I realize that time constraints limit the depth on which Rabbi Reisner could expound on a sensitive subject such as homosexuality.
The current definition used by Rabbi Reisner a conservative Jew, for Tikkun Olam is amending Jewish law so that it is responsive to the needs of the "real world". Rabbi Reisner pointed out a precedence existing in the time of the mishnah to support this definition. Rabbi Reisner used Hillel's ruling about repayment of debts in order to maintain a constant flow in the economy. The outcome being that all individual debts were canceled by the 50th year .Hillel enacted his version of Tikkun Olam to prevent the economy from coming to a halt.
What I fail to understand in Rabbi Reisner's example is how one can take a precedence based on an economic decision and apply it to homosexuality.The former decision had to do with the financial survival of the Jewish people,while homosexuality has to do with the cessation of producing viable Jewish offspring. Just because a law was changed to encourage economic growth how does one justify changing a law to do with behavior that threatens the survival of the Jewish people? Homosexuality is forbidden by the Torah. The Torah is a divine document that all Jews are bound to. Finding new ways to interpret the verse " thou shall not lie with another man" means 2 things. One, we are allowing American trends and values to infiltrate and dictate our Jewish mores, so that the definition of Tikkun Olam is no longer meeting the needs of all Jews rather it is there to serve the needs of the real "Christan" world. Two, using the definition Tikkun Olam is a way to absolve oneself from the laws of the Torah, in the process, excluding oneself from the Jewish community.
If one believes that G-d's creation has a purpose, that our lives have a specific mission to accomplish in this world, then we need to reexamine how homosexual behavior fits with the Divine plan.This type of behavior does not lead to the furtherance of our Jewish people . Instead , no hope of potential Jewish offspring exists when one engages in homosexual behavior. The first commandment of the Torah is be fruitful and multiply. How then can a homosexual fulfill this obligation?
Finally, placing homosexual rabbis in Jewish leadership roles sends the wrong message!It implies that the laws of the Torah don't apply to everyone;that the Torah laws are not relevant in the "real world". This is not the "real world" we live in--- it is G-d's.
3 comments:
Hi Roni.
I first wanted to say thank you for writing such a passionate post. While I knew that more Orthodox sects were against homosexuality, I have really never heard anyone speak bluntly about all of the reasons, other than that one line in the Torah "thou shalt not lie..." I see all of your points and recognize their validity. Obviously Judaism is more central in your life than it is for many of us, and with issues like this I can only imagine the difficulty of still standing up for your beliefs in this American and collegiate society. While I do hold different beliefs for different reasons, I had a question.
While religion is obviously not based on science, what if it was proved that people are born either homosexual or heterosexual? Proven to the point that say, you could now choose before your child was born whether or not you wanted them to be one way or another; it was a part of ourselves that could be pinpointed down to a gene. Because GOD creates us, could the argument be made that if he is creating people as homosexual, then how can it be wrong? Why would GOD allow for his children to be born with the inherent want/need to sin?
I'm just genuinely curious what your standpoint would be if evidence of this became nearly indisputable, at least from a scientific standpoint. Not really trying to make an argument :) I guess I've just grown up and been surrounded with many homosexual people in my life and heard a lot of different sides of the story, so I was curious to learn more about yours. Thanks! -Heather
Heather, thanks for your comment. I just read it, I will respond shortly.
RS
Hermann Cohen said, that the job of religion is to bring from what is to what ought. Listening to R. Reisner speak I was struck with the idea that the Conservative movement’s law committee is focused on bringing from what is, to what is.
At first, the two cases that R. Reisner brought seemed paradoxical. One seemed to follow the community while the other challenged it. On one hand we had the ruling on Homosexuality. This ruling was clearly the case of the rabbinic board following the desires of communal practice. The question of Homosexuality had been brought up in the 1990’s. The answer that the committee gave then was not popular. They waited for some older Rabbis to retire and then addressed the question again. If it had not been adjucated favorably to the supporters of the liberal opinion, it would have been brought up again in the future.
I did not get the sense that a new interpretation of the text had engendered a change in attitude. If this were the case, then the change should have occurred much earlier and the change should have been universal. Instead, we learn that the question was only judged to a certain conclusion after the secular opinion had shifted. In South America and Israel where the secular culture is not as accepting of Homosexuality the conservative movement did not accept any alteration of tradition. It appears that people decided what they wanted to do and were looking for a round about justification of why this is in accordance with Jewish law. The religion here is not demanding acceptance of diversity rather it is merely covering acceptance which already exists with a patina of rationalization.
The second topic of R. Reisner is the notion of Heksher Tzedek. Here we see what has the potential to be truly progressive. There are mandates in Jewish law about employee relations, pollution, and acceptable profit margins. There is no reason why these laws should be any less important than the laws related to the actual slaughter of animals. Unfortunately, however, we learn that Heksher Tzedek is not envisioned as operating outside of the realm of Kashrut. Why? Jewish law mandates a maximum profit margin of 15%. If there is a company owned by a congregant that has a higher profit margin, perhaps the Rabbi should encourage the owner to pay a higher wage or decrease the cost of the product. Think of the income equity that would be created by following this rule. But, Heksher Tzedek is concerned only with Kosher food, primarily kosher meat. These factories are owned by Orthodox jews, not Conservative Jews. So that, which on the surface appears to be progressive takes on a veiled attack on another movement. It is not pushing anyone from their comfort zone. Heksher Tzedek is merely following the lead of PETA.
I walked out of the lecture questioning the role of religion. Is the role of religion to challenge us? Push us to be better people? Show concern for the weak? Care for the downtrodden? Or is it merely to give a supernatural justification to things we would like to do anyway?
Post a Comment