Last week, on December 22, a major program was held at Yeshiva University, entitled "Being Gay in the Orthodox World," which featured a panel discussion that included 4 students or alumni of Yeshiva College who are gay. Over 500 individuals attended with many others being turned away due to space limitations.
The program has subsequently initiated much discussion and debate with a critique of the program being voiced by many of the Roshei HaYeshiva with, perhaps, Rabbi Twersky being the most vocal. His shiur on the subject a few days later drew reportedly 600 students and therein he called upon the talmidei hayeshiva to sign a petition distancing themselves and the yeshiva from the program which he described as a chilul Hashem. A joint letter from President Joel of YU and Rabbi Reiss of RIETS stating effectively that in retrospect they may have been mistaken in allowing the program to proceed. Clearly the program has also received much interest with articles about it in the Jerusalem Post and the Jewish Week amongst other Jewish publications. The question for us, though, is how to respond to this debate and discussion.
To gain a further appreciation of what transpired both at the event and subsequently, I direct you to the blog entitled Curious Jew which has an unofficial transcript of what was said at the panel and links to videos of some of the panelists (it seems that one of the panelists did not want to be taped). In addition the blog has a link to the audio of Rabbi Twersky's words and a copy of the petition that was circulated. There is much to discuss and, in many ways, there is actually some value in the variant statements and positions. The real question is: what to do?
There is, no doubt, a thin line between the expression of empathy and the condoning of behaviour. There is also the further question of how to discuss devarim she'b'erva; tzniut demands privacy. Yet, how can we live with incorrect misconceptions that may result in depression and even suicide? The issue may also touch upon other matters of, even, more universal implications. To many on the panel it seems that a great part of the problem was the expectation for them to marry and, even as they may not state it in this manner, the subsequent lack of worth in one who does not get marry. The panel actually opened up many issues that need to examined and investigated.
The fact is that the panel may not have been perfect. Indeed, there may have been problems with it, both in its inception and application. Yet, it must be recognized that it was a beginning. Could it have been done in a different and better way? Perhaps. Were there problems in some of the declarations that were made? Perhaps. Was it a first venture into an area that needs to be faced and encountered? Absolutely. And maybe it was good that there were critiques that followed so that the next time can be better (although, perhaps, the critiques could have been worded differently with a vision to the future and the need).
Still, with all the problems, I have to commend YU, YUTC, Wurzweiller, the organizers, Rabbi Blau, Dean Gelman, Dr. Pelcovitz and the panelists for venturing into the battle. Next time it will be done better because there was a first time -- and this is indeed a topic that needs to be addressed.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
5 comments:
Glad to see someone cares about preserving the lives of frum gay youth enough to say that the topic must be discussed.
Yasher koach and please keep promoting the need to speak about this issue. The silence is deadly...
Levovitz's Poignant response and rebuttal to Rav Twersky can be found on
http://www.syaross.org/misc/gaypanel/response.html
he takes apart each and every argument and argues for "bein adam le chaveyro" values. Definitely worth a read.
The problem with discussing the topic is that it is like opening a solidly sealed door before an oncoming flood. Evening attempting to open the door a little floods the room.
There are many in the gay community who are genuinely frum, feeling homosexual inclinations and struggle with this difficulty.
But there are just as many, maybe more, who are merely orthoprax, do not believe in the fundamental tenets of Judaism despite outward practice, and do not see the struggle as necessary. In their view, God does not want a believer to struggle. Religion should be about personal fulfillment, not struggle and never about sacrifice. Hence if they are gay and God made them this way and since God does not want them to struggle, being gay must be okay which means the rabbonim who say it isn't are wrong.
These people generally have loud voices and he who shouts loudest has the floor. An attempt to emphathize can be quickly hijacked into a movement to legitimize. It's not worth the risk.
Garnel's last line is exactly the issue -- and perhaps the first question that needs to be discussed and debated: is it worth the risk? The significance of the question drives home the point. If we are going to argue that this is a matter that needs to be discussed within the frum community -- that it is important that we know how to respond to gay individuals who wish to truly live a frum life and are struggling with how to do so -- we have to know how to deal with an attempt to hijack the discussion and turn it into a platform for acceptance.
The movie Trembling Before G-d is a perfect example of the problem. The movie could have been a rallying call for confronting the struggle but ultimately served as a forum for acceptance. This is Garnel's concern. But the truth is that this was the movie's agenda in the first place. If one was really interested in discussing the struggle, the words of R. Aharon Feldman would have been necessarily included. (See the video of his interview in the accompanying disk in the DVD package of the movie.) If, however, the goal was acceptance of the gay lifestyle, his words would have been ignored -- and this is what effectively happened. This, however, cannot be used as an example of what may happen if an agenda that wants to truly follow Torah is observed. There is still the challenge of a potential hijack but then the issue is: how do we ensure that we avoid this? This, again, may be the first, mandatory question that we need to address.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
The problem with not talking about it is that Judaism becomes a temple for human sacrifice...
Heterosexuality is talked about in Orthodox community, but we don't say that talking about heterosexuality is an endorsement of adultery, rape, sex during niddah, etc.
There is no such thing as "THE" gay lifestyle. An orthodox person who is gay will likely have a very different "lifestyle" (including minyan, kosher restaurants, learning, shabbos, etc.) than someone who is not religious or of another religion. If someone is identifying themselves as orthodox and gay, you can be sure that halacha is something that is important to them and something they struggle to uphold to the best of their abilities.
Garnel, frum LGBT folks struggle and sacrifice more than almost anyone. Heterosexual frum folks get to have their "personal fulfillment", while feeling superior because God chose them to be heterosexual, and in God's image.
Would you curtail discussion of people who admit to speaking lashon hara and struggling with it, and trying to find ways to minimize any halachic violation? Would that suggest that they want the halacha to change? If someone felt halacha was not authoritative and wanted the specific halacha to change, they could always choose another denomination of Judaism or leave religion entirely. Not discussing the issues and the halachot specifically and openly in orthodox community will not reduce any violations of halacha, but it will keep it underground and dangerous, and prevent people from disclosing or getting assistance.
Silence is death...
Post a Comment