Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cornell.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxi!mhuxh!mhuxv!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!mf
From: mf@cornell.UUCP (mf)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Controlling one's ([homo]sexual) urges and Halakha
Message-ID: <1672@cornell.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 12-May-85 09:32:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: cornell.1672
Posted: Sun May 12 09:32:59 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 13-May-85 03:28:29 EDT
References: <ucdavis.161> <411@oakhill.UUCP> <564@sfmag.UUCP>
Reply-To: (Uucp) cornell!mf (ARPA) mf@cornell-gvax (Bitnet) MF AT CRNLCS
Organization: Cornell Universe City
Lines: 56

In article <564@sfmag.UUCP> A.I.Samet writes in re homosexuality::

> The fact that he may have latent tendancies [sic] which were
> not chosen is doesn't prevent him from controlling himself.
>
> If you tell them that it's a "valid" way of life, you just make it
> easier for them to sin.

The Talmud recognises that there are people who cannot prevent themselves
from controlling some urges.  In tractate Kiddushin, p. 40a, one reads:

	R. Il'ai the Elder said: if a man sees that his desire
	is conquering him, let him go to a place where he is unknown,
	don black and conver himself with black, and do as his heart
	desires [...]

This attitude does in no way make it "valid" to sin, yet shows more
understanding of human nature (hence compassion) than the above writer.
Lest it be misinterpreted, this text does not refer to such sins as rape,
theft or murder, which cause harm to another person, but those between man
and God.

Incidentally, there are other urges in which indulgence, or the inability
of many to resist, is legitimised by many: take smoking, for instance.
Here the issue of self-inflicted harm is at play, and yet it is so widely
recognised that one can even smoke on the latter half of some fast days
(provided one does not do it in public).

On the subject of homosexuality as a sin according to the Talmud, I
have several questions to the informed reader:

1.  Presumption:  other sexual sins which involve two consenting
    individuals (marital infidelity, for example) require two
    witnesses of the act itself in order to charge the persons
    involved.  What is the case here?  Is self-incrimination
    recognised (e.g., self-avowed homosexuality)?

2.  Discussions in the Talmud about the heterosexual act define
    it (be-ila) very precisely.  As to the homosexual one, the
    only definition known to me is Rashi's, in his commentary to
    the Torah: "ke-kandom bi-shfoferet" (anal sex, I suppose).
    Does this mean that any other homosexual act, or even homose-
    xual cohabitation without actual sex, etc..., do not fall into
    that category (but yet may be sinful according to other criteria,
    hence entailing a different punishment)?

3.  Why is it that other sins that require a punishment as harsh as that
    that of homosexuality are looked upon with much greater indulgence
    nowadays?  The striking example is "'Hillul Shabat,'' (the desecra-
    tion of Shabbat): according to orthodox rabbinic authorities it is
    allowed to call such people to the Torah on Shabbat, have them
    lead services, etc...  One of the arguments in this case is related
    to 1 above: as long as they don't do it in public ("befar'hersia"),
    one does not presume about their private behaviour.  Doesn't the
    same kind of reasoning apply to homosexuality (i.e., the performance
    of the homosexual act)?