A Well Intended but Tragic Error of Judgment

On the one hand, there is Halacha which forbids the act most associated with homosexual sexual relationships between two men. Considering it a capital crime. And on the other hand there is what he believes is a valid high ethic for our times which he describes as follows:

Respect for each human being’s right to love whom they wish, live with whom they wish, and build stable relationships built on mutual love and respect with whomever they wish…

He seems to be saying that these are two valid but opposing approaches that are unforgiving in their ethical demands. He then justifies that equation by pointing to what he believes are similar conflicts discussed by the sages in the Talmud.

One of the quintessential proofs that we are supposed to be subservient to Halacha over our own sense of ethics is the story of the Akeida, Where God asks Abraham to sacrifice his own son Yitzchok on the Akeida.

Obviously killing an innocent human being is a highly unethical enterprise. No less true for killing one’s own son. Abraham immediately complies and submits to the will of God. This is the ultimate test about following God’s will.  Which is essentially what Halacha is. Abraham passes that test with flying colors and is ‘rewarded’ by being stopped moments before he slices his son’s throat.

Professor Koller dismisses that as proof saying that since God never really intended to kill Yitzchok on the Akedia. In the end, says Professor Koller, God told Abraham NOT to harm his son, thereby teaching us that religious devotion may not come through the harm of others. He also notes that this is not really about self sacrifice. It is about sacrificing the life of another (Yitzchak). (More about that later.) 

Similarly he says that LGBT people are asked to pay the price when we do not allow them to get married and have the kind committed relationships the rest of us do.

Using this as a springboard, Professor Koller posits that ultimately the sages often side with societal considerations over Halachic ones. Giving several examples where this was the case. Which he wants to apply in our day in resolution of the conflict between the Halachic demands of the Torah (God’s word) and ethical considerations of our day. But concedes that we do not have the religious bona fides nor legal authority today that the sages of the Talmud had.

But then he goes a bridge too far and concludes with the following: 

This is clearly a break from our obligations to follow the word of God. To suggest that his personal or societal view of morality is in any way worthy of rejecting God’s laws is fallacy of major proportion!. We are not sacrificing anyone if we follow God’s law.

God wants us to follow Halacha. He does NOT want us to even imply otherwise.  It follows that an end runs that appear to permit the impermissible is not looked at favorably by God either. 

To repeat what I have said a gazillion times, this does not mean we should dishonor LGBT people. As I always say they were created in the image of God just like the rest of humanity. And as Jews – they too are part of God’s chosen people. But treating a lifestyle conducive to major violations of Halacha as equivalent to a lifestyle conducive to what the Torah is the wrong message and it does not make you a ‘good person’ when you do so. What it does instead is make you a celebrant of something God clearly despises. Not the people. But the forbidden behavior associated with it.

Professor Koller seems to be endorsing concrete demonstrations of LGBT acceptance – like the idea of gay marriage ceremonies.  I do not believe for a moment that doing something like that is pleasing in the eyes of God. It makes absolutely no sense to say it does.

I further believe that his description of the Akeida is not about self sacrifice but about sacrificing someone else is mistaken. The Akeida was about Yitzchak’s submission to God’s will too. No just about Abraham’s submission. And if he thinks that slicing the neck of your beloved son isn’t a personal sacrifice, I have to question his sanity!

One more thing. Professor Koller uses examples in the Talmud as a model of authenticity that speaks to us across the great chasm of time. It demonstrates that sociological moral and ethical considerations can trump Halacha. But in my view that is based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what they did and does not justify that claim. 

For example he cites the fact that they rescinded certain edicts they considered the unreasonable despite their intentions being in service of God’s laws. While that is true – nothing they rescinded was at the expense of appearing to support biblical level Halachic violations.  

Yes the ways of the Torah are pleasant. But they are also binding. And if our own perceptions of what is and isn’t moral or ethical changes, it does not change Halacha. Not in our day and not in the days of the sages.

That said, I have to take issue with what Gil Student suggestedbased on this article. Which is: 

I actually agree that a ‘new world order’ with respect to Orthodoxy will eventually ensue - populated by sociological centrists comprised of mostly moderate Charedim and the right wing of Modern Orthodoxy. 

But I reject the notion that Professor Koller’s article is a harbinger of Modern Orthodoxy’s demise. 

What I believe it indicates instead is that the pull of the left wing is having a major impact on some of us. But not on all of us. Theological Centrists  (right wing of modern orthodox) are alive and well. Professor Koller is not  a Centrist by any definition. Or at least not mine.