quote:

Originally posted by Neve Girl:
But I also find public orthodox protest against these people obnoxious. What is this supposed to accomplish?

And it's better to allow such a disgusting parade take place?

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
Speaking of things prohibited unto us, but permitted elsewhere, I never saw once that it was suggested that a man who has a problem with SSA ought to be a "mohel." Perhaps saying so would, somehow, degrade the act and profession.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

If it is in a man's nature to want to be a murderer, it's suggested that he either be a Shochet or a Mohel. I think it is all about channeling ones actions from something that is potentially negative to that which is highly positive.

B"H

Thanks, Rebbe Sam,

I stand corrected. But somehow I still think that there are things "better not said."

Yocheved,

If I might also speak about your most interesting recent post, when you said: "I disagree with the idea that G-d expects us to "get rid of our Y"H"... the Baal Tanya states that we are to utilize our Y"H in order to 'do good', i.e. to do mitzvot, to live as HaShem intended us to, and in a manner that upholds the Torah, and allows others to see the "image of G-d in us" as well as leaving the impression upon others that having a relationship with the Divine is both possible and beneficial to ourselves and those around us, our community and world."

While this statement is, generally, true from the standpoint of our having "two Yetzarim" - one which is good and, the other, which is bad, and we are to serve Hashem with both of them, as stated in our Midrash... Still, we find a conflicting MIdrash that heaps lavish praises upon king David who had, allegedly, "slaughtered" his Yetzar Hara, as he had written about himself in his Psalms: לבי חלל בקרבי. The evil inclination of his heart was considered dead and gone!

Sincerely,
David

As in the famous story of the chickens not laying eggs (as the result of a prayer to eliminate the yetzir harah), the Rabbis of the Talmud did not consider the Yezir Harah as evil or asur. It is what makes the world go round.
Some of our philosophers ask what is the purpose of man. Goes something like this HaShem is completely good. He therefore can not make evil good as he has no evil. It is the function of man who is capable of evil of creating a new kind of good, that which has its origin in the Yezer Harah.

As for Eben Ezer 20, the shulchan aruch is just repeating the tur who just repeats the original Rambam. The Rambam says that lesbianism is wrong however, it there is no lav (specific prohibition) and it is not part of the general prohibiton of Ariyot (forbidden sexual relations). Now I think that putting a possible Rabbinic makot (lashing) in the same category as an Issur D'Oraita which is Chayav Mitah from a Bet Din and such cases are specifically mentioned in the talmud in the same category as an issur with no specific prohibition doesn't seem disingenous, then you have no problem.

I'm not even sure the concept of Yetzer Hara and Evil are equivalent. The English language has Christian idiom imbeded in it. So when we say Evil we are usually expressing a Christian idea....which is far removed from the Jewish concept of Yetzer Hara. Consequently we struggle with reconciling the two.

Quote "The Rambam says that lesbianism is wrong however, it there is no lav (specific prohibition) and it is not part of the general prohibiton of Ariyot (forbidden sexual relations). Now I think that putting a possible Rabbinic makot (lashing) in the same category as an Issur D'Oraita which is Chayav Mitah from a Bet Din and such cases are specifically mentioned in the talmud in the same category as an issur with no specific prohibition doesn't seem disingenous, then you have no problem."

The Rambam is based on the Toras Kohanim that learn it from the Pasuk "K'maaseh Eretz Mitzraiyim etc." This PAsuk is quoted by Shulchon Orech, thus I see no reason to say it's not D'oreisah. That there is only Maakos Mardus and not regular Maakos could be that it's lav Shebachlalos.

Even if one would argue to say it's only D'rabanan, and the Drasha is only Midarabanan and the Pasuk is an Asmachta, it still unequivocally Ussur and shouldn't be minimized just because it's not one of the cardinal sins.

quote:

The Rambam is based on the Toras Kohanim that learn it from the Pasuk "K'maaseh Eretz Mitzraiyim etc." This PAsuk is quoted by Shulchon Orech, thus I see no reason to say it's not D'oreisah.

The sentence from Torat Kohanim that the Rambam brings (similar drash in Bereshit Rabah on the generation of the flood) is about same sex marriages not lesbian activity. That would be the gemara in Yebamot and there is no suggestion in the gemara that the activity should be punished or is grounds for divorce or something.

quote:

That there is only Maakos Mardus and not regular Maakos could be that it's lav Shebachlalos.

The Rambam specifically says that it is not a lav shebachalolos.

quote:

Even if one would argue to say it's only D'rabanan, and the Drasha is only Midarabanan and the Pasuk is an Asmachta, it still unequivocally Ussur and shouldn't be minimized just because it's not one of the cardinal sins.

I really don't know how to rate the severity of this aveira nor is it relevant. The point is that by mixing up male and female homosexuality as the same sin, it gives the wrong impression and that when people find out that it was the wrong impression they tend to feel that you are not being truthful with them.

I also don't know what to do with the Sifre. They say that the Egyptians had same sex marriages but we have an awlful lot of Egyptian writing over a thousand years and although brother marrying sister was permitted it was only for the Royal family and there were no same sex marriages. As I suggested before, maybe the Rabbis are referring to Nero's marrying his boyfriend. But again there are no records of same sex marriages in Greece or Rome.

Quote "The sentence from Torat Kohanim that the Rambam brings (similar drash in Bereshit Rabah on the generation of the flood) is about same sex marriages not lesbian activity. That would be the gemara in Yebamot and there is no suggestion in the gemara that the activity should be punished or is grounds for divorce or something."

The Rambam and Shulchon Orech both interpret the Issur to go on the lesbian act.

Quote "The Rambam specifically says that it is not a lav shebachalolos."

Actually, I read it into the Rambam, that says the reason that you don't get Malkus is "She'ein Lo Lav Miyuchad" it doesn't have a LAv that is specifically for it, that its a Lav Shebachlalos

Quote "I really don't know how to rate the severity of this aveira nor is it relevant"

I would say that the severity is based on the punishment it gets.

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

I stand corrected. But somehow I still think that there are things "better not said."

However, there must be something said in order to combat this plague.

Here are some articles that I think may be of interest:

Last-Minute Cancellation of Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade a “Victory” for Orthodox Jews

Gay 'Marriage' in Israel: Worse than Holocaust - Will Cause Terrorism Warns Rabbi Levin

Rabbi links Hizbullah violence to planned Jerusalem gay parade

David, Ma ShlomHa!

quote:

While this statement is, generally, true from the standpoint of our having "two Yetzarim" - one which is good and, the other, which is bad, and we are to serve Hashem with both of them, as stated in our Midrash... Still, we find a conflicting MIdrash that heaps lavish praises upon king David who had, allegedly, "slaughtered" his Yetzar Hara, as he had written about himself in his Psalms: לבי חלל בקרבי. The evil inclination of his heart was considered dead and gone!

Sincerely,
David

Hi! I apologize for not getting back to you earlier, (finals time in school), otherwise I would have answered earlier. As to YOUR interesting post on your worthy names' sake: This is a subject I have pondered quite often. My Rebbes have taught me that the Torah explains in different ways that the yetzer ha rah is somehow sanctified through proper direction, i.e. even though the attraction to a woman on the part of the man is essentially attributed to the yetzer ha rah, when properly directed as when to an appropriately single Jewish woman, the yetzer is then used to marry her ( a mitzvah) and to build, if necessary, a house for her (also a mitzvah) to raise a family (also a mitzvah) and so on. The initial sexual attraction is channeled as it were, into a proper and meaningful flow. As you ar far more well versed in Torah than I (this much is certain), you are well aware of this concept.

So, to address at last, your assertion about David Melech, I would look at it this way:

David Melech did not KILL his Yetzer Ha Rah, he simply disciplined it to such a degree that its EVERY output resulted in mitzvot fulfillment of some kind.

This may or may not be a good analogy as I am using it of of the top of my head (never a good thing), but here goes: If one has a stubborn donkey (I live on a farm, pretty much everything boils down to animal metaphors)and this animal is prone to bad behaviour (i.e. biting unwary passers by, kicking, running uncontrollably, sitting, etc.), then the owner, finding the animal unsuitable for safe riding, but not dangerous enough to put down according to Torah, ties the donkey to the millstone for grinding. At first the donkey is kicking and whining and pulling uselessly against the head harnass. But the donkey, angry or happy, runnning or walking, is still there and doing its job--the millstone is turning and the wheat is being ground to flour. Eventually the animal realizes that, no matter what, he will work ten hours per day and he will walk (or run if he chooses) in the grinding circle. Eventually, he will go easily to the harnass, and will work uncomplainingly every day. If he ever actually stops during work time, he will get a pop on the behind from the master with a switch and will buck up and do his job. I know you see where I am going with this. The animal is not DEAD. But his wild, dangerous, and self-serving ways ARE DEAD. He has been properly channeled and is useful and is even serving well his family.

I believe David Melech had his yetzer ha rah likewise harnassed. Rather than to let it run loose and undisciplined (as soooo many do) he took the time to consistently, rain or shine, put it to use and thus it was completely subdued.

I am sure there is so much more to this subject and I am fascinated by it. More info. is welcome as it is worthy of in-depth dialogue.
Shalom, Yocheved

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
Quote "The Rambam says that lesbianism is wrong however, it there is no lav (specific prohibition) and it is not part of the general prohibiton of Ariyot (forbidden sexual relations). Now I think that putting a possible Rabbinic makot (lashing) in the same category as an Issur D'Oraita which is Chayav Mitah from a Bet Din and such cases are specifically mentioned in the talmud in the same category as an issur with no specific prohibition doesn't seem disingenous, then you have no problem."

The Rambam is based on the Toras Kohanim that learn it from the Pasuk "K'maaseh Eretz Mitzraiyim etc." This Pasuk is quoted by Shulchon Orech, thus I see no reason to say it's not D'oreisah. That there is only Maakos Mardus and not regular Maakos could be that it's lav Shebachlalos.

Even if one would argue to say it's only D'rabanan, and the Drasha is only Midarabanan and the Pasuk is an Asmachta, it still unequivocally Ussur and shouldn't be minimized just because it's not one of the cardinal sins.

I just saw where Rambam speaks about this in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:4). Allow me to copy down his words:

וכן אותו המעשה המגונה הקורה בין הנשים ששוכבות זו את זו, הוא מעשה מתועב, אבל אין בו עונש לא מן התורה ולא מדרבנן, ואין שום אחת מהן נקראת זונה, ואינה נאסרת על בעלה. ואינה נאסרת לכהן, וזה הוא שקוראים אותו חכמים נשים המסוללות זו בזו. (יבמות ע"ו, עמ' א') והוא נגזר מן מסלול שהוא הדרך. ואף על פי שאין בזה עונש כבר מנו מעשה זה מכלל תועבות המצריים, ואמרו בפירוש: "מעשה ארץ מצרים, מה היו עושין? איש נושא איש, ואשה נושאה אשה, ואשה נשאת לשני אנשים." עד כאן לשון הרמב"ם

David