Q&A: Male Homosexual Intercourse
Male Homosexual Intercourse
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the chapter dealing with homosexuality on p. 527, under the heading about changes in Jewish law,
you wrote and tried to explain how today one could permit homosexuals to engage in male homosexual intercourse
on account of compulsion, since today we know that this is a natural inclination
and not because of lust, whereas in the past the halakhic decisors prohibited it because they thought it was due to lust.
You assume that the prohibition is directed at “ordinary people.”
1) A comment on the page above — on its face it implies that you are trying to explain
how it could be possible to permit a prohibition (male homosexual intercourse) explicitly stated in the Torah, which
sounds completely heretical, and you should have noted that you meant exemption
from punishment on account of compulsive desire. Since I had trouble believing it, besides the book I also went to check here on the site, in column 225 in the comments on that column, and there you clarified
that this is a post facto permission in order to exempt him from punishment on account of compulsion.
2) You say that the prohibition (the act, yes) should not have to be relevant today toward
homosexuals because of the torment of desire they undergo, and I am very surprised:
did the Holy One, blessed be He, when He commanded this, not take this into account —
the difficulty? After all, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not test a person unless he can withstand it.
And moreover, by saying this you empty the commandment of content, because if it does not apply to
LGBT people, then to whom is it directed? To an ordinary person? But he has no strong desire toward the same sex, does he?
Answer
First of all, as a rule, I am really not interested in the question whether my words are heresy or not. As far as I am concerned, what matters is whether they are correct or not.
As for the matter itself, there is room to view this as a claim of compulsion, but to me that seems obvious. It is complete compulsion. My claim is that there may even be room to say that the prohibition was originally stated only about someone who does this because of lust, and not about someone for whom this is his nature. So I do not understand your question from the Holy One, blessed be He. If I am right, then that is what He intended too.
The assumption that He does not test a person with a test he cannot withstand is an invention; I do not know where it comes from. There are quite a few people who, in my view, face tests they cannot withstand. From kleptomaniacs, through “the evil inclination clothed in him,” and ending with Rabbi Ilai’s statement about a person who sees that his inclination is overcoming him (see Rif and Rosh in Moed Katan, who wrote that his words contradict the saying “everything is in the hands of Heaven except fear of Heaven”).
Discussion on Answer
You can assume anything a priori, but a posteriori it is unreasonable.
Hello, thank you for the answer.
What about this point that it empties the commandment of content — after all, it cannot really be relevant that the prohibition
is directed toward an ordinary person, since he has no attraction to the same sex.
Is there even such a thing? If so, those cases must be rare.
I did not understand this question. Toward whom is the prohibition of theft or murder directed? Whoever has an urge to murder. So too with the prohibition of homosexuality. Someone whose nature is different may perhaps not have been included in the prohibition. Why does that empty the prohibition of content? It is forbidden to do this out of evil desire. Rarity is really not relevant here. Are there not rare prohibitions? And this is not rare either. It depends on culture, but in many places it is common to engage in such relations out of desire even though they could also live with a woman.
To Rabbi Michael Abraham,
Your words imply [if I understood correctly] that a homosexual is under compulsion and in practice does not enter the halakhic category of male homosexual intercourse. If so, why should Jewish law not permit him to live with a same-sex partner and establish a family with children? It could be conditioned on the fact that just as there are days of menstruation for a woman within marriage, so too two men would not engage in male homosexual intercourse, but only in every other way [in the sense of “he has relations with her in the usual manner and in an unusual manner, with whatever limb he wishes” — Maimonides], and in addition they would obligate themselves in a document between them to remain faithful [something like marriage].
I would appreciate your answer.
There is a problematic leap in what you say. The fact that this is a case of compulsion does not mean that it should be permitted halakhically. Compulsion is an argument for exemption, not an argument for permission. The fundamental halakhic demand is to uphold the prohibition, but one who violates it is under compulsion, and that is how he should be treated. By the way, there is no change in reality here that requires a halakhic change. As I understand it, all this was always true. In the third book I proposed a mechanism for actual permission (that the entire prohibition was stated only לגבי someone who does so because of lust and not because of nature), but I am far from certain about it.
I would be glad if you would explain what exactly the “problematic leap” is. Because either way: if the homosexual is under compulsion, or if the prohibition of male homosexual intercourse does not apply to him, why should he not establish a family with a same-sex partner? Or alternatively, what is the possible solution in the reality of our lives?
Thank you.
I explained it. The fact that someone is under compulsion does not mean that what he is doing is permitted, or that it should be permitted for him from the outset. Do you think the Shulchan Arukh should contain a permission for a married woman to be raped by a strange man? She is under compulsion and exempt.
I have no solution, and I already explained that this is in no way connected to the reality of our lives. This was always true.
What is your solution for a kleptomaniac? Do you propose institutionalizing his thefts and writing into the Shulchan Arukh a permission to steal if you are a kleptomaniac? I do not understand this insistence.
Why not assume a priori that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deal harshly with His creatures, and that this includes the prohibitions of male homosexual intercourse and theft? The example of “the evil inclination clothed in him” can be rejected on the grounds that that rule deals with a certain pleasure of the woman, and not with an active violation of Jewish law.