Jews Without Compassion

There are many ways to understand scripture, especially Jewish scripture. You can start with the plain meaning of the words, although reasonable minds can and do disagree on what that is. You can dip into midrash, but that requires some scholarly chops and perhaps suspension of disbelief. If you want to go mystical, just whip yourself into a frenzy using some strange fire. As for myself, I’m particularly drawn to source criticism.

For the uninitiated, source criticism does not mean reading a source and proclaiming: “This source really sucks!” Here’s how Wikipedia describes it:

“Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e.: a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation, or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant. Broadly, ‘source criticism’ is the interdisciplinary study of how information sources are evaluated for given tasks.”

One way to apply source criticism to biblical studies is to search for any correspondence to available archeological evidence. My personal favorite is the Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet, which dates to around 595 BCE, but was only discovered in 1920 of the Common Era. It mentions some guy named Nabu-sharrussu-ukin who was Nebuchadnezzar’s chief eunuch – nice work if you can get it, but I’ve never shown that kind of dedication to my career. Awesomely, the Book of Jeremiah mentions a Babylonian official named Nebo-sarsekim who led an embassy of some sort to Jerusalem. That is way cool.

Alas, things do not always line up so neatly. To the best of my knowledge, no contemporary reference to King David has ever been found – not a coin, not an inscription, not even a pottery shard. That’s a pity, but I don’t read that much into it.

A lot can be learned by examining language. For example, a Hebrew word might have a cognate in ancient Egyptian or Sumerian, which would suggest some contact between cultures or even a shared tradition that made it into the Masoretic text. Even better, and I believe this comes from the Book of Enoch, which exists in several different versions and a whole slew of fragments: some researcher came across words which made no sense when placed together but were a literal translation of an idiom in another language. This led to the supposition that the extant fragment was originally written in the other language.

And of course, there’s the Book of Ruth, which claims to be set “in the days when the judges ruled.” In the Tanach, Ruth is included in the Ketuvim, aka the Writings, aka the Hagiographical literature. Christian versions of the Old Testament put Ruth smack dab in between Judges and Samuel. Some clever linguists, on the other hand, looked at the language and concluded that Ruth was written in the early Second Temple period, possibly as a reaction to the Book of Ezra. Having a gentile wife, I really like that, but your mileage may vary.

The Jewish Publication Society translation of Genesis 14:7 begins like this: “On their way back they came to En-mishpat, which is Kadesh.” This type of phrasing is common throughout the Bible. The place had one name, and it was later given a new name. In this case it might not be so puzzling: the town could have been called En-Mishpat when Abram was wandering around, but by the time Hashem gave the Torah to Moses, it was renamed Kadesh. Or maybe not. Just what was Hakadoshah Baruchah He getting at? It’s almost like one of those time warps or temporal anomalies in Star Trek.

A traditional explanation is that the text is prophetic. Surely, the Almighty knew that the name of the place would change and was just giving us a heads up. Fine. But source criticism refuses to stop there.

Martin McNamara addresses this question in “Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible.” Virtually all the Tanach is in Hebrew. The Septuagint, a translation into Greek, was produced about two thousand years ago. The various Targums, which were in Aramaic, were created a few centuries later.

In antiquity, copying text meant reading from one scroll and then writing to another. It’s not hard to imagine errors or other variations sneaking into the text. When a scribe came across something cryptic that needed explanation, he (and yes, it was always a he) might add something called a gloss.

If I were talking about the American Car and Foundry-built Motorailer no. 1001 catching fire in East Paterson, a New Jersey resident, and especially a younger one, might be confused. This fire took place in 1946, and the town changed its name to Elmwood Park in 1966. Perhaps the residents didn’t like the association with Paterson, which had become increasingly black, but I’m just saying. It would be clearer if I said something like “East Paterson, that is Elmwood Park.”  But someone on the Left Coast wouldn’t be familiar with New Jersey geography, and assume East Patterson was another Garden State backwater no one had ever heard of, and there’d be no need for a gloss.

McNamara posits that a scribe copying Torah coming across En-mishpat might add a gloss mentioning the new name Kadesh. Readers in the Land of Israel would appreciate the hint. On the other hand, Targums were mostly used in the Diaspora. Those folks would have no idea about Holy Land geography and En-mishpat would just be another Judean backwater no one had ever heard of, and there’d be no need for a gloss.

This explanation seems satisfactory to me. If you believe everything in the Chumash is exactly as it was revealed at Sinai, you might not agree.

Here’s one last item of source criticism, which will be a good lead in into whatever point I’m trying to make. Think of everything I’ve said so far as Pesukei Dezimra.

At Mincha on Yom Kippur, we read Leviticus 18:1-34. Among other things, it includes a prohibition on gay sex, at least the male-on-male variety. Because of this, the Mahzor Lev Shalem, published by the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly, offers the choice of Leviticus 19 as an alternative reading. That’s great. The Rabbi at this shul prefers to stick with the traditional reading so we don’t shy away from confronting the uncomfortable parts of our heritage.  That’s even better.

But why did our sages pick this reading? One explanation I’ve heard is that our rabbis were trying to give us a leg up on the new year. It’s the Day of Atonement, we’ve all got a clean slate, and we get a reminder of some sins that we should have no trouble keeping clear of. I’m grateful for this. As an out-and-proud heterosexual cisgender male, avoiding sex with another man is not such a high bar to clear. And believe me, I can use all the good karma I can get.

But there’s this from a New York Times article by Idan Dershowitz: “The Secret History of Leviticus”. Most of the uncovering of nakedness, aka sex acts, in Leviticus 18 refer to acts between various relatives. This is good for several reasons. First, there are health concerns about consanguinity and inbreeding. Next, it’s appropriate to have extra protection for vulnerable family members and especially young girls. Finally, too much sexual tension under one roof is likely to detract from the peace of the household.

This makes sense for hetero sex, for which there is no general prohibition in the Bible. Adultery is out, but that’s limited to boinking someone else’s wife. I can certainly know my own wife, as long as she’s up for it. I can deflower a virgin, as long as I compensate her father. And I can have as many divorcees and widows as I’d like, as long as my wife doesn’t find out.

But, as Dershowitz points out, this logic doesn’t seem to apply to sex between men. Why would verse 14 forbid uncovering the nakedness of your father’s brother, just to have verse 20 follow up by declaring that lying with a male as one lies with a woman is an abhorrence? Doesn’t verse 20 make verse 14 extraneous? Aren’t we taught that nothing in the Torah is extraneous, not even a single letter? For this reason, Dershowitz suggests that verse 20 was a later addition. Perhaps sex between men was not always such a taboo. This reasoning is compelling, although certainly more speculative than the examples of source criticism listed earlier.

I have frequently criticized some attitudes of Orthodox Jews and considering how welcoming they’ve been when I’ve visited their shuls, I am ashamed of this. Not all Orthodox have retrograded ideas about sexual minorities. And it is beyond certain that not all homophobes are Orthodox. Still, I’m going to share some interactions I’ve had with Orthodox Jews, and hope you’ll bear with me.

I don’t remember discussing the icky subject of homosexuality in polite company until the early 1980’s. Way back then, there was an Orthodox woman in my office who was starting her first job out of school. She had been a day school student, and this might have been her first real exposure to the wider world. When the icky stuff came up in conversation, she said “they can just stop.” Well, she had probably never encountered an “avowed” homosexual in her community. If any of her peers were gay, they were certainly deep in the closet. These unfortunate young people had no support and must have been damaged by the attitudes they were surrounded by. It wouldn’t be a surprise if some of them acted out or were just plain weird. In any event, my young colleague would have no reason to feel other than the way she did.

At the same company, I met an older Orthodox man who was quite the black hat. He was higher up in the department, but he treated me like a landsman. Once, he whispered in my ear: “Did you know that ‘gay’ stands for ‘got aids yet?’” I managed to smirk. Sometime after that I asked him about discriminating against gays, and he answered: “As long as they don’t try recruiting anybody else, they should not be discriminated against.”

I suppose he thought that was a progressive attitude, but: Watermelon! Tartar Sauce! Farkleberry! No one ever tried to recruit me. Sure, I have a beautiful wife, but back in my dating days, it always bothered me that I had trouble getting things going with the ladies. It’s like they say: “Women pick men by the cars they drive, and men pick cars by the women they attract.” I was a beta male. And it turns out that if I went to bat for the other team, I wouldn’t have had much better luck.

My friend was gracious enough to invite me to his house for Shabbat. More than once, in fact. At about this time, there was an attempt in the New York City Council to pass a law giving gays protection in housing and employment. Weak tea, but it was a good first step. There were all sorts of exemptions for small businesses and family-owned apartments. Still, it was too much for the congregation at his shul. I guess they didn’t want the Teletubby to get its nose into the tent. We were all called on to sign a petition of protest after Shabbat ended – this way, there would be no problem with performing creative work. But to me, signing that petition was worse than taking a leak on the floor of the Children’s Exhibit at Yad Vashem.

A few days later, I asked another Orthodox man about this. He was closer to me in age and not quite as black hatted. Of course he would have signed the petition. I reminded him that yellow stars and pink triangles were both murdered during the Holocaust. Actually, I put it a little more crudely: “The Nazis shoved kikes and queers into the same ovens.” He didn’t see my point.

Later, I moved to a different company. My team leader Jerry wasn’t stereotypically flaming, but he would set off anyone’s gaydar, if that really exists. I wasn’t really hooked into office gossip, but no one seemed to talk about that aspect of his life. Sadly, Jerry contracted HIV, and this was long before AZT or any of the retroviral medications were available. An Orthodox colleague asked me about Jerry’s prolonged absences from work, and I explained that Jerry was gay and dying from AIDS. He didn’t believe me. Jerry was just too normal to be gay.

Jerry, he should rest in peace, died before it was common to be out. I don’t doubt things are getting tougher now, but I imagine it may have been worse in those days. Kids can be stunningly cruel. When I was an adolescent, my masculinity was attacked if I carried books or looked at my fingernails the wrong way. Still, I doubt my experiences were in any way comparable.

To discuss LGBTQI issues, we need to use our new-found source criticism skills on language, and maybe even get a little woke. For what it’s worth, I think a lot of the hyperventilating about political correctness is overblown. Language is always evolving, and I don’t feel diminished if I’m asked to stop using expressions that hurt others.

When talking about sexuality, nice people no longer use the word “normal”, since “abnormal” sounds so bad. Sometimes I hear the word “normative”, but that’s completely useless. Nobody talks like that except Conservative rabbis, limousine liberals and pointy-headed academics in faculty lounges. I prefer “usual” and “unusual”, as in “usually boys like girls, and vice versa”. Or “it’s unusual when biological sex does not match gender identity, but it happens.” That comes across as matter of fact, and not the least bit judgmental.

Two, four, six, eight! Gay is just as good as straight. I’m not sure when those words took on their current meaning. I suppose “straight” evolved from strait-laced, as in buttoned-down.  After the Beatles broke up, John and Paul traded insults in their songs. This is from Lennon’s “How Do You Sleep?”: “You live with straights who tell you, you was king.” I guess John thought Paul betrayed the counterculture.

I’m even less sure about the word “gay”. We used to refer to someone with certain proclivities as Sapphic, queer, dyke, fruit, confirmed bachelor, friend of Dorothy, from the Island of Lesbos, limp-wristed tongue thruster, or just different. Cary Grant starred in the movie “Bringing Up Baby” in which the strains of parenthood take their toll, and he runs around like a crazy man while wearing strange clothes. When asked why, he jumps up and exclaims: “Because I’ve gone gay!” If there had been a hint of sex in that, the censors would have had a cow.  As late as 1960, an obscure reference to bisexuality was cut from the classic “Spartacus.” “Bringing Up Baby” came out, so to say, in 1938. When audiences laughed at Dr. David Huxley going gay, they weren’t thinking about the character’s inclinations.

The phrase “sexual preference” has long been replaced by “sexual orientation”, which suggests immutability. Oddly, Anita Bryant and the Florida sunshine tree huggers stuck with preference. After all, you can try something new, pray away the gay, go for a little conversion therapy, and you’ll leave your inappropriate relationships behind in no time. In fairness, after an unhappy divorce, Bryant did come to regret this aspect of her activism. To paraphrase Martha Stewart: “Empathy. It’s a good thing.”

A person who transitions will typically take on a new name and different pronouns. This can lead to a lot of deadnaming and misgendering. Some of this may be inadvertent – one’s closest friends and family may have trouble keeping up. Some of it is intentional, disrespectful, and just plain rude. Deep in the heart of Texas, Governor Abbot just initiated legal action against a school that was accommodating one of its students. There are claims that encouraging courtesy violates religious freedom. As a member of a race with a venerable history of having its religious freedom violated, all I can say is this: first, whatever floats your boat; second, you folks really need to get a grip.

Up until I was four or five years old, I was called by a diminutive of my given name. Then, I found out that the diminutive was also a girl’s name, so I dropped it. I was tormented by this all through grade school. I doubt the bullies had any idea why I hated it. This continued even in high school, although by that time I had gotten over it. This was not nearly so damaging as deadnaming, but it still hurt.

Some folks can get their panties in a twist over people using the wrong restroom. I understand why they might be uncomfortable, but back in the era of Jim Crow, laws sending Blacks to the back of the bus also talked about comfort. Think this is different because it’s your ox being gored? I’m afraid I can’t be of assistance. Perhaps you need to evolve a bit. But that’s too harsh. It’s important to validate ambivalence and say: “Me, too.”

The issue of transgender women competing in women’s sports is complicated, and there are some nuances. I’m usually for inclusion, but I’m still working through the issue. How about this? Not too long ago, one of the grandfathers attending a girls soccer match started screaming that one of the kids was a boy. I don’t know how this little girl will ultimately turn out. Perhaps she looked a little butch, but she was certainly mortified. Happily, the alter cocker was ejected and banned from future attendance. So, no nuance here.

Nonbinaries do not define themselves as strictly male or female and typically prefer the pronouns “they” and “them”. Some might find this awkward, but the word “they” has been singular in some contexts for years. As in: “Someone got upset when I bumped into them. What’s their problem?” For what it’s worth, I don’t think this will catch on, but I’ve been known to be wrong.

Then there are the gender fluid, who shift from male to female to androgenous. It strikes me as a bit whimsical, but that probably means I have more to learn.

I think of myself as an enthusiastic ally, and I mean no disrespect to transgender males and their fertility issues, but the phrase “pregnant persons” just hurts my ears. And can’t you just picture Ted Cruz coming out with this: “And now they want us to say ‘pregnant persons.’ These are the same people sending perverts into the ladies to stalk our womenfolk.”

I’m not saying, “drop it” or “choose your fights.” During World War 2, both the FDR administration and some of the American Jewish leadership wanted to suppress noisy Jewish agitation about the Holocaust. I’ve just added a book about this to my bucket list: “The Jews Should Keep Quiet” by Rafael Medoff. Well, the Jews shouldn’t have kept quiet. No one should have kept quiet. And who knows? “Pregnant persons” may become normative someday.

There are times when political correctness can go too far. Take campus speech codes. No matter what you’ve heard, these do not violate the First Amendment. That applies to the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment, you know, the one that gave us birthright citizenship, obligates state governments.  Having said that, there’s this: some social science teacher encouraged a class to have a freewheeling discussion about sexual issues. One of the participants expressed the novel notion that all gays are sick and twisted. Another of the participants objected and complained to the college administration.  I don’t know what resulted, but I hope a teachable moment was had by all.

What does science say about any of this?

I believe that this was from peer-reviewed study as opposed to an urban legend, but right-handed males with lots of older brothers from the same mother are more likely to be gay. This says nothing at all about lesbians, but I suppose women are used to being ignored.  This is only a correlation and not about cause and effect, but if true, it puts a new twist on the whole nature vs nurture question. While the woman’s reproductive machinery is busy gestating, her white blood cells might be attacking the embryo as an infection. It’s amazing that any of us make it through to birth.

Distinct from nonbinary individuals or women with androgen insensitivity syndrome, being intersex means having ambiguous genitalia and/or having both male and female reproductive organs, even if in vestigial form. I’m not sure what causes this, but here’s a guess. There is a type of embryo called a chimera, which is unfortunately the Greek for “monster.” This happens when fraternal twin embryos inside a woman fuse, resulting in one child with two sets of DNA. There was a case when a woman almost lost her children because some blood test said they weren’t hers. That case had a happy ending.

Is it possible that an intersex baby comes from a chimera combining male and female embryos? I’m still waiting for my Nobel prize. But clearly, intersex is a real physical phenomenon, and not a result of some woke mind virus.

And speaking of androgen insensitivity syndrome, this is a condition in which an embryo XY chromosomes but does not develop in the usual way. Since being female is a default setting of sorts, this results in a person who looks like a woman, is perceived as a woman, and certainly thinks of herself as a woman. Caster Semenya won two Olympic gold medals and three world championships, but in 2009, learned from a sex verification test that she had androgen insensitivity. She was disqualified from further competition. Other athletes were forced to have internal, not fully-function testicles removed to retain eligibility, which is disgusting.

The Trump administration recently issued a diktat proclaiming that there are only two sexes: females, who produce eggs; and males, who produce sperm. The women I’ve just described produce neither. How do they fit into this dichotomy?

The term “gender dysphoria” might not be universally accepted in the transgender community, and it’s not entirely clear what causes this condition. But let’s try this on for size. Our sages say you should only pray for a boy in the first thirty days after conception. For what it’s worth, I wanted a daughter when my wife had one in the oven. I wanted my child to be like my sister instead of me. If you knew my sister, you’d understand. Maybe just knowing me is enough to make you understand. As it turns out, my son is very much like me. He’s just better at it.

Embryologists have discovered that the first physical changes related to sex take place at about thirty days after conception. The rabbis were delighted that scientists finally got something right. However, differences between male and female in the developing brain don’t occur until sometime later. These developments are usually in sync, but that might not always be the case. Is this what causes someone to be transgender? I haven’t heard from the Nobel committee. Of course, the Trump administration calls all this junk science. But they don’t believe in science anyway, so no harm, no foul. They just removed the T from the Park Service’s Stonewall web page, proving once again that there is no bottom.

As attention spans have shrunk, bumper stickers and sound bites take on more significance. These can be reductive, misleading, or downright dishonest. Take that bit from earlier in this missive about how women pick men and men pick cars. Or “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” And “Anyone in favor of abortion has already been born” as opposed to “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” This golden oldie: “G-d made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” And here’s a new one. Recently I drove past a house with a ginormous yard sign: “Boys have a penis; girls have a vagina.” Who knew? But don’t confuse me with facts. Four legs good, two legs bad!

Nonetheless, these pithy epigrams can be useful. I was watching a panel discussion of sorts. If memory serves, Mort Downey was moderating. One faction was made up of Jews. I’m not quite sure how to describe the other faction, but it was clear that they were not Jews. Well, one of the “not Jews” complained about the way our kind focused on the murder of Jews during the Holocaust. After all, plenty of gentiles were killed as well. I just loved the response: “Not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims.” Oddly, this didn’t seem to persuade any of the “not Jews.” However, a treasured lunch mate of mine brought up much the same issue, although not nearly as viciously. It worked on him.

When I first learned about transgender women, I didn’t understand how they were different from gay men. And then I heard this: “Orientation is who you go to bed with; gender identity is who you go to bed as.” My head exploded, but in a good way. Unhappily, some folks are beyond persuasion.

A lot of the thoughts I’ve just shared have been bouncing around in my brain for a long time. I’ve written about it now because of a discussion I had with a learned scholar of my acquaintance. The scholar expressed an opinion, which was not unreasonable, but was still wrong. In fact, I held a similar opinion about twenty years ago. It was during the first half of the George W. Bush administration, and marriage equality was still called homosexual marriage. Republicans were pushing voter initiatives to keep it illegal and juice up their preferred voter turnout. It was a classic wedge issue. I’m ashamed to admit it, but as a Democrat, I was crestfallen. I thought: “The gays should keep quiet.” I came around, albeit too slowly. I supported civil unions for a while, as did much of the gay community. Another pithy epigram: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” I even wanted to show support by supplementing my marriage license with a civil union. Alas, She Who Must Be Obeyed didn’t go for that. But then there’s the “full faith and credit clause” of the Constitution, if still means anything. A marriage license is valid in all fifty states. A civil union might not be. Separate, but definitely unequal.

The learned scholar of my acquaintance is generally supportive of transgender rights, but worried that the some of the country just isn’t ready for it. Shouldn’t queer kids be outed to their family? And should we really allow minors to take puberty blockers without parental consent? Another classic wedge issue.

As Professor Pangloss put it, and I’m not paraphrasing, but quoting: “In the best of all worlds, every child can count on unconditional support from their parents.” But of course this is not true: a queer kid might get beaten up and thrown out of the house. That could also happen to girl impregnated by her father, other male relative, or even a boyfriend. This should not be allowed to happen.

Notice that I haven’t identified the learned scholar of my acquaintance. In fact, I only use deadnames in my blog, by which I mean you actually have to be dead before I use your name. As far as the learned scholar goes, if they want to out himself, that’s up to her.

I make a lot of jokes, and I inevitably piss somebody off without meaning to. When that happens, I don’t say: “I was just kidding and you’re being too sensitive.” Rather, I apologize, try to understand how I missed the mark, and offer to explain myself. If that offer is turned down, that’s okay with me. It would be much better if my bad jokes just fell flat without anybody taking offense. May we see the day, speedily and in our lifetime, when attitudes have become so tolerant that folks have no reason to be sensitive.

So, should Jews tolerate sexual minorities?  The answer is clear: absolutely not. By no means should Jews  tolerate the word tolerate. Tolerance recalls the Laws of Tolerance of medieval Europe. The gentiles didn’t have to let Jews into their towns and cities but would graciously tolerate Jews if they paid a Jew tax, lived in restricted areas, didn’t compete with the guilds, and wore funny hats. In many places,  only the oldest son in a family could take on a wife.  Where was marriage equality when we really needed it? Jews should embrace nothing less than acceptance.

And not just for compassion, but for survival. Anytime prejudice or othering takes root in a society, it’s bad for Jews. The folks who put up signs saying “Irish need not apply” probably didn’t think Jews need apply either. Sure, the KKK hates Blacks, but they also hate Jews, possibly even more. The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882; a little over a half century later there was no room at the inn for Jews fleeing Nazi persecution. Then we get to Jews controlling banks, Jews being communists, and don’t forget those Jewish space lasers. How many Holocaust deniers support our “opposite of a Nazi” felon-in-chief?

Whether it’s about Moslems, Hindus, Wiccans, migrants, secular humanists, perverts in the ladies, gay child molesters, or Jews, it’s all cut from the same tallis.

As Mark Twain put it: “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” We are witnessing a cult of personality. The rule of law is at risk as never before in this country and a presidential dictatorship is a looming threat. Maybe you don’t agree with everything that’s going on, but you like a lot of what the Orange Moses says. If so, whatever floats your boat. But the arc of history is long, and you may be on the wrong side of it.

Jews without compassion need not apply. And remember what I said about kikes and queers.

Now, go and study.