Q&A: Male Homosexual Intercourse and Abomination
Male Homosexual Intercourse and Abomination
Question
I read that you argue there is no necessity to interpret the word "abomination" in the Torah in its negative sense.
In my opinion, the odds are that it really is in the negative sense, because indeed most of the times the root related to "abomination" refers to negative things.
But let us assume there were room to think there is no necessity that it was said in a negative context.
If that is so, why should we not simply follow the well-known tradition of our rabbis?
The prohibition of male homosexual intercourse (and the other forbidden sexual relations) are matters of Jewish law, and I do not know even one rabbi who received a different tradition for the word "abomination" in the prohibition of male homosexual intercourse. All the rabbis I know mention it in the negative context—as something negative and loathsome.
So if there is a dispute in interpretation (and as I clarified at the beginning, it looks more like apologetics than a real dispute) — why should we not rely on the tradition of our forefathers on this matter?
Answer
I never said that the root for "abomination" does not mean that the thing is negative. What I said is that it is not necessarily a moral abomination (but perhaps a religious one).
Beyond that, I am really not interested in what the majority thinks. Why is that relevant if I think otherwise? There are far more Christians or secular people or Hindus than religious Jews. So what?
And finally, what the majority thinks is not tradition. Tradition is what came down to us from Sinai. The fact that the majority thinks something does not mean it came from Sinai.
And after finally, I get the impression you understood that in my view this is permitted. So no, it is forbidden. Halakhically, not morally.
Discussion on Answer
I answered. The fact that most people think something does not mean it was accepted as tradition. Not from Sinai and not from the prophets. That is simply not true. By your logic, Maimonides should not have ruled that laws derived from exegetical derivations are rabbinic law (in the second root), against all the medieval authorities (Rishonim) and the Geonim and against the plain sense of the Talmud. And that is something much more likely to have been accepted in tradition than the "abomination" regarding homosexuals, and still Maimonides did not accept it because it did not seem correct to him.
What is more, we all know that the attitude toward homosexuals was saturated with emotional barriers throughout humanity, not only among us. There are quite a few things about which the Torah writes that they are an abomination, and I have not found a similar attitude toward them in religious society or among halakhic decisors and commentators. It is known and obvious that in a traditional society these emotional barriers and taboos last longer because of inertia, and then when the surrounding environment puts on too much pressure and people begin to wonder whether it really is so, they become principles of faith. Precisely because there is no way to ground this, people invent inventions to strengthen them, because everyone understands there is nothing substantial there, and then it becomes tradition and "the acceptance of our rabbis," and so on. And in the next stage, whoever denies this is a heretic, has excluded himself from the Jewish people, deviated from the holy tradition, no longer has the status of a Jew, and so on. In short, when the arguments run out, the demagoguery begins, along with reliance on authorities (imaginary ones).
As for the sanctity of the Hebrew Bible, that is a far-fetched example. On that, there really is a tradition. It is not an invention just because I saw that everyone thinks so. There, because there is a tradition, everyone thinks so. But here, because everyone thinks so, you decide there is a tradition. You can of course accept or not accept the tradition about the text of the Hebrew Bible, but that is the claim. By contrast, regarding the attitude toward homosexuals there is not even a claim that there is such a tradition, aside from your invention that this is a tradition, based on the fact that there are such views among most commentators.
The points are simple, and I do not see what more there is to elaborate about them.
Heaven forbid that I should spread a falsehood about you and claim that you think this is permitted. It reminded me of the very humane interview you gave to Hod, where you explained to them that despite all the pain and understanding, there is not really room for leniencies or unnecessary things.
What I was trying to say is that if all the rabbis say about this that it is an abominable act in the most negative connotation possible (whether they distinguish between morality and Jewish law or not), then there is no real reason to think this was not received as tradition, and that all the rabbis are apparently mistaken.
And when I say tradition, I do not mean only Sinai. There are also things that were accepted through divine inspiration among prophets afterward, or things that were at least confirmed by prophets afterward.
Therefore, if everyone gives the word "abominable" the most negative connotation possible, there is no reason to think they are all wrong.
We all rely on tradition, whether it was received from Sinai or whether it became fixed after the revelation at Mount Sinai.
A simple example is the sanctity of the text of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) — like it or not, the Book of Ben Sira looks much more religiously pious than the Scroll of Esther, but I accept by tradition the sanctity of the text of the Hebrew Bible as it exists today. And there is no great difference between the sanctity of the text of the Hebrew Bible and what the sages decided regarding the most negative connotation of male homosexual intercourse.
These are explicit words of Torah, not just "mere tradition."