From the Archives 1997

Whilst searching old Hakols for interesting articles for the ‘From The Archives’ section I noted a preface to an article that I had written as Hakol editor in June 1997. I quote “In order to progress our aim of on-going improvements to Hakol we need a continual flow of interesting articles. They can relate to any unusual events, places or activities that you have experienced, or any, possibly controversial, opinions that you wish to express, provided that they are of interest to at least some of our readers. The following article certainly falls into the areas of being of both Jewish interest and controversial. It is in fact the text of a sermon recently given by our Hon. Vice President (now Hon. Life President), Rabbi Alan Mann at HPS (now TLSE). Everyone may not agree with its conclusions, but I can guarantee no one fell asleep during the sermon, nor will you on reading it. I look forward to your opinions for publication in the near future.”

INTERESTING AND CONTROVERSIAL Rabbi Alan Mann

There is a story that when the young Princess Victoria was studying with Baroness Lehtzen, her mother, the Duchess of Lent, interrupted them. As the Duchess walked into the room the Baroness was reading the story of Jonah and referred to him being in the belly of the whale for three days and nights. The Duchess was aghast and reprimanded the Baroness with the words. “My daughter should not know such words as belly”. Apologising profusely, the Baroness Lehtzen said that she checked the biblical passages most carefully before reading them to the Princess and added, “There are even parts of the bible that I have not read.” There are many parts of the bible which are somewhat unsavoury and if you study the Mishnah Megillah you will find a list of those passages that should be read and not translated. Not including in that list is the prescribed passage for today in the latter part of the Sidrah Achare Mot. This passage deals with a number of unsavoury matters such as incest, consanguinity, adultery, homosexuality, sexual perversions and general sexual immorality. Whilst these may be everyday topics of conversation round the dinner table in parts of Hampstead, they are not the type of subject which are generally aired in polite society. Their reason for being found in the Torah is quite simple. This is a legal document and these matters are dealt with as a matter of law. While anybody reading out an act of

Parliament for spiritual inspiration may be considered somewhat suspect, to read out the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 would, in polite society, put one beyond the pale. There is in some ways a strange similarity between the Sexual Offences Act and these passages in Leviticus, although a number of the matters which are considered criminal and worthy of stoning are not necessarily dealt in the same way under English law. Homosexuality has now been decriminalised and whilst adultery is not made lawful, the ultimate penalty of stoning is not enforced. In Jewish circles in Western Europe one ignores adultery, as does society in general although homosexuality is a different matter. Progressive Judaism takes a more enlightened attitude than our Orthodox brethren. to our Orthodox brethren who are constrained by their adherence to Torah true Judaism and Halacha Le Moshe Mi Sinai, the Law coming direct from heaven, Torah Min Hashamyim. It is all too easy to condemn Orthodox Judaism for their intransigence and their adherence to a fundamentalist interpretation of law. However, we should not condemn without thought and informed investigation as to their position. By investigating and studying Judaism in all its manifestations we see that Orthodoxy as we know it was a great reforming influence in its time. The Orthodox community does not take an intransigent view of Torah. They themselves have reformed it, developed it and distilled it. Their interpretation of Torah as interpreted by the Mishnaic rabbis and developed further by the Talmudic rabbis and distilled by the great Responsa literature, the philosophers and commentators up to around the 11th or 12th century. Judaism of the 11th and 12th century bore no relationship whatsoever to Judaism of the Temple time of immediate post-Temple period. To an Orthodox Jew, Torah is the Five Books of Moses as developed by the later rabbis.

We have what should be a theological problem. The Torah condemns it out of hand whereas Progressive Judaism looks on the individual and realises that this is his or her natural situation. It is how they are created. It is how they are created by God. To condemn them for being homosexual is condemning God’s creation. It is like condemning someone for the way they are born whether they are black or white, fair haired or dark haired or condemn someone for being Jewish. The theological problem arises in the unwillingness to condemn something that is created by God and the fact that the condemnation is ordered in the Torah that is supposed to be the word of God. Progressive Judaism neatly gets around the point by rejecting the divine authority of written Torah. This opinion is unfortunately not available The problem with Orthodoxy was that it stagnated. They drew parameters around them as the walls of the ghetto enclosed them. They were also confined in time by the authority of the printed book. The publication of the Shulhan Aruch, Joseph Karo’s code of Jewish law as commented upon by Moses Isserlis, produced the instant authority of the printed word. This was even though Joseph Karo referred to the Shulhan Aruch almost as an idiot’s guide to Jewish law being a mere summary of his greater work, the Bet Joseph. Progressive Judaism has merely

knocked down the parameters that Orthodoxy set itself so long ago. Our problem today is that we have no parameters and contemporary rabbis and laymen are forever pushing forward and challenging the accepted norms of Judaism. This development now seems to be reaching a crescendo and we are making law and developing facilities for situations our founding fathers would never have dreamt of. We are now proposing that non-Jewish partners should be given some status within Judaism. Offering associate membership of a synagogue. Allowing them to take part in religious activities. There are proposals for accepting mixed marriages and offering blessings on them. Whilst accepting that homosexuality should not be condemned, we now have Jewish gay meetings, gay synagogues, gay sedarim and the proposal for a gay prayer book. Perhaps the time has come when we too should set our parameters to decide how far one can go to remain within the confines of Judaism. To set limits on our philosophical development so that we can say beyond that line we would no longer consider the people Jewish. For example, would we countenance the movement of the Shabbat to Sunday to make it easier for people all round. After all, it is one day in seven, does it really matter which day? Would we countenance the abolition of fasting on Yom Kippur on the ground that repentance is a purely celebral matter and requires no symbolism. Would we really countenance the abolition of Brit Milah on the grounds that it is the ultimate example of child sexual ritual abuse. Perhaps we could go one stage further and say that the Jews for Jesus movement is really a Jewish movement as it comprises Jews. We are not a flag day Judaism. We do not jump on every band wagon and promote it for all its worth because it is a good cause. Nor are we New Judaism like New Labour throwing away all we stood for just for popularity and new members. We accept homosexuals for what they are, human beings created by God. We do not necessarily promote homosexuality. There is therefore no need to rewrite the prayer books for them and develop new synagogues for each pressure group for if this develops we will have not only have gay synagogues but synagogues for all minority groups. There will be women only synagogues. There will be synagogues for retired groups or synagogues for Manchester United supporters who feel it is an infringement on their civil liberties to have to wear a blue and white or black and white tallit. Dare I even suggest there may be a minority synagogue for Jews. To ensure the continued unity of the Progressive movement and to ensure the continuing unity of Klal Yisrael we must seriously continue curbing our own enthusiasms for philosophical development to ensure the passing on of Judaism to future generations.

Do you have an article, letter or photos that you would like to share? Contact the editor on Hakoleditor@tlse.org.uk