ARR 52-54

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

14. Homosexuals in Leadership Positions

(Vol. XCI, 1981, pp. 67-69)

QUESTION: Should a congregation engage a known homosexual as a religious school teacher in the high school department? What should our attitude be toward engaging a known homosexual as Executive Secretary? Both of these individuals are quite open about their homosexuality.

ANSWER: The Central Conference of American Rabbis has concerned itself with the problems of homosexuals for a number of years. In 1977 the following resolution was adopted:

Whereas,the Central Conference of American Rabbis consistently supported civil rights and civil liberties for all people, especially for those from whom these rights and liberties have been withheld, and

Whereas,homosexuals have in our society long endured discrimination,

Be it thereforeresolved, that we encourage legislation which decriminalizes homosexual acts between consenting adults, and prohibits discrimination against them as persons, and

Be it further resolved,that our Reform Jewish religious organizations undertake programs in cooperation with the total Jewish community to implement the above stand.

We will not discuss the modern Jewish attitude toward homosexuals which has been shaped by two factors: (a) the attitude of tradition towards homosexuality, and (b) our contemporary understanding of homosexuality, which understands it as an illness, as a genetically based dysfunction, or as a sexual preference and lifestyle. There is disagreement whether homosexuality represents a willful act or a response to which the individual is driven.

The Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is absolutely clear, as seen in two sample verses: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence” (Leviticus 18:22); “If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death–their blood-guilt is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). Other statements are equally clear. The Talmudic discussion of the matter makes no substantive changes and continues the prohibition. It deals with the question of minors, duress and various forms of the homosexual act (San. 53aff, Yev. 83b, Ker. 2aff, Ned. 5.1a, etc.). In the subsequent codes, the matter is briefly mentioned with the same conclusions (Yad, Hil. Isurei Bi-a 1.5, 22.2; Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 24). There is very little material in the responsa literature which deals with homosexuality, as it does not seem to have been a major problem. The commentators to the above-mentioned section of the Shulchan Aruch felt that suspicion of homosexuality could not arise in their day, and so various preventive restrictions were superfluous. For example, Moses Rifkes (17th-century Poland) stated that this sin did not exist in his time (Be-er Hagola).Until the most recent modern period there has been no further discussion of this matter.

Let us turn to the question of the homosexual as a role model and begin by examining the status given to those in leadership positions by our tradition. Statements such as, “Whoever teaches the son of his fellowman is seen as having begotten him” (San. 19b), or “A teacher is given priority over the natural father in matters of honor” (B.M. 2, 11), demonstrate the high regard for persons in leadership positions. The commandment “Honor your father and your mother” was applied to teachers as well as parents (Bamidbar Rabba 15.17). The medieval codes provide a long list of duties which a student must fulfill in order to honor his teacher (Yad, Hil Talmud Torah 5.5-7; Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 242.15, 16).

The highest personal and moral qualities were associated with these leaders of the community (M. Guedemann, Geschichte dei Erziehungswesens und der Kultur der abendlaendischen Juden, vol. 1, pp. 93ff, vol. 3, pp. 31ff). When accusations of impiety or improper behavior were brought against a rabbi, he could be removed from office if they were proven. Such problems were rarely mentioned in the responsa literature, and the authorities urged caution and rigorous investigation of the accusations and the motivation of the accusers (Moses Sofer, Responsa, Choshen Mishpat 162; Mordecai Schwadron, Responsa II, no. 56). There was more discussion about cantors and improper behavior. Their position was somewhat different as they were not primarily teachers, but were in the position of Sheliach Tsibur and, therefore, had to possess an absolutely proper moral character (Machzor Vitry 233 and 271), and among Ashkenazim they were sometimes dismissed on rumor alone (ibid. Isserles to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 53.2). This was not to be taken lightly (Moses Sofer, Chatam Sofer, Orach Chayim 11.205). The Sephardic community was more lax in this regard (Maimonides, Responsa–Friemann, #18), but would also dismiss instantly if a charge was proven (R. Hai, Sha-arei Teshuva, #50). These standards referred to all kinds of overt improper sexual behavior, as well as to other unacceptable acts. I have found only one reference to an accusation of homosexual practices; although this was not proven, the cantor was dismissed as a preventative measure (Elijah Ibn Hayim, Responsa, #41). The community always sought leaders who were above reproach and continues to do so. Overt heterosexual behavior or overt homosexual behavior which is considered objectionable by the community disqualifies the person involved from leadership positions in the Jewish community. We reject this type of individual as a role model within that Jewish community. We cannot recommend such an individual as a role model nor should he/she be placed in a position of leadership or guidance for children of any age.

Walter Jacob, Chairman

Leonard S. Kravitz

W. Gunther Plaut

Harry A. Roth

Rav A. Soloff

Bernard Zlotowitz

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.