Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1979
Homosexuality, the Halacha, and the Helping Professions RUBEN SCHINDLER
ABSTRACT: The position of Jewish writings on homosexuality is the topic of inquiry. Overt homosexuality, child homosexuality, and lesbianism are examined in the light of Jewish Halacha (law). Though Talmudic writings view homosexuality with severe disapproval, a spirit of tolerance and compassion is also voiced in them. It is suggested here that Jewish law placed overt homosexuality in the category of illness to evoke compassion for it. Halachic insights also suggest that homosexualities be viewed differentially. Activities involving minors and lesbians are not given equal weight in the realm of retribution. There are efforts to obviate social stigma. Prevention and rehabilitation are given major concern. To conclude the article, the role of the Jewish religious practitioner and his responsibilities vis-a-vis the homosexual client are given a brief examination. T h e place of overt h o m o s e x u a l i t y in society h a s been a source of c o n t r o v e r s y for m a n y decades. In past y e a r s t h e r e h a s b e e n an i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r e s t in t h e subject t h r o u g h a p l e t h o r a of books a n d articles. A f e a t u r e lead article in the New York Times Magazine was r e c e n t l y devoted to t h e subject. 1 The social w o r k c o m m u n i t y has b e e n t r a d i t i o n a l l y involved in the t r e a t m e n t of homosexuals, a l t h o u g h the J e w i s h social w o r k e r has often raised halachic questions in r e g a r d to practice. A pilot s t u d y in I s r a e l of religious and nonreligious social workers, for example, r e v e a l e d t h a t social w o r k e r s are r e l u c t a n t to practice w i t h this p o p u l a t i o n group. T h e r e a s o n s w e r e threefold: a lack of professional knowledge, t h e difficulty of b r i n g i n g about change, a n d t h e concern of possibly sanctioning and p e r p e t u a t i n g a life style t h a t is immoral. T h e purpose of this p a p e r is to e x a m i n e a J e w i s h halachic perspective in r e g a r d to o v e r t h o m o s e x u a l i t y . Its i n t e n t is not to e n t e r into polemics or offer v a l u e j u d g m e n t s about gay r i g h t s a n d the place of t h e gay m o v e m e n t in society. H a l a c h i c guidelines are p r e s e n t e d in o r d e r to place in p r o p e r perspective J e w i s h law on the subject. A n u m b e r of o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t should be of i n t e r e s t to p r a c t i t i o n e r s are s t a t e d t h r o u g h o u t this paper. P r i o r to e n t e r i n g into T a l m u d i c sources and response, a b r i e f s t a t e m e n t on t h e subject is w a r r a n t e d . T h e H e c h i n g e r s describe the c a m p u s scene, w h e r e the h o m o s e x u a l s t u d e n t faces bias and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i t h limited t o l e r a n c e from his peers: However much their lot has improved many homosexual students---for whom the word "gay" is a cruel misnomer--are not well integrated; they are at ease with neither self, nor environment. For them, all the new and considerable changes in the past decade Dr. Schindler is affiliated with the School of Social Work, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, 0022-4197/79/0400-0132500.95
132
9 1979 Institutes of Religion and Health
Homosexuality, the Halacha, and the Helping Professions
133
have not eliminated the often bitter side-effects of standing in conflict with society's view of what is ~normal" in the relationship between men and women. 2 Beiber has indicated that: Few if any homosexuals are satisfied with their condition, whether or not this is consciously admitted. Those who cling to their homosexual orientation and avoid contemplating possibilities for change are by and large, chronically depressed although episodes of gloom and despair may be rationalized to other situations. 3 The current view of homosexuality was also reflected in recent findings of the American Psychiatric Association. A sampling of 2,500 psychiatrists was asked to respond to the following question: Is homosexuality usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation? Sixty-nine percent responded affirmatively; eighteen percent said no; and thirteen percent were uncertain. Almost seventy-five percent indicated that homosexual men were generally less happy than others. In regard to the possibility of change from homosexuality to heterosexuality via therapy, over one-third said that highly motivated individuals can change to heterosexuality. 4 These findings suggest that, like the general community, the medical community views homosexuality as a form of pathology that requires help. The issue was raised in specific terms when the psychiatrists were asked whether the homosexual's problems in living were a result of personal conflicts or stigmatization. Seventy-five percent of the physicians indicated that homosexuality is a function of pathology. It is surprising how closely these contemporary findings merge with halachic directions on this subject. The documentation that follows suggests that deviancy as expressed in homosexual behavior is placed in the category of illness rather than in that of normal acceptable behavior.
Torah sources
The sources on this subject in the Torah and Talmud are quite numerous. Some of these will be explored here. The earliest reference to homosexuality is found in the book of Genesis. The citizens of Sodom confronted Lot and demanded that the visitors lodging at his home be surrendered to them: "Where are the men that come in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us that we m a y know them. ''5 Rashi clarifies the statement that "we m a y know them" by referring to B m i s h k a v Z a c h o r - - p e d e r a s t y . The c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n Lot and his neighbors is given further insight by yet another commentator. He suggests that "they called upon Lot to surrender them for lust. ''6 A similar scene is depicted in the book of Judges. The visitors were Levites seeking respite from a long journey in the Benjamite city of Gibeah. The inhabitants surrounded the house and insisted that the stranger be handed over to them. They demanded, "Bring forth the man that came into the house that we m a y know him. ''~ The law of hospitality demanded that his guest be
134
Journal of Religion and Health
protected, and the man offered the crowd his own daughter as well as the concubine. The offer was refused, and to save himself the Levite thrust the woman out of the house. The sources above link communities that were known for their immorality and spiritual corruption with homosexuality. If the latter were acceptable behavior, it is unlikely that it would be singled out in the Torah. According to the Torah, those who are engaged in the homosexual act are punishable by death. ~And if man lie with m a n k i n d . . , abomination they have both committed, they shall surely be put to death. ''8 The reason for the prohibition and the severity of the punishment is stated in the Talmud. It is viewed as Toevah, an abomination. Toevah can be understood as, "toeh attah boh. "9 You go astray because of it. The play on words h a s reference to the fact that a homosexual act cannot result in procreation. There are many rabbis, and the R a m b a m in particular, who tie the prohibition of homosexuality to another valued Torah principle, hash-hatad-zera (literally, improper emission of seed), as a powerful overriding consideration. ~o Beyond the negative commandment of improper emission, one is also transgressing the positive commandment of ~'be fruitful and multiply. T M The Sefer Hachinuch takes up the theme of destroying the seed by stating: '~Because God desired to inhabit the earth He created, He therefore commanded that the seed shall not be destroyed by male cohabitation. For this is indeed destruction. ''~2 The rabbis indeed attributed the great flood during Noah's period to hashhatad-zerah Hishchit, ~for all flesh had corrupted their w a y upon the earth. ''13 The halachic point of view is thus clear and specific: any sexual act between males is prohibited, But as we shall see, not every individual is automatically subject to the punishment prescribed.
Minors, Yichud, and a responsum There are situations when no punishment is prescribed even though the homosexual act was performed. The Torah states, ~And if a man lie with mankind they shall surely be put to death. ''14 Rashi states that adults are punishable, Prat lekatan excluding minors. The Rambam elaborates that with minors, regardless of who initiated the act, both are absolved from punishment.15 The Talmud in its examination of homosexuality also places minors in a separate category, absolving them of responsibility for transgression. 16 A separate question that is raised but has bearing on our discussion is what constitutes a minor. There are indeed differing views by the rabbis, ranging from three years and a day to nine years and a day. There is unanimity, however, that above nine years and a day males are liable for overt homosexual activity. From a halachic and t r e a t m e n t view, this has important implications. It enables direct intervention and treatment modalities for minors without halachic infringement. Adults, however, would forfeit their entitlement to treatment unless there is a conscious effort and desire to seek help for deviant behavior.
Homosexuality, the Halacha, and the Helping Professions
135
It is important to clarify another dimension that has bearing upon homosexuality. It is the concept of Yichud (literally, being alone together). Certain moral expectations were directed at the Jewish community. A married m a n was not encouraged to socialize with other married women. Being in a room with a member of the opposite sex without a third party being present was looked upon with severe criticism. No such precautionary legislation is necessary for homosexuality, however. Maimonides states, ~'Israel is above suspicion of sodomy and bestiality" and man is therefore permitted to be alone with another man. 17 Bach adds that in this period men were more G-d-fearing than in previous centuries, thus permitting the socialization of men even without a third party. Is We do not follow any restrictions on the matter of Yichud today, and men can indeed socialize together. The case is somewhat different for a man and woman not of the same marriage. The majority of religious families discourage friendly relationships without the presence of a third party. To arrive at some further insight into the study of homosexuality a responsum is presented here. It was delivered by one of the most distinguished rabbis of the pre-state period, Rabbi Kook. The case in question deals with a shochet (ritual slaughterer) who was rumored to have partaken in a homosexual act. We would assume that his schechita would be considered lax and not to be trusted in the matter of kashruth, and he certainly would have disqualified himself by this or by any other violation of the clear injunction of the Torah. ~9 Rav Kook suggests, however, that the shochet in question should not be found guilty on a number of accounts: First, the shochet can be retained in his post simply because the evidence against him is hearsay. Second, one gives him the benefit of the doubt: even if he had committed such an act, he would have repented. Finally, there is the dimension of outrightly having warned the individual regarding the consequences of his act. In the above case, there was no Hatrah, or warning for the person in question. 2~ The responsum by Rabbi Kook is particularly significant in terms of discriminating against homosexuals by simple hearsay. Furthermore, implied in his responsum is the thrust of reaching out and being compassionate to the point of encouraging change.
Lesbianism The Jewish halachic attitude toward lesbianism is less severe than toward homosexuality. Since the woman is not answerable to procreation, 21 neither is she included in the prohibition ofhash-hatad-zera (improper emission of seed). 22 But restrictions are placed upon the lesbian. For example, she cannot m a r r y into priesthood. The Talmud suggests that because she is not a betula shleamah, a virgin in the true sense, the prohibition of marriage is introduced. 2s The Ramb a m states that a lesbian is disqualified from marriage because she practices lewdness. 24 The lesbian life style is alien to Jewish values and traditions. The Torah states: ~After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall you not do, and their status you shall not walk. ''25 But an actual transgression is not committed, nor does the lesbian receive malkot; therefore, the act is placed
136
Journal of Religion and Health
within the context of a minor offense. The act is viewed with distaste perhaps primarily because of Zniut, the need to carry oneself in a way "becoming the daughters of Israel."
Some further observations for the practitioner It is obvious from Talmudic writings that homosexuality is not viewed as normative behavior. The laws were found to be very stringent against homosexual behavior, b u t one can also sense a spirit of tolerance, a feeling of concern. The Torah perhaps placed the individual quite consciously in the category of illness in order not to be overtly critical but rather compassionate. Furthermore, from halachic insights we note that homosexuality should be viewed differentially. The issue of minors is a case in point. From a modern point of view, one can easily see why the Torah was liberal on this issue. Efforts were made to obviate societal stigma and, perhaps most important, stigma by the participants themselves. Hearsay was not credited; onetime offenders were to be given another chance. There are policy issues that must be given consideration. Supportive services for this group are viewed as vital. When only limited funds are available, however, and choices between minors and adults are considered, the former halachically take precedence. The same is true in the treatment of lesbian practices in contrast to overt male homosexuality. Supportive services cover a wide range of agencies. To date there has been limited design and planning to serve this specific population. An argument that is often put forth in limiting funds and shying away from direct practice relates to poor prognosis in treat, ing homosexuals. Furthermore, if treatment is not successful, the concern of perpetuating an immoral life style is given sanction. Empirical evidence simply does not validate this view. A number of studies indicate that change is indeed possible. Bergler, in a study of 1,000 homosexuals, indicated that "homosexuality if treated appropriately is curable in a short period of eight months in psychiatric-psychoanalytic treatment. ''26 Ellis also supported an optimistic prognosis and found that a favorable outcome was associated with motivation for change. Furthermore, homosexuals who remained in treatment for an extended period of time were more likely to change, especially if they were young, z7 In the investigation of lesbians Kaye reported a fifty percent reversal. 2s An important treatment dimension to consider, particularly for the Jewish religious client, relates to the choice of treatment--individual or group. It would appear that because of stigma that religious clients face the treatment of choice would be t r e a t m e n t on an individual basis. Exposure even within a small group would simply be too threatening, culturally perhaps more than psychologically. W h e n the group, however, is the t r e a t m e n t of choice, homogeneous groups for homosexuals offer distinct advantages. To begin with, patients have been less resistant about joining a group composed of other
Homosexuality, the Halacha, and the Helping Professions
137
h o m o s e x u a l s , w h e r e t h e y are less g u a r d e d a n d w h e r e t h e y o p e n u p m o r e quickly. T h e y p r o b a b l y a r e m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e in e a c h o t h e r s ' presence. I n r e g a r d to t h e r a p i s t s , m a l e a n d f e m a l e c o t h e r a p i s t s s e e m to h a v e distinct a d v a n t a g e s . As S i n g e r a n d F i s h e r h a v e stated: Oedipal responses are more easily facilitated.., if a member develops serious resistance towards the male therapist this intensifies a relatedness with the female therapist and the flow of the treatment process continues, particularly if occasional or regular individual sessions are scheduled. 29 T h e r e m a y be s o m e question, h o w e v e r , as to w h e t h e r t h e a d u l t h o m o s e x u a l m a y w i s h to e n t e r a long a n d s u s t a i n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a f e m a l e t h e r a p i s t . P a r t i c u l a r l y if t h e client is r e l i g i o u s l y oriented, a f e m a l e t h e r a p i s t is not only t h r e a t e n i n g b u t c u l t u r a l l y not acceptable. A final word should be said a b o u t t h e J e w i s h O r t h o d o x p r a c t i t i o n e r . In t h e foregoing e x a m i n a t i o n of h a l a c h i c p e r s p e c t i v e , conflict b e t w e e n p e r s o n a l religious v a l u e s is d r a s t i c a l l y modified, if not resolved. T h e option of w i t h d r a w i n g : f r o m a specific a r e a of practice b e c a u s e of possible v a l u e s t r a i n s is not seen as desirable. On t h e c o n t r a r y , one c a n a r g u e t h a t for t h e J e w i s h p r a c t i t i o n e r t h e r e m a y be a g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of w o r k i n g w i t h h o m o s e x u a l s , since c h a n g e t o w a r d n o r m a t i v e b e h a v i o r is a v a l u e of t h e h i g h e s t o r d e r in J e w i s h t h o u g h t . P e r h a p s o u r i m m e d i a t e concern is to give a s e n s e of p r i o r i t y a n d u r g e n c y to t h i s subject. To d a t e t h e r e s p o n s e h a s b e e n s o m e w h a t limited. References 1. Hechinger, G., and Hechinger, F. M., "Homosexuality on Campus," N e w York Times Magazine, March 12, 1978.
2. Ibid., p. 15. 3. Beiber, T. B., "Group Therapy with Homosexuals." In Kaplan, H., and Sadock, B., eds., Comprehensive Group Psychotherapy. Bartimore, Williams and Wilkins Co., 1971, p. 519. 4. "Sexual Survey #4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality." In Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, vol. 11, no. 11, November, 1977, pp. 110-111. 5. Genesis 19:5. 6. Genesis 19:5--Hatorah Vehamizvah. 7. Judges 19:22. 8. Deuteronomy 23:18, Leviticus 20:13. 9. Bavli, Nedarim 21:1. 10. Rambam, Isur Beah 21:18, Bavli Nidah 13:1. 11. Bavli, Sanhedrin 59:13. 12. Sefer Hachinuch, precept 209. 13. Note Genesis 6:12, Bavli Niddah, Rashi 13:1. 14. Leviticus 20: 10-14. 15. Rambam Kiddushin, Hilchut Esur Beah 21:2. 16. Bavli, Sanhedrin 54:2. 17. Ibid., chapter 22:2. 18. Rabbi Joel Sirkes, 17th Century, Response. 19. For example, desecration of the Sabbath. 20. Dat Cohen, Ray Kook. 21. On another level it should be stressed that since the woman is not answerable to procreation, the Rabbenu Tam permits her to employ a contraceptive device.
138
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
Journal of Religion and Health
Bavli Yevomot, 12:2, Ketuvot 39:1. Shabbat 65:2. Rambam-Hilchot Beah 20:1. Leviticus 18:2. Bergler, E., 1000 Homosexuals. Paterson, New Jersey, Pageant Books, 1959. Ellis, A., '~The Effectiveness of Psychotherapy in Individuals Who Had Severe Homosexual Problems," J. Consulting Psychol., 1956, 20, 191. 28. Kaye, H. E., ~'Homosexuality in Women," Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, 1967, 17, 626. 29. Singer, M., and Fisher, R., "Group Psychotherapy of Male Homosexuals by a Male and Female Co-therapy Team," Int. J. Group Psychotherapy, 1967, 17, 44.
Homosexuality, the Halacha, and the Helping Professions RUBEN SCHINDLER
ABSTRACT: The position of Jewish writings on homosexuality is the topic of inquiry. Overt homosexuality, child homosexuality, and lesbianism are examined in the light of Jewish Halacha (law). Though Talmudic writings view homosexuality with severe disapproval, a spirit of tolerance and compassion is also voiced in them. It is suggested here that Jewish law placed overt homosexuality in the category of illness to evoke compassion for it. Halachic insights also suggest that homosexualities be viewed differentially. Activities involving minors and lesbians are not given equal weight in the realm of retribution. There are efforts to obviate social stigma. Prevention and rehabilitation are given major concern. To conclude the article, the role of the Jewish religious practitioner and his responsibilities vis-a-vis the homosexual client are given a brief examination. T h e place of overt h o m o s e x u a l i t y in society h a s been a source of c o n t r o v e r s y for m a n y decades. In past y e a r s t h e r e h a s b e e n an i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r e s t in t h e subject t h r o u g h a p l e t h o r a of books a n d articles. A f e a t u r e lead article in the New York Times Magazine was r e c e n t l y devoted to t h e subject. 1 The social w o r k c o m m u n i t y has b e e n t r a d i t i o n a l l y involved in the t r e a t m e n t of homosexuals, a l t h o u g h the J e w i s h social w o r k e r has often raised halachic questions in r e g a r d to practice. A pilot s t u d y in I s r a e l of religious and nonreligious social workers, for example, r e v e a l e d t h a t social w o r k e r s are r e l u c t a n t to practice w i t h this p o p u l a t i o n group. T h e r e a s o n s w e r e threefold: a lack of professional knowledge, t h e difficulty of b r i n g i n g about change, a n d t h e concern of possibly sanctioning and p e r p e t u a t i n g a life style t h a t is immoral. T h e purpose of this p a p e r is to e x a m i n e a J e w i s h halachic perspective in r e g a r d to o v e r t h o m o s e x u a l i t y . Its i n t e n t is not to e n t e r into polemics or offer v a l u e j u d g m e n t s about gay r i g h t s a n d the place of t h e gay m o v e m e n t in society. H a l a c h i c guidelines are p r e s e n t e d in o r d e r to place in p r o p e r perspective J e w i s h law on the subject. A n u m b e r of o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t should be of i n t e r e s t to p r a c t i t i o n e r s are s t a t e d t h r o u g h o u t this paper. P r i o r to e n t e r i n g into T a l m u d i c sources and response, a b r i e f s t a t e m e n t on t h e subject is w a r r a n t e d . T h e H e c h i n g e r s describe the c a m p u s scene, w h e r e the h o m o s e x u a l s t u d e n t faces bias and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i t h limited t o l e r a n c e from his peers: However much their lot has improved many homosexual students---for whom the word "gay" is a cruel misnomer--are not well integrated; they are at ease with neither self, nor environment. For them, all the new and considerable changes in the past decade Dr. Schindler is affiliated with the School of Social Work, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, 0022-4197/79/0400-0132500.95
132
9 1979 Institutes of Religion and Health
Homosexuality, the Halacha, and the Helping Professions
133
have not eliminated the often bitter side-effects of standing in conflict with society's view of what is ~normal" in the relationship between men and women. 2 Beiber has indicated that: Few if any homosexuals are satisfied with their condition, whether or not this is consciously admitted. Those who cling to their homosexual orientation and avoid contemplating possibilities for change are by and large, chronically depressed although episodes of gloom and despair may be rationalized to other situations. 3 The current view of homosexuality was also reflected in recent findings of the American Psychiatric Association. A sampling of 2,500 psychiatrists was asked to respond to the following question: Is homosexuality usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation? Sixty-nine percent responded affirmatively; eighteen percent said no; and thirteen percent were uncertain. Almost seventy-five percent indicated that homosexual men were generally less happy than others. In regard to the possibility of change from homosexuality to heterosexuality via therapy, over one-third said that highly motivated individuals can change to heterosexuality. 4 These findings suggest that, like the general community, the medical community views homosexuality as a form of pathology that requires help. The issue was raised in specific terms when the psychiatrists were asked whether the homosexual's problems in living were a result of personal conflicts or stigmatization. Seventy-five percent of the physicians indicated that homosexuality is a function of pathology. It is surprising how closely these contemporary findings merge with halachic directions on this subject. The documentation that follows suggests that deviancy as expressed in homosexual behavior is placed in the category of illness rather than in that of normal acceptable behavior.
Torah sources
The sources on this subject in the Torah and Talmud are quite numerous. Some of these will be explored here. The earliest reference to homosexuality is found in the book of Genesis. The citizens of Sodom confronted Lot and demanded that the visitors lodging at his home be surrendered to them: "Where are the men that come in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us that we m a y know them. ''5 Rashi clarifies the statement that "we m a y know them" by referring to B m i s h k a v Z a c h o r - - p e d e r a s t y . The c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n Lot and his neighbors is given further insight by yet another commentator. He suggests that "they called upon Lot to surrender them for lust. ''6 A similar scene is depicted in the book of Judges. The visitors were Levites seeking respite from a long journey in the Benjamite city of Gibeah. The inhabitants surrounded the house and insisted that the stranger be handed over to them. They demanded, "Bring forth the man that came into the house that we m a y know him. ''~ The law of hospitality demanded that his guest be
134
Journal of Religion and Health
protected, and the man offered the crowd his own daughter as well as the concubine. The offer was refused, and to save himself the Levite thrust the woman out of the house. The sources above link communities that were known for their immorality and spiritual corruption with homosexuality. If the latter were acceptable behavior, it is unlikely that it would be singled out in the Torah. According to the Torah, those who are engaged in the homosexual act are punishable by death. ~And if man lie with m a n k i n d . . , abomination they have both committed, they shall surely be put to death. ''8 The reason for the prohibition and the severity of the punishment is stated in the Talmud. It is viewed as Toevah, an abomination. Toevah can be understood as, "toeh attah boh. "9 You go astray because of it. The play on words h a s reference to the fact that a homosexual act cannot result in procreation. There are many rabbis, and the R a m b a m in particular, who tie the prohibition of homosexuality to another valued Torah principle, hash-hatad-zera (literally, improper emission of seed), as a powerful overriding consideration. ~o Beyond the negative commandment of improper emission, one is also transgressing the positive commandment of ~'be fruitful and multiply. T M The Sefer Hachinuch takes up the theme of destroying the seed by stating: '~Because God desired to inhabit the earth He created, He therefore commanded that the seed shall not be destroyed by male cohabitation. For this is indeed destruction. ''~2 The rabbis indeed attributed the great flood during Noah's period to hashhatad-zerah Hishchit, ~for all flesh had corrupted their w a y upon the earth. ''13 The halachic point of view is thus clear and specific: any sexual act between males is prohibited, But as we shall see, not every individual is automatically subject to the punishment prescribed.
Minors, Yichud, and a responsum There are situations when no punishment is prescribed even though the homosexual act was performed. The Torah states, ~And if a man lie with mankind they shall surely be put to death. ''14 Rashi states that adults are punishable, Prat lekatan excluding minors. The Rambam elaborates that with minors, regardless of who initiated the act, both are absolved from punishment.15 The Talmud in its examination of homosexuality also places minors in a separate category, absolving them of responsibility for transgression. 16 A separate question that is raised but has bearing on our discussion is what constitutes a minor. There are indeed differing views by the rabbis, ranging from three years and a day to nine years and a day. There is unanimity, however, that above nine years and a day males are liable for overt homosexual activity. From a halachic and t r e a t m e n t view, this has important implications. It enables direct intervention and treatment modalities for minors without halachic infringement. Adults, however, would forfeit their entitlement to treatment unless there is a conscious effort and desire to seek help for deviant behavior.
Homosexuality, the Halacha, and the Helping Professions
135
It is important to clarify another dimension that has bearing upon homosexuality. It is the concept of Yichud (literally, being alone together). Certain moral expectations were directed at the Jewish community. A married m a n was not encouraged to socialize with other married women. Being in a room with a member of the opposite sex without a third party being present was looked upon with severe criticism. No such precautionary legislation is necessary for homosexuality, however. Maimonides states, ~'Israel is above suspicion of sodomy and bestiality" and man is therefore permitted to be alone with another man. 17 Bach adds that in this period men were more G-d-fearing than in previous centuries, thus permitting the socialization of men even without a third party. Is We do not follow any restrictions on the matter of Yichud today, and men can indeed socialize together. The case is somewhat different for a man and woman not of the same marriage. The majority of religious families discourage friendly relationships without the presence of a third party. To arrive at some further insight into the study of homosexuality a responsum is presented here. It was delivered by one of the most distinguished rabbis of the pre-state period, Rabbi Kook. The case in question deals with a shochet (ritual slaughterer) who was rumored to have partaken in a homosexual act. We would assume that his schechita would be considered lax and not to be trusted in the matter of kashruth, and he certainly would have disqualified himself by this or by any other violation of the clear injunction of the Torah. ~9 Rav Kook suggests, however, that the shochet in question should not be found guilty on a number of accounts: First, the shochet can be retained in his post simply because the evidence against him is hearsay. Second, one gives him the benefit of the doubt: even if he had committed such an act, he would have repented. Finally, there is the dimension of outrightly having warned the individual regarding the consequences of his act. In the above case, there was no Hatrah, or warning for the person in question. 2~ The responsum by Rabbi Kook is particularly significant in terms of discriminating against homosexuals by simple hearsay. Furthermore, implied in his responsum is the thrust of reaching out and being compassionate to the point of encouraging change.
Lesbianism The Jewish halachic attitude toward lesbianism is less severe than toward homosexuality. Since the woman is not answerable to procreation, 21 neither is she included in the prohibition ofhash-hatad-zera (improper emission of seed). 22 But restrictions are placed upon the lesbian. For example, she cannot m a r r y into priesthood. The Talmud suggests that because she is not a betula shleamah, a virgin in the true sense, the prohibition of marriage is introduced. 2s The Ramb a m states that a lesbian is disqualified from marriage because she practices lewdness. 24 The lesbian life style is alien to Jewish values and traditions. The Torah states: ~After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall you not do, and their status you shall not walk. ''25 But an actual transgression is not committed, nor does the lesbian receive malkot; therefore, the act is placed
136
Journal of Religion and Health
within the context of a minor offense. The act is viewed with distaste perhaps primarily because of Zniut, the need to carry oneself in a way "becoming the daughters of Israel."
Some further observations for the practitioner It is obvious from Talmudic writings that homosexuality is not viewed as normative behavior. The laws were found to be very stringent against homosexual behavior, b u t one can also sense a spirit of tolerance, a feeling of concern. The Torah perhaps placed the individual quite consciously in the category of illness in order not to be overtly critical but rather compassionate. Furthermore, from halachic insights we note that homosexuality should be viewed differentially. The issue of minors is a case in point. From a modern point of view, one can easily see why the Torah was liberal on this issue. Efforts were made to obviate societal stigma and, perhaps most important, stigma by the participants themselves. Hearsay was not credited; onetime offenders were to be given another chance. There are policy issues that must be given consideration. Supportive services for this group are viewed as vital. When only limited funds are available, however, and choices between minors and adults are considered, the former halachically take precedence. The same is true in the treatment of lesbian practices in contrast to overt male homosexuality. Supportive services cover a wide range of agencies. To date there has been limited design and planning to serve this specific population. An argument that is often put forth in limiting funds and shying away from direct practice relates to poor prognosis in treat, ing homosexuals. Furthermore, if treatment is not successful, the concern of perpetuating an immoral life style is given sanction. Empirical evidence simply does not validate this view. A number of studies indicate that change is indeed possible. Bergler, in a study of 1,000 homosexuals, indicated that "homosexuality if treated appropriately is curable in a short period of eight months in psychiatric-psychoanalytic treatment. ''26 Ellis also supported an optimistic prognosis and found that a favorable outcome was associated with motivation for change. Furthermore, homosexuals who remained in treatment for an extended period of time were more likely to change, especially if they were young, z7 In the investigation of lesbians Kaye reported a fifty percent reversal. 2s An important treatment dimension to consider, particularly for the Jewish religious client, relates to the choice of treatment--individual or group. It would appear that because of stigma that religious clients face the treatment of choice would be t r e a t m e n t on an individual basis. Exposure even within a small group would simply be too threatening, culturally perhaps more than psychologically. W h e n the group, however, is the t r e a t m e n t of choice, homogeneous groups for homosexuals offer distinct advantages. To begin with, patients have been less resistant about joining a group composed of other
Homosexuality, the Halacha, and the Helping Professions
137
h o m o s e x u a l s , w h e r e t h e y are less g u a r d e d a n d w h e r e t h e y o p e n u p m o r e quickly. T h e y p r o b a b l y a r e m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e in e a c h o t h e r s ' presence. I n r e g a r d to t h e r a p i s t s , m a l e a n d f e m a l e c o t h e r a p i s t s s e e m to h a v e distinct a d v a n t a g e s . As S i n g e r a n d F i s h e r h a v e stated: Oedipal responses are more easily facilitated.., if a member develops serious resistance towards the male therapist this intensifies a relatedness with the female therapist and the flow of the treatment process continues, particularly if occasional or regular individual sessions are scheduled. 29 T h e r e m a y be s o m e question, h o w e v e r , as to w h e t h e r t h e a d u l t h o m o s e x u a l m a y w i s h to e n t e r a long a n d s u s t a i n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a f e m a l e t h e r a p i s t . P a r t i c u l a r l y if t h e client is r e l i g i o u s l y oriented, a f e m a l e t h e r a p i s t is not only t h r e a t e n i n g b u t c u l t u r a l l y not acceptable. A final word should be said a b o u t t h e J e w i s h O r t h o d o x p r a c t i t i o n e r . In t h e foregoing e x a m i n a t i o n of h a l a c h i c p e r s p e c t i v e , conflict b e t w e e n p e r s o n a l religious v a l u e s is d r a s t i c a l l y modified, if not resolved. T h e option of w i t h d r a w i n g : f r o m a specific a r e a of practice b e c a u s e of possible v a l u e s t r a i n s is not seen as desirable. On t h e c o n t r a r y , one c a n a r g u e t h a t for t h e J e w i s h p r a c t i t i o n e r t h e r e m a y be a g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of w o r k i n g w i t h h o m o s e x u a l s , since c h a n g e t o w a r d n o r m a t i v e b e h a v i o r is a v a l u e of t h e h i g h e s t o r d e r in J e w i s h t h o u g h t . P e r h a p s o u r i m m e d i a t e concern is to give a s e n s e of p r i o r i t y a n d u r g e n c y to t h i s subject. To d a t e t h e r e s p o n s e h a s b e e n s o m e w h a t limited. References 1. Hechinger, G., and Hechinger, F. M., "Homosexuality on Campus," N e w York Times Magazine, March 12, 1978.
2. Ibid., p. 15. 3. Beiber, T. B., "Group Therapy with Homosexuals." In Kaplan, H., and Sadock, B., eds., Comprehensive Group Psychotherapy. Bartimore, Williams and Wilkins Co., 1971, p. 519. 4. "Sexual Survey #4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality." In Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, vol. 11, no. 11, November, 1977, pp. 110-111. 5. Genesis 19:5. 6. Genesis 19:5--Hatorah Vehamizvah. 7. Judges 19:22. 8. Deuteronomy 23:18, Leviticus 20:13. 9. Bavli, Nedarim 21:1. 10. Rambam, Isur Beah 21:18, Bavli Nidah 13:1. 11. Bavli, Sanhedrin 59:13. 12. Sefer Hachinuch, precept 209. 13. Note Genesis 6:12, Bavli Niddah, Rashi 13:1. 14. Leviticus 20: 10-14. 15. Rambam Kiddushin, Hilchut Esur Beah 21:2. 16. Bavli, Sanhedrin 54:2. 17. Ibid., chapter 22:2. 18. Rabbi Joel Sirkes, 17th Century, Response. 19. For example, desecration of the Sabbath. 20. Dat Cohen, Ray Kook. 21. On another level it should be stressed that since the woman is not answerable to procreation, the Rabbenu Tam permits her to employ a contraceptive device.
138
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
Journal of Religion and Health
Bavli Yevomot, 12:2, Ketuvot 39:1. Shabbat 65:2. Rambam-Hilchot Beah 20:1. Leviticus 18:2. Bergler, E., 1000 Homosexuals. Paterson, New Jersey, Pageant Books, 1959. Ellis, A., '~The Effectiveness of Psychotherapy in Individuals Who Had Severe Homosexual Problems," J. Consulting Psychol., 1956, 20, 191. 28. Kaye, H. E., ~'Homosexuality in Women," Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, 1967, 17, 626. 29. Singer, M., and Fisher, R., "Group Psychotherapy of Male Homosexuals by a Male and Female Co-therapy Team," Int. J. Group Psychotherapy, 1967, 17, 44.
