Reader's Guide to Review Articles
Reader’s Guide for the Study of Articles by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, Rabbi Joseph Prouser and Rabbi Aaron Mackler
Introduction
The following is a guide to three articles which can be found in the Fall edition of the United Synagogue Review. You are about to read two opinion pieces by, respectively, Rabbi Joseph Prouser and Rabbi Aaron Mackler, preceded by an article by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson which provides a context for the discussion. Each addresses, from different view points, the question of halakhah and homosexuality (or homosexual practice).
It is important to understand at the outset that the pieces by Rabbis Prouser and Mackler are not teshuvot, responsa in English. Teshuvot (singular: teshuva) are closely argued answers to questions of Jewish practice. Traditionally based on close readings of classic Jewish texts, they set out the history of relevant practices and beliefs, and arguing from what Jewish law has been, a teshuva will come to a conclusion of what Jewish law demands now.
In the Conservative Movement, for a teshuva to be accepted as an authoritative Conservative position it must be approved by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. Over the years the number of votes a teshuva needs to be approved has varied, but an opinion does not need a majority of votes. This can lead to the seemingly paradoxical result that opinions saying “Such-and-such is permitted” and “Such-and-such is forbidden” can both be accepted as legitimate positions within the Conservative Movement (see Rabbi Artson’s piece for an important discussion of the role of diversity of opinion).
In 1992 the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards discussed a number of proposed teshuvot concerning homosexual behavior. At that time, the opinions accepted by the Committee were in agreement that homosexual behavior was forbidden by Jewish law, that rabbis could not participate in or solemnize gay and lesbian “commitment ceremonies”, and that openly gay or lesbian Jews could not be rabbis. (The may be seen on the Rabbinical Assembly’s website - scroll down to the section on “Interpersonal Relations”). The issue, though, has remained controversial and once again the Committee is examining a number of teshuvot on the question. As you will see, there is very little technical or text-based argument in either of the opinion pieces. What you will find are very deeply-felt expressions of values, the concerns which ground the individual rabbis as they grapple with the issues. Now, the nature of the relationship between a rabbi’s values, and the rabbi’s ability to carefully and clearly interpret the halakhic tradition is a complex one, and much has been written on what it is and what it should be. But what is clear is that a rabbi’s values are always relevant, and so it is valuable for us to see these scholars trying to make explicit their concerns.
Rabbi Artson
In providing a context for these two pieces, Rabbi Artson wants to stress two concerns that are often in tension with each other. Or at least, they seem to be. They are halakhic commitment on the one hand, and an embrace of diversity on the other. It will be worthwhile to pay attention to the way each of these finds expression in the opinion pieces that follow.
Halakhic commitment. Although Rabbi Artson does not refer to this until almost halfway through his article we will mention it first, partly because, frankly, it is simpler to talk about, and partly because it is the assumed ground for the discussion. After all, if we were not committed to halakhah, we would not be worried about teshuvot.
Rabbi Artson offers two reasons for the Conservative Movement’s commitment to halakhah. One is that halakhic practice is the Jewish way of doing things, and to the extent that one wants to live a Jewishly rich life, halakhah will be a determining factor in one’s life choices. Second, halakhah is the way we attempt to live out God’s will for us as Jews. These are two very different kinds of reasons, and appeal to different concerns.
Questions:
- What are their relative merits?
- Which do you think is more compelling?
- Why do you think he brings both?
Pluralism. Here, too, there are two very different arguments. One is a sociological argument – the Jewish community by its nature embraces and always has embraced diversity. This is not as simple as it sounds. It is not the case that all of the different opposing groups Rabbi Artson cites on the last paragraph on page 10 embraced each other, or accepted each other as legitimate, or even Jewish. In some cases they did; in some cases reconciliation took over a hundred years to occur; and in some cases the opposing parties never accepted each other. Rather, it is we, looking back on our history, who have come to realize how much our own identities have been shaped and made richer by their interaction. Rabbi Artson challenges us to think about how much is at stake in how and where we set our borders, how much we have gained by the variety of Jews we allow ourselves to learn from and (at the same time) the need to have some sense of limits. Most importantly, he reminds us that opinions and approaches are not “necessarily” beyond the pale; we have the power – and the responsibility – to choose whom we see as our partners.
Pluralism is not just a social reality, it is a theological necessity. This may be a particularly tricky point for those of us not used to talking about God in a serious and systematic way. But it is actually a fairly simple idea. Remember the story of the blind men examining an elephant? The men don’t need to be blind. Think of how many people, how many points of view you would need to adequately describe something complex: what it means to be in love, what Jerusalem is like, what is a human being. Halakhah attempts to capture the will of God for us now.
Questions:
- But who are we?
- And what is the reality of “now”?
- And most of all, what is the will of God, the infinite God?>
- Is it imaginable that any one person, any one point of view will adequately capture it?
(It may not be the case that every opinion is the right one, but we can be sure that no single opinion will tell us all there is to know.)
Rabbi Prouser
Rabbi Prouser’s argument against change is based on two concerns. One is a commitment to halakhah as a system. He begins with the claim that Judaism has “consistently, and with particular stringency, prohibited all acts of homosexual intimacy” from biblical times onward. While there is some argument among scholars and rabbis about the precise meaning and import of the Biblical texts (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13), and the phrase “all acts of homosexual intimacy” must be understood to mean sexual intimacy, Rabbi Prouser accurately characterizes the entire history of rabbinic thought on the subject. Given that, he asks, what does it mean for halakhah as a whole to make such a radical change? What kind of process, what kind of consensus, what kind of certainty must there be to reverse an understanding that had gone unquestioned for the entire history of Judaism as we know it?
Note that Rabbi Prouser spends very little time talking about the content of the matter, about the issue of homosexuality itself. His concern is less with the “rightness” or “wrongness” of homosexuality than with what it would mean for halakhah as a whole if the law were to be changed.
This leads to his second concern, one that some people might find surprising. It becomes clear in his piece that Rabbi Prouser is deeply committed to pluralism.
Questions:
- Who is Rabbi Prouser worried about excluding?
- Why is this important to him?
Rabbi Mackler
No less than Rabbi Prouser, Rabbi Mackler is committed to halakhah. The way he describes halakhah, though, is very different. Where Rabbi Prouser spoke of the value of halakhah itself, and the need to preserve the integrity of the system, Rabbi Mackler locates the importance of halakhah in its ability to convey the will of God. It may be odd to some that the more “liberal” position appears to be the more explicitly “religious”!
Of course, Rabbi Prouser is deeply concerned with the actual content of the halakhic teachings, and Rabbi Mackler is committed to treating halakhah as a whole with reverence and intellectual rigor. But you can see their different approaches not just in the language they use to describe what they are doing, but in the ways they go about trying to understand what Jewish law should be. Compare the kind of information Rabbi Mackler brings to support his position with that in Rabbi Prouser’s paper. Both are looking beyond Jewish texts, both are concerned with how the decision will affect the Jewish community. But where Rabbi Prouser focuses on the affects of the process of the decision, Rabbi Mackler directs his attention to the substance of the issue.
Question:
- What kind of information does Rabbi Mackler brings to support his position what kind does Rabbi Prouser’s bring?
And of course, Rabbi Mackler is concerned about diversity as well. A dominant concern of Rabbi Prouser is to assure that those committed to the halakhic system continue to feel that there is space for them within the Conservative Movement. What population is Rabbi Mackler trying to bring in to the conversation? Is there a way of creating a movement in which both these groups feel at home?
