With all this discussion regarding Steve Greenberg's latest undertaking, I thought it might be appropriate for me to share a personal encounter with a similar event.
A few years ago, I was faced with the following shaila. Soon after Canada allowed same sex marriages, a woman called me to ask if it would be okay for her to attend such a wedding of a friend of hers. This, however, was not a simple request. This woman, when she was in her early twenties, was involved in a terrible accident which required much time in the hospital and then in rehabilitation (B"H, she is fine now.) It seems that during this ordeal, two friends stood beside her throughout and helped her out greatly in overcoming this adversity. One was this man. She therefore was torn. On one hand, her attendance at this ceremony could be seen as somewhat of an acquiescence to this behaviour, something, which as a frum woman, she did not want to do. It was, further, for this same reason that her husband felt she should not go. On the other hand, the value of hakeret hatov, of recognizing, acknowledging and thanking someone for their good behaviour towards you, would seem to demand of her to attend. The result was this shaila which she and her husband had agreed to ask me.
Immediately, I saw her dilemma. Hakeret hatov is a most significant value and her behaviour in not attending this event could possibly be seen as her ignoring the good that was done for her. In a world of tolerance, there is pressure upon us to also demonstrate tolerance or face the charge of being ungrateful. On the other hand, even within a world of tolerance, we must still abide by our principles so how could she show any possible acceptance of this action? I knew my leanings were just to say no but I truly had to further think about it.
We spoke the next day with me mentioning that I still had not come to a definite decision. Then came the statement that totally forced me to take a definite stand right away. This woman asked me whether it might be better if she only attended the Sheva Brachot? I said: what? Yes they were having Sheva Brachot.
It seems that her friend had actually developed an interest in Judaism and if he was not already shomer Shabbat, he was on his way. The consequence was, also, that everything to do with this same sex ceremony was patterned after an Orthodox wedding ceremony, even in regard to the invitation (which she then read to me over phone). My answer was now simple. This was an inherent mockery of Torah to which she could not be part. I use the word mockery not in the sense that this man was intending to mock Torah. The reality was that his understanding of Torah was a mockery of Torah's essence -- and this is what is occurring with this ceremony by Steve Greenberg.
People are projecting Torah as standing for certain life expectancies be it spirituality, family closeness, national grouping etc, etc. The fact is that Torah really only stands for Torah and that all else that may, at times or even most of the time, flow from its observance will also find the situation when it does not reflect the Torah directive. To take another value, any other value, and to place it above Torah itself is fundamentally flawed, a mockery of the very foundation of Torah. This is what I felt in arriving at the decision I rendered in telling this woman that she should not go to this ceremony. This man had already found something within Torah that he desired and it pushed him to observance. He wanted to bring this into his same sex ceremony -- but it was at this point that one could see that this motivation was not Torah for it drew him to create a travesty of Torah itself for he did not recognize that Torah is not about this motivation but about the simple demands of Torah itself and a same sex marriage was not one of them. It was like toivel v'sheretz b'yado and he didn't even know that there was a sheretz b'yado.
Its one thing to accept a value of same sex marriage -- but why the need to declare it okay within the realm of Torah. Go practice your own faith. The desire is though to impose it as my faith. With that the issue is not just the ethics homosexuality but the very definition of Torah. That, we must defend.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
3 comments:
Remember the "good old days" - When the dilemma amongst the Orthodox was about attending a close relative's inter-marriage?
Shalom,
RRW
Nature cant stand a vacuum. In absence of Torah other values will come in to fill the vacuum.
So my answer is that everyone in the world should learn Gemara Rashi and Tosphot. I don't say this will solve all problems because i certainly see the great evils in the orthodox world but i think those problems are because they attach themselves to the dark side of Torah instead of to the holy side.
That aside why not simply say that here is a moral dilemma between hakarat hatov and condoning something wrong.--just say that you don't know. That is a permissible reply.
To respond with I don't know is obviously acceptable within the realm of Halacha as evidenced by the response of teiku. If that would have been my conclusion here, so be it. The challenge with any halachic question to try and find an answer to the best of your ability.
Obviously with this response I am also clearly implying that a question of moral dilemma is also a halachic question -- and deserves a response to the same degree as any other halachic question. The fact that the "greyness" of a moral dilemma may be more easily perceivable does not take away the demand that a practical resolution is still needed. The key is to recognize this greyness as well as the demand for black-and-while direction in this world. This idea is clearly relayed in the line from the Maharal that is often quoted in our material -- "there is nothing tahor that doesn't have some tumah in it and nothing tamei that doesn't have some tahor in it." In this realm of the physical there is a need though for declarations that imply 100% when in fact it is not.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment