The media recently reported that an Orthodox rabbi performed a gay marriage ceremony (I, II). This is factually incorrect. The rabbi is no longer Orthodox and the media does the reading public a disservice by uncritically accepting his self-description.
Rabbi Steven Greenberg (bio), ordained approximately 20 years ago at Yeshiva University’s RIETS, is an advocate for homosexuals in Jewish ritual. In his book, Wrestling With God and Men, Greenberg reinterprets a biblical prohibition contrary to the Talmud’s interpretation which has been unanimously accepted for millennia (see this post: link). In rejecting the Talmudic tradition and permitting that which is universally considered forbidden, Greenberg removes himself from Orthodox Judaism. He lacks any support from canonical texts or leading rabbinic authorities. He is a lone voice on this issue but certainly not the only rabbi in history to drift away from Orthodoxy.
Greenberg describes his most recent action, performing a gay marriage, in a comment to the Morethodoxy blog (link):
…The ceremony consisted of a blessing over wine and a shehecheyanu to begin. Then we read their shtar shutafut. Earlier at a tish we did a traditional ritual of acceptance of the document’s terms that included lifting a bag with an object belonging to each party…[T]he men both took an oath to be loyal to the other in emotional and physical ways, conditional upon receiving a ring. When the partner gave the ring, he recited a descriptive sentence that made the moment of the neder’s legal force identitical to receiving a ring…
We followed with seven birchot shevah that the gentlemen chose and then the breaking of a glass…
Greenberg goes on to say that he does not claim that the ceremony was Orthodox. However, the media’s report was that an Orthodox rabbi performed the ceremony, which Greenberg does not deny. He should. He should declare that he is not Orthodox.
Greenberg created a new ceremony that is similar to a traditional Jewish wedding ceremony but modified in critical ways for the same-sex circumstances. In doing so, he not only created a new ritual for a religiously unsanctified relationship, he publicly implied that Orthodox Judaism accepts gay marriage as a religious construct. This constitutes a falsification of the Torah and Chillul Hashem. We must protest this false public portrayal of Orthodox Judaism.
Orthodox Judaism does not sanction gay marriage religiously. This has nothing to do with American law or politics. It is about a religion’s internal beliefs and religious rituals. We bear responsibility for a tradition dating back thousands of years and have no right to radically reform it. When a (formerly) Orthodox rabbi unilaterally disposes of a long-standing law, he forfeits the title Orthodox.
As a decentralized religion, Orthodox Judaism lacks an ecclesiastical body to authoritatively excommunicate anyone. Private excommunications have been repeatedly abused to the point of irrelevance. Ideally, the central organizations of Orthodox Judaism would publicly declare standards and decry breaches of those standards. However, for reasons about which I can only speculate, no rabbinic organization — neither the RCA nor the IRF, nor Greenberg’s alma mater RIETS — has commented on this latest development in any way. However, the RCA’s statement earlier this year leaves no doubt about its position (link):
The Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. While we do not seek to impose our religious principles on others, we believe the institution of marriage is central to the formation of a healthy society and the raising of children. It is our sincere conviction that discarding the historical definition of marriage would be detrimental to society.
Similarly, leading RIETS rashei yeshiva have issued a statement on homosexuality, decrying “the heresy of elements who although identifying themselves as Orthodox demand change in the Torah, rachamanah litzlan, a clear violation of the thirteen principles of faith” (link). Additionally, Yeshiva University President Richard Joel and RIETS Dean R. Yona Reiss issued this statement two years ago: link.
Orthodoxy has red lines, boundaries that one may not cross. Who would have thought, twenty years ago, that we would see a time when self-described Orthodox rabbis would publicly advocate gay marriage, women rabbis and other obvious deviations from traditional beliefs and practices? If no one can legitimately object to misuse of the term “Orthodox,” and therefore anyone can claim that any deviation is “Orthodox,” then the term has no meaning. I reject this line of reasoning. There are deviations that cross the lines, as blurry as they may be.
The media was fooled by Greenberg. While the central Orthodox institutions have issued statements on this subject in the past, they cannot expect the media to remember them. I believe that in order to effectively protest the false claims of this news story and mitigate this Chillul Hashem, our leaders need to explicitly respond to the media. Sadly, this blog lacks the power of a press release from communal leaders, which can conclusively end this unprecedented breach.
Steve Brizel observed (November 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm) that “One can participate in a rally anywhere and demonstrate in favor of “social justice ,equality, and spiritual and intellectual honesty”, without any Kiyum HaMitzvah whatsoever.”
I suppose it is apropos of fashionable distortions of language that his comment is twisted (by S. Moscowitz on November 21, 2011 at 9:16 pm) into: “Steve Brizel….basically wants to suggest that hesed is not that central since it won’t make you a talmid chahcham.”
Huh??
HAGBTG (on November 21, 2011 at 1:20 pm) accuses: “Are we to assume that you believe that none of these values – justice, equality and honesty – are of particular import to you?”
Huh??
Since Mr. Brizel made no such inference, it seems that his antagonists’ ire is motivated by either simple misreading or (I hope not) nastiness. Let’s avoid twisting opponents’ words into the arguments we wish had been made.
What tires? Where did R. Moshe park his alleged car?
That’s what I heard. While he did not drive, he had shammashim who did drive him around, so someone targeting him would know where to go.
Derech agav, I once heard a maaseh about R. Moshe from the son of R. Jay Marcus which I feel compelled to share. R. Marcus gave R. Moshe a lift from Staten Island (where there is a branch of MTJ) to the Lower East Side. He was speeding, and got pulled over and given a ticket. As the cop was leaving, R. Marcus asked R. Moshe, “Rebbe, I thought there would be a little siyatta di shmaya. What happened?” Answered R. Moshe, “There was siyatta di shmaya. What do you think the ticket was?”
STBO:
Maybe you missed Steve’s original post, responding to HAGTBG:
Steve Brizel on November 21, 2011 at 11:15 am
HATGBG wrote in part:
“They emphasize social justice, equality, and spiritual and intellectual honesty. This leads to personal experimentation in theology and practice”
Once again, one finds no Birkas HaMitzvah recited on any such action, and I would suggest that such emphasis will not lead anyone to become a Ben or Bas Torah, let alone a Talmid Chacham or Isha Chashuvah. The question that I would pose-why adhere even minimally to Halacha if your emphasis is “social justice, equality, and spiritual and intellectual honesty” What is the basis of your committment?
* * * * * *
That is the basis of questioning RSB’s prioritization of chesed. Gil had the same reaction to Steve’s post, note. He seems to indicate that chesed is a lower priority than talmud torah (which is probably true for men, although Pirkei Avos might disagree), and is in fact of such a low priority that it cannot be the focus of one’s Jewish life.
Steve later “clarified” with the piece you quoted, but still, it leaves chesed as a “non-Jewish” ideal, if there is no kiyum mitzvah in participating in chesed-oriented activities. This seems to leave most of the involved women in our communities out in the cold, as often women’s “power base” among friends and community is through their chesed activities. I know this is true of my mother, among many others.
I assumed from Steve’s statement that there is no kiyum mitzvah in doing chesed that he thought there was no religious value to it. For the record, I believe that there is a kiyum mitzvah in doing chesed and the fact that one does not recite a blessing is irrelevant. You don’t recite a blessing on giving tzedakah either!
Steve has since clarified that he believes there is religious value but it is less than other religious endeavors. I’m not sure I entirely agree but I do believe that Jewish life requires balance.
The more basic question, in my mind, is why should we equate “social justice, equality, and spiritual and intellectual honesty” with gemillas chassadim. The former are buzz words which connote a particular political-philosophical outlook, which sometimes is completely divorced from how one treats people, except as part of a political movement.
Chessed OTOH is part of the mitzvah of v’halakhta bi derachav, i.e. emulate the One whom the Torah describes as Rav Chessed. People who are Rav Chessed are always trying to help others, whether in big things or small.
Regarding Rav Henkin’s sociological statement, I wonder if he still thinks it true 10+ years on?
Specifically “…a congregation that institutes them [women's aliyot] is not Orthodox in name and will not long remain Orthodox in practice. In my judgement, this is an accurate statement now and for the foreseeable future, and I see no point in arguing about it.”
Well let’s ask him, since he sometimes posts a comment here. Rabbi Henkin – do you believe that the statement you wrote, referred to by Gil Student, is true today?
“Joseph: I am reminded of the following statement by R. Yehuda Henkin. . . ”
And I’m reminded of a conversation I had with Blu Greenberg over a decade ago. I was at a lecture of hers and she mentioned, in passing (it wasn’t the topic), that she thought there would be Orthodox women rabbis in her lifetime. I’ve known her for a very long time and am friendly with her, so after the lecture I went over to her and said that I was so excited about what she said about women rabbis. She was a bit surprised at my (purposely) over the top excitement and asked why I was so enthusiastic. “Well,” I answered. “You know how much I like you, and now I know that you’re going to live a very very long time.”
‘”intellectual honesty” with gemillas chassadim. The former are buzz words which connote a particular political-philosophical outlook’
Maybe intellectual honesty isn’t included in gemillas chassadim, but it is certainly essential to Torah study.
“R. Moshe Feinstein, R. Soloveichik and R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach on many occassions took halakhic positions that were not popular in some circles and were attacked for it”
Who today is of similar stature?
“R. Moshe Feinstein, R. Soloveichik and R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach on many occassions took halakhic positions that were not popular in some circles and were attacked for it”
Who today is of similar stature?
It is true that there has been a yeridas ha doros, but there are plenty of poskim who will pasken without fear of what others may say. R. Herschel Shachter and R. Belsky come to mind, but there are plenty of others.
Not much to add to the discussion, other than I no longer consider YU to be an orthodox institution given what its musmach did. And I just heard that R. Freundel is no longer orthodox because of some disagreement with a Rambam. It’s going to get awfully lonely …
“In his book, Wrestling With God and Men, Greenberg reinterprets a biblical prohibition contrary to the Talmud’s interpretation which has been unanimously accepted for millennia (see this post: link). In rejecting the Talmudic tradition and permitting that which is universally considered forbidden, Greenberg removes himself from Orthodox Judaism”
His “interpretation” is also contary to peshutto shel mikra of the possuk in Kedoshim (Vayikra 20:13) which states that both parties committed a toevah and both are subject to capital punishment. Just saying.
Re Chesed vis a vis other Mitzvos, Let me clarify- IIRC, there is a ShuT HaRashba that explains why no birkas hamitzvah is performed on such mitzvos as Tzedakah ( and presumably Chesed ) inasmuch the same is a rational commandment, as opposed to any Mitzvos that inherently reflect the covenantal relationship between HaShem and Klal Yisrael. As far as R Gil’s view that there is a Kiyum HaMitzvah in performing Chesed, I would suggest that based on RYBS’s shiur on Aseres HaDibros as transcribed in Noraos HaRav, vol. 5, Page 38, Rambam in Hilcos Brachos 11:2 states that a Birkas HaMitzvah are performed solely on Mitzvos Bein Adam LaMakom to the exclusion of Mitzvos Bein Adam LChavero because of the intrinsic difference between Mishpatim, which man obeys because RYBS emphasized that HaShem expects man to “act in dignity, and to reject sin, injustice, cruelty, because all of those things are abominable and repugnant to man. Man’s rejection will comply with the will of HaKadosh Baruch Hu, but the motivating concern should be human dignity and human sanctity. There is no need for external normative pressure. The rejection should be an act of inner mental indignation.”
In contrast, RYBS noted that the “purpose of the Bracha , basically, is to emphasize our acting in deference and submission to the Divine Will. After all, the basis of the Bracha is, Asher Kidshanu Bmitzvosav Vzivanu-you have sanctified us and commanded us.” ( ibid at Page 39)
RYBS then noted that “in Asher Kidshanu bmitzvosav Vzivanu, the emphaiss is placed on Vzivanu. He has commanded us. If left to oursleves, we would not engage in such acts as shofar, Lulav, Succah, Tefilin, Tzitis etc. The rationale for all of those Mitzos is unknown to us. Human reason cannot grasp the purpose, the central motif, and objective for them. However, for Mitzvos Bein ASdam Lchavero, which are subsumed under Mishpatim, whose rationale and theme are comprehensible, whose implementation is is motivated , not by normative coercion and discipline, but mainly, by existential need of lonely man created in the image of infinity, to do Mitzvos, because by practicing morality man feels that he will come nearer to his Creator, there is no Bracha. The performance is spontaneous, not coerced, and hence, a Bracha is not required.” ( ibid at Pages 39-40)
It should ne noted that RYBS went on to explain a Machlokes HaTanaim between R Akiva and R Yishmael as to whwether even Mishopatim require obedience that is motivated by the Mitzvos, as opposed to human based morals and sensitivities, and it is difficult to distinguish between Chukim and Mishpatim. RYBS noted:
“If you are concerned with the moral integrity of the community, and if you are seriously detrmined to protect the community from all of the abominations and excesses, practiced by the people who lived in Canaan before you, then train the community to observe the Chukim as well as the Mishpatim.” ( Pages 45-46)
Any other approach commented RYBS is a secular based ethic “because the element of Chok is not understandable and not comprehensible to secular man. When everything is reduced to Mishpat, there is no morality.” ( Page 46)
“RCA to Agudah”
The Agudah is not a RAbbinic organization-the rCA is. One can be a member of both the Agudah and the RCA. If I recall correctly and I couldbe wrong Rabbi MD Tendlers open letter to the JO after the “hesped” of the Rav referred to his ties to both.-I believe that he was in both organizations.
FWIW, RYBS’s explanation of the rationale behind a Birkas HaMitzvah is very relevant to a well known Machlokes HaRishonim between Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam as to whether women recite a Birkas HaMitzvah on Mitzvos Aseh Shezman Grana ( see RH 33a Tosfos
s.v. Ha Rabi Yehudah Ha Rabbi Yosi, and Hilcos Tzitis 3:9).
“but certainly not the only rabbi in history to drift away from Orthodoxy.”
Although I disagree with those who have openly broken with Orthodoxy at least they show more integrity than those who only use their Orthodox backgroundto advocate positions that they know are not acceptable to any believer in theHalachik process.
Re: Michael Rogovin comment above to rjm’s blog http://vesomsechel.blogspot.com/ which he posted on this thread yesterday about his post – modern orthodoxy; neither modern nor orthodox. In it he accused r’ freundal from statements in his book of questionably being orthodox based on his beliefs etc.
Interesting enough the post was pulled – its no longer there. In itself a very flawed (IMHO) but interesting premise that I think is not shared by many.
the big tent is being folded very quickly and for what good? Do we need more denominations that are really the same? Why exclusion when inclusion is our history before the modern era?
There are still many among the Post-Orthodox who are well within Orthodoxy.
My initial response: They are until they aren’t.
To expand on my earlier response. You raised the banner of Post-Orthodoxy on two issues – gay rights and female rabbis. You said here (following your rabbeim) that everyone who thinks women could be rabbis is not, by definition, Orthodox (in contrast to the more nuanced position of R’ Broyde). And clearly, someone who supports the ceremony that Rabbi Steven Greenberg recently performed would not be Orthodox either. Maybe you hold in abeyance a position on whether every person that attended the YU panel on gay Orthodox Jews was not Orthodox and maybe you felt R Blau didn’t understand what he was involved in but, its kind of clear what you feel about those that organized it.
You can say Post Orthodox still can be Orthodox but in every example you raise it means non-Orthodox.
STBO, Clearly I was not commenting on something that was written after I wrote my own comment. Jon Baker was correct as to what I was replying to.
Maybe intellectual honesty isn’t included in gemillas chassadim, but it is certainly essential to Torah study.
Ah, the good old chesed vs. emet conundrum.
IH-please see the annexed link-
“The second issue is the question of the non-Jew. As a rabbi, Hartman once faced the question of whether a Cohen could marry a woman who converted for love of Judaism and was an active and religious Jew. Did her previous status as a non-Jew make her a zona and Biblically prohibited to a descendant of the priestly line? Hartman studied with the Jesuits and recognized non-Jews who are intellectually sophisticated and devoutly religious. You cannot simply categorize them as “goyim.”
I happened to come across RDH’s latest work in Barnes & Nobles and skimmed it from cover to cover. Did RDH allow such a marriage?
IH-here is the link. http://www.jewishjournal.com/a_jew/item/the_god_who_hates_lies_david_hartmans_confrontation_with_an_rethinking_of_j/
I still don’t understand Steve’s position vis a vis chesed. His long piece drawn from RYBS explains why there is no birkat hamitzvah, which nobody disputed, but doesn’t explain his earlier statement that there is no *kiyum* hamitzvah by “social justice, equity, and intellectual honesty” – the first being an aspect of chesed, the second being an aspect of dinim in general (and therefore promoting equity would be part of the beis din process and/or talmud torah), and intellectual honesty (which in part would be saying things beshem omrom, which is also an aspect of talmud torah). All of which are, if not kiyumim of specific mitzvos (aside from the first), not totally without Torah value.
Steve — it is Chapter 4 (pp. 111 – 130). It happened when he was a pulpit Rabbi in Montreal some fifty years ago, he writes.
Panbo-WADr, the chiluk is elementary-anyone can help and would help someone across the street or the equivalent. That is universal in nature. Noone would do any Mitzvah Bein Adam LaMakom , which reflect a particularistic and covenental relationship between HaShem and Klal Yisrael,without being commanded to do so.
“Do you think he would approve of the RCA accepting women rabbis into the organization?”
That’s sort of circular. My sense is that while he certainly wouldn’t lead such a movement, if, in the future, there would be a sufficient number of RCA members who would be in favor of it — i.e., the times have changed — he, as opposed to your rebbeim, would not vote against it. Just my guess.
———————————–
Gil, would you say that it’s possible that in 50 years, the RCA–with the blessing of leading talmedei chachamim and Orthodox rabbis–could accept women as Orthodox rabbis? Or do you believe that it could never happen because halacha will inherently never allow it?
If the former, you might be closer to Joseph Kaplan’s opinion than you think. If the latter, do you think Rabbi Lamm and Broyde are being disengenuous when they are leaving the question of women rabbis open?
Panbo-see the Netziv on this week’s Pasha, especially the Harchev Davar on 27:1 which discusses Chesed done from a totally secular perspective as opposed to being commanded to do so, and the fact that both Dor HaMabul and Anshei Sdom were punished for their failure to perform Chesed from a secular POV. IMO, the Netziv is pointing out the dire consequences of societies or individuals that abhor Chesed as something that they should be doing, and wished to implant in Yaakov the notion that Chesed should be performed ” Lshem Shmayim IKiyum Toraso.”
Steve: it’s not a ‘P’, it’s an Old English letter called a “thorn” ‘Þ’. Anyway, I’m not sure why, but I seem to be sometimes Þanbo and sometimes Jon Baker, probably because of cookies set differently on my office and home machines. I’ve been trying to switch from thanbo to my real name, since there’s no reason to hide behind a pseudonym.
I was sticking with Þanbo just to not be confused with Jon_Brooklyn – it’s a convenient handle, that’s all, not an attempt to sock-puppet.
[...] [Public statement from here: link. Also from there: If you are an Orthodox rabbi and would like to add your name to this statement, please e-mail your name and city of residence to Rabbis.PR@gmail.com. See also this post: link.] [...]
[...] Gil Student, Post-Orthodox Gay Marriage, [...]