While bigotry and xenophobia of all varieties have plagued societies for centuries, we can point to some progress in our culture and the strides we have made regarding the status of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the last 50 years. Although there are laws to prevent flagrant discrimination against these groups, the struggle to overcome oppression continues. It is the aim of this discussion to assist in unearthing and exposing a hatred that seems to have been so firmly planted in our culture that, in the end, appeals to justice, conscience, or reason count for little. I am speaking of the fear and hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality.

Under the guise of morality and religion, pernicious attacks continue to be made against our gay and lesbian friends and family members despite much evidence in Biblical scholarship that exposes them as manifestalions of simplistic interpretations taken out of historical and cultural context to bolster some deep-seated fears. This knee-jerk thinking and a habitual reliance on old canards are still rampant today. In the spring of 1998, in these pages, Nathaniel Lehrman¹ constructed a double-sided distortion to help make a case for the continued demonization of homosexuals. First he used the most extreme, sensationalistic, and antisocial examples as caricatures to misrepresent homosexuals. To cite only one example, he described the behavior of ACT-UP activists "invading Catholic churches during services, screaming obscenities, and stomping on communion wafers." (This practice of using extreme and isolated examples to typify all homosexuals is something Lehman continues to employ in his most recent article in Midstream, "Sigmund Freud's Anti-Jewish Ideology," September/October 1999.) In juxtaposition, he cited Dennis Prager in painting a romanticized, fantasy-wrapped image of Jewish heterosexual marriage. Lehman ignored the fact that, regardless of custom, in halacha, marriage has never been an egalitarian relationship but one of male ownership, since the ketubah or marriage contract comes under the laws of property. He omitted other aspects, induding the fact that for most of Jewish history, prohibition against adultery only applied to married women and never barred a married man from having as many affairs, concubines, or wives as he liked as long as the women were not married.

To better grasp how this demonization of homosexuality evolved, it is essential to refer to the ancient texts and the societies that produced them. In this way we can see why the homophobia of today and recent generations may constitute a stark aberration in our cultural evolution. Both the demonization of which I speak and the notion of homosexuality or heterosexuality are relatively modern phenomena. By shedding more light than heat on this subject, we can then understand how this hatred betrays an ignorance of the multiplicity of voices and messages of our religious tradition and how one thread, that has passed itself off as the tradition in its totality, became fixated on and distorted by the perverted fears of other cultures as well as of certain forces within Judaism itself.

For those who read Torah literally, "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman: that is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, and. its extended counterpart, 20:13), there must be consistency in adhering to all commands and proscriptions in the Bible for the pejorative reading on homosexuality to be persuasive. Homophobic readers, however, do not apply this literalism across the board. Otherwise they would see anesthesia for childbirth pain as forbidden since it would violate the directive to women, "In pain shall you bear children." (Genesis 3:16) Our tradition does not support this literalist interpretation. Equally as illustrative is the passage that contains the phrase "...an eye for an eye...." (Exodus 21:22-25) No reputable scholar would agree that this is to be understood literally, nor do we have the space to expound on its true meaning here.

The Holiness Code in Leviticus dealt with sexual boundaries, and any "abhorrent" infractions ran counter to what was accepted by the priestly order. According to some scholars, these infractions signified acts that imitated idolatrous cultic practices of surrounding cultures, such as ritual prostitution. What is often forgotten, notes Arthur Waskow,² is that not only were these rules codified by a relatively small group of men from the priestly caste, but that these priests were chosen by heredity for their blemish-free bodies, not for their intellect, ethical sensitivity, nor for their way with words such as those we find in the poetic and literary sections of the Bible. Even in the Talmudic period in Babylonia, the writings we find come from one very limited social group within the culture: the rabbinic elite. As Daniel Boyarin, a Talmudic scholar, points out,³ we know almost nothing of what the rest of the Jewish world was doing or thinking. In all likelihood, this religious elite would be more stringent in its code and conduct than other segments of society.

Sex in Biblical times was essentially a relationship that defined power and ownership. The Holiness Code indicated the correct nature of this relationship and as such the male was the one entitled to uncover the female and penetrate her. The state of relationships between the sexes then was not one of mutuality nor of egalitarianism. In both the ancient Jewish world, as well as in the adjacent and influential Mediterranean cultures of those times, women were essentially property, and their needs, feelings or desires, sexual or otherwise, were of little, if any, concern to the male power structure.

Saul Olyan⁴ and other scholars have amassed substantial textual data to show that conceptions of gendered sex roles were critical in determining the boundary constructions that defined licit and illicit sex acts. What their research makes clear is that receptivity was bounded on the basis of one's biological sex. The world, as put so succinctly by Daniel Boyarin, "was divided into the screwers?all male?and the screwed?both male and female." Boyarin reminds us that the word for female in Biblical and Talmudic Hebrew, and in Talmudic Aramaic (ne-ke-vah' in modern Hebrew) means "orifice bearer." How can a language be any more graphic in denoting an entire sex in one word? With a world view where power structure and destiny are contingent on a person's genitalia, is it any wonder that the phallus has become such a fixation? Its prominence in statuary and worship has held fast for so many centuries for so many societies and continues today while transmuted into more subtle and symbolic form.

Lest we make any hasty assumptions about what were and were not considered acceptable in terms of sexual acts, the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 54a) argues explicitly, as Boyarin says, "that with reference to women there are two kinds of intercourse, that is, vaginal and anal, because the verse that deals with male-male anal intercourse indicts it as 'a woman's lyings.'" Since being penetrated was equated with a female role, the act of one male penetrating another in anal intercourse violated the societal order of things and "feminized" the recipient by displacing him into the unenviable status of a woman. The violator was the penetrator, who, through his choice of the owner of the recipient orifice, dared confuse the boundaries of clearly assigned roles. In Jewish society, this role was only designated for women. In classical societies, it was either a female or a lower status male.

At the same time as we grasp the way the Jewish tradition understood a particular form of sexual activity, it is essential to be aware of what the rabbis of antiquity did not argue regarding homoerotic behavior. Michael Satlow⁵ delineates at least four areas that did not pose problems for the rabbis but are often incorrectly attributed to them as a rationale for persecution and slandering of gays and, by extension, lesbians. "They did not argue that homoeroticism was wrong because it was impure: or 'that it was the sin of the men of Sodom and Gommorah; or that it was unnatural; or that it interfered with procreation...." Boyarin fleshes out our picture of what traditional Jewish sources did and did not allow when he writes that "male-male sexual practices other than anal intercourse are not prohibited by the Torah." These other sexual activities come under the category of masturbation whether done alone or in concert; and, as Olyan points out, masturbation is clearly not prohibited in Leviticus. We must understand the relatively recent invention of homosexuality as a category that signifies a complex set of behaviors. In Biblical and rabbinic times, and for centuries thereafter until about one hundred years ago, people did not have a word in their vocabulary to denote what we call homosexuality. Rabbi Martin Cohen,⁶ Boyarin, and other scholars clearly demonstrate that the rabbis did not define people by the gender of the object of their sexual desire.

The contextual analysis and historical re-examination are meant to demonstrate that homophobia is not an essentially Jewish core value, but it expresses, to paraphrase Boyarin, only one of several voices and patterns that constitute a discordant chorus in rabbinic culture. As evidence of just one example of this diversity of views in Jewish tradition, Rabbi Stuart Kelman⁷ reminds us that the Ramban doubted that homosexual relations were prohibited except in the land of Israel. Yet from his extensive research and an Orthodox background, Boyarin not only sees that "clearly the seedbed for extremely violent discourses of gender and sexuality is well prepared within rabbinic textuality" but that misogyny and its tool, homophobia, are both pervasive in modern Jewish Orthodoxy.

The point is often made by those who would continue to deny our lesbian/gay sisters and brothers equal rights, that granting them the right to marry, have spousal benefits, and be protected from arbitrary employment termination would undermine the traditional family and the values it enshrines. I have yet to hear the process explained, step-by-step, how this would actually occur. As far as I can discern, the only family traditions or values that might be undermined would be those that teach us that there is only one way to be human and form a loving, nurturing family. The refusal to allow for differences that harm no one but enhance and enrich family and community life throughout our society is characteristic of narrow-minded extremism and is commonly known as intolerance.

If one man loving another were so heinous a crime and intrinsically un-Jewish, why would the great names in Spain's Golden Age, including Judah Halevi and Moses Ibn Ezra, have written unabashedly gay erotic love poetry? For centuries these visionaries have been held in high regard. True rejection and revulsion by the Jewish community, whether deserved or not, seem to be more clearly illustrated in denunciatory or heretical situations like those of Shabbetai Zevi or Baruch Spinoza.

The next aspect of the disingenuous nature of the moral/political crusade against gays and lesbians today deals with what I call the "abomination" argument. The reason often given for the extremely punitive treatment that fundamentalists/conservatives reserve for homosexuals is that the Bible tells us that their particular sexual behavior is an abomination. While some of the more ignorant of these folk may believe this, in reality, it exemplifies the hypocrisy of those who insist on excluding gays and lesbians from certain basic civil rights and sacred rituals. Let us review what our tradition says about another abomination (to'evah in Hebrew) in sacred text (Deuteronomy 25:18-16); one that gets neither much air time nor galvanizes religious and legislative moralists today. The concept of false weights and measures constitutes a category of secret (beseter) crimes and includes many forms of financial dishonesty, including unfair pricing, tax evasion, shortchanging (which can take the form of cheating on income taxes or padding accounts), and more. On this particular to'evah, Meir Tamari, a scholar on Jewish ethics in commerce, reminds us⁸ that in Hilchot Geneivah, Maimonides "considers it to be worse than sexual immorality, since the latter is between man and God, while the former is between man and man."

Many of us have committed monetary acts in secret, as described above, and have often found ways to rationalize them. Yet if we woke up tomorrow and found that the commission of what might arguably be called a Biblical abomination were the only criteria for major disenfranchisement, could we even imagine what kind of turmoil would ensue if any and all of us who had ever been guilty of such monetary misconduct were to be denied equal protection under law, banned from marrying, refused domestic partner benefits, and terminated by an employer, to mention only a few of the injustices and brutalities blatantly perpetrated on homosexuals?

Societal and Jewish moral values change over time as does halacha. For example, monogamy is now the norm, but for much of our history polygyny was accepted. Today we do not stone anyone to death who may have committed a sexual offense for which the Torah specified such a death sentence. In many such cases nowadays, no legal punishment is meted out at all and matters are dealt with privately, often involving therapy or counseling. But if we again extend the analogy as was used above to our current situation, in no other case of these sexual offenses proscribed in the Bible do we deny equal protection under law to such persons and bar them from marriage, partner benefits, and the like. The double standard here is so glaring that most of us seem to be blind to this fact. At the same time, it may be ironic to note that the Torah specifies no minimum age for intercourse with a girl child while the Talmud permits it after the age of three! Yet where are the literalists' voices in arguing against our current moral standards and sympathies rather than defending modern-day perpetrators and the sacred texts that permit what we would certainly call child molestation?

The fact that halacha and values change with time and with shifts in perspective should spur us to engage in dialogue that challenges the meaning, significance, and force of Biblical abominations (to'evot) in relation to other lasting Jewish principles that guide our communal morality. Those of us who eat non-kosher food commit an abomination on a daily basis and could be deemed in no position to render judgment on our fellow Jews. Likewise, idol worship is an abomination, and one could argue that the rampant fixation on and attention to money and its rapid accumulation in large quantities via stock market profits and prices, coupled with the neglect of family and personal matters that often accompanies this lifestyle, constitute a modern form of idolatry. Not only is this abomination tolerated, it is sanctioned, if not rewarded and glorified, in many quarters today. We also have a precedent among the majority of rabbis that disregard the concept of to'evah completely since, according to Stuart Kelman, it is permitted (hence sanctioned) for Conservative rabbis to officiate at the marriage involving the offspring of an adulterous couple (mamzer) to a non mamzer; which is clearly a to'evah.

We must come to grips with the social structures and realities manifested in the Biblical period and recognize how vastly they often differ from those of today. Yet with respect to our Jewish heritage, we would do well to remember that text and tradition do not malign David and Jonathan, who shared a passionate love relationship. Faith Rogow aptly points out⁹ that David is no obscure, minor character. By singing his praises in ceremonies, and linking him with the messianic tradition, we have established him as a role model. Rachel Adler¹⁰ extends this further by using him, in his devoted and tender relationship with Jonathan, as one paradigm of love in her proposed B'rit Ahuvim (Lovers' Covenant) that surely deserves consideration to supersede the ketubah as a marital contract, since the latter is formulated from Jewish property laws and, as such, does not reflect the values of most of contemporary Jewry.

So we are left to re-evaluate some highly questionable, selective assumptions regarding the alleged incompatibility between "traditional Jewish values" and homosexuality. With time and advances in scholarship, the information age has had many effects. One of these has been to expose to the light of day some things we had only dimly grasped, viewed in distorted form, or not seen at all. We can no longer return to Plato's metaphoric cave to engage in one-dimensional readings and disputations but must wrestle with text and tradition in all their complexities. As Rachel Adler urges, let us see that Jewish law takes the form of an extended conversation. It is not static or frozen. Voices from the past form the basis of the discussion, but our voices and our truths are essential in making this an ongoing, living tradition, and the knowledgeable voices of women as well as men of all branches of Judaism need to be included in this conversation.

Notes:

1. Nathaniel S. Lehrman. 'The Laundering of Homosexuality," Midstream, April 1998.
2. Arthur Waskow, Down-to-Earth Judaism. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1995.
3. Daniel Boyarin, "Are There Any Jews in 'The History of Sexuality'?" Journal of the History of Sexuality, 5.3, 1995.
4. Saul Olyan, "'And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman": On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:1S,"Journal of the History of Sexuality, 5.2, 1994.
5. Michael Satlow, "'They Abused Him Like a Woman': Homoeroticiam, Gender Blurring, and the Rabbis in Late Antiquity." Journal of the History of Sexuality, 5.1, 1994.
6. Martin Samuel Cohen. "The Biblical Prohibition of Homosexual Intercourse," Journal of the History of Sexuality, 19.1, 1990.
7. Stuart Kelman, Community and Diversity: A Teshuvah on Gay end Lesbian Couples at Congregation Netivot Shalom, Berkeley, 1995.
8. Meir Tamari, Al Chet: Sins of the Marketplace. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996.
9. Faith Rogow, "Speaking the Unspeakable: Gays, Jews and Historical Inquiry," in Twice Blessed, edited by Balka and Rose. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989.
10. Rachel Adler, Engendering Judaism: An Inclusiue Theology and Ethics. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1998.

THOMAS HERZ, who lives in San Francisco, is a benefits analyst and representative. He holds a Master's Degree from Hebrew Union College, is co-chair and chazzan of the West Bay Chavurah, and is a member of Straights for Gay Rights.