You Oughta Noah

After an indescribable week, this week's Torah portion, Bereshit, is an epic journey from primordial chaos to the last hope of humanity:

And Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. (Gen. 6:8)

This isn't the first time we've encountered Noah this week. On Sunday, Hoshana Rabba, we prayed for salvation "In the name of he who was perfect in his generations," as Noah is described in the next verse.
Nor is that the first time that Noah popped up in our holiday prayers. In the Yom Kippur service (both the Ashkenazic and Sephardic rites), he is identified as the first truly righteous individual, whose descendants are blessed and multiplied as a result of his piety.
And on Rosh Hashana, Noah literally takes center stage: in the second of its third unique blessings, known as Zichronot (Remembrances). In fact, Rosh Hashana's official name is the Day of Remembrance, and the first instance of God's remembrance is that of tempest-tossed Noah:

You also remembered Noah with love and You were mindful of him with salvation and mercy when You brought
flood waters to destroy all flesh because of their evil deeds. Therefore, his memory comes before You, God our Lord, to make his descendants like the dust of the earth and his progeny like the sand of the sea. As it states in Your Torah “And God remembered Noah and all of the beasts and the cattle that were with him in the ark, and God caused a wind to blow over the land and the water calmed.”

What is particularly striking is that this theme is unique to the month of Tishrei. As Jews, we usually hearken back to later figures in Genesis: the Patriarchs, the Matriarchs, the Tribes. However, during this month, we invoke our status as descendants of Noah, a bond shared by all humanity.
This dovetails with the universality of Tishrei.

On Rosh Hashana, all human beings pass before him like young sheep, as it is said (Psalms 33:15), "He fashions all their hearts together, Who understands all their deeds." (Mishna Rosh Hashana 1:2)

Indeed, the Torah reading of the day focuses more on Ishmael and Abimelech the Philistine then on Isaac! Even the scapegoat to Azazel on Yom Kippur is understood by the Midrash (Gen. Rabba 65:10) as a reference to Esau. Similarly, according to Talmud Sukka 55b, the bullocks of Sukkot, which add up to seventy, represent the seventy nations of the world. And on Simchat Torah, we once again read about the creation of man as one being, encompassing all colors, peoples and genders.
Thus, it is only fitting that the last Sabbath of Tishrei has a reading that concludes with Noah, father of us all. And the Prophetic postscript is a familiar but oft-forgotten mission (Isaiah 42:6):

I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant of the people, a light of the nations (or goyim).

Now, after the week we've just gone through here, I'm sure many will say that the last thing we need to hear about is the common ancestry of all humanity, the fact that we all trace our lineage back to Noah, the first to forge a covenant with God. But faith doesn't always give you what you want to hear; sometimes, it just gives you what you need to hear.

No Girls Allowed

Two days from now we will mark the septennial mitzva of Hakhel -- the  assembly, the gathering.

No, not that one.

Not that one either.

On the feast of Booths, at the prescribed time in the year for remission which comes at the end of every seven-year period, when all Israel goes to appear before the LORD, your God, in the place which he will choose, you shall read this law aloud in the presence of all Israel. Assemble (Hakhel) the people -- men, women and children, as well as the resident aliens who live in your communities -- that they may hear and so learn to fear the LORD, your God, and to observe carefully all the words of this law. (Deut. 31:10-12)

The Aramaic rendering of Hakhel is Kenosh, the same root as bei kenishta. You may be more familiar with the Hebrew cognate, beit kenesset, or the Greek-derived equivalent, synagogue. In any case, they all mean the same thing: gathering-place, house of assembly, locus of coming together. This is the essence of Jewish prayer and of a Jewish house of prayer.
In the Talmud (Hagiga 3a), Rabbi Eleazar b. Azariah famously expounds, "If the men came to learn,the women came to hear, but wherefore have the little ones to come? In order to grant reward to those that bring them." But are the children dragged along merely to give extra credit to their parents, since watermelons rarely throw tantrums? The biblical commentator Keli Yakar demurs:

I find it untenable, as if he would command them to bear logs and stones to the House of God "in order to grant reward to those that bring them."
Rather, the whole purpose of Hakhel is for renewal (teshuva), as the Sages say (Lev. R. 30:7) that the first day of Sukkot marks the commencement of a new spiritual reckoning...
Now, when Israel repents, we beg God to forgive our sins, asking for mercy in the name of our blameless children, if we are undeserving. Thus, we ask in the prayer Our Father, Our King, "Pity us, our sucklings and our infants," and similarly we ask, "Act for the sake of the little children," etc.

This is what we mean by "in order to grant reward to those that bring them." They say to God: Act on behalf of these little ones who have been brought to the House of God! This is similar to what Joel speaks of (2:16): "Gather the people, sanctify the assembly; collect the elderly; gather the children, even infants nursing at the breast; [let the bridegroom leave his room, and the bride her bridal tent]."

The message is clear: in a time of crisis, in a time of climax, we belong together. That is why it is so troubling when the beit kenesset is used to divide rather than unite, to exclude rather than include. Some flip this argument on its head: children don't belong in synagogue because they're disruptive, and since men "have to go to shul" and women don't have to, those little ones are the "problem" of the latter.
The true "problem" here, however, is that this view, while held as axiomatic by far too many observant Jews, has no basis in the classical sources:

Communal prayer is always heard. Even when there are transgressors among them, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not reject the prayers of the many. Therefore, a person should join community and should not pray alone whenever it is possible to pray with the community. (Maimonides, Laws of Prayer 8:1)
One should endeavor to pray in the synagogue with the community, but if circumstances prevent one from doing so, one should should specifically pray at the time the community prays. (Shulhan Arukh, OH 90:9)

Praying with the community is undoubtedly preferable, but no one calls it a binding commandment; on the contrary, the likely eventuality that one may not be able to attend is immediately apparent (considering what Maimonides says about his own busy schedule, this may be from personal experience).
Well, OK, maybe it's not a mitzva mitzva, but still it's a guy thing, right? Actually, Maimonides starts off the Laws of Prayer (1:1-2) by explicitly stating that women are just as obligated as men in the biblical command to pray to God daily. Is there a reason that women should not also avail themselves of the great merit of communal prayer? A stunning legend told in the midrashic compendium Yalkut Shimoni (871) talks about a very elderly woman who was kept alive solely by the merit of attending synagogue at sunrise every morning; without it, she died within three days. And it's not just haggadic; Rabbi Moses Isserles writes quite poignantly in a halakhic context (Shulhan Arukh, OH 88:1) about the pain that women feel at being literally shut out from the High Holiday services in the name of excessive "purity."
Put simply, is there something different about the female soul? Not according to our tradition. After all, it's Hannah, mother of Samuel, whose prayer in the House of God is the template for what we do every day.
There is no doubt that prayer has evolved over the centuries, especially in the absence of a Temple. Prayer has been formalized and regulated by the rabbis. But that cannot touch the essence of God's command that all seek him in prayer, male and female. In the context of the month of Tishrei, prayer is in the category of mitzvot equally binding on man and woman, like repentance, like fasting, like Hakhel itself. Woe to him who makes a daughter of God feel unwelcome in our place of assembly, for it is her house too.

We are all Sodomites

Sodom and Gomorrah are two of the most famous cities in the Bible, but Moses doesn't even mention them until the very end of his life, as he describes in this week's Torah portion what Israel will look like if the people violate God's covenant (Deut. 29:23):

The whole land is brimstone and salt, a burning waste, unsown and unproductive, and no grass grows there, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboyim, which the Lord overthrew in His anger and wrath.

So, like the weather we've had this past week, but smelling much worse.
A few chapters later, Moses describes this is in a more poetic way (32:32-33):

For their vine is from the vine of Sodom
    and from the fields of Gomorrah;
their grapes are grapes of poison;
    their clusters are bitter.
Their wine is the venom of dragons
    and the cruel poison of cobras.

Interestingly, Moses traces all this cruelty, bitterness and poison to a specific individual or type, "a root bearing poisonous and caustic fruit...when he hears the words of this covenant, he blesses himself in his heart, saying, 'I shall have peace, even though I proceed according to the capriciousness of my heart,' so that the saturated destroys the thirsty" (29:18-19).
Saturated is how, of course, Sodom and its sister cities are first described (Gen. 13:10): "the valley of the Jordan, which was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt as you go to Zoar. This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah." The Jordan Valley is contrasted with "the land of Canaan," famine-prone and always thirsting for rain. Metaphorically, the well-watered are the well-off, and Ezekiel (16:49-50) makes it clear that this is the root of Sodom's poisonous cruelty:

This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom. Pride, abundance of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters, but she would not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. They were haughty and did what is taboo before Me. Therefore I took them away when I saw it.

Yes, like that term taboo (toeva), sodomy (middat Sedom) is often misunderstood. Toeva is biblical, while middat Sedom only appears in rabbinical literature; nevertheless, some have an almost pathological need to associate these terms with sexual orientation and ignore their original context. Take what Maimonides (Laws of Neighbors 12:1) says about the Talmudic definition of sodomy--in the context of partners dividing property:

If one of the partners said: "Give me my portion on this side so that it will be close to another field which I own, so that they will be one large field, " his request is heeded, and we compel the other partner to grant him this privilege. For holding back in such a situation would be the character of a Sodomite.

When one withholds benefit from another out of pure caprice, that is sodomy. The Mishnaic Ethics of the Fathers puts it this way (5:10):

There are four types of people: One who says, "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine" is an ignoramus. One who says "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" -- this is the intermediate characteristic; others say that this is the character of a Sodomite. One who says, "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours" is a pious person. And one who says "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine" is wicked.

Perhaps the most shocking element of that dissection of human personality is not the reference to Sodom, but what "others" refer to it as: "the intermediate characteristic." This is not a dissenting view, as the "others" agree as to the definition of the pious and wicked poles. Instead, this underscores that sodomy is not unusual; it is average, mundane, the default setting. The citizens of Sodom and its daughter cities fall far below this, as their vine produces venomous wine--but it all starts with a shockingly simple and so-so statement: "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours." It is the meridian of mediocrity, telling the thirsty to keep off their well-watered lawn.
The "intermediate" status is one with special resonance this time of year, as the Talmud teaches (Rosh Hashana 16b):

R. Kruspedai said in the name of R. Johanan: Three books are opened [in heaven] on the New Year, one for the thoroughly wicked, one for the thoroughly righteous, and one for the intermediate. The thoroughly righteous are forthwith inscribed definitively in the book of life; the thoroughly wicked are forthwith inscribed definitively in the book of death; the doom of the intermediate is suspended from the New Year till the Day of Atonement; if they deserve well, they are inscribed in the book of life; if they do not deserve well, they are inscribed in the book of death.

Mediocrity is no place to live; one inexorably moves towards one pole or the other. That is why we have the period of the Ten Days of Repentance: for the intermediate. For the average Sodomite. For us.

So you're a Jewish sex slave

We all struggle with questions of identity from time to time: Who am I? Why am I here? Am I a Jewish sex slave? This handy guide will help you find the answers!
But first, let's explore some things about you.

1. Are you a Jewish male?

If so, you have nothing to worry about. Unless you steal something and don't have the means to pay it back, in which case the court may sell you as a slave. At that point (Maimonides, Laws of Slaves 3:3):

When a servant is sold by the court, his master has the option of giving him a Canaanite maid-servant as a wife. This applies to the master who purchased him or the son who becomes his master if the master dies. He may give him a Canaanite maid-servant as a wife and compel him to engage in relations with her so that she gives birth to slaves that he conceived.

Don't worry, you don't have to raise those kids you may be compelled to have: like your slave-wife, your slave-children belong to your master. It might be awkward when you see him in shul, though.
2. Are you a Jewish female?
a) How old are you?
b) How does your father feel about you?
Here's why we need to know (ibid. ch. 4): 

A Hebrew maid-servant is a girl below the age of majority sold by her father. When she manifests signs of physical maturity after reaching twelve years of age and becomes pubescent, he does not have the right to sell her... If the father fled, died or did not have the resources to redeem her, she must work until she is released.

So, you might be a Jewish slave, but if you're in the first grade or younger, at least you'll be out to prepare for being a bat mitzva after your six years of servitude run out. Of course, your master may decide he wants to marry you. That's where the sex comes in.

The mitzva of designating a maid-servant as a wife takes precedence over the mitzva of redeeming the maid-servant. How is the mitzva of designating a maid-servant as a wife performed? The master tells the maid-servant in the presence of two witnesses: "Behold, you are consecrated to me," "You are betrothed to me," or "Behold, you are my wife." This may be done even at the conclusion of the six years of her servitude before the setting of the sun. He need not give her anything, for the first moneys were given with the intent that they could serve for the purpose of consecration.From this point onward, he must treat her as a wife, and not as a servant...
How does a master designate a maid-servant as a wife for his son? If his son is past majority and gives his father permission to designate the maid-servant as his wife, the father tells the maid-servant in the presence of two witnesses: "Behold you are consecrated to my son."

So, your master's son does have a say. You, not so much. But at least you won't be a slave anymore!

3. Are you a non-Jewish male?
Then we won't even bring up sex, because masters are presumed to be male, and we don't even want to talk about that. But congratulations on being alive! Had you been captured in battle as a) an adult or b) one of the nations we really don't like, you wouldn't have made it this far.
4. Are you a non-Jewish female?
Hey, it's all cool, assuming you're not from one of the no-no nations. Oh, and you might be "married" off to a Hebrew slave, see above. Oh, and one more thing, as per this week's Torah portion (Deut. 21:10-14).

From time to time, you men will serve as soldiers and go off to war. The Lord your God will help you defeat your enemies, and you will take many prisoners.  One of these prisoners may be a beautiful woman, and you may want to marry her. But first you must bring her into your home, and have her shave her head, cut her nails, get rid of her foreign clothes, and start wearing Israelite clothes. She will mourn a month for her father and mother, then you can marry her. Later on, if you are not happy with the woman, you can divorce her, and she can go free. But you have slept with her as your wife, so you cannot sell her as a slave or make her into your own slave.

See, sex yes, slave no. Best-case scenario, you live happily ever after with your one-time battlefield rapist. (Unless he's a priest, in which case rape yes, marriage never.) Or maybe he rejects you, but then he can't keep you as a slave or sell you. So that's good, right? You can walk free and clear... bound by the Noahide covenant (Maimonides, Laws of Kings 8:7):

Her captor must be patient with her for twelve months if she refuses to convert. If she still refuses after this interval has passed, she must agree to accept the seven universal laws commanded to Noah's descendants and then, she is set free. Her status is the same as all other resident aliens. Her captor may not marry her, for it is forbidden to marry a woman who has not converted.

Okay, you can't refuse him, but you can refuse his faith... just as long as you don't keep your own (ibid. 9):

A beautiful captive who does not desire to abandon idol worship after twelve months should be executed. Similarly, a treaty cannot be made with a city which desires to accept a peaceful settlement until they deny idol worship, destroy their places of worship, and accept the seven universal laws commanded Noah's descendants. For every non-Jew who does not accept these commandments must be executed if he is under our undisputed authority.

You feel better now, right?

Adorable Abominations

You've heard of the Ten Commandments, but what about the Nine Abominations?
The former we read three weeks ago, while the latter appear in this weekend's Torah portion (Deut. 18:9-12):

When you come into the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone that passes his son or his daughter through the fire, one that uses divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or one that consults a ghost or a familiar spirit, or a necromancer. For whosoever does these things is an abomination unto the LORD; and because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you.

That is the popular translation, at least, for the term used here: toeva.
However, this rendering is highly misleading, just as "Commandment" is a poor translation for an entry in the Decalogue (the term in Hebrew is not mitzva, but davar, a statement, utterance or thing).

See, Cecil B. DeMille should have used this title.

You see, abomination etymologically means to regard as an ill omen, and divining by omens is on this very list of toevot! Colloquially, it is used to described something which is morally reprehensible, but that hardly fits the term toeva as it is used in the Torah.
It first appears in Genesis and Exodus as a way of describing the cultural differences between Egyptians and Hebrews. "The toeva of Egypt" is used to describe breaking bread with Hebrews, the profession of shepherding (although Egypt itself has vast flocks) and the Hebrew sacrificial rites. Explaining the last of these (Exod. 8:22), Rabbi S.R. Hirsch writes:

Perhaps this is only a diplomatic term, showing consideration for Pharaoh, denoting what the Egyptians regard more than anything.

Wait, toeva is a term of respect? Shocking as it may seem, Rashi says it nearly a millennium before Hirsch, in his comments on next week's portion (Deut. 22:9), as he tries to define kadosh, a term paradoxically used for both sanctification and contamination.

To anything man regards as toeva, either in a positive sense, e.g., something holy, or in a negative sense, e.g., something forbidden, the term kadosh applies.

It seems that we have to go to the South Seas to find an adequate translation for toeva, namely "taboo." The Torah is listing practices which are off-limits for the Israelites. Similarly, when the Torah says in the previous portion "Do not eat any toeva" (Deut. 14:3), it is not calling every non-kosher creature--99% of God's creation--an abomination. Jacob (Gen. 49) compares many of his sons to certain animals, all of which but one are non-kosher; Judah b. Tema (Mishna, Avot 5:20) charges every child of God to emulate certain animals, all of which but one are non-kosher. It is the eating which is forbidden, not their very existence.
However, not all taboos are created equal. A few lines before the prohibition of eating any toeva, the Torah cautions (12:31): "You shall not do so unto the LORD thy God; for every toeva to the LORD, which He hates, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods."
God hates this toeva--so are other abominations adorable? No, but not all cultural taboos are created equal. That is why "anyone that passes his son or his daughter through the fire" is #1 on our list--it is not the first among equals, but inherently different.
In fact, this is the one thing on which Leviticus and Deuteronomy agree. Like Deut. 18, Lev. 18 has a list of "these toevot"--not nine, but eighteen; not sacerdotal, but sexual. There is just one exception--the worship of Moloch: "And you shall not give your seed to pass through for Moloch, and you shall not profane the name of your God; I am the LORD" (v. 21). What the children pass through, as Nahmanides explains, is fire. It is the same as the prohibition in Deuteronomy.
When we get to Lev. 20, which describes the penalties for these acts, there is a clear distinction made for Moloch. All the other offenses have death penalties, but they are virtually inapplicable by human hands, either because the divine court has the responsibility or because these sorts of things do not happen in front of witnesses giving legal warning. But Moloch is a special case, as there is a specific charge on "the people of the land" to bring him to justice: "he shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones... And if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives of his seed unto Moloch, and put him not to death; then I will set My face against that man, and against his family..." The Talmud (Shevuot 39a) famously notes:

R. Simeon said: If he sinned, what sin did his family commit? But this shows you that there is not a family containing a tax-collector, in which they are not all tax-collectors; or containing a robber, in which they are not all robbers; because they protect him!

When children are being sacrificed, when infants are being burned in the name of God, a moral choice must be made. Is one part of "his family," those who justify his actions, even in the slightest, by hurling terms of hate; or is one part of "the people of the land" who demands justice? This is a fateful decision, for as Rabban Gamaliel explains, pursuing justice and giving no quarter to such outrages is the prerequisite for living here (Sifra ad loc.): "'The people of the land'--the people who are destined to inherit the land by enforcing these very matters."

Early Tisha be-Av

 Tisha beAv is unique among post-Mosaic fasts in that it lasts a full twenty-four (and-a-half) hours, from sunset until nightfall. But one aspect of it starts earlier: not studying Torah. Let’s consider the prohibitions of  9 Av, as recorded in the Talmud (Taanit 30a):

One must not eat, drink, anoint himself, wear shoes, or have sexual intercourse. The Torah, Prophets and Writings must not be read. The Mishna, Talmud and Midrash must not be studied, neither law nor lore…  one may read Job, Lamentations and the bad prophecies of Jeremiah, but the schoolchildren must be idle on that day, for it says, “God’s directives are upright; they make the heart rejoice” (Ps. 19).

However, this refers to 9 Av itself. What about the 8th? Let’s turn to the Rema, R. Moses Isserles, the Ashkenazi half of the Shulchan Arukh, specifically OC 553:2:

It is permitted to wash, anoint and to wear shoes until twilight… However, the custom has been not to study on the day preceding 9 Av from midday onwards, unless it is something permitted on 9 Av. Therefore if it falls on the Sabbath, one does not recite Ethics of the Fathers. Similarly, one should not loiter on the day preceding 9 Av.

So, even though one may eat until sunset, one must put down the Talmud at halakhic noon (which is usually closer to 1 PM, what with DST and all). Indeed, I remember well in camp how the books would slam shut at midday: no more hermeneutics of torts, ports and warts — it was time for sports! Surely, what better preparation for a full-day summertime fast could there be than running around chasing balls?

Indeed, this custom is so powerful that it trumps the Sabbath itself: though many have the custom to learn a chapter from the mishnaic tractate Avot (Ethics of the Fathers), 9 Av’s imminence trumps the eminence of Shabbat.

This is particularly astounding when we consider what the previous page of Talmud (Taanit 29a) tells us about the encounter between 9 Av and Shabbat. Of course, the fast is pushed off if they fall on the same day, but what of the Sabbath afternoon which immediately precedes the Fast of 9 Av (Observed)? The Rema tells us not to study Avot, but what of the traditional third meal?

If 9 Av falls on a Sabbath, or even if the eighth falls on a Sabbath, one may eat and drink whatever he chooses, and may place on his table even such viands as were eaten by Solomon while he was yet king.

So, you may eat your Beluga caviar, foie gras and venison, with a tankard of ale to your left and and a Burgundy glass of Pinot Noir to your right, but if you dare to talk about the weekly Torah portion, you are a sinner!

The problem, of course, is that people do not read that last line of the Rema’s ruling: “Similarly, one should not loiter on the day preceding 9 Av.” The term in Hebrew is tiyul, which has come in modern Hebrew to refer to hikes and school outings. However, that is not its original meaning, as we find it listed in OC 639:1 as one of the activities to be performed in one’s sukka. Certainly, an ad hoc dwelling in a booth/ hut/ tabernacle is no place for wide-ranging travels. Rather, the term refers to relaxing, hanging out, enjoying leisure time. You know, the sort of things that people do instead of studying Torah.

Why are people so eager to apply the first half of the Rema’s ruling? Perhaps there is a psychological element, the gotcha syndrome. There is something deliciously ironic about the Torah crying, in Carrollesque fashion, “Don’t read me!” on Tisha beAv. It reminds me of the monomaniacal obsession that grips some people when Passover begins on a Saturday night. We stop eating leaven by the late morning, and touching matza before the Seder is akin to deflowering one’s bride before leaving for the wedding hall, so with neither challa nor matza, how can we eat the third meal on Shabbat afternoon? Never mind that people are fine making do with a piece of cake, fruit, water or air on many a wintry Sabbath afternoon — now that Halakha says that we simultaneously must and mustn’t eat bread, the game is afoot.

So maybe we just don’t accept this ruling of the Rema. It wouldn’t be the first time. However, I like to turn to the words of the Chafetz Chayim (BH 553), who writes:

I am inclined to allow, even on a weekday, to study until near twilight, and were I not apprehensive of my colleagues, I would say that even on the day of 9 Av itself, we should be lenient; for in our great sins, the generations have become corrupted, and on the day of 9 Av they loiter in the streets and engage in idle chatter, and even those who are literate and some of the scholarly are lenient about this.

If this sage had lived another century and witnessed Instagram, Twitter and Facebook loitering, I think he would have overcome his apprehension.

3 strikes, yer (coming) out

Sometimes being well-versed isn't enough.
I've noticed in the two weeks since Obergefell came down, the opponents of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, at least those of the Jewish persuasion, have been changing up their tactics.
It's old hat to cite Lev. 18:22/ 20:13. After all, then one would have to admit that halakhically, all that prohibits is anal sex between males (as Hizkuni ad loc. notes, whetting one's sword would not be included). Also, one might have to admit that various commentators have read the verse differently, not just in modern times but a millennium (Rabbeinu Hananel ad loc.) or two (Bar Hamduri, Yevamot 83b) ago. Those readings may have more philosophical than legal implications, but they're still significant.
Instead, they rely on a trinity of exegetical passages, from the Talmud and Midrash. Let's see them:
#1: Midrash, Sifra, Aharei 9:8

I did not say this [prohibition] except for the statutes enacted by them, their fathers, and their father's fathers. And what would they do? A man would marry a man, a woman [would marry] a woman, a man would marry a woman and her daughter, and a woman would marry two men. Therefore it says, "and in their statutes do not follow" (Lev. 18:3).

In other words: Don't walk like an Egyptian. This is the source for forbidding lesbianism in Jewish law (Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Relations 21:8). It is a lower-level prohibition than all the others in Chapter 18, the punishment only rabbinical. But what about for non-Jews? Maimonides does not mention it in his list of prohibitions for Noahides (Laws of Kings 9:7), but maybe it's implied by this source. After all, God seems to be criticizing Egypt for it. The only problem is that many of the relationships described in that chapter are perfectly fine for non-Jews. So perhaps the Sifra is highlighting the ones that are universally unacceptable, like polyandry and same-sex marriage? A fine thought, except in between them we have "a man would marry a woman and her daughter"--and a Noahide is allowed to marry his daughter-in-law. In fact, he's allowed to marry his own daughter. No, really, look it up. Traditional marriage, what can I say?
#2: Midrash, Genesis Rabba 5

"They took women of all they chose"--wives of [other] men; "of all they chose"--males and animals.
Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi said: The Generation of the Deluge was not wiped off the face of the Earth until they wrote gemumasiot for males and animals.
Said R. Simlai: Wherever you find promiscuity, collective punishment comes to the world and kills good and evil alike.

Gemumasiot are translated by some as ketubot, prenuptial documents (mainly based on source #3). Well, there you go. People start writing ketubot for gay weddings, and it's all over! But a ketuba is a marriage contract between two people--did people write one for a cow? And why use some bizarre foreign-sounding word instead of a famous Hebrew one for a Jewish concept?
Prof. Marcus Jastrow, in his authoritative Aramaic dictionary, points instead to Hymenaios, a rousing coupling song sung at weddings. Oh, and another volume of Midrash, Leviticus Rabba (23), has a slightly different version of this tradition.

Said R. Simlai: Wherever you find promiscuity, collective punishment comes to the world and kills good and evil alike.
Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Jose: The Generation of the Deluge was not wiped off the face of the Earth until they wrote gumasiot for males and females.

Not males and animals, but males and females. Suddenly, it's the bawdiness of the songs and the licentiousness it reflects which is at issue. Sir Mix-a-lot may yet kill us all.
#3: Talmud, Hullin 92a-b

"And I said to them: If ye think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear. So they weighed out for my hire thirty pieces of silver" (Zech. 11:13). Said R. Judah: These are the thirty righteous men among the nations of the world by whose virtue the nations of the world continue to exist.
Ulla said: These are the thirty commandments which the sons of Noah took upon themselves but they observe three of them, namely (i) they do not draw up a prenuptial document for males, (ii) they do not weigh flesh of the dead in the market, and (iii) they respect the Torah.

Rabbi Ari Hart already wrote an excellent piece about this passage, and I heartily recommend it. I would just add that it is important to note how difficult it is to make lore into law. Ulla is trying to explain an obscure verse in Zechariah, and there are some striking differences between his conception of Noahide laws and the standard view, explored at length in the seventh chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin and codified by Maimonides.

1. Ulla has 30, 27 of which are unidentified, rather than 7.
2. Ulla says the nations "took upon themselves" these strictures, rather than being commanded by God.
3. Ulla lists commandments which have no equivalent among the 613 commandments incumbent upon Jews.
4. According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Avoda Zara 2:1), the thirty commandments are not what the Noahides accepted, but what they will accept in the future.

With all this in mind, it is very hard to try to formulate a comprehensive worldview based on Ulla's statement. But he sure doesn't like gay marriage, right?
Well, the first presumption is that Ulla is in fact talking about males who are marrying each other. It may be that he is simply talking about an arrangement in which wealthy females write prenups guaranteeing that they will support their poor husbands after death or divorce.
As Rashi reads it, it's a little bit more complicated. Gay prostitution is accepted in Ulla's locale, gay concubinage is accepted, but gay prenups go too far. Why would this be? A prenup seems to be quite technical. If the issue is making the relationship open, official and ordinary, why is concubinage fine? Concubines were publicly known, their children were recognized--that IS biblical marriage. Solomon's 300 concubines were not a secret.However, if one studies Ketubot, it becomes clear why the ketuba is so important: it is the bedrock of societal gender roles. A female goes from her father's house straight to her husband's house, but what maintains her after the latter's death or divorce? That is why the Rabbis instituted ketuba, to obviate the need for women to step into a man's world. They went so far as to say that any marriage without it was unacceptable. And thus, extending that to males would totally change the social order.
Ulla, as explained by Rashi, accepts the reality of anal sex between men and of that relationship being formalized. He just objects to extending rights, creating a sinecure for a gay paramour. If people really accepted Ulla's statement as halakha--and there are many compelling reasons not to--then their cry would be: sex, yes; marriage, yes; rights, no. Instead they claim the opposite position, as exemplified by Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett: “Rights, yes. Recognition, no.”
Ulla's exegesis is social commentary, which is why he points to socioeconomic mores, rather than the essential issues addressed by the Seven Noahide Laws. And when it comes to socioeconomic mores, I don't think we're in third-century Palestine anymore.
So would the sages of the Talmud and Midrash have celebrated this ruling? I highly doubt it. But if we want to figure out how we should react, we must do our due diligence and subject our sources to the strictest scrutiny.