The Blessings of Freedom: Reflections on a Changing America

by Moshe Hauer

In 1812, as Napoleon and his Grand Arme̒e were approaching Russia, many Jewish leaders were eagerly anticipating their arrival, hoping that it would bring the liberty, equality and fraternity promised by the French Revolution, and with that some measure of relief from the persecution that was the Jews’ usual lot.  Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the Baal HaTanya, felt otherwise, hoping, praying and actively working for the Czar’s army to prevail.  As he wrote to one of his disciples:

If Bonaparte will be victorious, Jewish wealth will increase, and the prestige of the Jewish people will be raised; but their hearts will disintegrate and be distanced from their Father in Heaven. But if Alexander will be victorious, although Israel’s poverty will increase and their prestige will be lowered, their hearts will be joined, bound and unified with their Father in Heaven.                              (Igrot Kodesh Admur HaZaken, letter #64)

In our own time in the United States, a gracious and generous society that grants equal rights to the Jews, Jewish wealth and prestige have grown and religious Jewish communities and institutions have flourished.  At the same time, the fears of the Baal HaTanya have certainly been realized as well, as the openness of our society has led to rampant assimilation.  Anti-Semitism killed us in Europe; in America we have been loved to death.

America’s freedom – and our fear of that freedom – grew recently, when the United States Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage a civil right.  This decision was the final hammer blow in the ongoing effort to mainstream homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle within our society.  As religious Jews working to raise healthy children in an over-sexualized society plagued by crumbling families, this latest development is a source of concern, not only for the challenges it poses to healthy sexuality and families, but to our core values.

Here are five core ideas that we need to reaffirm in light of last month’s ruling:

  1. I believe with a complete belief in the divinity and the immutability of the Torah.

This statement is a classic expression of the fundamental religious assumption of Orthodox Jews.  It is a simple restatement of the eighth and ninth of the Thirteen Principles of Faith articulated by the Rambam.  Belief in the divinity and immutability of the Torah is such that there is no new insight that will ever trump its word.  And while there are behaviors or institutions allowed by the Torah – such as capital punishment, polygamy and slavery – that have been discontinued over time due to a variety of factors, foregoing an allowance or avoiding an obligation is a far cry from reversing a prohibition.  And while we are constantly on the lookout for new insights into G-d’s word, as well as for new worldly insights that can help us better understand and navigate our world, the revealed word of G-d in the Torah is the ultimate last word.

The Court’s opinion is based on the discovery of new insights into the nature of homosexuality, and the implications of those insights on human rights.  As stated in the Court’s Opinion:

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times.  The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.  When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Yet even an uncritical acceptance of those new insights would do nothing to change the Torah’s explicit prohibition of the homosexual act.  While those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not presume omniscience, G-d, the Creator, has nothing to learn from these new insights.  He Who made us all, knows it all, and explicitly prohibited these acts for all time.

The Court’s assertion is quite a shock to the system, as expressed by Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent:

The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice”.  As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs.  Just who do we think we are?

The Talmud (TB Chulin 92a-b) similarly could not contemplate the specific change created by the Court.

The world accepted thirty commandments, but ultimately holds on to three:  They do not write a Kesubah (marriage document) for homosexual relationships, they do not sell human flesh in the marketplace, and they show honor to the Bible.

And then there was one….

  1. A desire is not a mandate.

It is striking that the Midrash (Beresihis Rabbah 26:5) records one previous period where homosexual marriage was accepted:

The generation of the Mabul (Flood) was not erased from the world until they began to write marriage documents for homosexual and bestial relationships.

In a fascinating and prescient note on this Midrash, the nineteenth century commentator R. Zev Wolf Einhorn (known as the Maharzav) writes:

They mistakenly thought that as they were created with these drives and they have the power to satisfy them, they were obligated to follow those drives in whatever direction they propelled them.  Thus they surrendered themselves to their drives, and proceeded to solemnize these homosexual and bestial relationships with the guidance of their judges and clergy.

Please understand: those in the Orthodox community – and there are many – who live with SSA (same sex attraction) and have no sexual interest in members of the opposite sex, face an almost incomparable struggle.  Their life of commitment to Torah law comes with profound sacrifice, as they are forced to face life with their most basic drive unmet.  Their struggle is constant, and can hardly be comprehended by those who do not face that struggle.  Their struggle is lonely, as their nature is something they are not able to easily share.  And their struggle is often misunderstood by those who would easily categorize someone with such a nature as immoral or uncontrolled.  They would do anything not to be in this situation, and to be able to marry someone from the opposite sex and live a fulfilled and satisfying family life.  But as they are they do not have the ability to do so.  This is a huge challenge that must be profoundly appreciated and respected.  And while a proper understanding of the struggle – and new insights into the struggle – are essential, they do not in any way reduce the Torah’s unequivocal prohibition of acting upon the homosexual urge.  A desire – even an unchangeable and unquenchable desire – is not a mandate.  Human beings demonstrate their humanity through the exercise of restraint and self-control.

As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his dissent:

Near the end of its opinion, the majority offers perhaps the clearest insight into its decision. Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples, the majority insists, would “pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties.” This argument again echoes Lochner, which relied on its assessment that “we think that a law like the one before us involves neither the safety, the morals nor the welfare of the public, and that the interest of the public is not in the slightest degree affected by such an act.”

Then and now, this assertion of the “harm principle” sounds more in philosophy than law. The elevation of the fullest individual self-realization over the constraints that society has expressed in law may or may not be attractive moral philosophy. But a Justice’s commission does not confer any special moral, philosophical, or social insight sufficient to justify imposing those perceptions on fellow citizens under the pretense of “due process.”

We must firmly resist the ethos of a society that elevates “the fullest individual self-realization” over the constraints that G-d has placed on mankind, and that transforms desire into mandate.

  1. The Torah is the ultimate champion and arbiter of compassion and human dignity.

It is a painful irony that the non-Orthodox Jewish community encouraged and applauded this decision, rendered by a court that includes three Jewish justices, all of whom sided with the majority.  This is because this decision was made in the name of compassion and human dignity, core Jewish values.  It is in our Talmud (JT Nedarim 9:4) that our Sages debated whether the greatest Torah principle is loving kindness or human dignity.  And the exclusion of same-sex marriage – we are told – “demeans and stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied … and it would disparage their choices and demean their personhood to deny them this right.”

In a further appropriation of our core principles in the name of the cause of same sex marriage, the Court ironically bases its decision on “four principals and traditions”, including the uniqueness of the marital relationship, the safeguarding of children, and the family as the building block of society.

Here again we must stand strong and clear and reinforce for ourselves our confidence in the values taught by the Torah.  Towards this end it is worth citing the Iggeret haKodesh (attributed by some to Ramban), who found himself defending the Torah from others who would claim the mantle of compassion, in this case the champions of vegetarianism.  In response to their claim that a just and kind Torah could not allow for the slaughter of a living thing, the author set the premise for his response as follows:

Know that these are the foundations of our world: G-d is good to every creature, and merciful to all of his creations.  Regarding this it is written, “G-d is good to all and his mercies extend to all of his handiwork.”  This verse informs us that (if G-d sanctioned) the slaughter of living things to be eaten by people (it) is for the benefit of those living things and it is merciful and compassionate towards them. 

This is a fundamental belief of ours:  The Torah begins and ends with kindness; G-d built the world on kindness.  The new insights of society have nothing to teach G-d about goodness and kindness.  If the Torah forbids the homosexual act, it may be extremely difficult and painful for the individual struggling with SSA to fulfill that prohibition, but G-d’s word is undoubtedly the ultimate good.

And, while we are at it, given the state of the contemporary American family, it is unlikely that we would turn to the new insights gleaned from contemporary trends and values to discover what will make this bedrock institution stronger.  Some confidence and pride in the relative strength of the traditional Jewish family is in order.

  1. A new world: Religious people can no longer claim the moral high ground. They may not even be able to claim any ground at all.

Woe unto those who call the bad good and the good bad, who make darkness light and light darkness, make the bitter sweet and the sweet bitter.   (Yeshayahu 5:20)

Since long before the Court’s recent decision, the religious community has found itself on the defensive on matters of tradition, religion and morality.  The new take on rights and liberties is such that our traditional religious values, instead of being seen as the source and basis for charity and goodness, are seen instead as oppressively upholding archaic restrictions limiting the freedom of life and expression of suffering people.

In the words of Justice Alito:

The decision will also have other important consequences.

It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected.  We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

And from Chief Justice Roberts:

Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate. The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same-sex marriage. That disclaimer is hard to square with the very next sentence, in which the majority explains that “the necessary consequence” of laws codifying the traditional definition of marriage is to “demea[n] or stigmatiz[e]” same-sex couples. The majority reiterates such characterizations over and over. By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted.

And of course, now that same-sex marriage has been deemed a civil right, the issue above is not simply a matter of maintaining the good name of religion, but actually the right of its free exercise, as when that free exercise collides with civil rights, the civil rights win.  As such, religious individuals and institutions who will refuse to participate in or otherwise include same-sex marriages and couples will face legal challenges that the LGBT movement is preparing vigorously to mount.  Watch out.

We turn once more to Chief Justice Roberts:

Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

  1. Be super-vigilant to safeguard our moral purity, and to improve the society around us.

When Bilaam’s attacks on the Jewish People were frustrated, he turned to the one method that he knew would be effective: He would compromise the morals of the Jewish people by having the women of Midian and Moav seduce the Jewish men.  He knew this would lead on its own to the weakening and damaging of the Jewish People.

We are blessed to live in a country where we face – bli ayin hara – relatively little anti-Semitism.  The decision of the United States Supreme Court is not part of some elaborate scheme to undo us.  But the effects of a corrosive moral climate do not need to be intended to be effective.  The Torah describes how in the days leading to the Mabul (Flood), even the animals cross-mated with other species, expressing some kind of infidelity that was simply absorbed from the polluted moral environment.

It is this issue that overwhelms, and that takes us back to the beginning of our discussion.  Ultimately many who do not share our opposition to this decision will cite the precious freedoms that our country has granted us, and argue that we must offer those same freedoms to those who do not share our beliefs.  While that presents a fair and serious issue, it cannot produce anything approaching a celebration of this court’s decision.  First, we can hardly celebrate any society’s adoption of a practice that violates the basic code of morality prescribed by the Torah for all mankind.  And second, we cannot be oblivious to the effect that the growing public presence of these practices is contributing to the moral toxicity of our increasingly sexualized society.

Conclusion:

Rebbi uMori, my teacher and mentor Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg z”l, had many issues and differences with Chabad and its Rebbes.  Yet it was he who first shared with me the wisdom of the concerns of the Baal HaTanya regarding the hazards of the freedom that Napoleon would bring to Czarist Russia.  Consistently, he also found himself in agreement with a position articulated beautifully by the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rav Menachem M. Schneerson z”l, when it came to the issue of non-denominational prayer in the public schools.  In response to the 1962 Supreme Court ruling declaring such prayer unconstitutional, the Rebbe wrote a lengthy letter describing the positive value such prayer would have, from a Halachic perspective.  He concludes with the following sentiments:

I venture, however, to address myself also to the sentiments and imagination of everyone whose heart is alert to what is happening around him, and is especially sensitive to the problems of the growing generation, to view the problem as an image projected against the background of our critical time. In our present day and age of rising tension and insecurity under the threat of a nuclear war; of the steadily growing might of communism making ever greater encroachments upon the free world, steadily extending its influence not only over newly captured territories, but also over the minds of people living in the free democracies; of mounting juvenile delinquency — 

America has been blessed with hundreds of thousands of children, boys and girls, Jewish and gentile, throughout the width and breadth of these United States, who daily raise their youthful voices in prayer to G-d, acknowledging that He is the Master of the Universe, invoking His blessings upon their country and all who are dear to them, and expressing their confidence in His benevolence.

With this image in mind, can anyone raise his hand to silence this vast body of American youth, saying: “Stop praising G-d! Stop praying to Him! It is forbidden to do so in the American Public School!” What would be the effect of such an order on all these youths? Can anything explain away to their young minds, far removed from Constitutional Law, the impact of such a prohibition in this country, where the free exercise of religion is one of its most cherished values? 

I sincerely hope that every Jew who is conscious of the great heritage of our people, the people who brought the idea of One G-d to the world, will uphold the only position compatible with this tradition – to disseminate G-dliness and the observance of the Divine commandments everywhere and at all times, especially among the youth of today, the builders of our future. 

Rabbi-Moshe-Hauer-Head-shot-2In further explaining his position to his fellow Jews who argued for the historic benefits Jews have received from the firm separation of church and state, the Rebbe responded:

Suppose a person was ill at one time and doctors prescribed a certain medication and treatment.  Suppose that years later that same person became ill again, but with a quite different, in fact contrary malady.  Would it be reasonable to recommend the same medication and treatment as formerly? … In medieval times, the world suffered from an ‘excess’ of religious zeal and intolerance.  In our day, the world is suffering from an excessive indifference to religion, or even from a growing materialism and atheism.” 

Our country today is suffering from a growing subjectivity and individualism, and an overwhelming emphasis of rights over responsibilities.   As we move forward, we must stand firm in our own beliefs and standards; our faith in the eternal values espoused by the Torah and its ultimate goodness, and our readiness to limit our own desires in deference to G-d’s will.  And we must recognize that we are in an environment that poses increasing challenges to who we are and what we stand for, and that we as a society have much to do to ensure that our freedom continues to be a source of pure blessing.

Rabbi Moshe Hauer is the spiritual leader of Bnai Jacob Shaarei Zion Congregation in Baltimore, Maryland.

 

 

You may also like...

35 Responses

  1. Yehoshua D says:

    While I agree with pretty much everything written here, I don’t think that any of it leads to the conclusion that the Torah-observant community should be against the Supreme Court ruling. At the end of the day, if the United States would base its laws on religious teachings, it would not base its laws on Gemaras in Bava Basra and midrashim on parshas Noach, they would draw inspiration from the body of religious literature of the dominant group in the country. Therefore, as a religious minority, I believe it is preferable that if the advancing of an argument concerning U.S. law cannot be expressed in purely secular terms, it behooves us as a community not to get involved.

  2. Y.Ben-David says:

    Rav Hauer makes many good points, but he doesn’t go far enough. Dennis Prager has said the Supreme Court decision marks the official end of the period in American history where the government was committed to basing its policies on what many people call “Judeo-Christian” ethics, i.e. ethics and values based on the TANACH. The Founding Fathers felt this was an essential base for the new Constitutional system they devised for the Republic and the freedoms which it granted to the citizens. The Supreme Court ruling now bases American values on the current post-Modernist, relativist, secular (or, perhaps better, atheist) values that are now the rage in Europe. Instead of holding up national values based on character, self-reliance, mutual aid and investment in the future through education, Europe today now views its principle aim as to provide the population with maximum leisure time and entertainment. The most important people are no longer thinkers, inventors, scientists, religious and social workers and other people who contribute to society, but rather celebrities. (This is the reason that so much effort is made in having entertainers boycott Israel….the BDS people think that if the population sees movie stars and singers boycott Israel, then everyone will want to emulate them as the most influential people in the country).
    The time has come to admit the truth……the Golden Age of American Jewry which began in the post-World War II and which really reached fruition in the 1960’s when quotas were dropped for Jews entering the universities and the professions has come to an end. It lasted 50 years or so, leading to a flowering of Jewish participation in culture, science, business, including numerous Nobel Prize Winners. This emancipation of the Jews is NOT irreversible. An appropriate precedent was Germany where the Jews received formal Emancipation was achieved in 1869 when the Jews received full rights in a formal way and which lead to a parallel flowering of Jewish life. However, he Golden Age actually ended in 1914, because the stalemate in World War I lead many, if not most Germans to believe that the Jews were shirkers, war profiteers and Marxist Fifth Columnists, even if it wasn’t true, although the formal end did not come until 1933. Actually the creation of the Weimar Republic gave the Jews even a better position in society, but German public opinion had turned decisively against the Jews by this time.
    So what is to be in the US. It is INEVITABLE that those of all religions, not only Jews will be increasingly ostracized and viewed as irredeemable bigots. The prestigious New York Times has already run a feature article saying how religion is used as an excuse for bigotry. Thus, there is no long-term future for observant Jews in the US. We have already seen attempts to ban kosher shechitah and brit milah. Certainly there is no chance of those things being banned tomrroow, but those who have been pushing for 50 years for the legitimization of homosexuality will not stop with this but they want to see a real revolution in which ALL “primitive bigoted values” like those advocated by the Torah will be eradicated. It is only a matter of time.
    Rav Hauer is missing the point when he says “we must stand firm in our beliefs”. That won’t work. The writing is on the wall. Time to draw appropriate conclusions.

  3. Bob Miller says:

    If we Jews get our act together, civilization in general can be elevated.

  4. Rafael Araujo says:

    Wow! What a wonderful summary of the right perspective on this issue. Contrast this with R’ Ari Hart’s “interpretation” (YCT grad) in favour of the SCOTUS decision: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/can-orthodox-jews-support-the-legalization-of-same-sex-marriage-in-america/.

  5. Charlie Hall says:

    “when it came to the issue of non-denominational prayer in the public schools”

    Nondenominational prayer is by definition Protestant Christian prayer. I am old enough to have been forced to participate in such when I was in elementary school.

  6. Steve Brizel says:

    Charlie Hall-I remember RC classmates being excused for what was called “catechism”, and I think that the SCOTUS’s permissive ruling re groups like NCSY’s JSUs provides an excellent portal for many American Jewish teens to explore Judaism.

    Rafael Araujo-I agree wholeheartedly with your comments as well as your contrast of an article from a YCT graduate, who offers at best a very forced , and at worst a misreading of Chulin 92b, especially when the Torah warns us explicitly against following the mores of Canaan, Egypt ( and any similarly morally decedent society).

  7. Steve Brizel says:

    I recall reading a series of articles about Irving Kristol at Mosaic. Kristol, who was one of the founding neoconservatives, pointed out that the worst episodes of anti Semitic persecution were promulgated by decidedly secular political regimes-Rome, Nazi Germany and the USSR ( I would have raised the issue of the RCC’s role during the Inquisition and other times pre the rise of the Enlightenment), but, Kristol’s observation is rooted in anti Semitism as a political phenomenon that was used by secular rooted ideologies after the French Revolution. We have been blessed that the Founding Fathers and the Constitution veered away from establishing a state religion, while preserving free exercise of religion-which was not the result in those countries in Europe which basically consigned religious views to the museum. We now face the importation of the European view of religious freedom to the US, which can pose great threats to free exercise of religion in the US. I think that the recent SCOTUS decision can and will pose a threat to any religious institution or practice R”L that is viewed as not consistent with the current Zeitgeist and that we are in for a long period of test cases in court and denigration in the liberal media and academia that are designed to push the outer limits of a newly discovered constitutional right of “dignity”. I suspect that we may see attempts to censor the reading of Parshas HaArayos or worse, attempts to rationalize their significance and importance to us. We must be prepared to respond to such threats proactively and to stand up for our beliefs without sounding preachy, but without sounding apologetic or PC in our statements.

  8. SA says:

    Poor Y. Ben-David, who in the comments to all these related pieces is doing his best to say “Can’t you see it’s time to make aliya, you jerks?” without actually saying it.

    As a 27-year resident of Jerusalem, I of course share those sentiments. However I have a hard time dealing with certain facts, like the fact that here in Israel the Tel Aviv gay pride parade has become one of the year’s cultural highlights, with politicians, diplomats and celebrities falling all over each other to prove their support and participation. Or that the most poignant focus of Israel’s recent Nepal earthquake rescue was on the many same-sex couples brought out of there with their new babies or surrogate mothers. That makes it more difficult to explain why living in Eretz Yisrael is much better from this particular perspective.

    Please, Y. Ben-David, how would you respond?

  9. David Ohsie says:

    The Talmud (TB Chulin 92a-b) similarly could not contemplate the specific change created by the Court.

    The world accepted thirty commandments, but ultimately holds on to three: They do not write a Kesubah (marriage document) for homosexual relationships, they do not sell human flesh in the marketplace, and they show honor to the Bible.

    And then there was one….

    With due respect to Rabbi Hauer, this appears to be an example of using the words of Chazal as a spade to dig with. I think that Rabbi Hauer will be forced to agree that in the United States today, there are many Noachide commandments and that are upheld to the highest degree. To wit, the commandment to establish courts and enforce justice is fulfilled at an all time high, and obviously to a much greater degree than Chazal were accustomed to. Similarly the prohibitions against murder and theft are in a much better state than when Tefilat Haderech was composed and it was dangerous to travel between cities.

    Even in the sphere of sexual morality, the protections against forcible sexual assault are again much greater than they have been throughout history. I don’t know if it is typically prohibited in US law to eat the flesh of a living animal, but certainly animal cruelty laws are also prevalent and enforced in the US.

    It is true that anti-blasphemy laws were struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1952, but is this really something that we, as Jews, think was a bad idea? I wonder if that was considered a final hammer blow against religion at that time.

    Please understand: those in the Orthodox community – and there are many – who live with SSA (same sex attraction) and have no sexual interest in members of the opposite sex, face an almost incomparable struggle. […] This is a huge challenge that must be profoundly appreciated and respected.

    In my humble opinion, this statement is quite ironic. This is the kind of statement that is only made in modern times and is a direct consequence of our changing view of moral views on homosexuality. In the past, homosexuality (or SSA as Rabbi Hauer terms it) was treated as an obvious deviancy indicating low moral character on the order of pederasty and was shamed. Or else as a rebellion against God. Rabbi Hauer’s position appears influenced by the very same changes in attitude and understanding, which he otherwise decries, that led to this Supreme Court decision.

    To bring the political into sharper focus, I’m going to suppose that Rabbi Hauer opposes adoption by same-sex couples. But should American policy makers deal with this issue?

    1) Base their policy on research about the outcomes of such adoptions.
    2) Base their policy on their interpretation of the Bible.

    I submit that the classical Jewish response to this question would be #1. It is only because our individual rights are so well protected in America that we can imagine thinking that #2 is a remotely good idea.

  10. Raymond says:

    The recent Supreme Court decision making gay marriage the law of the land everywhere, is a direct assault on our religious liberties. No longer do Christian bakeries have the right to follow their religious conscience when it comes to baking cakes for gay weddings. No longer do Christian photographers have the right to not photograph events such as gay weddings that violate their religious principles. It will not be long before Leftists with their anti-Bible agenda go after our fellow Jews as well, not only Rabbis who correctly refuse to conduct gay weddings, but even things like Jewish bookstores who refuse to carry anti-Torah books, kosher food stores that refuse to serve pork, and Orthodox Jewish schools who refuse to teach Darwinism or the legitimacy of abortion and gay marriage. Our various traditional Jewish institutions will be compelled to choose between celebrating male homosexual behavior, or being forced to close down by the government. This country no longer has to wait to be destroyed by the islamoNazi terrorists, as it is destroying itself from within, by abandoning the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which it was founded. Plus, I am not even sure that things are much better in Israel, as I have heard that their Supreme Court is even more radical than ours is. We live in morally bankrupt and very frightening times.

  11. Toby Bulman Katz says:

    Charlie Hall wrote:
    “when it came to the issue of non-denominational prayer in the public schools”

    Nondenominational prayer is by definition Protestant Christian prayer. I am old enough to have been forced to participate in such when I was in elementary school.

    >>>

    I am also old enough to have gone to public school before G-d was banished. It was the Jeb Magruder school in Newport News, Va and I was in the first grade. Tonight, 26 Tammuz, is the 13th yahrzeit of my father, R’ Nachman Bulman zt’l. My father was the rabbi of the Orthodox shul in NN when I was a little girl. There was no Jewish school, which is why my parents enrolled me in public school. The following year my father started a day school there. I was not happy in public school; I was much happier in the Jewish day school. I remember that in public school they started every day with a prayer that began, “Our Father who art in Heaven….” (“Avinu shebashayim….”) JC was not mentioned, just the L-rd. When the other children said their prayer, I said the Shma quietly at my desk. My teacher was very nice about it, no one ever “forced me to participate.”

    Now I will tell you just a few reasons why it was much better when they did pray in public school. One reason is that Jewish children, including me, felt a little out of place and were very much aware that they were different. That was very much to the good! The great liberal project of erasing all differences ultimately led to the churban we see all around us today, of Jews voluntarily committing suicide by the millions, rushing to marry non-Jews. The liberal Jews HATE Christianity — that’s the main reason they have worked so assiduously all these years to push it underground — but the irony is, the liberal Jews’ grandchildren go to church on Xmas, with their non-Jewish grandparents.

    Another reason it was much better when G-d, the Bible and the Ten Commandments had not yet been banished from the public square is that without religion and without fear of G-d, people have no moral moorings. Everything is then permitted, from every kind of deviant sexual behavior to every kind of theft and financial corruption, to violent assault. The ghetto underclass most especially suffers from the lack of any kind of moral foundation that they would once have learned in school as well as in the public square.

    A third reason it was so terribly wrong to stamp out public expressions of religion is that it turns out “Esav sonei leYakov” — Esav hates Yakov — EVEN when Esav is not Christian! Ha, those stupid liberal Jews, they thought that if they squashed and suppressed Christianity, they would thereby squash and suppress anti-Semitism — but instead anti-Semitism is making a roaring comeback everywhere, especially on the secular left, in the media, in the halls of academe, in Hollywood, in political and diplomatic circles, in the salons of the intellectuals. And look who all these leftist intellectuals are making common cause with! Our bitterest, most violent, most extreme enemies — the Muslims!! You stupid Jews.

  12. Tal Benschar says:

    Another reason it was much better when G-d, the Bible and the Ten Commandments had not yet been banished from the public square is that without religion and without fear of G-d, people have no moral moorings. Everything is then permitted, from every kind of deviant sexual behavior to every kind of theft and financial corruption, to violent assault.

    Or, to put it as Avraham Avinu put it:

    וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם כִּי אָמַרְתִּי רַק אֵין יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה וַהֲרָגוּנִי עַל דְּבַר אִשְׁתִּי

    I am always astounded when Orthodox Jews think that it is better to live in a society that lacks yiras shomayim.

  13. Y. Ben-David says:

    SA-
    I am glad you caught my meaning. You and I are of the same generation of olim, we are here 29 years this week. My response is as follows

    (1) Eretz Israel is our HOME. We Jews are arguing out the direction of OUR country among ourselves here. In the US Jews are less than 2% and that number is falling. On the one hand, the Jews are almost a negligible electoral force, yet the Jews have outsized political power. ONE-THIRD of the Supreme Court is made up of Jews. The recent vote for homosexual rights in the SCOTUS was 5-2 AGAINST by the non-Jewish justices. It was the 3 Jews who pushed it over to a majority. Scalia pointed out, either conciously or sub-conciously that the Supreme Court majority was “not representative” of the American population and he was right! This is the elephant in the room no one brings up…but more and more people are going to bring it up…just recall the boos and cat-calls at the last Democratic convention when a pro-Israel plank in the platform was proposed on the floor of the convention. Next time it will be even louder.

    (2) Whereas the US is in terminal economic, social and SPIRITUAL decline, Israel is going in the opposite direction. The PEW polls shows religious belief is in sharp decline in the US, even among the “fundamentalist” Christians (although less sharply than the mainline liberal Christian churches) who were growing some decades ago. There are also fundamentalist groups that are also
    accepting the new “progressive” values and which includes hostility to Israel.
    Religious life in Israel is strengthening. You are correct that the secular, “progressive” elements in Israel are going in the same direction as their American counterparts, which is why they want parades to ram their values down everyone else’s throats, but they immersed in a crisis of values themselves and their political power is declining, as recent elections show.
    (3) Even though the Orthodox community in the US is outwardly strong and even growing, it is negatively influenced by the surrounding secular, post-Modernist, relativist philosophy. I have seen yeshiva-educated young religious Jews denounce as “fascist” anyone who points out the Torah opposes homosexuality, even for non-Jews and they spout all the rest of the “progressive” agenda as well. This surrounding culture and values penetrates even the most insular Haredi groups.
    An article by Rav Dovid Cohen illustrates how the American culture and value system negatively impacts the American Orthodox community, as compared to their Israeli counterparts.

    (4) Many times in history and non-Jewish country would invite Jews in, give them the ability to flourish and this helped the non-Jewish rulers and societies, YET, without exception, the local non-Jewish population ends up resenting this, and they take action to remove the Jews from power and influence and even to remove them entirely from their society. Look at the rapid rise and then fall of the Jews in Germany. Why do you think it will be any different in the US? The traditional pro-Zionist, philosemitic groups in the US are in demographic decline. The future lies with new immigrant groups that do not share the so-called Judeo-Christian ethic that the Founding Fathers thought was so important. The trends are clear.

  14. yonah ben shlomo says:

    Let them marry! Thank Gd we have our own marriage contracts and laws and don’t rely on them. The so-called morality of the (non Jewish) nation has not exactly been ideal at any point in history and it has “deviated” in far worse ways than a surfeit of chesed. Of course a surfeit of chesed is a fascinating indicator, and not at all a good one, but it requires a totally different tack to analyze than this quasi-evangelical huff-puff politicization of our moral code. As Justice Kagan said clearly from the bench, have not orthodox Jews been allowed to “discriminate” against nonJews in their marriage ceremonies, and will not they be able to continue in this manner, also with regard to homosexual marriage? There is no chance we will be forced. Our nisyonot with this government come from a different place. I wish Cross Currents would give air time to a kind of religious perspective that reads deeply rather than reacts sharply. No one is under siege, and we are in control it ourselves, thank Gd.

  15. shaya says:

    The de-facto philosophy of present America is utilitarianism — the desire to make everyone happy. I’ve seen some rabbis challenge this, saying we should worry about following the Torah, not about being happy, including when it comes to same-sex desires.

    But I think we should be willing to publicly argue that if everyone follows the Torah (including the ban on same-sex intimacy), everyone (including those with these desires) will be better off. Secular society says the opposite — one cannot be happy and fulfilled without following one’s same-sex desires. (This is absurd, because there have doubtless been many people since the beginning of time, who never married and were celibate and yet were happy and fulfilled.)

    We should confidently argue that not only can one with such desires be happy and fulfilled while not acting on them, they will ultimately be more happy and fulfilled than if they did act on them. We need to search for examples and evidence of this, and publicize it.

  16. Phil says:

    David Ohsie wrote:

    “I submit that the classical Jewish response to this question would be #1. It is only because our individual rights are so well protected in America that we can imagine thinking that #2 is a remotely good idea.”

    Actually, the “classical Jewish response” is exactly as Rabbi Hauer quoted, that what sealed the fate of the world in the time of Noach was their formalizing of these forbidden, unnatural relationships.

    Or perhaps by “classical Jewish response” you mean the pap we’ve heard from the rapidly disappearing Conservative and Reform Jewish movements for the past fifty years. That we should celebrate every permissive, vile behavior and attitude that leads to societal breakdown because it somehow results in a world that is more tolerant of Judaism. Individual rights above all!

    Such “wisdom” has contributed mightily to the demise of those movements and you will not find a mainstream Orthodox leader who agrees with it. It’s rather odd that you would counter Rabbi Hauer’s reasoned and learned points with an outdated and bankrupt political argument.

  17. Yisrael Asper says:

    Moshe Hauer:”Please understand: those in the Orthodox community – and there are many – who live with SSA (same sex attraction) and have no sexual interest in members of the opposite sex, face an almost incomparable struggle. […] This is a huge challenge that must be profoundly appreciated and respected.”

    David Ohsie:”In my humble opinion, this statement is quite ironic. This is the kind of statement that is only made in modern times and is a direct consequence of our changing view of moral views on homosexuality. In the past, homosexuality (or SSA as Rabbi Hauer terms it) was treated as an obvious deviancy indicating low moral character on the order of pederasty and was shamed. Or else as a rebellion against God. Rabbi Hauer’s position appears influenced by the very same changes in attitude and understanding, which he otherwise decries, that led to this Supreme Court decision.

    To bring the political into sharper focus, I’m going to suppose that Rabbi Hauer opposes adoption by same-sex couples. But should American policy makers deal with this issue?

    1) Base their policy on research about the outcomes of such adoptions.
    2) Base their policy on their interpretation of the Bible.

    I submit that the classical Jewish response to this question would be #1. It is only because our individual rights are so well protected in America that we can imagine thinking that #2 is a remotely good idea.”

    If I am understanding Rabbi Ohsie correctly he seems to be positing that Rabbi Hauer is going against Jewish tradition and then instead of using that to say he disagrees with him, instead says Judaism classically says one thing but because we too are influenced by our environment we are changing Judaism. Say what you want about Constitutional law but if my understanding of Rabbi Ohsie is correct Judaism to him is something that can be changed. It may seem primitive to such a viewpoint to actually believe that rabbis interpreting Jewish law and ideas in novel situations are explaining Jewish law and ideas with some disagreement and laying out by their disagreements the parameters that the Torah itself is laying out rather than just making stuff up along the way and then providing us with the right to do the same.

  18. DF says:

    “There is no chance we will be forced.”

    The above statement is breathtakingly naïve. The history of this country and other country is filled with laws that had “no chance” to be passed. It amazes me that a reader of this site can think such a thing.

  19. Bob Miller says:

    Yisrael Asper’s first option above is “Base their policy on research about the outcomes of such adoptions.”

    The data will be cooked to suit this government’s desired result, more power for itself and for its base of popular support.

  20. Rafael Araujo says:

    DF – any lawyer (which both of us are) can show how a claim that we will not be forced is absolutely ludicrous. Here is what the Mayor of Houston, Texas tried to do pre-SCOTUS decision. Don’t think she or other activists won’t try again:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/october/houston-feels-pressure-after-subpoena-response-sermons.html

  21. A yid says:

    I would add that given today’s revelations about the sale of body parts from aborted babies and this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU&app=desktop)…and than there were none.

  22. David Z says:

    @Yehoshua

    Apparently you agree with nothing in this article, or, more importantly in the Roberts dissent. Don’t start with a lie. Either that or you can’t read worth a dang.

    You should disagree with the SCOTUS ruling because it is terrible law and violates the oaths of the justices to uphold the Constitution. Justice Roberts did not once claim anything about Christianity and if the only reason you are against government-supported SSM is for religious reasons, you obviously do not understand society or the role of marriage. You are exactly the kind of person who has brought us to this sad state–“Oh, it’s a religious issue, better just let them rewrite the laws.” Or do you think the Kalahari Bushmen, Aztecs, and Han Chinese all shared a religion? Similarly, if the only reason not eat human flesh is religious, then who are we to legislate against it.

    And finally, you don’t seem to understand how truly bad this ruling is because of the impact it will have trampling the religious liberties of citizens nationwide. Instead of letting us grapple with the issues legislatively, the Court once again yanked it from the democratic process as with Roe v. Wade which has settled down so amicably.

    I actually have one more thing to say. You know, your grandfather or whoever came to this country because he supported its ideals and the society those ideals built. If you don’t like it, leave. Don’t destroy it from within and give the rest of us Jews a bad name.

  23. Yisrael Asper says:

    Rabbi Ohsie if I was wrong and you are really not an Open Orthodox range type of rabbi, like Open Orthodox minus all or some of the American social agendas, wouldn’t it be expected that you would give a rejoinder to defend your Frumkeit? The absence of a reply is not proof. You can take the Fifth.

  24. David Ohsie says:

    Rabbi Ohsie if I was wrong and you are really not an Open Orthodox range type of rabbi, like Open Orthodox minus all or some of the American social agendas, wouldn’t it be expected that you would give a rejoinder to defend your Frumkeit? The absence of a reply is not proof. You can take the Fifth.

    Dear Yisrael, I’m not a Rabbi, I’m not OO, and I did respond (but not to defend my “frumkeit” :). But this forum is moderated. I’m going to repost my response on the assumption that it got hung up on a technical problem.

  25. David Ohsie says:

    @Phil “I submit that the classical Jewish response to this question would be #1. It is only because our individual rights are so well protected in America that we can imagine thinking that #2 is a remotely good idea.”

    Actually, the “classical Jewish response” is exactly as Rabbi Hauer quoted, that what sealed the fate of the world in the time of Noach was their formalizing of these forbidden, unnatural relationships.

    Since there were no Jews at the time, it is hard to tell. But I think that actual Jews facing actual persecution over the years were happy when the Gentile authorities attended less to their own religious views and became more pluralistic regardless of the Bible (of course some, like the abolitionists did act this way as a result of their religious convictions, but in a way that deviates from the Bible’s plain meaning). Perhaps a historian can correct me.

    But we don’t have to go back to the past. Would Jews really rather live in the US and Israel which (now) guarantee rights to homosexuals or in places like Russia or Iran which are more closely aligned to your views?

    Also, you ignore my main argument: the Torah tells us that the world was destroyed because it was filled with violence. Our world is not filled with violence, so this change cannot “seal” our fate, even if you believe it is a bad decision.

    @Yisrael Asper If I am understanding Rabbi Ohsie correctly he seems to be positing that Rabbi Hauer is going against Jewish tradition and then instead of using that to say he disagrees with him, instead says Judaism classically says one thing but because we too are influenced by our environment we are changing Judaism.

    (I’m not a Rabbi; just call me David).

    I would never, God forbid, assert that Rabbi Hauer is going against Jewish tradition even though I disagree with some of what he says. What I was pointing out is that Rabbi Hauer seems to have accepted the modern view that homosexuals are not evil or morally degenerate and are not to be shamed or shunned, just as we’ve accepted that slavery should be abolished and that polygamy is to be discouraged. But the USSC decision flows directly from that understanding. What you are left with is objecting to fact that the US law not enacting the Bible. This is what I said is something that we classically, for practical reasons relating to our own safety, have not wanted.

    @Shaya: We should confidently argue that not only can one with such desires be happy and fulfilled while not acting on them, they will ultimately be more happy and fulfilled than if they did act on them. We need to search for examples and evidence of this, and publicize it.

    I believe that you are correct that this is the only kind of argument that should be used in a civil context. It is also describes precisely why the USSC went the way that it did: No one believes your argument. Once you recognize that there exists a small class of people who are similar in every way to heterosexuals except that they seek from the same sex what heterosexuals do from the opposite sex, it appears very unlikely that such people, as a rule, would be happier celibate or unmarried.

    My question to you and Rabbi Adlerstein, who makes a similar argument: What if the evidence runs the other way? Do you change your mind?

    FTR, I’m not endorsing the majority decision that this change should be made through the courts rather than through the legislature. Although, I lean with the conservatives on this one, I can see both sides of that issue. In any case, it is not relevant to the discussion of whether this represents the final step towards the evils of the Dor Hamabul.

  26. Phil says:

    David Ohsie wrote:

    “Since there were no Jews at the time it is hard to tell”
    The classic Jewish response is to understand what the Torah tells us. The world was destroyed because it was filled robbery and perverse sexual practices. Not as you claim, “because it was filled with violence”. I suggest you carefully study Genesis 6:11-13 and see Rashi’s commentary there.

    “But I think that actual Jews facing actual persecution over the years were happy when the Gentile authorities attended less to their own religious views and became more pluralistic regardless of the Bible”
    I suggest you carefully study Jewish history and consider the in-a-nutshell quote from Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin: “If the Jew doesn’t make kiddush, the goy will make havdalah”. The Elena Kagans of the world do not make the world a safer place for Jews but a much more dangerous one. For our own security, especially in exile, we must encourage holiness and sanctity, not immorality and licentiousness.

    “Would Jews really rather live in the US and Israel which (now) guarantee rights to homosexuals”
    Again, the classic Jewish response, the Torah response, is that legal recognition of perverse sexual practices puts the entire world in danger. This is especially true in Israel, where we are warned that the land will spit us out, G-d forbid, for such behavior.

    “(I’m not a Rabbi; just call me David). I would never, God forbid, assert that Rabbi Hauer is going against Jewish tradition even though I disagree with some of what he says”
    Again, Rabbi Hauer presented a cogent Torah response to the decision; you presented a highly questionable political view. The Jewish experience over the past fifty years has proven its fallacy, as do Toby Bulman Katz’s comments above.

  27. Y.Ben-David says:

    David Ohsie-
    You are a learned fellow, but I am afraid that you have lost me. You posit American Jews’ choice as being between an autocratic Russian or Iranian-style regime or an “open, tolerant, pluralistic” American or European Union society where anything goes and the “freedom” defined in the Declaration of Indpeendence and Constitution of the US being primarily directed today towards “giluy arayot” (sexual permissiveness). Not so long ago, within living memory, Americans opposes sexual license and yet still had a free society. Rabbi Broyde, on a thread here at CC some time ago said sexually permissive societies happen to be (at least as he sees at) as more tolerant to Orthodox Jewry so we should go with the flow in those societies.
    However, I was always under the impression that Torah and Judaism were not merely “kosher lifestyle” choices but the blueprint for mankind and his society. Thus, when a society openly and “democratically” decides it wants to overturn the values of the Torah that apply to Benei Noach, there are consequences. Such a society will INEVITABLY eventually turn against those religious people who don’t accept their new found values. The influential New York Times already ran an article whose headline was something to the effect of “How the claim for ‘religious freedom’ is really a mask for bigotry”. There have already been attempts to ban brit milah and kosher shechitah by the same elements that have been pushing for homosexual “marriage” for years. The writing is on the wall. It is not enough to say “well, we have our nice community, our synagogue, our mikvah and our beit midrash….what goes on outside of there is of no concern to us”. We saw attitudes like this not so long ago in Europe and the Muslim countries of the Middle East and that lead to tragedy for the Jews living there. Time to learn some lessons.

  28. David Ohsie says:

    “Since there were no Jews at the time it is hard to tell”
    The classic Jewish response is to understand what the Torah tells us. The world was destroyed because it was filled robbery and perverse sexual practices. Not as you claim, “because it was filled with violence”. I suggest you carefully study Genesis 6:11-13 and see Rashi’s commentary there.

    I believe that the plain meaning of Chamas is violence. Robbery is also violence. Our world is filled with neither (other parts of the world may be, unfortunately). Rashi in Breishis also mentions rape and bestiality, neither of which apply. So you still haven’t really addressed the argument at all. Overall, compliance with the 7 or 30 mitzvos of the Gentiles is probably at or near an all time high in the US.

    But getting back to the point at hand, I don’t believe that it has ever been the Jewish approach to figure out what the Torah requires and then protest the Gentile government when they don’t follow its requirements. This is something new because we’re so well protected in this society compared what we’ve historically endured.

    @ Y.Ben-David You posit American Jews’ choice as being between an autocratic Russian or Iranian-style regime or an “open, tolerant, pluralistic” American or European Union society where anything goes and the “freedom” defined in the Declaration of Indpeendence and Constitution of the US being primarily directed today towards “giluy arayot” (sexual permissiveness).

    No, I just posit that the US has not reached some low point in morality and that those countries that don’t recognize gay rights are at a much lower level of morality than the US, when judged against the 7/30 Gentile commandments. A more rational response from Rabbi Hauer would be, IMHO: I don’t agree with the Supreme Court decision, but we should understand that this is a fundamentally just country that has and continues to treat Jews well, and continues in its efforts to promote justice for all of its citizens. This is part of the small portion of US policy that I protest.

    This can’t be the last nail in the coffin because there is no coffin to begin with.

    Not so long ago, within living memory, Americans opposes sexual license and yet still had a free society.

    Within living memory, America opposed civil rights for black American citizens and yet still had a free society for everyone else. This decision, while you don’t like it, flows from the same impulse to extend civil rights to the entire population, which is why it is endorsed a majority of American citizens and a much greater majority of the young. See Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. I also find the characterization of this decision as promotion of sexual license to be humorous. The laws against sodomy were struck down 12 years ago in Lawrence vs. Texas. Promotion of marriage is hardly a promotion of sexual license. Marriage involves accepting harsh financial penalties for many kinds of licentiousness.

    Thus, when a society openly and “democratically” decides it wants to overturn the values of the Torah that apply to Benei Noach, there are consequences. Such a society will INEVITABLY eventually turn against those religious people who don’t accept their new found values. The influential New York Times already ran an article whose headline was something to the effect of “How the claim for ‘religious freedom’ is really a mask for bigotry”. There have already been attempts to ban brit milah and kosher shechitah by the same elements that have been pushing for homosexual “marriage” for years.

    This argument, besides being ad hominem, is simply false. A majority of American’s support gay marriage. A majority do not support the ban on Brit Milah or Shechitah. I also assume that you understand that such bans have been promoted for a long time before gay rights, and in fact Nazi Germany enacted a ban on Shechitah. I don’t think that this is coming to the US any time soon, but if I’m wrong, it has little to do with gay marriage.

    We saw attitudes like this not so long ago in Europe and the Muslim countries of the Middle East and that lead to tragedy for the Jews living there. Time to learn some lessons.

    I am not naive enough to think that US will remain permanently philosemitic. But what does that have to do with this decision? The tragedies of our persecution through time have not been preceded or caused by an increased tolerance of gays or any other minority group for that matter.

    The sky is still firmly affixed.

  29. Yisrael Asper says:

    Y.Ben-David:
    “…Rabbi Broyde, on a thread here at CC some time ago said sexually permissive societies happen to be (at least as he sees at) as more tolerant to Orthodox Jewry so we should go with the flow in those societies.
    However, I was always under the impression that Torah and Judaism were not merely “kosher lifestyle” choices but the blueprint for mankind and his society. Thus, when a society openly and “democratically” decides it wants to overturn the values of the Torah that apply to Benei Noach, there are consequences. Such a society will INEVITABLY eventually turn against those religious people who don’t accept their new found values…”

    You’re right. Who are the ones who support the Jewish community and Israel more Leftists and their Churches or the ones on the Right? For all those applauding the old Leftist ideas being foisted on us I would say slippery slopes will be coming and be careful what you wish for because they may come true. I would expect eventually a push for infanticide for instance to be in the horizon if we don’t reverse course.

    David Ohsie:”(I’m not a Rabbi; just call me David).”

    Dear David very well. Granted you have a right to not defend your Frumkeit :). Well there’s always the Rabbi who’s a plumber because he never used his semicha :). I was assuming you are an official rabbi because Rabbi Natan Slifkin called you Rabbi Ohsie. As for Rabbi Hauer I do believe he is just feeling that Homosexuality can be a struggle, rather than saying that all should be exonerated regardless of what of their reaction to their Homosexuality.

  30. Phil says:

    David Ohsie wrote:

    “I believe that the plain meaning of Chamas is violence. Robbery is also violence. Our world is filled with neither (other parts of the world may be, unfortunately). Rashi in Breishis also mentions rape and bestiality, neither of which apply.”

    The plain meaning of Chamas is robbery, not violence. Rashi does not mention rape and bestiality. You’re also ignoring the Midrash quoted above:

    “The generation of the Mabul (Flood) was not erased from the world until they began to write marriage documents for homosexual and bestial relationships”

    I suggest you refer to the Artscroll Chumash, or better yet, why not ask Rabbi Hauer to learn it with you?

    If you want to present hackneyed political arguments that’s fine, but please don’t misquote the Torah in an attempt to bolster them.

  31. David Ohsie says:

    @Phil The plain meaning of Chamas is robbery, not violence.

    It makes no difference to my argument, but Chamas means violence or more generally injustice. Rashi’s purpose is not to give the literal meaning.

    For example, Bereishis 49:5 (JPS translation):

    ה שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי, אַחִים–כְּלֵי חָמָס, מְכֵרֹתֵיהֶם. 5 Simeon and Levi are brethren; weapons of violence their kinship.

    Shimon and Levi did not rob from the city of Shchem. They killed. (Rashi there also gives a non-literal interpretation that the idea was “stolen” from the Beracha of Eisav.)

    Here it means unjust more generally:

    א לֹא תִשָּׂא, שֵׁמַע שָׁוְא; אַל-תָּשֶׁת יָדְךָ עִם-רָשָׁע, לִהְיֹת עֵד חָמָס Thou shalt not utter a false report; put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

    If you look at Ibn Ezra on 6:11, you will see that he includes rape (taking women by force).

    Rashi does not mention rape and bestiality.

    See 6:2. I’m surprised that you missed it because that is where he mentions Mishkav Zachar.

    You’re also ignoring the Midrash quoted above:

    “The generation of the Mabul (Flood) was not erased from the world until they began to write marriage documents for homosexual and bestial relationships”

    1) See 6:13 and Rashi there were he quotes the Gemara which says that their fate was sealed by their robbery:

    And God said unto Noah, the end of all flesh is come before me. R. Johanan said: Come and see how great is the power of robbery, for lo, though the generation of the flood transgressed all laws, their decree of punishment was sealed only because they stretched out their hands to rob, as it is written, for the earth is filled with violence through them, and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

    2) You again miss the main point. Even according the Midrash that you quote, this is something that was the “final straw” on top of all the other violations of the Noachide code including violence/theft/rape most prominently. But none of those apply today; on the contrary, we are at a high point in many of these areas.

    Rabbi Hauer wrote:

    The world accepted thirty commandments, but ultimately holds on to three: They do not write a Kesubah (marriage document) for homosexual relationships, they do not sell human flesh in the marketplace, and they show honor to the Bible.

    And then there was one….

    As I pointed out in some detail above, Gentile society in the US holds on to a lot more than one. I understand why Rabbi Hauer disagrees with the decision, but it just doesn’t represent what he claims it does and he really brings no evidence for his thesis, IMHO.

    @Yisrael Asper: As for Rabbi Hauer I do believe he is just feeling that Homosexuality can be a struggle, rather than saying that all should be exonerated regardless of what of their reaction to their Homosexuality.

    I won’t argue otherwise. What I said was that

    1) His attitude reflects a modern impulse that would not have been the attitude even 50 years ago. And it’s probably not the attitude that many/most Orthodox have, which are simple feelings of revulsion.

    2) Once you take this tack, then I think that it is easy to understand how it is that a majority of US citizens support this, not as an act of rebellion against God or an endorsement of licentiousness, but as a simple application of the standards of fairness in their eyes. That is supported by the fact that the other commandments to establish justice and prevent violence (e.g. murder/theft/sexual assault) are not being ignored.

  32. Yisrael Asper says:

    David Ohsie: 2) Once you take this tack, then I think that it is easy to understand how it is that a majority of US citizens support this, not as an act of rebellion against God or an endorsement of licentiousness, but as a simple application of the standards of fairness in their eyes. That is supported by the fact that the other commandments to establish justice and prevent violence (e.g. murder/theft/sexual assault) are not being ignored.

    To whatever extent the other commandments are not being ignored is not related to the view on gay marriage but to a prior ethical and moral impulse. The push for Gay marriage is a part of a concerted effort to change America. The administration has been selective as to what to enforce based on its ideology of changing America. Violence is more and justice is less served by this selectivity.

  33. Y. Ben-David says:

    David Ohsie-
    I see now, “fairness” is the criterion by which we judge values, not the Torah. Well, is it fair to slaughter animals without stunning them? Is it fair to eat animals at all, after all don’t “Animal lives matter”? Lots of people think they matter. Is it fair to do brit milah to babies against without their permission. Lots of people think it isn’t. Is it fair to Muslims and certain groups of Mormons to prohibit polygamy? Is it fair to prohibit polyandry if people want it? Is it fair to support Israel at the perceived expense of the Palestinians? Who decides what is “fair”? David Ohsie? A majority vote? A majority vote approved the inter-war German Weimar Constitution…a constitution more liberal than that of the US. How long did that last?
    Just look around you, particularly at what is going on in the universities and parts of the media. The radicals who pushed homosexual marriage are not going to stop at that..they have a very ambitious agenda and they want a revolution and those who are loyal to Torah and Judaism will be perceived as standing in their way, just as earlier generations of revolutionaries of various political leanings thought.

  34. Phil says:

    David Ohsie wrote:

    “It makes no difference to my argument, but Chamas means violence or more generally injustice. Rashi’s purpose is not to give the literal meaning”
    Once again, it doesn’t mean violence, it literally means robbery.

    “For example, Bereishis 49:5, (JPS translation): Simeon and Levi are brethren; weapons of violence their kinship. Shimon and Levi did not rob from the city of Shchem. They killed. (Rashi there also gives a non-literal interpretation that the idea was ‘stolen’ from the Beracha of Eisav.)”
    “Chamas” there also literally means robbery, which is what Rashi comes to explain; see the Artscroll Chumash on both verses.

    “See 6:2. I’m surprised that you missed it because that is where he mentions Mishkav Zachar.”
    The Torah (6:2) relates the beginning of the downfall of mankind, starting with the sins of the “Bnei Haelohim”. Its culmination was the corruption of all of humanity, due to robbery and sexual immorality. As Rashi (6:13) notes, what sealed the fate of the guilty was robbery. What sealed the fate of the innocent (even children), was the world’s descent into a level of sexual depravity so consuming, that it caused the animals, who have no free will, to pervert their natural order. When this occurred and was then canonized into law, even the innocent were destroyed along with those guilty of robbery.

    “You again miss the main point. Even according the Midrash that you quote, this is something that was the ‘final straw’ on top of all the other violations of the Noachide code including violence/theft/rape most prominently. But none of those apply today; on the contrary, we are at a high point in many of these areas.”
    A high point? I realize that crime has dropped over the past few years but according to the most recent annual U.S. statistics: over 14,000 people were murdered; over 700,000 people were victims of aggravated assault; over 300,000 people were sexually assaulted, almost half of them children; over 1.2 million people were victims of theft. This year, the murder rate has exploded in big cities, including Baltimore. Pardon me for bursting your bubble but the U.S. is not on track to win the “Noahide Nobel” anytime soon.

    I’m perplexed as to why you would quote from the JPS translation, a work of Conservative and Reform Judaism that had no Orthodox contributors. I respectfully suggest that you contact an Orthodox Rabbi, such as Rabbi Hauer, and ask them to study Chumash with you.

  35. David Ohsie says:

    @Yisrael Asper: To whatever extent the other commandments are not being ignored is not related to the view on gay marriage but to a prior ethical and moral impulse.

    So I think that we can agree that the US is in no way comparable to the Dor Hamabul whose prior ethical and moral impulse seems to have deserted them.

    The push for Gay marriage is a part of a concerted effort to change America.

    This is certainly true, just as the push for civil rights, female suffrage and admission to elite institutions of higher learning, the abolition of slavery, popular national government, freedom of the press and free exercise of religion, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, etc were successful concerted efforts to change America including one successful armed rebellion and one civil war. That doesn’t tell you if it is good or bad.

    @Y. Ben-David I see now, “fairness” is the criterion by which we judge values, not the Torah.

    First off, I think that fairness is what we need to aim for from Gentile governments. Our experience with them being motivated by their view of religion or any other ideology has not been good.

    Moreover, if the majority is truly motivated by fairness, but come to the wrong conclusion by Torah standards, then this this is not a crisis or a tragedy as depicted in this post, because then it doesn’t not indicate the descent to the 49th level of Tumah.

    But to address your question more directly, I think that elementary fairness underlies the Torah. I think that you and everyone else believes this too, but if you need a “proof”, how about the following:

    Murder [may not be practiced to save one’s life] … And how do we know this … It is common sense. Even as one who came before Raba and said to him, ‘The governor of my town has ordered me, “Go and kill so and so; if not, I will slay thee”‘. He answered him, ‘Let him rather slay you than that you should commit murder; who knows that your blood is redder? Perhaps his blood is redder.’ (Sanhedrin 74a)

    Well, is it fair to slaughter animals without stunning them? Is it fair to eat animals at all, after all don’t “Animal lives matter”? Is it fair to do brit milah to babies against without their permission. Lots of people think it isn’t. Is it fair to Muslims and certain groups of Mormons to prohibit polygamy? Is it fair to prohibit polyandry if people want it? Is it fair to support Israel at the perceived expense of the Palestinians? Who decides what is “fair”?

    You appear to be arguing that if the people can decide what is best, then they can abrogate our rights to practice Judaism freely. This is a valid concern, which is why the US founders viewed pure democracy with skepticism. Instead, the US has a system of indirect majority rule combined with protection of religious freedoms against the will of the majority, and a separation of powers. It is not a perfect system, but it is probably the best choice so far invented. Certainly, it has been better for us than any bible/koran-based theocracy or monarchies.

    I find your example about compulsory vegetarianism to be enlightening:

    1) If indeed there was a state where vegetarianism was mandated by law for everyone (say somewhere in India), would it really be the right policy for us to immigrate there and then demand the right to consume meat?

    2) You speak of vegetarianism as it obviously contrary to Torah. But didn’t Rav Kook believe that the future Temple sacrifices will all be of vegetable origin?

    “For example, Bereishis 49:5, (JPS translation): Simeon and Levi are brethren; weapons of violence their kinship. Shimon and Levi did not rob from the city of Shchem. They killed. (Rashi there also gives a non-literal interpretation that the idea was ‘stolen’ from the Beracha of Eisav.)”
    “Chamas” there also literally means robbery, which is what Rashi comes to explain; see the Artscroll Chumash on both verses.

    I think we’ll leave it at that. If you think that Rashi and Artscroll are giving the Peshat there, then we’re simply not going to agree.

    “See 6:2. I’m surprised that you missed it because that is where he mentions Mishkav Zachar.”
    The Torah (6:2) relates the beginning of the downfall of mankind, starting with the sins of the “Bnei Haelohim”. Its culmination was the corruption of all of humanity, due to robbery and sexual immorality. As Rashi (6:13) notes, what sealed the fate of the guilty was robbery. What sealed the fate of the innocent (even children), was the world’s descent into a level of sexual depravity so consuming, that it caused the animals, who have no free will, to pervert their natural order. When this occurred and was then canonized into law, even the innocent were destroyed along with those guilty of robbery.

    This is your attempt to reconcile, but this not what the plain meaning of the Torah nor is it Rashi’s interpretation. Be that at it may, almost none of these things are happening today.

    “You again miss the main point. Even according the Midrash that you quote, this is something that was the ‘final straw’ on top of all the other violations of the Noachide code including violence/theft/rape most prominently. But none of those apply today; on the contrary, we are at a high point in many of these areas.”

    A high point? I realize that crime has dropped over the past few years but according to the most recent annual U.S. statistics: over 14,000 people were murdered; over 700,000 people were victims of aggravated assault; over 300,000 people were sexually assaulted, almost half of them children; over 1.2 million people were victims of theft. This year, the murder rate has exploded in big cities, including Baltimore. Pardon me for bursting your bubble but the U.S. is not on track to win the “Noahide Nobel” anytime soon.

    I was not speaking of year to year movement which obviously has a large random element. Historically, Western societies in including are at a long run low point in crime in general. For example, see here. As I mentioned in the first point, Tefilas Haderech implies that it is dangerous to leave the city.

    More importantly, large sums of money are spent in an attempt to prevent crime and to bring violators to justice. This is a key part of the Noachide code.

    Finally, Rabbi Hauer’s argument depends on the idea that we are at some kind of historical low point. Do you think that is even remotely true?

    I’m perplexed as to why you would quote from the JPS translation, a work of Conservative and Reform Judaism that had no Orthodox contributors.

    Because I could easily cut and paste it online. But my arguments are from the context of the Pesukim and the peshat interpretation of Ibn Ezra, not from JPS which I included for readers who that could help. Moreover, the Koren translation also says violence (perhaps they are too “modern” for you to consider them Orthodox).

    But I’m wondering what your concern is. Do you think that the JPS folks had some nefarious agenda to mistranslate Chamas?

    I respectfully suggest that you contact an Orthodox Rabbi, such as Rabbi Hauer, and ask them to study Chumash with you.

    I respectfully request that you contact an Orthodox scholar of your choosing who has some actual expertise in Biblical Hebrew and ask what the plain meaning of Chamas is.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This