|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Click
here for footnotes)
The thought of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook (1865-1935), first
Ashkenazic chief rabbi of mandatory Palestine, has served as an inspiration
to many in this generation. His fusion of Halakha (Jewish law) and
Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism), and his awareness of and responsiveness
to issues affecting modern society, have resonated with many souls
who, in general, do not warm to the teachings of an Orthodox rabbi.
Even when such individuals are in no position to agree with his strict
maintenance of rabbinic tradition, they at least recognize that this
virtuoso is no mere apologist for Orthodoxy. Rav Kook's remarks, infused
by what was undoubtedly a transpersonal consciousness, are too refreshing
to be the stuff of apologetics.
Over the years, as a teacher of Rav Kook's printed works, I have often
heard students venture a guess that Rav Kook's stance on homosexuals
would have to be lenient. The reasoning goes something like this:
Since Rav Kook expressed sympathy and understanding for the early
secular Zionists, the halutsim, wouldn't he have to demonstrate the
same love, the same ahavat yisrael, toward homosexuals?! Actually,
as known to anyone who has studied Rav Kook in some depth, his reaction
to secular Zionism is not a simple affair at all, but rather extremely
nuanced1 . And we should be
surprised if his attitude to homosexuality prove facile or simplistic.
The printed work of Rav Kook—as opposed to the jingos, tokens
and slogans of party apparachiki—is indeed complex.
I have found two pieces in Rav Kook's oeuvre that address the issue
of homosexuality. The first, embedded in a teshuvah or legal responsum,
reads as follows:
. . . That which he2 asserts,
that Rabbenu Asher (ROSH) wrote for his time, and in his day, homosexuality
was not widespread among the gentiles—he needlessly gives the
gentiles the benefit of the doubt. One who knows their mores even
today, after the gloating of modern culture3
, through laws emitted by the upper crust among them, and from the
arguments of the most highly educated, concerning values of ethics
and sexual modesty4 , will
understand to what degree even today, there is room among them for
to'evah ("abomination," Biblical term for homosexuality5
). This applies for several centuries prior to this one. And let his
honor not forget that Rabbenu Asher (ROSH) wrote the book of legal
decisions in Moorish Spain, in a milieu of Arabs, who even today engage
in the "abomination of the Emorites." One who has sojourned
in Asia6 , and whose ears
have heard of their everyday abominal practices, knows their character
. . .7
It is not within the scope of this paper to comment on Rav Kook's
observations concerning Middle Eastern society. What does concern
us, is his perception of modern European civilization. While the wording
is ambiguous (a problem with much of Rav Kook's writing), the author
is definitely cynical when it comes to the much touted strides made
by Western culture, law, education and ethics. In his seminal work,
Orot, written about this time8
, Rav Kook reserves some especially scathing remarks for contemporary
European society. The wholesale slaughter of the Great War, provoked
in Rav Kook, as in many other sensitive individuals, profound disillusionment
with the chimera of progress. The lines he penned from his St. Gallen
exile are Zarathustran in tone, reminiscent of the prophecies of Nietzsche's
alter ego:
The sin of the murderers—the wicked kings and all provocateurs—is
indelible. The blood that was shed in the land will be atoned only
by the blood of those who shed it, and the atonement must come: Total
dismantling of all the foundations of contemporary civilization, with
all of their falsity and deception, with all their poison and venom.
The entire civilization that rings false must be effaced from the
world . . . Then the present civilization will disappear with all
its foundations—literature and theater, and so forth; all the
laws founded on inanity and iniquity, all evil etiquette will pass
away. And the Lord alone will be exalted on that day 9.
The spiritual fabric that in its present state could not prevent,
despite all its glorious wisdom, wholesale slaughter and such fearful
world destruction, has proven itself invalid from its inception .
. . all its progress is not but false counsel and evil entrapment
. . . Therefore, the entire contemporary civilization is doomed and
on its ruins will be established a world order of truth and God consciousness10
.
Rav Kook put little, if any, stock in the veneer of respectability
with which Europe cloaks itself. Beneath the surface there is ample
latitude for immorality. Though to the best of my knowledge, Rav Kook
never mentions him by name, nor does he allude to his theories11
, one is reminded at this point of the discoveries of the Viennese
psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud.
As a whole, the piece quoted is unremarkable; all in all, what one
would expect from an Orthodox rabbi. No sympathy for homoeroticism
from that quarter!
The second reflection on homosexuality is to be found in the book
many regard as the magnum opus of Kookian philosophy, Orot ha-Kodesh
(Lights of Holiness). Of the two passages, this is without question
the bolder. Here Rav Kook goes out on a limb to offer novel exegesis
of a well known Talmudic ruling.
The arousal of the new science concerning the natural inclinations
that some men have from their conception, and on account of this,
they (i.e. the scientists) want to uproot the ethical protest of this—but
the word of our God will stand forever12
. Already Bar Kappara interpreted in this regard, "to'evah (homosexuality)—to'eh
atah vah (you stray thereby)13
." For it is an evil inclination, which man, individual and collective,
must combat. That small amount of desire that might be found in an
individual which is ineradicable, was foreseen by the sages. Regarding
it they said: "Whatever a man wants, etc. It is comparable to
a fish which comes from the fish market. If he wants, he eats it fried;
if he wants, he eats it boiled14
." Thus, they (i.e. the sages) plumbed the depths of human nature
to the point of compassion on those perverted from birth. Nevertheless,
they commented: "Why do crippled (infants) arise? Because they
"overturn their table" (a euphemism for anal intercourse)15
." And though it is not a law, nevertheless, it is a conversation
of ministering angels, namely sages who resemble angels of God16
. All of the people of God will camp and travel by their word17
. And all the remnant in Zion and the remainder in Jerusalem will
be accounted holy18 , and
despise perversions19 . And
the way of the upright is paved20
.
As much rabbinic writing, this pensee assumes familiarity with Talmudic
sources. The first allusion is to a passage in Talmud Bavli, Nedarim
51a. The Talmud relates that at the wedding of Rabbi Judah the Princes'
daughter to the wealthy Ben El'assa21
, one of the wedding guests, Bar Kappara, goaded Rabbi Judah as to
the deeper meaning of the Biblical term to'evah (abomination) unique
to homosexuality22 .
Every explanation Rabbi (Judah) proferred for to'evah was demolished
by Bar Kappara. He (Rabbi Judah) said to him (Bar Kappara): "You
interpret it." He (Bar Kappara) said to him (Rabbi Judah): "First,
let your daughter pour me a cup of wine." She poured him a cup.
He (Bar Kappara) said to Rabbi (Judah): "Get up and dance for
me, that I should tell you." (So Rabbi Judah danced.) "This
is what the Torah is conveying: To'evah (abomination)—to'eh atah
vah (you stray thereby)."
The Talmudic exegete Rabbenu Nissim (RaN) explains: "You stray
thereby—by deserting heterosexual activity and choosing a man23
." The Bible commentator, Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein, understands
Bar Kappara to mean that a male who engages in homosexual intercourse
strays from the course of nature24
. Rav Kook juxtaposes this jeu de mots of Bar Kappara to the outlook
of modern science25 . Whereas
science, or at least a certain current within the scientific community,
regards homosexuality as natural for some men, Rav Kook musters Bar
Kappara's opinion as a way of saying that homosexuality represents
a straying from nature.
Nothing very remarkable there. And, let it be stated, the controversy
regarding the supposed biologic component of homosexuality, remains
a heated debate in scientific circles. To date, it has yet to be proven
conclusively that there is such a biologic basis for some men preferring
an "alternative" lifestyle.
It is the next nugget in Rav Kook's pensee that is surprising in its
originality. In a seeming volte face, or at least a qualification,
Rav Kook grants that in some isolated cases the homosexual urge may
be innate. He further suggests that the Halakha's reluctant acceptance
of anal heterosexual intercourse may have been a concession to that
urge! This is a groundbreaking concept not only as regards Talmudic
exegesis, but in terms of empirical and perhaps observable behavior.
The import of Rav Kook's statement is that husbands who ask of their
wives anal intercourse may be expressing a latent homosexual wish!
That the Halakha sanctioned it—albeit grudgingly—means the
rabbis recognized that in some instances, the individual is born a
homosexual, and thus his urges are bound to find expression. By allowing
the latent homosexual to engage in anal intercourse with his (female)
wife they chose the lesser of two evils26
.
While it might be possible to interpret Rav Kook as saying that a
homosexual is drawn to the specific act of anal intercourse per se,
rather than to the overall intimacy of male companionship, etc., I
believe this a forced interpretation. I think it more reasonable to
assume that while engaging in anal intercourse with his wife, the
latent homosexual will act out a homosexual fantasy.
Perhaps Rav Kook's exegesis, at first blush so daring, is but an extension
of the rabbis' method of putting in perspective a number of dos and
don'ts:
Lest your evil inclination deceive you saying, "All good things
the Holy One has prohibited to Israel," (therefore) the Holy
One said: "Whatever I have prohibited to you, I have allowed
you its parallel. How so? I prohibited to you menstrual blood; I allowed
you hymenal blood. I prohibited to you blood; I allowed you liver,
which is blood throughout. I prohibited to you swine's flesh; I allowed
you the fish called shibuta, whose flesh resembles that of swine.
I prohibited to you a man's wife; I allowed you his divorcee. I prohibited
to you a non-Jewish woman; I allowed you a captive woman. I prohibited
to you a brother's wife; I allowed you his widow when he dies childless
(levirate marriage). I prohibited to you a mixture of wool and linen;
I allowed it in zizit (ritual fringes). I prohibited to you the fat
(helev) of a domestic animal; I allowed you the fat of a wild beast
27."
Yalta, one of the wise women of the Talmud, posed the following riddle
to her husband Rabbi Nahman:
Since whatever the Torah has forbidden, it has compensated for—it
forbade blood, it allowed liver; it forbade menstrual blood, it alllowed
hymenal and postpartum blood; it forbade the fat of a domestic animal,
it allowed the fat of a wild beast; it forbade swine, it allowed the
brain of the shibuta-fish; it forbade a man's wife, it allowed his
divorcee; it forbade a brother's wife, it allowed levirate marriage;
it forbade a non-Jewish woman, it allowed a female captive—I
now desire to eat milk and meat!
Rabbi Nahman said to his cooks: "Roast for her on the spit an
udder28 ."
Rav Kook might well have added to this litany: "The Torah forebade
anal intercourse in a male; it allowed it in a female." One may
argue that there is a world of difference between eating "mock
swineflesh" in the form of mullet's brain29
and stooping to anal intercourse. To this, one may counter that neither
is a soldier taking home a female captive (eshet yefat to'ar) recommended
behavior. In the latter regard, the rabbis enunciated the famous psychological
principle: "The Torah spoke opposite the evil inclination (dibrah
torah k'neged yezer ha-ra); better Israel should eat the meat of a
dying animal slaughtered than they should eat that animal's meat unslaughtered30
." Wedding a non-Jewish captive is far from recommended; it too
is a concession to an overwhelming desire. If the Torah were to forbid
her, the Jewish soldier would take his warbride in defiance of Halakha.
I believe I have made a strong case for subsuming Rav Kook's innovation
within the realm of rabbinic psychology.
The remainder of Rav Kook's pensee is a paraphrase of the discussion
in TB Nedarim 20ff:
Said Rabbi Yohanan ben Dehabai: "Four things were told to me
by the ministering angels: Why are children born cripples? Because
they (fathers) overturn their table (i.e. engage in anal intercourse
with their wives31 ) . . .
Said Rabbi Yohanan: "These are the words of Yohanan ben Dehabai,
but the sages said the law is not like Yohanan ben Dehabai, but rather
whatever a husband wishes to do with his wife, he may do so. It is
comparable to meat that comes from the butchershop. If he wants to
eat it salted, he may do so; if he wants to eat it roasted, he may
do so; if he wants to eat it boiled, he may do so. It is also comparable
to fish that comes from the fish market."
Said Amemar: "Who are the ministering angels? The rabbis!"
. . .
A woman came before Rabbi (Judah the Prince). She said to him: "Rabbi,
I set for him a table and he overturned it." He (Rabbi) said
to her: "My daughter, the Torah allowed you32
, so what should I do for you?!"
A woman came before Rav. She said to him: "Rabbi, I set for him
a table and he overturned it." He said: "How is this different
from a small fish?!"33
A Talmudic discussion not to be taken lightly! The give-and-take,
and especially the anecdote of the anonymous women and the rabbis,
become the source for later authorities to decide whether anal intercourse
(biah she-lo ke-darkah) is permitted.
Maimonides writes: "A man's wife is permitted to him. Therefore,
whatever a man desires to do with his wife, he may do . . . He may
have with her vaginal and anal intercourse, provided that (in the
latter case) he does not ejaculate34
. Nevertheless, it is a mark of piety . . . that he not stray from
the way of the world and its custom, for this thing (i.e. sexual intercourse)
is only for the sake of procreation 35."
The great French Tosafist, Rabbi Isaac of Dampierre (RI) disagreed
with Maimonides, and allowed anal intercourse even if it were to culminate
in seminal emission. His is a different proviso—that anal intercourse
be only occasional and not habitual36
.
The "final verdict" of Rabbi Moses Isserles (RaMA) in his
gloss to Shulhan 'Arukh, Even ha-'Ezer 25:2, relects both opinions
of Maimonides and Rabbi Isaac:
He (a husband) may do with his wife as he pleases . . . He may have
with her both vaginal and anal intercourse, providing he does not
waste his seed. Some are more lenient, and allow anal intercourse
even if it results in seminal emission, provided that he engage in
anal intercourse only occasionally and not habitually.
This is not to say that Rav Kook wrote in a prescriptive vein when
he suggested that the Halakha's careful acceptance of bi'ah she-lo
ke-darkah (unnatural intercourse) was a response to a deep-seated
psychological need on the part of some individuals. The paradigm for
such thinking was established by the sages of the Talmud when they
declared,"Dibrah Torah k'neged yezer ha-ra" ("The Torah
spoke opposite the evil inclination.") The application of this
principle was Rav Kook's response to the supposed biological basis
for homosexuality current in scientific circles in his day. Already
in Rav Kook's day, the legislature and intelligentsia could be counted
upon to support such an interpretation of the phenomenon of homosexuality.
The piece that ensues is one more example of the startling relevance
of Abraham Isaac Kook's literary legacy.
|
|
|