If so, right can say to center “ein divrei Elokim chayim even though you defend it halacically”

In R’ Roth’s lifetime has disagreed with a lot of CJLS but says “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chayim”.

How about 1950s if he was on CJLS: thinks would say that Driving would make us laughingstock

Very critical speculation. What will depend on the answer to the question is whether members of the right will remain on the Law Committee

Not funny ha ha but funny ironic

Braita on lesbianism say that prohibition is deoraita, but cannot even in theory cannot be punishable by death, because there cannot be penetration, but poskim that is equally as assur.

In theory it is conceivable that Right can make a difference between gay and lesbianism, and have been most of their lives non-Egalitarian, whereas left and center don’t make distinction because it is not egalitarian

No one says lesbian is Gufei Torah, but gay is gufei Torah

Left and center papers talk all the time about possibility of pru urvu in modern homosexuality (Just like my Rabbinical School admissions essays!)

People believe that I’m the most right-wing Conservative Jew on earth, but I haven’t moved an inch. The bell-curve of the Conservative movement moved. Those that used to be on my right… well some of them died… cause and effect… and others have left the seminary or have given up any connection to the Conservative movement. Sleepless nights over whether I was the cause of it. It was not my intent.

Rabbi Roth Series on CJLS... ok... on Homosexual Ordination...)

I just attended the first of three public lectures at the Conservative Yeshiva regarding the issue that was postponed a fortnight ago in the Law Committee regarding Homosexual ordination and Homosexual marriage/civil unions.

As some of you may remember from the last public lecture that I attended with Rabbi Roth, "Beards vs Goatees: Roth vs Gillman", I needed to bring paper, as last time I was writing on pizza napkins. So I did, but I ended up taking 6 pages of copious notes, more than the amount of paper I brought. Here are the notes I took, transcribed to computer (sometimes unclear). In addition and with implied permission I also tape-recorded it. Note that my notes may not be complete GREEN denotes that it is a correction I have made from later listening to the tape. RED is an editor's note:

NOTE That this is a work in progress and I will type up more of it soon...

"There are three major sides here, the left position, the centrist postion, and the right postion... uh, rightist position"

He will analyze the three positions and the objections raised to them


Debates fall into 3 Categories of what CJLS deals with
1. What we are arguing about the meaning of a text being referred to by some author as the grounds for the decision which is being rendered, either the text itself proves the position or the extrapolation from the text is supported by that text. ie: all of the arguments we have had: kashrut of american manufactured cheeses, kashrut status of gelatin, these disputes were written about the meaning of something in Chulin, is dvar chadash reasonable extrapolation from that sugya. Don't confuse this as arguing about the sugya, but the meaning about the passage and if it is a reasonable extrapolation of that passage. Much of the argument about the driving on shabbat is regarding halacha sheeina tzricha l'gufa...

2. disputants all agree that the claim being offered is a defensible halachic claim
they don't decide whether it is defensible, but that if it is desirable
1. things that the law requires
2. things that the law prohibits
3. things that the law permits (but not mandatory or forbidden) (most often discussed)
"yes I understand that there is a valid halachic argument for counting women in a minyan, but it is not desirable as men will stop coming to the minyan" therefore, not whether it is defensible, but if it is desirable.
hardly anyone in movement says can't put imahot in beginning of Amidah, (let's ignore the chatima for now), but not desirable because it is a historical revisionism (like changing Declaration of Independence to say "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men and women are created equal".
Triennial Torah Reading
Approved two different methods:
-1/3 of Bereishit, 1/3 Noach, 1/3 lech lecha for first year, etc... <-- Most synagogues use this -1st/3 of Bereishit, 2nd/3 of Bereishit, 3rd/3 of Bereishit <-- more halachic basis and was the system used in the Palestine Triennial Opponents say that it is halachically acceptable, but object because it interferes with Klal Yisrael
What if I go to another synagogue that doesn't have the same practice?
What if my kid gets Bar Mitzvahed in Israel after a Second Day Yom Tov that falls on Shabbat and he learned the wrong haftarah?
What will the haftarah be for each of the three weeks? Chairman Roth: We'll find biblical sections!
Bar Mitzvah Dates are chosen 6 years in advance! Roth: We'll make a 200-year calendar
It should be noted that no synagogue follows the latter Triennial Cycle.
B. Gittin: Women can appoint shaliach to accept Get.
Ashkenazic Jewry has not done this for over 700 years, Joint Beit Din discusses reinstating this
Eilu VEilu Divrei Elokim Chayim, both are the words of the Living God
Ordination of Women: JTS on the verge of implosion (or explosion)
tension among the faculty for 2 years
one senior member of Talmud department: "I'm opposed to ordination of women, but if we do ordain women, we should do it Joel's [Rabbi Roth's] way, because it is at least halachic".

1927-1940s = 1 person required for opinion
mid 40s-mid 80s = 3 people required for opinion
mid 80s-today = 6 people required for opinion (political maneuvering)

3. Rare occasions, argue over how halachic system works (Homosexuality issue falls under this category)

US Supreme court: if they said "President needs to be 35" is unconstitutional, may result in a revolt as no precident exists to uproot the constitution
Marbury v. Madison, Supreme Court decides it has Judicial Review (which the Constitution does not talk about, and could have caused a revolt)

Marriage of Kohen to a Grusha (divorcee)
argument: does it exist a precident for sages to do somethig lik this (but it is a valid binding marriage, but after the fact are coerced into getting a divorce (unlike father marrying daughter which does not ever take effect))
CJLS allows before the fact
Mamzerut: CJLS declare as null & void
does there exist a way to undo that?

Disputes of 3rd category are entirely different ball game than disputes in the first two categories
Could you say Eilu VEilu Divrei Elokim Chayim?
could potentially split the law committee
some who have always thought of the law committee as a serious deliberative halachic body would change their opinion of the law committee. That is IMHO an undesirable end

Originally 9 papers two retreats ago
4 this year

The Law Committee voted 20 for to 4 opposed (with zero abstentions) voted to postpone the vote until December. Know that a majority of people who hold your position

a. 1 ½ days discussing each paper separately, so each author might want to edit their papers

b. Why December? what about June and September?

June: Between now and June there is little likelihood that authors could finish rewrites (needed to be distributed a month in advance)

5 positions on law committee expire each year (this week, in fact). Committee decidingew members don’t meet until after june.

Therefore Only will have 20 people in June, not ideal for a vote.

September: Significant number of people will have chagim to deal with

Rabbi Roth assured me following the meeting that the December meeting will be OPEN and will meet at JTS.

Rabbi Roth Believes that 1 of the 4 leftist authors is intending to split his paper and present it as an independent paper

1 of the 3 authors of the centrist paper is considering a radical change in the paper, deleting something from the paper (might fight with other two guys over this)

of the two rightist papers, one of which is much more scientific

understand: A teshuva is not judged by thrust nor by conclusion, but if the conclusion follows conclusively from the content

Rabbi Roth’s disdain for newspaper reporting: you can have nuanced 20 minute phone call with a reporter and get two column inches. How much nuance can you get in two column inches?

Have רחמנות (rachmanus) (mercy), on the authors and don’t take Forward or JTA as gospel.

Roth’s paper is 52 pages and there are some longer.

One of the papers was declared in law committee as Takanah, declared as an act of legislation instead of interpretive.

Constitution of RA: 6 votes validates an opinion, but has no provision for Takkanot. A later addition allows for any standing committee to promulgate own rules, subject to Executive Committee approval

Law committee wanted 13 votes to count as takkanah (absolute majority, but not supermajority)

Executive council said no, 20!

Law Committee said 13 (or 15)

Executive council said no

So remains as 20

By the way, the vote on whether it was a takkanah ended as 13 yes, 8 no, and 4 abstentions

Each author added an addendum to their papers re: other peoples papers

Centrists in their addendum affirmed that left wing’s was a takkanah

Not just “right wing medievalists” believed this, but also center

There was no vote taken over whether centrists paper was a takkanah

Latest issue of Forward: article about the deliberation (Gay Issues Roil Rabbis In Advance Of Parley). Last paragraph is virtually SLANDEROUS! Misrepresentations in toto the argument of one of the papers

**

Leftist Paper (from three of the original four papers)

Did not work as well as combining 3 centrist papers

Postion of 3 of the 4 authors: Verses in Leviticus that prohibit male homosexuality are Immoral. They find no need to prove that that was {unintelligable (I think he said "correct"}

Premise of the paper is that it is self evident that law in Leviticus is IMMORAL!

Left and right agree on meaning of the verse
there's no argument, it's not a textual argument
Argument: Jewish Law is in 95-99% of the time Positivist law

it starts with Torah, Rabbinic understanding of Torah, Codes, Responsa, and 99% of the time this is how they decide the law

On occasion these authors argue that there are powered (?) cases to which positivist model does not apply (such as this case)

How the do we address the verse in Leviticus?

We address them in the following way: it is the virtually irreversable affirmation of Rabbis and scholars of the Conservative Movement that the Torah is not directly Divinely woven {unintelligible... sorry...}

Heschel: “Torah is a human midrash on an ineffable divine revelation”

(Sinai was wordless)

Torah is people of Israel’s interpretation of what happened

Sometimes we got it wrong

If Chaza”l interpreted Ben Sorer U’Moreh (the rebellious son who was to be put to death) as lo haya v’lo nivra (never enforced), same will happen with these verses

An aside: you never hear egalitarians arguing for equality in ben sorer u’moreh

They got it wrong

didn’t know about constitutional gays

they thought gay was a choice

therefore no longer binding

therefore men can have relationship with men, provided the relationship is MONOGAMOUS

pg5

no difference in nature of sexual relation from husband and wife (except no niddah restrictions)

same kind of Kiddushin (but you also need a Get)

seems to be a difference of opinion in one of the authors

see no reason to treat homosexual as heterosexual

bisexual should not have to choose one of the two BUT must remain monogamous at any given time

Both centrist and rightist authors say that this is out of the framework how halachic system works, and is precisly because it is out of this framework of how the halachic system works that and so as at a minimum must be called a Takkana, not as a Teshuva.

It cannot be simply called a Tshuvah because it breaks such new ground in terms of the way that the halachic system works that it is a precedence setting not simply in the actual decision, but in the Manner of decision making, that as a result of that should require some greater majority

Rightist: Torah itself is infallible. If it is fallible then there is no halachic institution.

“Chachamim have right to uproot except gufei Torah” -B. Yevamot

(ED: if it is ambiguous, then you have freedom, but if it is clear cut, no way around it)

no ambiguity in “Kohen can’t marry a divorcee”

“Mamzer can’t enter Congregation of the Lord”. Ok, what does Congregation of the Lord mean, and define mamzer, BUT is is clear that whatever a mamzer is cannot enter the Congregation of the Lord, whatever that is

No ambiguity in “man shall not lie with a man like one lies with a woman

(ME: whereas something such as Al Tevashel Gdi BChalev Imo “don’t cook a kid in its mother’s milk”could be interpreted differently and is quite ambiguous, to which Rabbi Roth agreed after the talk)

Remember, the right wing authors reject the notion that the law is immoral

(this fact often gets lost in delibration of young people)

Rightists: Law is NOT immoral

Don’t erroneously believe that rightist authors reject the Documentary hypothesis (ED: ie JEPD).

their contention is that in the same way as the great thinkers of every bygone era knew what the "given" was and would never consider their theology was a success if the result of their theologies was to reject the "givens" they knew were to be "givens" so too the function of this generation's theologans is to devise a persuasive theology which allows one both to affirm both Documentary Hypothesis AND infallible

Rightists (just to anger the leftists): “Theology is Aggadah, not Halacha!”

Rambam would have considered himself a failure if confirming Greek and Islamic thought is the result of his confrontation was to undermine the authority of the Torah

The argument of Torah is of Category 3, the argument between Right vs Left: how does halachic system legitimately work

Pg6

Today we learned: thrust of t3 of the 4 left wing authors

Next week: the result of bringing in fourth of the four left wing authors (severed the argument)

something now inconsistent, something pointed out by speaker after speaker after speaker, so he severs the two arguments. They didn't dovetail well so roth presents it seperately

Permissibility of marriage of Cohen to Grusha passed immensely, but Roth didn’t agree.

PS: one of the authors at the right finds it in these that decisions and arguments on morality and immorality are made without any recourse to regnant theories of the etiology (?) of homosexuality, because it seems to that author that is perhaps the only way they can make that judgement. Three Regnant theories on the etiology (NOTE: I could not figure out this word either time it appears. I googled "regnant theories homosexualty" and the first thing that popped up was something by Rabbi Roth that contained the exact word I couldn't decipher.)Genetic theory, moral theory, analytic theory, the question is, when I analyze those theories and explain them, Is it conceivable that a moral God should demand of a person whose attractions are to a member of the same gender and would cause people to not act on their own attractions, which means celebacy? The authors on the right find that quite surprising

To say that God did not verbally dictate the Torah does NOT mean that the Torah is not divine

One of my professors, Rahel: What about Zeicher Amalek?

R’ Roth: If Amalek is gone, the mitzvah has been fulfilled!

Rambam on Korbanot?

R’ Roth: to best of my knowledge, Rambam never says that in third temple there will be no korbanot (RambaN thinks he’s nuts for making that claim)

Curse on Eve and all women that men will rule over them because of sin of Garden of Eden?

If that position is accepted by law committee and people leave because they think it is theologically untenable premise, which will probably happen is the same that happened in Women's Ordination, that

The movement may shift, that which was not authoritative would become authoritative

Law Committee, revisited

As per Elena and Michelle's comments on the article regarding the delay of vote on the topic of homosexuality in Conservative Judaism (thanks for posting by the way, I enjoy comments), Tonight I plan on attending a the beginning of a three part series by none other than Rabbi Joel Roth regarding the recent developments in the Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards to take place at the Conservative Yeshiva, about a 5 minute walk from my house (as opposed to Pardes which takes damn near half an hour. I also plan on asking him, as the mara d'atra (policy-setter) for the Conservative Movement and my Posek (person I go to for Religious legal advice) for when I was in New York, regarding two issues of passover: one, what the policy is on second day of Yom Tov for people who rent in Israel but are not here for at least three festivals (ie: me) and also the law for tourists (ie: my parents), and, two, can I eat Teimani (Yemenite) Matzah (which is like laffa bread and not perforated cardboard like Ashkenazic matzah).

In other news, the bird sh*t has hit the fan. Bird Flu has hit Israel. Uh oh... (though at least it is creating some sort of cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian authorities...

I gave a Dvar Torah on Shabbat comparing the Golden Calf and the Red Heifer, but I don't exactly remember the details. I'll post when I remember it.

Matt

ARTICLE: Conservative Rabbis To Vote On Gay Issues

The Forward http://www.forward.com/articles/7429
Conservative Rabbis To Vote On Gay Issues
By JENNIFER SIEGEL
March 3, 2006

The top lawmaking body of Conservative Judaism is poised to vote next week on whether to overturn the movement's ban on same-sex marriages and the ordination of openly gay clergy.

The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, a 25-member panel of rabbis and lay leaders, will convene next week in Maryland to revisit its 1992 consensus statement on homosexuality. In recent years, pressure to reopen the issue has come from lay people through the movement's congregational arm, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, as well as from rabbinical students and rabbis. Any change approved by the law committee is likely to force the issue of gay ordination onto center stage at the movement's seminaries.

According to one member of the law committee, the group will consider four separate opinions relating to the historical ban on homosexuality stemming from Leviticus 18:22, which states, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: it is an abomination." Two of the decisions uphold prohibitions against homosexual sex, relationships and ordination; one overturns all gay-related prohibitions, and another interprets the biblical verse as a narrow prohibition against homosexual anal sex, while permitting homosexual affection and relationships in general, as well as gay unions and ordination.

Since the law committee last addressed the matter almost 15 years ago, the Conservative movement has been overtaken by Reform Judaism as the most populous synagogal stream. During that time, Conservative leaders have plunged into an existential debate over the degree to which the movement, which has long stood for the balancing of Torah values with modernity, should continue to see itself as bound by rabbinic law. In this context, movement insiders said, the issue is not only what the law committee decides but also how it decides.

Process is "very much in the background of peoples minds," said Rabbi Elliot Dorff, the rector of Los Angeles's University of Judaism. Dorff is a co-author of the decision that maintains the ban on anal sex but permits gay relationships. "I think that everybody, including those who are arguing for basically changing the law altogether on this issue, is very much interested in being within the boundaries of Halacha," Dorff said.

In order to be adopted, a teshuvah, or legal opinion, must receive at least six votes. The committee may adopt conflicting opinions, opening the door to a range of policies.

The committee's current consideration of the homosexual issue began with last spring's submission of nine separate opinions, which over the past year were culled down and combined into four opinions. Ultimately, rabbis Gordon Tucker, Ben Zion Bergman, Robert Fine and Myron Geller collaborated on the decision overturning the ban on gay sex, while Dorff was joined by rabbis Avram Reisner and Daniel Nevins on his decision. Rabbi Joel Roth, who authored the 1992 decision that prohibited gay relations completely, has authored an opinion expanding on that argument. His 1992 opinion passed by a margin of 14 to 7 with three abstentions. Rabbi Leonard Levy has also authored an opinion banning gay relationships.

In an interview with the Forward, Dorff acknowledged that the logic of his opinion might seem strange to average congregants.

But Dorff, whose own daughter came out as a lesbian shortly after the law committee upheld its ban on homosexuality in 1992, said he was compelled to balance his respect and love for gay and lesbian Jews with a devotion to the Jewish legal tradition.

"The thing that still is gnawing at me is the notion of the degree to which you hold the tradition sacred," Dorff said. "I want to find some legal way for them to have sexual expression and sexual love, but try as much as I can to maintain the tradition."

Judith Hauptman, one of the movement's most respected Talmud scholars and a proponent of reversing the policy on gays, criticized Dorff's approach. "It's like saying to a heterosexual married couple, 'No missionary position, only sodomize each other,'" said Hauptman, a professor at the movement's main rabbinical school, the New York-based Jewish Theological Seminary.

Hauptman cautioned that unless the committee issues a morally unambiguous call for change, a golden opportunity for galvanizing the movement would be lost — much as it was, she said, with the movement's conflicted approach to the ordination of women rabbis.

Elizabeth Richman, a co-chair of the JTS student organization Keshet — which is pressing for gay marriage and ordination — said that the group would hail any pro-gay change but ultimately wants the movement to speak with a clear voice.

Dorff, however, said that honest disagreement is an essential component of Conservative Judaism, even if that means multiple opinions being passed. "I prefer that we describe ourselves as we indeed are," he said, "and if that means that we don't agree on something, so we don't agree on something."

Some movement insiders have raised the possibility that in the event the law committee adopts conflicting opinions, its various seminaries could adopt different policies. Under such a scenario, the Rabbinical Seminary of the University of Judaism would immediately admit gay and lesbian students. But an intense debate would ensue at JTS as its chancellor, Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, retires in June and his yet-to-be-named successor takes the helm.