Question

I read your interview in Makor, nice. [Well well, when it comes to media and PR, you’re not exactly great…]
It caught my attention —
‘The first volume, “The First Existent,” is devoted to his philosophical thought—not necessarily to the content of his worldview,’ that is really not true. Especially since later on he does in fact explain nicely what is in the first part.
 
“The homosexual issue is of course a prominent example. The Torah’s command on this matter is sharp and clear. On the other hand, it is also clear that morally speaking, to demand of a person that he not realize his sexual identity, that he not live a life of partnership and sexuality as his heart is drawn to, is a very problematic demand. Therefore I will try to interpret Jewish law in a way that brings it as close as possible to the moral side. For example, perhaps the biblical prohibition on male same-sex intercourse stems from the fact that in the biblical period it was an expression and mode of idolatrous worship, but once it is not being used for that purpose perhaps it can be permitted. Or alternatively, today we know that there are people who can be attracted to both sexes and there are those who can be attracted only to their own sex. So perhaps the Torah prohibited male same-sex intercourse for someone who has another option, but did not prohibit it for someone for whom this is his unequivocal identity.” – in the trilogy this is really not stated so decisively, but only as a possibility, as I recall.