Understandable - But STILL Wrong

An 'Orthodox gay wedding'?!

Rabbi Ysoscher Katz, is a rabbi I would characterize as being in the far left wing of Modern Orthodoxy. I don’t think he would argue with that description. It is with that religious worldview that he responded to a post I wrote last week entitled Understandable - But Wrong Nonetheless.

Therein I explained why it was wrong to celebrate the ‘marriage’ of two gay men in a ceremony that has all the trappings of a real marriage. The gist of which is that a rabbi must never be seen to be giving his blessing to a relationship where forbidden acts are a common outcome. It would be like a rabbi giving his blessing to a religious Jew at the grand opening of Treif restaurant celebrating its opening in the heart of a Jewish neighborhood. While there are differences between the two, I think the analogy is nevertheless apt.

Since it is unlikely that most people will see Rabbi Katz’s comment, I have decided to post it here as part of a new post. Rabbi Katz is considered an authority by the left wing of Modern Orthodoxy and his views deserve a public hearing as well as a rebuttal. The following is Rabbi Katz’s remarks. Which will be followed by my response. 

God, according to Midrash Vayikra Rabbah (32:7), sets a high bar of courage and creativity for rabbis and poskim, those who are tasked with interpreting God’s laws and enforcing them. The Midrash audaciously claims that besides preserving the integrity of halakha, poskim are obligated to find ways to mitigate the pain God’s very own Torah imposes on the innocent.

דבר אחר, […] הדא הוא דכתיב (קהלת ד:א) ״ושבתי אני ואראה את כל העשוקים״. דניאל חייטא פתר קרייה בממזרים: ״והנה דמעת העשוקים״ – אבותם של אלו עוברי עבירות, ואילין עלוביא מה אכפת להון? כך אביו של זה בא על הערוה – זה מה חטא ומה איכפת לו? ״ואין להם מנחם״ אלא ״מיד עושקיהם כח״ – מיד סנהדרי גדולה של ישראל שבאה עליהם מכחה של תורה ומרחקתן על שום ״לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה׳״; ״ואין להם מנחם״ – אמר הקב״ה, עלי לנחמן לפי שבעולם הזה יש בהן פסולת אבל לעתיד לבוא אמר זכריה אנא חמיתיה אלו כורסוון כולו דהב נקי.

Ecclesiastes (4:1) expresses outrage about a world that ignores the cries of those who have been cheated, where nobody cares to console them. Exegetically, the Midrash attributes this lament to God. God is disillusioned with the rabbis for turning a deaf ear to the wailing of mamzeirim, the products of illicit relationships, whose marriage options are severely limited by their status. 

God admonishes the poskim for being oblivious to the excruciating pain the Torah thereby inflicts upon the mamzer. The message is clear: the rabbis’ passivity proves that they lack the requisite judicial courage and intellectual creativity to perform their roles correctly. It is not enough for them to adjudicate; they also need to make God’s will livable and palatable.  

While the subject of the Midrash is mamzeirut specifically, the ethos it conveys is, no doubt, paradigmatic. Whenever absolutist halakha inflicts pain upon the innocent, the posek needs to be not only the enforcer, but also the one who alleviates the person’s suffering, to the extent allowed by halakha. 

When confronted with a law that causes such unbearable pain, the posek MUST find ways within halakha to reduce such suffering. Halakha cannot be allowed to be unmitigatingly cruel.

Halakhic discourse surrounding homosexuality is one such realm. Gay observant Jews suffer through no fault of their own, על לא עוול בכפם. They, like the mamzer, have not committed any crime — making it difficult to defend their exclusion judicially or explain it theologically. Male or female same-sex attraction is a natural state, just like heterosexual attraction. It is merely an orientation, a natural inclination, and does not entail any transgression in and of itself.

Still, halakha, as it is classically understood, denies a queer person the ability to be bound to an ezer kenegdo, a lifelong partner. In the story of creation, which abounds with declarations of satisfaction, God’s first critical statement is  לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ — it is not acceptable for a person to be alone, without someone to provide love and companionship (Breishit 2:18).

God, Who seemingly expresses strong opposition to homosexual sex, also articulates extreme aversion toward human loneliness. Chazal, consequently, interpret a life of solitude — a life without a partner and family — as a virtual death penalty (Ta’anit 23a: או חברותא או מיתותא; Nedarim 64b: מי שאין לו בנים חשוב כמת). 

Halakha’s ban on gay marriage prevents innocent individuals from achieving marital bliss or experiencing the joys of family. Such exclusion is unbearable. In the language of our Midrash, halakhically observant homosexuals are “robbed;” their essence is denied. Judicial passivity in the face of such “thievery” is indefensible.

The divine expectation — nay, the divine charge — is for the posek to search within halakha for means to relieve the queer person’s pain without having to forgo their commitment to shmirat mitzvot.  

As I have said many times, I completely understand the dilemma to which Rabbi Katz refers. Indeed alleviating the suffering of fellow Jews is one of the mandates of the rabbinate. If I remember correctly, no less an authority than R’ Chaim Soloveichik said that is a rabbi’s primary function!

But – that cannot come at the expense of appearing to approve of a sinful lifestyle. There is one Mitzvah that Rabbi Katz seems to overlook. That of Lifnei Eveir Lo Setain Michshol. One may not place a stumbling block before a blind man. By placing his imprimatur on a gay union, a rabbi is in essence adding his blessing to a relationship that is conducive to committing sins of a very serious nature.

Using Rabbi Katz’s example of a Mamzer, it would be like having  ‘marriage ceremony’ for illegal marriage that mimics a real marriage – thus appearing to give his blessing to a union the Torah forbids. This is not the way to alleviate the pain of someone suffering from a condition not of his own making.  

Rabbi Katz’s use of the Torah’s advice in Bereishis that it is not good for a man to live alone is improperly applied. It was clearly made in the context of a male female relationship – as it was talking about the relationship between Adam and Eve.  It cannot be that God would in one place call behavior an abomination punishable by death… and in another place say it is perfectly fine to live in a way that is conducive to such behavior if one is gay.

That said, I agree that we must do what we can to alleviate pain in both cases. That of a Mamzer and that of a gay person. Both of these people are in a state not of their own making and suffer greatly from it.  Rabbis above all  must have compassion and understanding - and respect their dignity as human beings created in the image of God. And as Jews remind them that they are each considered a member of God’s treasured people.

There are in fact other ways to help them both live as normal a life as possible which are beyond the scope of this post. There are rabbis that have the knowledge to advise them along those lines. None of which appear to be publicly blessing forbidden relationships in joyous celebration. A rabbi must never appear to be doing that.

One final note. There is such a thing as ‘too much compassion’. I think the liberal mindset - whether political or as in this case religious - is what leads good people astray. Rabbi Katz is a man of great compassion. A good and kind man that truly wants to help. He believes he has found a Halachic way to do that. But compassion does not allow one to even imply permitting the impermissible. That is where I believe a gay wedding crosses the line and why Rabbi Katz is wrong.