Nonetheless, Judaism doesn’t exactly take an anything goes approach to sex. Instead, sexual activity is highly circumscribed in Jewish tradition, as the rabbis of the Talmud sought to use the human libido as a tool for increasing the population and strengthening marriage. Traditional Jewish law not only prohibits many types of sexual relationships, but it also dictates specific parameters even for permitted ones. And while Judaism is broadly permissive when it comes to sex between married adults, the same is not true for sexual activity outside of a committed relationship.

Does Judaism allow extramarital sex?

Adultery — traditionally defined as sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man who is not her husband — is forbidden in the seventh of the Ten Commandments and is among the most serious infractions in Judaism. But there is no universal prohibition on men having sexual relations out of wedlock, an allowance that is believed to stem at least in part from concerns about paternity — a women with multiple partners raises doubts about a child’s parentage. Indeed several of the key figures in the Bible engaged in sexual relationships and fathered children with women who were not their wives, including the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob. The Torah and later rabbinic writings also recognize the category of concubine (pilegesh in Hebrew). However, the practice of Jewish men having multiple sexual partners, whether multiple wives or concubines, has not been common for centuries.

What about premarital sex?

Traditionally, premarital sex has been discouraged if not taboo, and in the contemporary Orthodox world it is strictly forbidden. Many ultra-Orthodox communities are stringent about separating males and females in large part to reduce the likelihood of romantic encounters between the unmarried. Though there is no such gender separation in more liberal Jewish communities, even contemporary Reform and Conservative rabbis have upheld Judaism’s traditional preference that sex be reserved for marriage. A 1979 Reform movement responsum declared “premarital and extramarital chastity to be our ideal.” Even in 2001, when a committee of Reform rabbis published a report on sexual ethics that dropped references to marriage as the sole appropriate context for sexual activity, the movement continued to urge fidelity and exclusivity in sexual relations. The committee issued a separate statement on adultery that described extramarital affairs — whether conducted in secret or with a spouse’s consent — as sinful and forbidden.

The Conservative movement has taken a similar line. While officially maintaining that marriage is the only appropriate context for sex and firmly rejecting adultery, incest and general promiscuity, the movement has acknowledged that “a measure of morality” can be found in non-marital sexual relationships provided they comport with Jewish sexual values, including mutual respect, honesty, health and monogamy.

Both the Reform and Conservative movements have affirmed that their attitude toward sexual ethics applies equally to heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

What is the Jewish view on masturbation?

Traditionally, masturbation is strictly prohibited for men. The source of this prohibition is sometimes attributed to the biblical figure Onan who, charged with propagating the family line by fathering children with his brother’s widow Tamar, instead withdrew from her and ejaculated on the ground — a crime for which God took his life. Many commentators subsequently understood the prohibition on masturbation as a prohibition on the spilling (or wasting) of sperm. The Shulchan Aruch rules that it is forbidden to spill seed needlessly, calling it a sin more severe than any other in the Torah and tantamount to murder.  The Talmud referred to male masturbation as adultery with one’s hand.

Some rabbinic authorities consider Onan’s sin to have been disobedience, rather than wasted sperm, and see the source of the masturbation ban in concerns about ritual purity. Maimonides, who was a physician as well as a rabbi, wrote that excessive seminal discharge causes bodily decay and diminished vitality — a common belief in the Middle Ages that is not generally accepted by modern Western medicine.

In some Orthodox communities, the prohibition on male masturbation is taken so seriously that various other acts are also barred for fear they might lead to arousal and thus to wasting seed — including touching one’s own penis, another act the Talmud banned (even during urination)

The liberal denominations have taken a somewhat more accepting approach. In a 1979 paper that addressed the question directly, Reform Rabbi Walter Jacob wrote that masturbation isn’t sinful or harmful, though it should still be discouraged. Elliot Dorff, a leading Conservative rabbi who has written extensively on Jewish sexual ethics, has suggested that given the tendency among Jews in the West to delay marriage, it is unreasonable to expect complete abstention from all sexual pleasure until one’s wedding night. Given the choice between premarital sex and masturbation, Dorff wrote, masturbation is morally preferable. . In part to avoid such choices, some Orthodox communities strongly encourage young people to marry by their early 20s, if not earlier.

Female masturbation is less problematic in Jewish tradition, as it doesn’t raise concerns about spilled seed. The issue is not directly addressed in ancient sources. Indeed, some have suggested that the rabbis of the Talmud, all of them men, couldn’t even conceive of female masturbation as a form of sex. While, some authorities have inferred a prohibition based on sources that are sometimes understood as barring lustful thoughts, , other contemporary rabbis see no problem with women masturbating. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, a leading 20th century Orthodox authority, dismissed multiple grounds for objection to female masturbation, including that sexual thoughts might lead to actual transgressions.

Is pornography acceptable?

Traditional Jewish law is firmly opposed to pornography. The Shulchan Aruch prohibited even looking at a woman’s finger or her clothes lest it lead to impure thoughts and actions. Various biblical sources are also routinely invoked as a basis for banning porn. Among them, the verse (Numbers 15:39) that establishes tzitzit fringes as a bulwark against following the lustful urges of the eyes.  Moreover, Jewish tradition stresses the importance of modesty and privacy in the conduct of sexual relations, and early rabbinic literature voices considerable fear about the impact of impure sexual thoughts. Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg, a Conservative rabbi who has written extensively about Judaism and sexuality, raises another concern about consumer ethics and pornography, given that much sexually explicit material is produced in ways that are exploitative of the performers.

Though ancient rabbinic sources were fairly permissive with respect to sexual activity between husband and wife, some rabbis nevertheless consider the viewing of pornography as beyond the pale even when married couples use it as foreplay or as a way to improve their sex lives. Shmuley Boteach, a rabbi and author whose books include Kosher Sex, Kosher Lust and Kosher Adultery, has approved fellatio and sex toys, but draws the line at pornography. “They may be making love while watching the film, but in spirit and in mind they might as well be with the people in the video,” Kosher Sex says of couples that watch pornography together.

Rabbi Jonathan Crane, writing in the Reform movement’s 2014 volume on sexuality, The Sacred Encounter, takes a different view. “It would seem that the tonal thrust of the textual tradition favors permitting, if not encouraging, Jews to produce and consume some forms of erotic expressions for the purpose of invigorating marital relations, with perhaps more freedom in the verbal than visual arena,” he writes.

In recent years, the easy availability of online pornography has prompted serious alarm, particularly in the Orthodox world. Orthodox rabbis have issued stringent edicts about internet use, and a number of organizations have sprung up to help those battling porn addiction. GuardYourEyes, an Orthodox website endorsed by a number of prominent Orthodox (mostly ultra-Orthodox) rabbis, offers a wide range of tools for those battling addiction, including support groups, daily emails and filtering software. “I doubt that at any time in our history has there been as grave a threat to the morality of our people and to the stability of the Jewish family as the plague of addiction to internet pornography,” Abraham Twerski, a leading Orthodox rabbi and respected psychiatrist specializing in addiction, has written.

Is sexting permitted?

Sexting, the sending of sexually suggestive words or images by text message, has become a common practice among teenagers and has raised alarms among educators, religious and secular alike. However, the simple act of using words to sexually entice isn’t a forbidden act. Indeed, a famous Talmudic story suggests that at least one ancient Jewish rabbi talked erotically with his wife in bed prior to intercourse.  In his podcast The Joy of Text, Orthodox Rabbi Dov Linzer suggests that sexting one’s spouse could actually be a good way to build “some sense of anticipation and excitement even before the couple moves to the bedroom.”

One problem with sexting is that it can also be a means of carrying on non-physical sexual relationships outside of marriage, as evidenced by the notorious case of former Congressman Anthony Weiner. Experts have also raised concerns that sexting among teens leads to bullying and risky sexual behaviors, though some have challenged these assertions. There have also been cases in which sexted photos of underage girls have wound up online. Sexting that violates someone’s privacy or leads to bullying or risky behaviors would clearly run afoul of Jewish law and ethics.

Does Judaism allow oral sex?

Though some rabbis in the Talmud were highly restrictive about which sexual activities married couples could engage in, the prevailing view was that a man may do with his wife as he wishes provided he has her consent. This ruling is explicitly codified by Maimonides and by the 16th-century authority Moses Isserles (known as the Rema), whose commentary on the Shulchan Aruch is considered authoritative by Ashkenazi Jews. While some rabbinic authorities consider fellatio to run afoul of the prohibition on spilling seed, this is not universally accepted even within Orthodox circles. The Rema cites a leniency that even “unnatural” sex — a Talmudic term usually understood as referring to anal sex — is permitted even if it leads to ejaculation. From this specific allowance for non-procreative ejaculation, some extrapolate that any sexual act undertaken in the context of a permitted sexual relationship is acceptable even if it results in sperm not being used for reproductive purposes.

As with female masturbation, oral sex performed on a woman does not raise issues of spilled semen. Though some more stringent opinions consider the practice forbidden on various grounds — among them, a prohibition on staring at a woman’s genitals — both Maimonides and the Rema explicitly permit a man to kiss any limb of his wife’s body that he desires.

The post Judaism and Sex: Questions and Answers appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Today, same-sex marriages are recognized by the Reform, Conservative, Renewal and Reconstructionist movements, and each movement’s rabbinical seminary ordains LGBTQ students. This has not always been the case — as recently as 1990, the Reform movement’s rabbinic leaders officially considered heterosexual relationships “the ideal human relationship for the perpetuation of species, covenantal fulfillment, and the preservation of the Jewish people.” By the mid-1990s, the movement had fully endorsed same-sex marriage — two decades before it became legal across the United States.

A decade later, the Conservative movement reversed its longstanding ban on gay sexual activity and reversed its policy of not ordaining gay and lesbian rabbis. In 2012, the movement endorsed gay marriage. All these changes were preceded by the Reconstructionist movement, which began became the first movement to accept gays and lesbians as rabbinical students in 1984 and whose rabbis have long been free to officiate at same-sex marriages.

But while the liberal Jewish community has shifted markedly on this issue, homosexuality remains a vexing issue in Orthodoxy, which continues to hold fast to the Torah’s seemingly inflexible rejection of homosexual acts.

Does Jewish tradition reject homosexuality?

The source of Jewish opposition to homosexuality lies in two nearly identical biblical verses. Leviticus 18:22 states: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.” And Leviticus 20:13 states: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abomination; they shall surely be put to death—their blood shall be upon them.” Many authorities consider this prohibition to be one of Judaism’s cardinal sins and believe it must not be transgressed even at the threat of one’s life.

READ: Reading the Prohibition Against Homosexuality in Context

Even the most traditionally-minded interpreters of the verse acknowledge that the Torah does not prohibit homosexuality as such, but merely one specific sexual act — generally understood to be anal sex between two men. However, later rabbinic authorities expanded the prohibition to include lesbian sexual acts and all male homosexual activities short of anal intercourse. The biblical verses are also generally not understood as rejecting homosexuals as individuals, but merely homosexual acts.

Views differ sharply along denominational lines.

Reform: The Reform movement was the first of the major denominations to take a liberal position toward homosexuality, adopting the first of many resolutions on behalf of gays and lesbians in 1977. Gay marriage was endorsed by the rabbinate in 1996 and by the movement’s congregational arm the following year. The movement’s rabbinical school, Hebrew Union College — Jewish Institute of Religion, ceased discriminating against gay applicants in 1990.

Conservative: In 2006, the Conservative movement concluded a polarizing debate over homosexuality with the endorsement of two contradictory opinions — one upholding the movement’s previous rejection of gay relationships, and another retaining the Torah prohibition on male anal sex but allowing for other forms of sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The latter opinion also explicitly endorsed the ordination of gays and lesbians as rabbis and cantors. Both opinions are considered equally valid, and individual Conservative rabbis may choose which one to follow.

Orthodox: Orthodox Jews on the whole continue to reject homosexual behavior as fundamentally inconsistent with Jewish law. While there is little indication that this position is severely contested within that community, let alone likely to change in the near future, there have been initiatives to make Orthodox communities more welcoming of gay Jews. A statement authored in 2010 and signed by over 200 Orthodox rabbis expressly welcomed gay Jews fully into synagogue life even as it reiterated traditional Orthodox opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage. An Israeli Orthodox rabbinic group released a similar statement in 2016. And a number of grassroots groups for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Orthodox Jews and their families have emerged, including JQY and Eshel.

What about gay marriage?

Attitudes toward gay marriage track closely with attitudes toward homosexuality generally. The Reform movement now considers same-sex marriage to qualify as kiddushin — the rabbinic term for betrothal, a holy union between two partners.

In 2012, the same three Conservative rabbis who authored the more liberal opinion on homosexuality noted above published a series of rituals and documents pertaining to same-sex marriage ceremonies and divorce. Notably, their proposals do not include kiddushin. Other Conservative rabbis, believing that gay marriage must enjoy the same status as traditional heterosexual marriage, have insisted on applying the traditional marriage rituals with only the most minor modifications in gendered language.

Orthodox rabbis on the whole do not perform same-sex marriages. In a rare joint statement in 2011, six organizations representing a broad spectrum of the Orthodox community, from modern to haredi (ultra-Orthodox), signed on to a statement affirming that the Torah “sanctions only the union of a man and woman in matrimony.”

Do any Jews support conversion therapy?

Conversion therapy — sometimes also called reparative or change therapy — refers to the effort to “cure” gays of same-sex attraction and enable them to lead heterosexual lives. It is regarded as ineffective and harmful by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and many others. Some Jewish authorities still support it, but they are mostly (though not exclusively) members of the haredi Orthodox community.

The main proponent of conversion therapy in the Jewish community was a New Jersey-based group called JONAH, which in 2015 was found guilty of consumer fraud for using scientifically questionable methods and claiming a success rate it could not substantiate. Later that year, a New Jersey judge ordered the group to cease operations. Though the largest Orthodox rabbinical group, the Rabbinical Council of America, had at one time commended JONAH’s work, it publicly withdrew its endorsement in 2012, citing evidence that the therapy was ineffective and had potentially negative consequences.

Some in the Orthodox community still support conversion therapy, however, in part because they believe it is impossible that homosexual desires could be both unchangeable and proscribed by the Torah.

What about Jewish attitudes toward transgender people?

The issue of transgender people in Judaism is of more recent vintage than the question of homosexuality, but attitudes among the major denominations track quite similarly. The Reform movement was the earliest trailblazer, ordaining its first transgender rabbi in 2006. In 2007, the movement’s new prayer book included blessings to sanctify gender transitions. Full equality and inclusion for transgender persons was endorsed in 2015.

The Conservative rabbinate adopted a similar resolution the following year. In 2003, the Conservative movement endorsed a rabbinic opinion stating that someone who had undergone complete sex reassignment surgery should be considered in Jewish law to have changed his or her sex status, but someone who had undergone only partial reassignment surgery should not. In the Orthodox world, sex reassignment, cross-dressing and hormonal treatments are still considered forbidden. However, some Orthodox rabbis have begun to grapple with how to reach out to and welcome transgender people.

In 2023, the queer non-denominational yeshiva SVARA published the first collection of teshuvot, or Jewish legal opinions, written by and for trans people. The teshuvot cover an array of issues, such as niddah, circumcision, mikveh immersion and gender-affirming surgeries.

Can LGBTQ Jews become rabbis and cantors?

Yes, in the liberal movements. The Reform Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion has been accepting gay applicants since 1990, and the Reconstructionist movement’s rabbinical school has been doing so since 1984. HUC ordained its first openly transgender rabbi in 2006. The Conservative movement’s flagship Jewish Theological Seminary revised its application criteria in 2007 to allow for gay applicants and admitted its first openly gay students the following year. Orthodox seminaries still do not permit openly gay students; however there is at least one Orthodox gay rabbi who came out subsequent to his ordination.

How is the LGBTQ community treated in Israel?

By many metrics, Israel is considered a trailblazer on LGBTQ issues. Openly gay Israelis have been permitted to serve in the military since the early 1990s, nearly two decades before the U.S. military formally permitted gays to serve openly. Although same-sex marriage is not possible in Israel because the Orthodox-dominated Chief Rabbinate retains full control over marriage, same-sex couples who marry abroad can have their unions recognized by the state and enjoy many of the same rights and benefits as straight couples. Israel has regularly touted its achievements on gay rights as a sign of its progressive Western worldview, a practice some critics have derided as an attempt at “pinkwashing” — that is, to distract from its treatment of the Palestinians.

For more on LGBTQ Jewish life, visit MyJewishLearning’s Keshet blog.

The post Judaism and LGBTQ Issues: An Overview appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Where This Practice Comes From

The origin of the tradition lies in the Sotah ritual, a ceremony described in the Bible that tests the fidelity of a woman accused of adultery. According to the Torah, the priest uncovers or unbraids the accused woman’s hair as part of the humiliation that precedes the ceremony (Numbers 5:18). From this, the Talmud (Ketuboth 72) concludes that under normal circumstances hair covering is a biblical requirement for women.

The Mishnah in Ketuboth (7:6), however, implies that hair covering is not an obligation of biblical origin. It discusses behaviors that are grounds for divorce such as, “appearing in public with loose hair, weaving in the marketplace, and talking to any man” and calls these violations of Dat Yehudit, which means Jewish rule, as opposed to Dat Moshe, Mosaic rule. This categorization suggests that hair covering is not an absolute obligation originating from Moses at Sinai, but rather is a standard of modesty that was defined by the Jewish community.

Having first suggested that hair covering is a biblical requirement — rooted in the Sotah ritual — and then proposing that it is actually a product of communal norms, the Talmud (Ketuboth 72) presents a compromise position: Minimal hair covering is a biblical obligation, while further standards of how and when to cover one’s hair are determined by the community.

Elsewhere in the Talmud (Berakhot 24a), the rabbis define hair as sexually erotic (ervah) and prohibit men from praying in sight of a woman’s hair. The rabbis base this estimation on a biblical verse: “Your hair is like a flock of goats” (Song of Songs 4:1), suggesting that this praise reflects the sensual nature of hair. However, it is significant to note that in this biblical context the lover also praises his beloved’s face, which the rabbis do not obligate women to cover. Though not all would agree, the late medieval German commentator Mordecai Ben Hillel Hakohen, known as the Mordecai, explains that these rabbinic definitions of modesty — even though they are derived from a biblical verse — are based on subjective communal norms that may change with time.

Historically speaking, women in the talmudic period likely did cover their hair, as is attested in several anecdotes in rabbinic literature. For example, Bava Kama (90a) relates an anecdote of a woman who brings a civil suit against a man who caused her to uncover her hair in public. The judge appears to side with the woman because the man violated a social norm. Another vignette in the Talmud describes a woman whose seven sons all served as High Priest. When asked how she merited such sons, she explained that even the walls of her home never saw her hair (Yoma 47a). The latter story is a story of extreme piety, surpassing any law or communal consensus; the former case may also relay a historical fact of practice and similarly does not necessarily reflect religious obligation.

Throughout the Middle Ages, Jewish authorities reinforced the practice of covering women’s hair, based on the obligation derived from the Sotah story. Maimonides does not include hair covering in his list of the 613 commandments, but he does rule that leaving the house without a chador, the communal standard of modesty in Arabic countries, is grounds for divorce (Laws of Marriage 24:12). The Shulchan Aruch records that both married and unmarried women should cover their hair in public (Even Haezer 21:2), yet the Ashkenazic rulings emphasize that this obligation relates only to married women. The Zohar further entrenches the tradition by describing the mystical importance of women making sure that not a single hair is exposed.

Varying Interpretation in the Modern Era

Today, in most Conservative and Reform communities, women do not cover their hair on a daily basis, though in some synagogues women still cover their heads during prayer. A Reform responsum (1990) declares: “We Reform Jews object vigorously to this requirement for women, which places them in an inferior position and sees them primarily in a sexual role.”

Both the Conservative and Reform movements allow, and in some cases encourage, women to cover their heads when praying or learning Torah, because of the requirement to wear a kippah. These rulings take head covering out of the realm of female sexual modesty, and instead define it as a ritual practice — for men and women alike — that signifies respect and awareness of God above.

In the contemporary Orthodox world, most rabbis consider hair covering an obligation incumbent upon all married women; however, there is variation in the form this takes. Some maintain that women must cover all their hair, for example the Mishnah Berurah forbids a man from praying in front of his wife if any of her hair is showing.

READ: It’s Yelp for Sheitels — the First-Ever Wig Review Site

Other Orthodox rabbinic figures have suggested that hair is no longer defined as erotic in our day and age, because most women in society do not cover their hair in public. Based on this logic, the Arukh HaShulhan concludes that men are no longer prohibited from praying in the presence of a woman’s hair, and Rav Moshe Feinstein ruled that women may show a hand’s-breadth of hair.

A few Orthodox rabbis in the early 20th century justified women’s decisions not to cover their hair at all, including the Moroccan chief rabbi in the 1960s, HaRav Mashash, and the lesser known American Modern Orthodox rabbi, Isaac Hurwitz — though they drew criticism for this opinion. In their writings, they systematically review the sources surveyed above and demonstrate that those sources describe a social norm of modest dress, but not a legal requirement.

“Now that all women agree,” Rabbi Mashash wrote, “that covering one’s hair is not an issue of modesty and going bare-headed is not a form of disrespect — in fact, the opposite is true: Uncovered hair is the woman’s splendor, glory, beauty, and magnificence, and with uncovered hair she is proud before her husband, her lover — the prohibition is uprooted on principle and is made permissible.”

What Women Do

While only a few traditional rabbis have reinterpreted the law of hair covering, throughout the generations women have acted on their own initiative. The first sparks of rebellion occurred in the 1600s, when French women began wearing wigs to cover their hair. Rabbis rejected this practice, both because it resembled the contemporary non-Jewish style and because it was immodest, in their eyes, for a woman to sport a beautiful head of hair, even if it was a wig. However, the wig practice took hold and, perhaps ironically, it is common today in many Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox communities. In some of these communities the custom is for women to wear an additional covering over their wig, to ensure that no one mistakes it for natural hair.

As the general practice of covering one’s head in public faded in Western culture in the past century, many Orthodox women also began to go bare-headed. Despite rabbinic opinions to the contrary, these women thought of hair covering as a matter of custom and culture.

Many women who continue to cover their hair do not do so for the traditional reason of modesty. For example some women view head covering as a sign of their marital status and therefore do not cover their hair in their own home. Others wear only a small symbolic head covering while showing much of their hair. Also in many communities, women have persisted in covering their hair only in synagogue.

In recent decades, there is an interesting trend among women who have learned the Jewish legal sources for themselves, due to advances in women’s education, and have decided to adopt a stringent stance toward hair covering, rather than following the more permissive norms of their parents’ communities. An entire book, Hide and Seek (2005), tells these women’s stories.

Modesty, as a Jewish value, is continually being refined and redefined by Jewish women and their communities. Just as some women have chosen to deemphasize hair covering as a marker of modesty, in other communities women may choose to embrace it, developing and reinforcing a more traditional communal norm. As modesty is subjectively defined, the community to which one wishes to belong may play a large role in determining practice. The decision to cover one’s hair rests at the crossroads between law and custom, personal choice and community identification.

For further reading check out:

What to Watch After Unorthodox

18 Things to Know About Shira Haas

On the Set of Unorthodox I Brushed Up Against My Hasidic Past

The post Hair Coverings for Married Women appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Women in Traditional Jewish Sources

The Bible is a compilation of numerous books written over several centuries, and thus cannot be said to present a single view of women. Women are sometimes presented as men’s equals–as in the first creation story in Genesis–and other times as secondary in status–as in the laws which place women under the authority of their husbands and fathers.

The rabbis of the Talmud and Midrash were more explicit in their discussions about women and their status in Judaism. Rabbinic sources describe women as foolish, licentious, and light-minded, but also compassionate and intelligent. Judith Hauptman has shown how the rabbis self-consciously tempered biblical laws to improve conditions for women.

In the Middle Ages, women’s lives continued to be scripted by Jewish law, but the general cultural setting of Jewish communities also had significant impact on the way women were viewed. In Muslim lands, women tended to be more sheltered than in Christian areas. However, there are suggestions that in certain cases, Jewish communities in the Islamic world were more accommodating. For example, documents from the Cairo Geniza–a storeroom of Hebrew texts–show that the right of a woman to instigate divorce–established in the Talmud–was upheld, whereas certain European rabbis tried to restrict this right.

Today, questions regarding women and the possibility of increased inclusion in Jewish life continue to be debated and discussed in responsa literature (written rabbinic answers to specific legal questions).

Jewish Feminist Thought

Jewish feminists are critical of the exclusion of women from traditional Judaism’s most hallowed rituals and practices. But this practical critique is rooted in a conceptual critique founded upon the belief that the values, experiences, and characteristics which Judaism privileges are fundamentally male. Thus, for example, that the normative descriptive imagery and pronouns for God are male suggests that–in Judaism–male characteristics are of supreme value.  In a way, this conceptual critique is much more significant than the practical critique, because it calls for systematic changes in the way we think, not just in what we do.

Feminist theologians differ on the extent to which they think Judaism needs to be adjusted in order to correct this problem. But for some Jewish feminists, the privileging of male-ness is so imbedded in the structure of Judaism, that nothing less than a revolutionary re-creation of Judaism can suffice.

The post Jewish Gender and Feminism 101 appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Non-Marital Sex

Traditionally, Judaism only approves of sex between a husband and wife, but the Torah does not list non-marital sex among the numerous sexual offenses discussed in Leviticus 18. The positive attitude toward marital sex seems to account for rabbinic disapproval of non-marital sex. Jewish marriage is referred to as kiddushin, from the Hebrew word for “holy,” and sex within the context of this relationship is also considered holy. In addition, the Torah prohibits sex with a menstruating woman (a prohibition that continues until the woman immerses in a ritual bath or mikveh) and this applies to both married and unmarried women.

Traditional Jews who abide by these rules consider it inappropriate for a non-married woman to immerse in a mikveh, making non-marital sex even more problematic. However, because the Torah does not forbid non-marital sex, there are traditions–particularly the biblical notion of pilegesh or concubinage — that have been invoked to validate non-marital sex. The various non-Orthodox denominations have — to varying degrees — discussed the application of Jewish sexual values to non-marital sex.

Homosexuality

The Torah explicitly forbids male homosexual activity, though it says nothing about homosexual orientation or lesbian orientation or acts. Later Jewish authorities prohibited sexual activity between women, though it never received the level of condemnation associated with male homosexual behavior. In recent years, many Jews have become increasingly uncomfortable with the traditional Jewish position on homosexuality.

Some Jewish legal authorities — basing their views on research showing that homosexuality has a physiological basis or on the presumption that, whatever its origin, being gay or lesbian is not a choice — have argued that since homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation, their sexual expression cannot be forbidden. They rely on the fact that traditional Jewish law does not hold one responsible for things out of one’s control and that complete celibacy is not a value in Jewish tradition.

The issues of same-sex marriage and the ordination of gays have also emerged. While the Reform and Reconstructionist movements approve of both of these measures, the Orthodox movements do not. However, awareness and sensitivity to gay and lesbian issues has increased in many traditional circles as well. The Conservative movement approves of both measures, but it is at the rabbi’s discretion to whether or not he or she will officiate at a gay marriage ceremony.

The post Sex and Sexuality 101 appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Most trans and queer Jews have heard the Torah used to justify homophobia — and with good reason. The most challenging verse, in this regard, is Leviticus 18:22:

“Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.”

Another verse that bears heavily on this discussion is Deuteronomy 22:5:

“A woman must not put on man’s apparel, nor shall a man wear women’s clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.”

In many Orthodox communities, LGBTQ people are excluded or kept in the closet based on these biblical laws that are understood to ban homosexual sex and crossdressing. A vocal minority of rabbis in the Conservative movement also holds that, due to biblical prohibitions on homosexuality, LGBTQ people shouldn’t be allowed to marry or be ordained as rabbis. 

As with nearly all Jewish texts, there is no single interpretation of these verses that is accepted. For instance, many queer scholars have reinterpreted Leviticus 18:22 as a ban on homosexual rape rather than a blanket ban on consensual, queer intimacy. And because Joseph Caro writes in the Shulchan Aruch that men may dress as women and vice versa for joyful purposes (like Purim), many trans and nonbinary interpreters have understood Deuteronomy 22:5 as restricting only dress that is meant to deceive or harm others. In other words, in this reading, dressing to affirm one’s gender is not considered a deception and therefore permitted because it is about joy and authenticity.

Another way LGBTQ Jews frequently approach Torah study is by searching for glimmers of representation in the text. There are only a handful of biblical and rabbinic texts that explicitly mention queer people. Yet, many stories in the Jewish canon have been read by LGBTQ people as hinting at queer or trans themes. Searching for hints of queerness under the surface of traditional texts is an important way that trans and queer Jews make personal connections to holy texts. This article explores a few examples.

David and Jonathan

The singular intimate friendship between the future king, David, and the reigning King Saul’s son, Jonathan, has often been read by queer thinkers as a romantic love story. Saul was the first king of Israel and not a great one, so God chose David over Saul’s son Jonathan to be the next king. In the Book of Samuel, Saul tries desperately to keep his kingdom from falling into David’s hands. But Jonathan, the son who will never be king, chooses his love for David over family ties. 

The affection between David and Jonathan is nearly instantaneous, as we learn that Jonathan is overcome with emotion on first meeting David, an encounter that Yaron Peleg describes as “love at first sight.” The Hebrew term for love, ahavah, that repeatedly describes their bond is one commonly used to depict romantic love. In short order, David and Jonathan make a lifelong covenant, described by the text in this way:

When (David) finished speaking with Saul, Jonathan’s soul became bound up with the soul of David; Jonathan loved David as himself.

1 Samuel 18:1

The covenantal language shared between David and Jonathan is characteristic of many Near Eastern political pacts and could be understood in a variety of ways, but this doesn’t prevent many interpreters from seeing repeated homoerotic undertones in this language. 

Furthermore, David’s lament following Jonathan’s death, in which he describes Jonathan’s affection as even more wonderful than the love of women, is often read as homoerotic:

I grieve for you,

My brother Jonathan,

You were most dear to me.

Your love was wonderful to me

More than the love of women.

2 Samuel 1:26

Adam

Activist and writer Rabbi Abby Stein frequently begins her lectures on gender in Judaism by pointing out that Adam, the first human, was, according to Jewish tradition, born with both male and female attributes:

And God created humankind in the divine image,

creating it in the image of God —

creating them male and female.

Genesis 1:28

Notice that this first chapter of Genesis says that God created humans “male and female.” Several rabbinic midrashim play on this verse by claiming that God created Adam as literally simultaneously “male and female.”

Said Rabbi Yirmiyah ben Elazar: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created him as an androgyne, as it is said, “male and female He created them.”

Said Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created for him a double-face, and sawed him and made him backs, a back here and a back here.

According to Rabbi Elliot Kukla, this midrash teaches us that “our tradition teaches that all bodies and genders are created in God’s image, whether we identify as men, women, intersex, or something else.”

Ruth and Naomi

The book of Ruth, read every year on Shavuot, recounts a story of love, loyalty and family. When Ruth’s husband dies suddenly, her mother-in-law Naomi expects never to see Ruth again. Ruth refuses to part ways, expressing her love for Naomi, and the two of them become bound for life. Ruth’s words at this moment are well known and loved in the Jewish tradition:

Do not urge me to leave you, to turn back and not follow you. For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. 

Ruth 1:16

There are hints throughout the Book of Ruth about the pair’s devotion. For instance, the phrase “Ruth clung to Naomi” uses a Hebrew root (דבק) that appears throughout the Tanakh in reference to sexual intimacy. 

At the end of the story, Ruth becomes pregnant with the child of Boaz. Notably, Naomi continues to live with Ruth and becomes a second mother to the child. This unusual family structure, headed by two women, is unique in the Tanakh. Many queer readers have seen this a fitting example of “chosen family” — non-traditional home-making built on love rather than societal norms. 

Joseph

Another figure in the Bible who is often read as defying norms of gender and sexuality is Jacob’s favorite son, Joseph. In Genesis, Joseph’s brothers are so jealous of their father’s love for him that they kidnap him and sell him into Egypt, telling their father that he is dead. In Egypt, Joseph rises from slave to chief advisor to the Pharaoh. He is in this exalted position when, years later, a famine forces the brothers to head to Egypt to seek food. This leads to a reconciliation and, ultimately, the whole family resettles in Egypt.

The symbol of Jacob’s love for Joseph, which surpassed his love for his other sons, is the ketonet pasim, the infamous coat of many colors. This kind of fancy tunic appears only one other time in the Bible as a feminine garment worn by David’s daughter Tamar: 

She was wearing an ornamented tunic (ketonet pasim) for maiden princesses were customarily dressed in such garments. His attendant took her outside and barred the door after her. 

II Samuel 13:18

Modern writers, like Rabbi Danya Ruttenburg, have described this garment as Joseph’s “princess dress,” imagining Joseph as gender non-conforming.

It’s not just that Joseph wore feminine clothing. According to the Bible, Joseph was, like his mother Rachel, blessed with extraordinary good looks. (Genesis 39:6) According to the rabbis, he knew he was extraordinarily beautiful:

Joseph acted like a teenage girl, worrying about the appearance of his hair and touching up his eyes so that he would look attractive.

Genesis Rabbah 84:7

Here, Joseph’s beauty is gendered female. A later midrash even describes Joseph and his sister, Dinah, as having their genders “switched in the womb.”

Targum Pseudo Jonathan on Genesis 30:21

The Six Sexes

Throughout the Mishnah and Talmud, six (or, some say eight) categories describe the diversity of people’s sex characteristics. 

Rabbi Elliot Kukla summarizes them:

• Zachar: This term is derived from the word for a pointy sword and refers to a phallus. It is usually translated as “male” in English.
• Nekevah: This term is derived from the word for a crevice and probably refers to a vaginal opening. It is usually translated as “female” in English.
• Androgynous: A person who has both “male” and “female” sexual characteristics. 149 references in Mishnah and Talmud (1st-8th Centuries CE); 350 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes (2nd-16th Centuries CE).
• Tumtum: A person whose sexual characteristics are indeterminate or obscured. 181 references in Mishnah and Talmud; 335 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes.
• Ay’lonit: A person who is identified as “female” at birth but develops “male” characteristics at puberty and is infertile. 80 references in Mishnah and Talmud; 40 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes.
• Saris: A person who is identified as “male” at birth but develops “female” characteristics at puberty and/or is lacking a penis. A saris can be “naturally” a saris (saris hamah) or become one through human intervention (saris adam). 156 references in Mishnah and Talmud; 379 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes.

Rather than assuming that we can neatly separate people into the categories of male and female, Jewish tradition recognizes a wide range of human sex characteristics. The Intersex Society of North America reports that one out of every 1,000-2,000 infants are born intersex, with physical traits that can’t be easily classified as male or female. Other people find at the start of puberty that they have ambiguous hormonal or chromosomal status. As we can learn from the Talmud, intersex is nothing new, and the six sexes of the Talmud symbolize the expansive range of sex characteristics that have always existed. 

Because the six sexes in the Talmud exist outside of a strict gender binary, they have been a source of inspiration for many trans and non-binary Jews. For instance, artist Micah Bizant writes about their identity as a trans Jew in the zine Tim Tum and suggests using this term to refer to Jewish genderqueers. 

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish

The rabbis of the Talmud revered Torah study above almost anything else, and their preferred method to learn the sacred text was in havruta — with a study partner. A havruta had to be someone who was a good personal and intellectual match, someone you could trust to support your learning and who would not be afraid to tell you when you were wrong. Havruta partnerships were intimate, and had all the affection and fraughtness of other close relationships.

Throughout the Talmud, the practice of learning in havruta pairs occasionally takes on homoerotic undertones (or overtones — see the Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 6:3:7). In Avot D’Rabbi Natan, commenting on Pirkei Avot, a havruta is described as in this way:

And acquire for yourself a friend. How so? This teaches that a person should acquire a friend for himself who will eat with him, and drink with him, and study Scripture and Mishnah with him, and go to sleep with him, and tell him all his secrets, both secrets of the Torah and secrets of the ways of the world.

Avot d’Rabbi Natan 8:3

As Noam Sienna writes:

“While one’s wife is necessary for rearing a family, it is the same sex bond between study partners (havruta) which was, for the rabbis, their most significant relationship.”

A Rainbow Thread, page 46

The clearest example of this intense intimacy is the relationship between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish. The latter had a checkered past until one day, the robber and soldier (Reish Lakish) views the beautiful Rabbi Yohanan bathing. Here’s how the Talmud tells what happened next:

One day, Rabbi Yohanan was bathing in the Jordan River. Reish Lakish saw him and jumped into the Jordan, pursuing him. 

Rabbi Yohanan said to Reish Lakish: Your strength is fit for Torah study.

Reish Lakish said to him: Your beauty is fit for women.

Rabbi Yohanan said to him: If you return to the pursuit of Torah, I will give you my sister in marriage, who is more beautiful than I am.

Reish Lakish accepted upon himself to study Torah. Subsequently, Reish Lakish wanted to jump back out of the river to bring back his clothes, but he was unable to return (as he had lost his physical strength as soon as he accepted the responsibility to study Torah upon himself).

Bava Metzia 84a

Reish Lakish gives up his violent profession in order to become Rabbi Yohanan’s intellectual sparring partner. Daniel Boyarin suggests that the homoerotic tones in the story — Reish Lakish is, after all, drawn to Rabbi Yohanan when he is bathing — challenge Roman norms of hyper masculinity. Many other Jewish thinkers have read this story as one of gay intimacy and devotion. Upon Reish Lakish’s death, Rabbi Yohanan is inconsolable. Unable to find a havruta to replace Reish Lakish, he “cried out until his mind slipped.” He died of a broken heart. 

Conclusion

Jewish tradition holds that there are “70 faces of Torah” — myriad ways to interpret sacred texts. This fascination with the multiplicity of meanings embedded in the tradition has been an engine for Jewish engagement, continuity, tradition and innovation. For many queer and trans Jews, these ancient and new readings of Adam, Joseph, Naomi and Ruth, Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish stand in that tradition of turning the Torah over and over in order to find everything — including LGBTQ representation — within it.

The post LGBTQ Interpretations of Jewish Texts appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

The Talmud, a huge and authoritative compendium of Jewish legal traditions, contains in fact no less than eight gender designations including: 

1. Zachar, male.
2. Nekevah, female.
3. Androgynos, having both male and female characteristics.
4. Tumtum, lacking sexual characteristics.
5. Aylonit hamah, identified female at birth but later naturally developing male characteristics.
6. Aylonit adam, identified female at birth but later developing male characteristics through human intervention.
7. Saris hamah, identified male at birth but later naturally developing female characteristics.
8. Saris adam, identified male at birth and later developing female characteristics through human intervention.

In fact, not only did the rabbis recognize six genders that were neither male nor female, they had a tradition that the first human being was both. Versions of this midrash are found throughout rabbinic literature, including in the Talmud:

Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: Adam was first created with two faces (one male and the other female). As it is stated: “You have formed me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me.” (Psalms 139:5)

Eruvin 19a

Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar imagines that the first human was created both male and female — with two faces. Later, this original human being was separated and became two distinct people, Adam and Eve. According to this midrash then, the first human being was, to use contemporary parlance, nonbinary. Genesis Rabbah 8:1 offers a slightly different version of Rabbi Yirmeya’s teaching:

Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created him as an androgynos (one having both male and female sexual characteristics), as it is said, “male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27)

Said Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created for him a double face, and sawed him and made him backs, a back here and a back there, as it is said, “Behind and before, You formed me” (Psalms 139:5).

Genesis Rabbah 8:1

In this version of the teaching, Rabbi Yirmeya is not focusing on the first human’s face (or, rather, faces) but on their sex organs — they have both. The midrash imagines this original human looked something like a man and woman conjoined at the back so that one side has a women’s face and a woman’s sex organs and the other side has a man’s face and sex organs. Then God split this original person in half, creating the first man and woman. Ancient history buffs will recognize this image as similar to the character Aristophanes’ description of the first humans as both male and female, eventually sundered to create lone males and females forever madly seeking one another for the purposes of reuniting to experience that primordial state. (Plato, Symposium, 189ff)

For the rabbis, the androgynos wasn’t just a thing of the mythic past. The androgynos was in fact a recognized gender category in their present — though not with two heads, only both kinds of sex organs. The term appears no less than 32 times in the Mishnah and 283 times in the Talmud. Most of these citations are not variations on this myth, but rather discussions that consider how Jewish law (halakhah) applies to one who has both male and female sexual characteristics.

That the androgynos is, from a halakhic perspective, neither male nor female, is confirmed by Mishnah Bikkurim 4:1, which states this explicitly:

The androgynos is in some ways like men, and in other ways like women. In other ways he is like men and women, and in others he is like neither men nor women.

Mishnah Bikkurim 4:1

Because Hebrew has no gender neutral pronoun, the Mishnah uses a male pronoun for the androgynos, though this is obviously insufficient given the rabbinic descriptions of this person. Reading on we find that the androgynos is, for the rabbis, in many ways like a man — they dress like a man, they are obligated in all commandments like a man, they marry women and their “white emissions” lead to impurity. However, in other ways, the androgynos is like a woman — they do not share in inheritance like sons, they do not eat of sacrifices that are reserved only for men and their “red discharge” leads to impurity.

The Mishnah goes on to list ways in which an androgynos is just like any other person. Like any human being, “one who strikes him or curses him is liable.” (Bikkurim 4:3) Similarly, one who murders an androgynos is, well, a murderer. But the androgynos is also unlike a man or a woman in other important legal respects — for instance, such a person is not liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity as both a man and woman would be.

As should now be clear, the rabbinic interest in these gender ambiguous categories is largely legal. Since halakhah was structured for a world in which most people were either male or female, applying the law to individuals who didn’t fall neatly into one of those two categories was challenging. As Rabbi Yose remarks in this same chapter of the Mishnah: “The androgynos is a unique creature, and the sages could not decide about him.” (Bikkurim 4:5)

In many cases, the androgynos is lumped together with other kinds of nonbinary persons as well as other marginalized populations, including women, slaves, the disabled and minors. For example, concerning participation in the three pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot) during which the Jews of antiquity would travel to the Temple in Jerusalem, the mishnah of Chagigah opens:

All are obligated on the three pilgrimage festivals to appear in the Temple and sacrifice an offering, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor; and a tumtum, an androgynos, women, and slaves who are not emancipated; and the lame, the blind, the sick, and the old, and one who is unable to ascend to Jerusalem on his own legs.

Chagigah 1:1

As this mishnah indicates, it is only healthy, free adult men who are obligated to appear at the Temple to observe the pilgrimage festivals. People who are not adult men, and men who are enslaved or too old or unwell to make the journey, are exempt.

As we have already stated, the androgynos was not the only person of ambiguous gender identified by the rabbis. Similarly, the rabbis recognized one whose sexual characteristics are lacking or difficult to determine, called a tumtum. In the mishnah from Bikkurim we cited earlier, Rabbi Yose, who said the androgynos was legally challenging for the sages, said the tumtum was much easier to figure out. 

The rabbis also recognized that some people’s sexual characteristics can change with puberty — either naturally or through intervention. Less common than the androgynos and tumtum, but still found throughout rabbinic texts, are the aylonit, who is born with organs identified as female at birth but develops male characteristics at puberty or no sex characteristics at all, and the saris, who is born with male-identified organs and later develops features recognized as female (or no sex characteristics). These changes can happen naturally over time (saris hamah) or with human intervention (saris adam). 

For the rabbis, what is most significant about the aylonit and the saris is that they are presumed infertile — the latter is sometimes translated as “eunuch.” Their inability to have offspring creates legal complications the rabbis address, for example:

A woman who is 20 years old who did not grow two pubic hairs shall bring proof that she is twenty years old, and from that point forward she assumes the status of an aylonit. If she marries and her husband dies childless, she neither performs halitzah nor does she enter into levirate marriage.

Mishnah Niddah 5:9

A woman who reaches the age of 20 without visible signs of puberty, in particular pubic hair, is deemed an aylonit who is infertile. According to this mishnah, she may still marry, but it is not expected that she will bear children. Therefore, if her husband dies and the couple is in fact childless, his brother is not obligated to marry her, as would normally be required by the law of levirate marriage. 

A nonbinary person who does not have the same halakhic status as a male or female, but is something else that is best described as ambiguous or in between, presented a halakhic challenge that was not particularly foreign for the rabbis, who discuss analogs in the animal and plant kingdoms. For example, the rabbinic texts describe a koi as an animal that is somewhere between wild and domesticated (Mishnah Bikkurim 2:8) and an etrog — yes, that beautiful citron that is essential for Sukkot — as between a fruit and a vegetable (Mishnah Bikkurim 2:6, see also Rosh Hashanah 14). Because they don’t fit neatly into common categories, the koi and the etrog require special halakhic consideration. The rabbinic understanding of the world was that most categories — be they animal, vegetable or mineral — are imperfect descriptors of the world, either as it is or as it should be.

In recent decades, queer Jews and allies have sought to reinterpret these eight genders of the Talmud as a way of reclaiming a positive space for nonbinary Jews in the tradition. The starting point is that while it is true that the Talmud understands gender to largely operate on a binary axis, the rabbis clearly understood that not everyone fits these categories.

The post The Eight Genders in the Talmud appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Are you planning a Jewish wedding? Let us help out! Sign up for Breaking the Glass, an email series that will help guide you to the wedding that’s right for you!

Offering an alternate statement, whether for a woman in an opposite sex couple, or for same sex partners, feels “less than.” A helpful analogy is the conversation in the civil arena, where pundits and politicians search for any word other than “marriage” to describe unions for same-sex couples, because they say that “marriage” should be reserved for heterosexuals. This argument offers a pale version of so-called equality for same-sex couples, while reserving the real thing, the authentic language, for heterosexuals. If we truly believe that these unions are of equal status, there is no problem using the same word for them.

Obviously, the halakhic (Jewish law) issues are more complicated. But, if we practice a truly egalitarian Judaism, and believe that men and women are of equal halakhic status and that marriages between a man and man, woman and woman, and woman and man are of equal status, then kiddushin poses a real challenge.

Many scholars and rabbis have persuasively argued that we must abandon language of kiddushin if we are to achieve true egalitarianism in wedding ceremonies. I agree that we need to reframe the ritual. Two equal people cannot acquire one another. A partnership ritual, such as that suggested by Rachel Adler in her book Engendering Judaism, seems much more appropriate for an egalitarian couple of any sex in this age.

Yet the formula of “harei at” continues to feel like the “real thing.” I believe that the emotional resonance of these words is significant. So much of the significance of weddings lies in symbolism and emotion. This is why we craft elaborate public rituals rather than perfunctory business transactions. Whereas the transaction of kiddushin feels outdated and inherently unequal, the idea of using language of kedushah (holiness) to sanctify the ritual and infuse the marriage with holiness is compelling.

Combining the partnership ritual that Adler describes in her brit ahuvim (explained in this article) ceremony, placing the rings in a pouch and raising them, with the traditional formula of “harei at/harei ata,” achieves an egalitarian ritual with deeply resonant language.

Some couples have suggested coining a new phrase: hitkadshut, to retain the language of holiness while maintaining a greater agency, “I sanctify myself to you,” rather than “you are sanctified to me.”

Many couples, less versed in the intricacies of rabbinic language but intent on having a “real Jewish wedding” prefer the traditional formula, and I encourage them to use it.

For Hebrew versions of the following blessings, written by Rabbis Ayelet Cohen and Marc Margolious, click here.

Sheva Brachot (Seven Blessings)

Blessed are You our God, Source of Life, who creates the fruit of the vine. Blessed are You, our God, Source of Life, who frees us from fear and shame and opens us to the holiness of our bodies and their pleasures. You guide us to entwine our hearts in righteousness, justice, loving kindness and compassion. Blessed are You, who sanctifies Israel through love that is honorable and true.

Birkat Erusin — Betrothal Blessing

The betrothal blessing expresses the commitment to enter into this next stage of a sexually exclusive, committed partnership. Although the standard text concerns prohibitions, this reframing of the blessing affirms the holiness and wholeness of a healthy, liberated sexuality, and sanctifies the couple’s commitment to a relationship founded upon rigorous honesty and mutual respect.

Blessed are You our God, Source of Life, who creates the fruit of the vine.

Blessed are You, our God, Source of Life, who frees us from fear and shame and opens us to the holiness of our bodies and their pleasures.

You guide us to entwine our hearts in righteousness, justice, loving kindness and compassion.

Blessed are You, who sanctifies Israel through love that is honorable and true.

© Ayelet Sonya Cohen and Marc J. Margolius, adapted from a blessing by Tamara Ruth Cohen, Gwynn Kessler, and Ayelet Sonya Cohen

Reprinted with permission of Keshet, a national organization that works for full LGBTQ equality and inclusion in Jewish life.

The post Adapting the Sheva Brachot for Same-Sex Marriages appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Unlike some other religions and cultures, Judaism does not see the body as the enemy of the spirit, or sex as “dirty” or grossly physical. The picture of sexuality in Judaism is more complicated. The tradition contains strands that are very ascetic and puritanical, as well as those that see sex as something to be enjoyed for its pleasure.

Yet I would suggest that attaining holiness through relationships is central to Judaism as a spiritual practice. Let us develop a notion of holiness in relationships by returning once again to the beginning of creation.

At the Beginning

“Be fertile and increase, pru urvu, and fill the world” (Genesis 1:28) are the first words addressed by God to human beings. Not “keep the Sabbath”; not “don’t steal” or even “you should have two dish drain­ers, one for dairy and one for meat.”

“Be fertile and increase, pru urvu, and fill the earth.” At this mo­ment of the creation of the first humans, God calls upon us to be like God and create a world–a world of new human beings. According to the rabbis, pru urvu, “be fertile and increase,” is the first mitzvah, the first commandment of the Torah. There is a paradox here. The mitzvot, all 613 commandments, are meant for the Jews. And yet we begin with one which is universal–all human beings should be fruitful and fill the world (not just the Jews).

Sex then begins right at the beginning. It doesn’t even wait for the Garden of Eden story. What then is the primary purpose of sexual rela­tions: procreation, enjoyment, kedushah (holiness)?

With just this verse one could argue that procreation is the prime di­rective for humans, and thus sex is primarily for procreation. Or one could argue that since God says ki tov, “it is good,” that sex–like the world at large–is given to humans to enjoy, and so sex, like food, like life itself, is to be savored for its rich pleasures. Certainly Judaism sees sex as involving procreation, and also enjoyment. Both are of importance to Judaism. Yet it is the third possibility, kedushah, “holiness,” that is the primary purpose of sexuality.

Holiness & Wholeness

Judaism looks at the human condition and invites us to take those things that we have in common with the animals and make them holy. We are called to do this in the area of sex as well. We are not just animals reproducing our species. Or just seekers of sensuous pleasure. The act of sex primarily involves another person. We are in relationship with that person–and in that relationship holi­ness can be created. Relationships of caring, intimacy, affection, mutu­ality, are relationships of holiness, and sexuality is one way to create such relationships.

For Genesis goes on from “Be fertile and multiply” to say, “A person should leave their parents and cleave unto their partner and be like one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This one verse captures the basic underlying rhythms of the universe. Separation and striving for union. The world of Genesis is one of separation: light from darkness, sea from land, etc. We, each of us, know the utter aloneness of human existence. Our world is one of partiality, of brokenness, of loneliness, a world of light but darkness as well.

Yet as God said to the first human, lo tov heyot ha’adam l’vado–“it is not good for a human to be alone.” All the rest of creation from the first day on is described as ki tov,”it is good.” The one thing lo tov–“not good”–is a human alone.

The rhythm of the universe is set. We begin in separation and strive for wholeness. A person should leave his or her parents and cleave unto his or her partner and be like one flesh. We leave our parents (separation) to find another (unity). It is in the moment of sexual union that we come closest to wholeness. Instead of alienation and apartness, we become as one flesh. We lose our sense of twoness and become as one. In sexual union and in love there is the holiness of being in relationship to rather than in alienation from the other.

In fact, the mystery and power of sex is a gateway not just to the holiness of relationships but the holiness of God. For Genesis tells us we are all created in the image of God. Interacting with other people is interacting with other divine images, thus reminding us of who we are and reminding us who created us and who calls us to restore holiness and wholeness to the world: God.

What About Lust?

By now, you’re probably thinking that this is all very nice. For surely love–deep love, expressed romantically and erotically–is holy and won­derful. But there is a kind of sexual love that feels more like partiality than wholeness, more like lust than love, or more like simply sex. So where is holiness in those moments? Despite the fact that more people say the words “Oh God” with fervor in a moment of passion in the bedroom than in any synagogue, I’m not sure that it is an expression of supreme religious faith.

Judaism calls us to strive for an ideal. That ideal is not platonic love but rather a love that is deep, mutual, caring, and expressed in every way, including and especially through the physical. The tradition un­derstands that we will live far from that ideal but nevertheless believes the closer to the ideal the better, and recognizes that we deeply long “not to be alone” but to cleave together as one flesh.

Hasidism believed not just that the underlying impulse in the universe is human beings striving for wholeness, but that the whole uni­verse is striving for wholeness. Our task is tikkun olam, “repairing the world,” and restoring even God to wholeness. The Hasidic writers therefore taught that when you are trying to pray and instead find yourself distracted by thoughts of attraction to another human being, instead of saying, “Feh! I’m such a lowlife,” you should realize that all attraction, all love is just a reflection of this impulse underlying everything to love God, to come close and cleave to God, to experience the unity of the world.

Even pure lust is only a distorted reflection of the impulse buried deep inside us to love God. Hasidism calls us to follow that lust back to its sources as the love of God.

But even if we are less ambitious, we should understand that sex and love are doorways to Judaism’s deepest value: holiness. To love God, one must first love another human being; one must first love oneself; and then together with the other loved ones we can restore the world to peace, wholeness, and harmony. Judaism, then, is not setting boundaries or trying to keep in check the power­ful sexual urge. Rather it sees sexuality and its highest form, love, as among the most critical gifts of holiness given by God to us to live in and beyond this world.

Love of humans and love of God are inextrica­bly linked, and are Judaism’s answer to the human condition.

“Love Is Alone Sufficient”

Bernard of Clairvaux, founder of the Cistercian order of monks in the Middle Ages, wrote in his commentary on the Song of Songs: “Love is alone sufficient by itself; it pleases by itself, and for its own sake. It is itself a merit, and itself its own recompense. It seeks neither cause, nor consequences beyond itself. It is its own fruit, its own ob­ject and usefulness. I love, because I love; I love, that I may love.”

There are a number of specific values that are part of this notion of the holiness of sexuality. First, we are created by God. This means that the penis and vagina are also created by God. The sex drive is also God’s rather than Satan’s creation. Our bodies are a gift to us from God. There is nothing dis­gusting about any part of them.

Even more important is to remember that what makes humans spe­cial is that we are created in the image of God. We are all equal and should be treated as such. To treat another person as an object is to deny at that moment this basic teaching of Judaism. In that way, sex is different from other pleasures, such as food. Even if we eat food without appreciation of it as a gift or without any awareness of the holiness of the act, at worse we hurt ourselves by self-destructive eating habits. Sex (except for masturbation) involves another person.

This concept of treating another person with respect is called kavod ha-beriot, “respect and honor for all human beings.” The potential to hurt someone else is particularly present in sex because the act, no matter how “casual,” involves vulnerability. You are naked before another person. If the Torah urges us to take special care of the widow, orphan, and stranger because they were particularly vulnerable in ancient Israelite society, how much more so, when we lie naked physically and emotionally with a lover. Knowing our common vulnerability, we need to be especially protective of the other person in their nakedness.

Reprinted with permission from A Book of Life (Schocken Books).

The post Making Sex Holy appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

In biblical law, women were subordinate to either father or husband. Though, as a general rule, women did not have property rights, a woman with no brothers could inherit her father’s land–a rule established after the daughters of Zelophehad successfully petitioned Moses (Numbers 27).

Attitudes toward women changed over the biblical period. According to Carol Meyers, women and their traditional roles were valued less once the monarchy was established, religious life was shifted to the Temple cult, and Israelite society was no longer centered on agriculture and the home.

Nonetheless, the Bible depicts many strong female characters. The prophet Deborah was the foremost religious leader of her time, and figures such as Hannah, Ruth, and Esther play pivotal roles in the biblical narrative.

Rabbinic literature contains more explicit opinions about women. It is said that women are greedy, lazy, and jealous, but also more compassionate and more naturally intelligent than men. Women are associated with witchcraft, and said to be foolish and dishonest, but a man without a wife is said to be without joy and blessing. The ancient rabbis taught that a woman’s body and voice were indecent, but also that a man should respect his wife more than himself.

In rabbinic law, women have fewer religious responsibilities than men. As a general rule, they are exempt from positive time-bound commandments, such as fixed prayer at particular times of the day. According to scholar Judith Hauptman, this ruling also reflects female subordination. If a woman were compelled to fulfill time-bound commandments, this, “would lessen her husband’s dominance over her because she would have to cease temporarily from serving him, and instead serve God.”

Attitudes toward women in the Middle Ages built on rabbinic models, but also reflected the general cultural milieu of individual Jewish communities. In sources originating in Muslim lands, we often find more restrictive attitudes toward women. According to Maimonides, “There is nothing more beautiful for a wife than sitting in the corner of her house.” In addition, Maimonides allowed a husband to beat his wife if she consistently refused to fulfill wifely duties such as washing his hands and feet.

An example of the discrepancy between attitudes in Muslim and Christian lands can be seen in the response of Maimonides’ critic Abraham ben David of Posquieres, a French authority, who noted that he had, “never heard that it is permitted to raise a rod against a woman.”

In the medieval mystics’ theology of sefirot, some of God’s ten attributes are female. The sefirah known as Malkhut or Shekhinah is the primary female manifestation of God, and to a certain extent the existence of such a manifestation made femaleness praiseworthy. Still, the female attributes of God were considered secondary, subservient, and passive, receiving power from the primary male attributes.

As for “real” women, the mystics generally believed that their primary purpose was the facilitation of men’s religious life. Thus a fascinating passage in the Zohar, the most important medieval mystical work, relates that the halls of the afterlife are presided over by women who gave birth to or aided great men.

In the past 30 years, scores of teshuvot, or responsa (written rabbinic answers to specific legal questions) have been written about women’s issues. The liberal denominations have addressed women’s leadership of public prayer and the entrance of women into the rabbinate and cantorate, while Orthodox responsa have covered issues such as women’s prayer groups and women’s recitation of the mourner’s kaddish. Many of these Orthodox responsa address not only the legality of such innovations, but also the social ramifications of change. One of the concerns reflected is that innovating tradition–even when it is permissible under Jewish law–could position the community on a “slippery slope,” leading to practices which do conflict with Jewish law.

The post Overview: Women in Traditional Jewish Sources appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Though all feminists believe that Judaism reflects male bias, not all feminists believe that this bias is inherent in the very structure of Judaism. The less fundamental androcentrism (male-centeredness) is to Judaism, the more likely it is that traditional Jewish resources can be used to foster a feminist Judaism.

For example, Cynthia Ozick has suggested that not only is Judaism not intrinsically biased, but that–in its generic prescription to pursue justice for all–it contains an exhortation to improve conditions for women. In a similar vein, Orthodox feminist Blu Greenberg, in her classic work On Women and Judaism, defines an agenda for reconciling Judaism and feminism that looks for ways “within halakhah [Jewish law] to allow for growth and greater equality in the ritual and spiritual realms.”

These approaches to Jewish feminism seek to integrate female concerns into an existing model of Judaism, but not all of Jewish feminist thought is focused on achieving equality within the religion’s traditional structure. For some Jewish feminists, the entire system needs an overhaul, because Judaism is a classic patriarchy–a system that reflects male experiences and voices, and in which women are “other.”

For someone like Ozick, Judaism is essentially gender neutral. Restrictive measures vis-à-vis women may exist in Jewish tradition, but these can be purged without altering Judaism in any fundamental way.

But for those who see Judaism as patriarchal at its core, gender inequality cannot be rectified simply by loosening restrictive measures, such as providing women with ritual opportunities formally off limits to them. Indeed, some feminists view the opening of traditionally male ritual roles to women–e.g. ordaining women rabbis, allowing women to lead prayer services–as in some sense perpetuating Judaism’s male bias, affirming the male experience as normative and merely extending it to women.

Feminist theologians have responded to this problem in a number of ways. Some, like Judith Plaskow, have suggested the need for a comprehensive re-imagining of Judaism–not just of contemporary Judaism, but of the Jewish past as well. The history of Jewish women must be recovered–or recreated–and injected into Jewish communal consciousness. Similarly, Rachel Adler advocates self-consciously “engendering” Judaism–that is, making gender a fundamental criterion by which the Jewish past is understood and the Jewish future envisioned.

This self-conscious approach to gender has been adopted by Jewish feminist academics, as well. In the view of these scholars, our knowledge of what Judaism is has also been fundamentally shaped by a male perspective, because the producers of this knowledge have been, for the most part, men. Like Adler, these scholars recommend employing gender as an interpretative tool–both to better understand the history of Jewish women and to counter gender-biased historical narratives.

This method has not exposed only misogyny and women’s exclusion. Scholars like Tikva Frymer‑Kensky (reading the Bible) and Judith Hauptman (interpreting rabbinic sources) have found that, in many ways, ancient Israelite views of women were more positive than those in other ancient Near Eastern societies.

In discussing Jewish feminist thought, special mention must be made of conversations about the nature–and names–of God. For the most part, traditional Jewish texts refer to God using male pronouns and imagery. Jewish feminists have responded to this in a number of ways.

Some suggest eliminating male and female pronouns for the divine, while others recommend alternating their usage. Some choose to emphasize traditional Jewish imagery that can be connected with the feminine — like the Shekhinah, or God’s indwelling presence, or the Source of Life — while others have advocated adopting new feminine imagery, including ancient Israelite goddess imagery.

Contemporary Jewish feminist thought covers a wide range of approaches, including the classical Jewish feminist models described here, affirmations of traditional gender roles and God language as consistent with feminism, and analyses of gender in Judaism as it affects and is reflected in the lives, depictions, and practices of both men and women.

The post Jewish Feminist Thought appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Sex Within Versus Outside Marriage

The negative attitude toward premarital sex, to a large degree, reflects the overwhelmingly positive attitude toward sex within marriage. Marriage is referred to as kiddushin, which comes from the Hebrew word for “holy.” In Judaism, holy things are things that are set apart and made special and unique.

When sex is reserved for marriage, it too is considered holy. Most Jewish authorities disapprove of premarital sex because it does not take place within the context of kiddushin.

What About Long-Term Monogamous Relationships?

What of a long-term committed sexual relationship in which two people — though not married — have designated each other as their exclusive partner? This question has been raised by some liberal Jewish thinkers; however, both the Conservative and Reform movement (officially) reject the possibility of attributing kedushah (holiness) to such a relationship.

As mentioned, the Torah does not directly prohibit premarital sex. Indeed, at times, rabbinic authorities  and traditional sources have been lenient in this area. In medieval Spain, Nahmanides permitted sex with an unmarried woman who was not involved with another man. Nonetheless, for traditional Jews, premarital sex is not without halakhic (legal) complication. The Torah prohibits sex between a man and a woman who is menstruating (known as a niddah). This prohibition is in place until the woman’s period is complete and she immerses in a mikveh or ritual bath. This restriction applies to both married and unmarried couples, though it is considered inappropriate for a non-married woman (except for a soon-to-be bride) to immerse in a mikveh. Thus sex between an unmarried man and woman can violate a Torah decree.

Interestingly, the Torah does sanction one type of non-marital sexual relationship: concubinage. A concubine or pilegesh is a woman who, though involved exclusively with one man, does not receive the legal benefits of marriage. In biblical times, concubines were kept in addition to a wife or wives. In recent centuries, Jewish authorities have, for the most part, dismissed the validity of concubinage. An interesting exception is the 18th-century legal authority Jacob Emden, who suggested re-instituting the practice.

Calls for Change

Many liberal authorities have pointed out the need to develop a new sexual ethic to address the reality of premarital sex. Arthur Waskow, a leader in the Jewish Renewal movement, suggests altering our expectation of marriage to “make it easy for sexually active people from puberty on to enter and leave marriages.” The Conservative and Reform movements, while still stressing the ideal of marital sex, have acknowledged that Judaism’s position on human sexuality is not consonant with the trends of contemporary life, in which people often do not marry until their 30s or later. Both denominations have suggested that premarital sexual relationships — where they exist — should be conducted according to the ethical principles that govern married sex: namely with the respect due to all humans as beings created in the image of God. In addition, Conservative rabbi Elliot Dorff has stressed the importance of modesty, fidelity, and health and safety in non-marital sex.

To read this article, “Jews and Premarital Sex,” in Spanish (leer en Español), click here.

The post Jews and Premarital Sex appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Answer:

Yes, sex is permitted and even encouraged on Shabbat.

The Talmud is full of positive references to sexual intercourse between married partners on Shabbat. Since Shabbat is a day of rest and enjoyment, Friday night is often considered an optimal time for marital relations. In Bava Kamma 82a, the Gemara says:

One should eat garlic on Shabbat eve. This is due to the fact that garlic enhances sexual potency, and Friday night is an appropriate time for conjugal relations.

Today, Jewish people in many different communities have the practice to set aside time on Shabbat for sexual intimacy. Shabbat is considered a particularly holy time to fulfill the mitzvahs of onah (pleasurable marital relations) and pru ur’vu (be fruitful and multiply). 

Nonetheless, there are some bedroom activities that are avoided on Shabbat due to the prohibition against melacha, or forbidden labor. For example, tying knots or using an electric vibrator are both violations of traditional Shabbat law.

Rabbi Lara Haft Yom-Tov is a Jewish educator based in London.

The post Ask the Expert: Is Sex Permitted on Shabbat? appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Two seemingly clear biblical denunciations of homosexual sex, as well as the corpus of rabbinic commentaries and legal codes based on those verses, limit how far Orthodox Judaism, marked by its fidelity to traditional understandings of Jewish law, or halacha, can move on this subject.

Though several efforts have emerged in recent years to lend more support to Orthodox Jews experiencing homosexual desires and make the community more compassionate and welcoming toward them, all these efforts stop short of sanctioning gay relationships.

Theological and Legal Limitations

Across the spectrum of Orthodox practice, the consensus view is that gay sex and marriage are inconsistent with Jewish tradition. The objection is rooted in two verses in Leviticus that expressly prohibit a man from lying with another man “as one lies with a woman,” an act described as an “abomination” that is punishable by death. Though the prohibition is understood to refer to a specific sexual act, later rabbinic authorities expanded the prohibition to include lesbian sex and sexual activities other than intercourse.

Moreover, sacred texts hold up heterosexuality as the foundational ideal. The creation story in Genesis describes the complementarity of male and female, of man’s loneliness rectified by his partnership with woman. The very first commandment God gives to Adam and Eve in the Bible is to be fruitful and multiply — that is, to have children. Considered in its totality, Orthodox Jewish tradition comes down firmly in favor of heterosexuality as God’s intention for humanity, which has in turn severely limited the acceptance of homosexuality within the Orthodox community.

Diversity in Orthodox Approaches

While virtually no Orthodox rabbi explicitly sanctions homosexual relationships, there is some diversity of opinion in how the Orthodox community ought to respond to gay Jews. The two poles of this debate are fairly well delineated by two competing statements on the subject.

The first, entitled “Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community,” was drafted by a faculty member at the liberal Orthodox rabbinical school Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and released in 2010. While acknowledging the halachic (Jewish legal) ban on homosexual sex and rejecting any acceptance of same-sex marriage, the statement nevertheless asserted that gays should be welcomed as full and equal members of Orthodox communities and should, in most cases, not be encouraged to marry someone of the opposite gender. The Statement of Principles declined to weigh in on the question of whether homosexual orientation is genetic and unchangeable, or if it is a choice, as some people contend.

In 2016, the Israeli Modern Orthodox rabbinical group Beit Hillel issued a similar statement, urging that gays be allowed to serve in “any communal capacity.”

In 2011, a group of mostly ultra-Orthodox rabbis, along with some Modern Orthodox ones and a number of mental health professionals, released “The Declaration On The Torah Approach to Homosexuality.” This statement called for a compassionate approach to those struggling with gay desires. However, it rejected the notion that homosexuality is an essentially unchangeable orientation as a theological impossibility and insisted that “healing” gay urges is the only religiously acceptable approach.

“The concept that G-d created a human being who is unable to find happiness in a loving relationship unless he violates a biblical prohibition is neither plausible nor acceptable,” the statement says. “G-d is loving and merciful. Struggles, and yes, difficult struggles, along with healing and personal growth are part and parcel of this world. Impossible, lifelong, Torah-prohibited situations with no achievable solutions are not.”

Orthodoxy and Transgender Jews

The question of transgender Jews entails issues of gender identity and body rather than sex and relationships and so presents a different set of challenges for Orthodoxy. Many of the hallmarks of transgender identity — cross-dressing, hormonal treatments, sex reassignment surgery — run afoul of halachic prohibitions. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, who died in 2006, famously ruled that, for ritual purposes, a person’s gender is determined by his or her anatomy. Others have suggested that the intense psychic pain that can accompany gender dysphoria may override traditional prohibitions on castration and cross-dressing.

READ: Even Orthodox Jews Starting to Wrestle With Transgender Issues

But most Orthodox rabbis believe gender is unchangeable as a matter of Jewish law and is fixed at birth. A number of Orthodox synagogues permit transgender Jews to sit in the gendered section of the synagogue of their choosing.

Conversion Therapy

Conversion therapy — sometimes also called reparative or change therapy — refers to the effort to “cure” gays of same-sex attraction and enable them to lead heterosexual lives. It is regarded as ineffective and potentially harmful by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and many others.

Some in the Orthodox community, who for theological reasons find it impossible to accept that a homosexual orientation is unchangeable, continue to advocate for such therapies. The ultra-Orthodox declaration on homosexuality insists that homosexual impulses can be modified and that therapy can help with “healing” the “emotional wounds” that lead to homosexual desires. The declaration is featured on a website  that includes extensive resources aimed at countering the “misinformation” that homosexuality is biologically determined and attesting to the possibility of change.

Other Orthodox rabbis have come to renounce their support for conversion therapy. In 2012, the largest Orthodox rabbinical group in North America, the Rabbinical Council of America, publicly withdrew its endorsement of JONAH, a group that had been the leading proponent of reparative therapy in the Orthodox community. In 2015, the group was found guilty of consumer fraud for using scientifically questionable methods and claiming a success rate it could not substantiate. Later that year, a New Jersey judge ordered it to cease operations. The RCA had previously endorsed JONAH’s work, but in withdrawing its endorsement the council cited evidence that the therapy was ineffective and had potentially negative consequences.

The 2010 Statement of Principles asserting that gays should be welcomed affirmed “the religious right of those with a homosexual orientation to reject therapeutic approaches they reasonably see as useless or dangerous.”

Inclusion and Orthodoxy

A number of organizations have sprung up in the United States and Israel in an effort to promote acceptance and inclusivity for gays and lesbians within Orthodox communities. Eshel, established in 2010 in New York, aims to foster more acceptance for LGBTQ Jews and their families within Orthodox communities. Havruta, established in 2007, aims to do the same thing in Israel. Jewish Queer Youth, or JQY, was founded in 2001 and acts as a support group and advocacy group for LGBTQ Jews, with a particular emphasis on Orthodox youth.

READ: Orthodox Parents United by Love of Torah…And Our LGBT Children

In 2015, JQY helped organize a conference that brought together Orthodox rabbis and mental health professionals to talk about homosexuality in what is believed to have been the first public discussion of its kind.

The Trembling Before G-d Effect

The progress of gays and lesbians in gaining acceptance within Orthodoxy, limited though it may be, is often credited to the 2001 documentary Trembling Before G-d, which thrust the struggles of Orthodox gays and lesbians into the public consciousness as never before. The film’s sympathetic portrayal of individuals trying to reconcile their sexuality with their religious commitments earned high praise, but some in the Orthodox community saw it as a shallow attempt to legitimize deviant sexual impulses.

The film prominently featured Steven Greenberg, widely known as the first openly gay Orthodox rabbi. In 2004, Greenberg published Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition, which sought to recast the traditional biblical prohibition on gay sex as a ban on exploitative sex that aims to exercise power or to demean. The book won critical acclaim, but its arguments have not gained much traction in the wider Orthodox community.

The post Orthodox Judaism and LGBTQ Issues appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Ethiopian Jews: Background

Almost all researchers, including those who maintain that the Ethiopian Jews did not exist in Ethiopia until the Middle Ages, admit that Jews have lived in Ethiopia from early times. Some say that the Beta Israel are descended from the union of King Solomon and Queen of Sheba; other theories refer to them variously as descendants of Yemenite Jews, Agaus (an Ethiopic indigenous people), Jews who went down to Egypt and wandered south, or even an outgrowth of Jews who inhabited the garrison at Elephantine.

Women’s Occupations

Although the Beta Israel reigned supreme in Ethiopia for several generations and succeeded in subjugating their Christian neighbors, by the seventeenth century they had become a powerless minority with little or no rights to land. From the seventeenth century on, the Beta Israel women worked as artists and decorators in Christian churches.

By the nineteenth century, the Beta Israel had taken up stigmatized craft occupations. The men became blacksmiths and weavers and the women became potters, a low-status profession associated with fire and danger and with the belief that the Falashas were buda, supernatural beings who disguised themselves as humans during the day and at night became hyenas that could attack humans. “Falasha pottery,” which is still famous in the Wolleka village in the Gondar region, became a major industry and Beta Israel women selling pots and statuettes attracted many tourists, particularly from the 1970s to the 1990s.

The Beta Israel in Ethiopia tended to live in scattered villages located on hilltops near streams. It was women’s job to haul water to their homes in earthenware jugs strapped to their backs. Women were in charge of the domestic sphere, baking the basic bread (enjera) on an open hearth, which they also stoked to gain warmth. They prepared the stew (wat), commonly made of lentils and chicken or meat, to go with the enjera. The meal was often accompanied by a type of home brew (talla) made of hops, other grains, and water and fermented in containers made by women. Food was stored in baskets made of rushes from local plants, dried in the sun and twisted into coils. Women spent time weaving these brightly colored baskets, which could also be used to serve food, if the basket was flat-topped. Preparation of coffee was also the province of women, who washed and roasted the raw coffee beans before grinding them manually in a mortar. They brewed the coffee in a pot over the fire and served it in small cups to guests, primarily females, who dropped in to drink coffee and exchange gossip.

Women looked after young children. A mother would strap the smallest baby on her back, while drawing water from the stream or cooking. Young boys stayed with her in the home until they joined their fathers in the field; young girls were expected to help their mothers and take care of the younger children until the age of marriage, around first menstruation.

The Purity of Women

For the Beta Israel, as for many others, the purity of women and their blood signified womanhood and the pulse of life as it revolved around sexual relations and the renewal of male-female relations.

The Bible states:

When a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the period of her impurity through menstruation…. The woman shall wait for thirty-three days because her blood requires purification; she shall touch nothing that is holy, and shall not enter the sanctuary till her days of purification are completed. If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean for fourteen days as for her menstruation and shall wait for sixty-six days because her blood requires purification.

Leviticus 12:1–6

The Beta Israel of Ethiopia observed this tenet in strict fashion, precisely following the Torah commandment, isolating the woman in a hut of childbirth (yara gojos/ ye-margam gogo) for forty days after the birth of a boy and eighty days after the birth of a girl.

In Leviticus, it is further written:

When a woman has a discharge of blood, her impurity shall last for seven days; anyone who touches her shall be unclean till evening. Everything in which she lies or sits during her impurity shall be unclean.

(Leviticus 15:19–20)

In Ethiopia, every woman belonging to the Beta Israel spent approximately a week in a special menstruating hut (ye-margam gogo/ye-dam gogo/ye-dam bet), where she was prohibited by virtue of her impure blood from coming into contact with people who were in a pure state.

She was thus isolated for the length of time of her menstrual period and could share the hut only with other menstruating women. Since her impurity was contaminating, she was not allowed to dine or spend time with pure people, least of all her husband, who could resume sexual relations with her only after she had purified herself in the river. A series of stones surrounded the menstruating hut, separating the impure women from other members of the village.

In many villages, the hut was situated almost outside the village, on the peripheries between conquered, civilized space (the village) and the unknown, the wilds, the unconquerable space (the outside). However, in the village of Wolleka near Gondar, the menstruating hut was situated on the hill in the center of the village, far away from the view of passing tourists buying “Falasha pottery” but nevertheless in center-stage as far as the villagers were concerned. It was marked off by stones surrounding the hut in circular fashion, and little children would push food on ceramic plates inside the circle, which would then be taken by the menstruating women. Although Faitlovitch and other Westerners, as well as Ethiopian pupils who had studied in the West, tried to persuade the Beta Israel women not to observe the purity laws according to the Biblical precepts and tried to encourage them to come in line with Jews elsewhere, Beta Israel women in Ethiopia kept these rules strictly until their immigration to Israel, and often thereafter.

Contact with the Western World

The Beta Israel had little contact with the Western world before the nineteenth century. Protestant missionaries from the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews succeeded in converting some Beta Israel to Christianity. In 1867, Prof. Joseph Halevy (1827-1917), a Semitic scholar from the Sorbonne in Paris, met with the Beta Israel in Ethiopia. In a detailed report in 1877 to the Alliance Israelite Universelle, Halevy described the religious practices of his co-religionists, who had not been exposed to the Oral Law, and recommended steps to improve their socio-economic conditions; no action, however, was taken.

Click here to read more about Ethiopian Jewish women in Israeli society following mass immigration to Israel.

Reprinted from the Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women with permission of the author and the Jewish Women’s Archive.

The post Women in Ethiopian Society appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Against this desolate background, a cheerful Jewish grandmother who called herself Dr. Ruth marched forward and said, with undeniable sincerity and forthright common sense, that sex was good, indeed “heavenly.” To the astonishment of many Americans, who tend to associate religion with sexual repression, Ruth Westheimer declared that her message of liberation had its origin in Orthodox Judaism.

Early Life, Family, and Education

Karola Ruth Siegel was born in Germany on June 4, 1928, the daughter of Irma Hanauer, a housekeeper, and Julius Siegel, a notions wholesaler and son of the family in which Irma worked. Julius Siegel gave his daughter an early grounding in Judaism, taking her regularly to the synagogue in Frankfurt, where they lived. When Karola was ten years old, shortly after the infamous Kristallnacht, her father was taken to a detention camp. Her mother and grandmother then sent the little girl to Switzerland, where she lived in an orphanage for six years.

After the war, unable to find any other members of her family, sixteen-year-old Karola went to Palestine. There, she lived on a number of kibbutzim and joined the Haganah, the underground army. Later, she taught kindergarten, before going with her first husband to Paris, where she studied at the Institute of Psychology at the Sorbonne. After a divorce, she came to the United States.

In New York, she entered the New School for Social Research on a scholarship for victims of the Holocaust. While studying, she married her second husband and gave birth to her first child, Miriam. After a second divorce, she met Manfred Westheimer. They were married in December of 1961, and their son Joel was born in 1964. The next year, Ruth Westheimer became an American citizen and, in 1970, received her Ed.D. from Columbia University.

Becoming a Sex Therapist

After working in a number of positions involving sex education, family planning, and sex therapy, Westheimer found her niche when she did a guest appearance on a local radio show. The audience response was so positive that she was soon hosting her own show, Sexually Speaking. Beginning in 1980 as a fifteen-minute embellishment to the station’s schedule, it quickly expanded to an hour and finally to two hours.

Westheimer proved to have a real genius for communicating joy in human sexuality while at the same time informing her audiences about responsibility, sexually transmitted diseases, and safe sex. The diminutive woman with her appealing accent was equally successful on television. She hosted her own program—variously called Good Sex! with Dr. Ruth Westheimer, The Dr. Ruth Show, and Ask Dr. Ruth—but her national reputation came from appearances on such network programs as Nightline, CBS Evening News, the Tonight Show, and Late Night with David Letterman.

In 1983, Westheimer published her first book, Dr. Ruth’s Guide to Good Sex. Two years later, she coauthored Heavenly Sex: Sexuality in the Jewish Tradition, with Jonathan Mark. Drawing on traditional Judaic sources, it grounds the famous sex therapist’s philosophy in Orthodox Jewish teaching. While some have suggested that the authors ignored the darker side of the classical Jewish dialectic on the subject, it is difficult to ignore the cultural significance of both the book and Dr. Ruth.

As David Biale asked:

“What does it mean for America’s best-known sex therapist to make Judaism the basis of a contemporary sex ethic? If Freud had claimed to have created the science of sexuality by destroying the ‘illusion’ of religion, Dr. Ruth reverses the course: It is precisely on the basis of religion—Judaism—that a truly healthy contemporary science of sexuality might be constructed.”

In 1991 Westheimer donned the title of “executive producer” for a documentary on Ethiopian Jews entitled Surviving Salvation. Her second PBS documentary, entitled No Missing Link, described how grandparents transmitted values, particularly religious values, during the seventy years of communism in Russia.

Dr. Ruth’s Ascent to Expert

In 1994 Westheimer entered cyberspace with Dr. Ruth’s Encyclopedia of Sex on CD-ROM. Two hundred and fifty entries deal straightforwardly with all areas of sex and sexuality. Westheimer followed it up with Sex for Dummies, in the famous series of how-to manuals. She told USA Today that her first reaction to the idea of the book was negative. “When they approached me, I said, ‘Absolutely no, I do not talk to dummies. I talk to intelligent people.’” She changed her mind, however, when she recognized the irony of the titles and their disarming appeal to a wide segment of the population. “And then I said, hold it, if I can prevent one unintended pregnancy, one person from getting AIDS, one person from getting a sexually transmitted disease, it will be worth it.”

This determinedly optimistic, affirmative, and wholesome approach leaves Westheimer open to criticism and satire. It is a testament to the endurance of the human spirit that someone who was exposed to the horrors of humanity and experienced great sorrow at an early age is able to look away from the darkness and toward the light. As she told a Reuters interviewer at the 1995 Frankfurt Book Fair:

“I was kicked out in 1939 by being placed on a train right here in Frankfurt…. I never saw my parents again. Every time I am sad I just have to think about my five-year-old grandson. Hitler didn’t want me to have that grandson. I put the picture of my grandson in my mind and say—You see, we did triumph. So I do therapy on myself.”

In May of 2000 Westheimer received an honorary doctorate from Hebrew Union College-Institute of Religion for her work in human sexuality and her commitment to the Jewish people, Israel and religion. In 2001 she received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and the Leo Baeck Medal, and in 2004, she received the degree of Doctor of Letters, honoris causa, from Trinity College.

Westheimer has written more than forty books. In the twenty-first century, she has published about a book a year—often with co-author Pierre Lehu—including Dr. Ruth’s Guide for the Alzheimer’s Caregiver in 2012 and, in 2017, Rollercoaster Grandma!: The True Story of Dr. Ruth. A documentary about her life and work, Ask Dr. Ruth, was produced by Hulu in 2019.

Westheimer is an Associate Fellow of Calhoun College at Yale University. She also holds fellowship positions at Princeton and the New York Academy of Medicine. She is active on the board of the Museum of Jewish Heritage.

Reprinted from the Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of JewishWomen with permission of the author and the JewishWomen’s Archive.

The post Who Is Dr. Ruth? appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 62a expresses the basic rabbinic conviction that “women are a separate people.”

Despite the egalitarian vision of human creation found in the first chapter of Genesis, in which both male and female appear to share equally in the divine image, Rabbinic tradition is far more comfortable with the view of Genesis 2:4ff., that women are a secondary conception, unalterably other from men and at a further remove from the divine.

This certainty of woman’s ancillary place in the scheme of things permeates rabbinic thinking, and the male sages who produced rabbinic literature accordingly apportioned separate spheres and separate responsibilities to women and men, making every effort to confine women and their activities to the private realms of the family and its particular concerns.

Women in the Public Sphere

These obligations included economic activities that would benefit the household, so that undertaking business transactions with other private individuals was an expected part of a woman’s domestic role. Women also participated in the economic life of the marketplace, worked in a number of productive enterprises, trades, and crafts, brought claims to the courtroom, met in gatherings with other women, and attended social events.

But whatever women did in public, they did as private individuals. Not only by custom but as a result of detailed legislation, women were excluded from significant participation in most of rabbinic society’s communal and power‑conferring public activities. Since these endeavors had mostly to do with participation in religious service, communal study of religious texts, and the execution of judgments under Jewish law, women were simultaneously isolated from access to public authority and power and from the communal spiritual and intellectual sustenance available to men. […]

Women and Family Life

As long as women satisfied male expectations in their assigned roles, they were revered and honored for enhancing the lives of their families and particularly for enabling their male relatives to fulfill their religious obligations.

As [the Babylonian Talmud, or BT, in] Berakhot 17a relates, women earn merit “by sending their children to learn in the synagogue, and their husbands to study in the schools of the rabbis, and by waiting for their husbands until they return from the schools of the rabbis.”

This remains the case even as rabbinic jurisprudence goes beyond biblical precedents in its efforts to ameliorate some of the disadvantages and hardships women faced as a consequence of biblical legislation, devoting particular attention to extending special new protections to women in such areas as the formulation of marriage contracts that provided financial support in the event of divorce or widowhood and, in specific circumstances, in allowing a woman to petition a rabbinic tribunal to compel her husband to divorce her. […]

Negative Traits Ascribed to Women

Woman’s otherness and less desirable status are assumed throughout the rabbinic literature. While women are credited with more compassion and concern for the unfortunate than men, perhaps as a result of their nurturing roles, they also are linked with witchcraft (Mishnah Avot 2:7; Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4, 66b), foolishness (BT Shabbat 33b), dishonesty (Genesis Rabbah 18:2), and licentiousness (Mishnah Sotah 3:4, and BT Ketubot 65a), among a number of other inherent negative qualities (Genesis Rabbah 45:5).

Sometimes the secondary and inferior creation of women is cited as explaining their disagreeable traits (Genesis Rabbah 18:2); elsewhere Eve’s culpability in introducing death into the world accounts for women’s disabilities in comparison to male advantages (Genesis Rabbah 17:8). Aggadic [narrative] exegeses of independent biblical women tend to criticize their pride and presumption. Thus, the biblical judge Deborah is likened to a wasp, and the prophetess Huldah to a weasel (BT Megillah 14b); other biblical heroines are similarly disparaged, and women who display unusual sagacity often meet early deaths (BT Ketubot 23a).

Women do utter words of wisdom in rabbinic stories, but generally such stories either confirm a rabbinic belief about women’s character, such as women’s higher degree of compassion for others (BT Avodah Zarah 18a; BT Ketubot 104a), or deliver a rebuke to a man in need of chastisement (BT Eruvin 53b; BT Sanhedrin 39a).

The Case of Beruriah

Both qualities are present in traditions about Beruriah, the wife of the second century C.E. rabbi, Meir, known for her unusual learning and quick wit (BT Pesahim 62b, BT Erubin 53b‑54a). Yet Beruriah’s scholarship was a problem for rabbinic culture, and in later rabbinic tradition she is shown to reap the tragic consequences of the “lightmindedness” inherent in woman’s makeup: in his commentary on BT Avodah Zarah 18b, Rashi ([the pre-eminent] eleventh-century [Bible and Talmud commentator]) relates that Beruriah was seduced by one of her husband’s students and subsequently committed suicide.

Contemporary scholars have shown that the scholarly Beruriah is a literary construct with little historical reality, yet they agree that the traditions about her articulate profound disquiet about the role of women in the rabbinic enterprise.

Rachel Adler suggests that Beruriah’s story expresses rabbinic ambivalence about the possible place of a woman in their wholly male scholarly world, in which her sexuality was bound to be a source of havoc. Daniel Boyarin writes that for the amoraic sages of the Babylonian Talmud, Beruriah serves as proof of “R. Eliezer’s statement that ‘anyone who teaches his daughter Torah, teaches her lasciviousness’ (Mishnah Sotah 3:4);” in rabbinic culture, he writes, “The Torah and the wife are structural allomorphs and separated realms…both normatively to be highly valued but also to be kept separate.” […]

The Problem of Female Sexuality

Women constitute an additional source of danger in rabbinic thinking, because their sexual appeal to men can lead to social disruption.

A significant argument for excluding women from synagogue participation rests on the talmudic statement, “The voice of a woman is indecent” (BT Berakhot 24a). This idea emerges from a ruling that a man may not recite the Shema while he hears a woman singing, since her voice might divert his concentration from the prayer. Extrapolating from hearing to seeing, rabbinic prohibitions on male/female contact in worship eventually led to a physical barrier (mehitzah) between men and women in the synagogue, to preserve men from sexual distraction during prayer.

Indeed, viewing women always as a sexual temptation, rabbinic Judaism overall advises extremely limited contact between men and women who are not married to each other. This is to prevent inappropriate sexual contact, whether adulterous, incestuous, or simply outside of a married relationship.

The Autonomy and Ownership of Women

In her detailed study of the legal status of women in the Mishnah, Judith Wegner points out the role of women’s sexuality. She demonstrates that in all matters that affect a man’s ownership of her sexuality-‑whether as minor daughter, wife, or levirate widow–woman is presented as belonging to a man. In nonsexual contexts, by contrast, the wife is endowed with a high degree of personhood. Her legal rights as a property holder are protected, and she is assigned rights and privileges that are denied even to non‑Israelite males.

Notably, mishnaic legislation always treats as an independent “person” a woman on whose sexuality no man has a legal claim. Such an autonomous woman–who might be an emancipated daughter of full age, a divorcee, or a widow–may arrange her own marriage, is legally liable for any vows she may make, and may litigate in court. Free from male authority, she has control over her personal life and is treated as an independent agent.

Wegner emphasizes, however, that while the autonomous woman has some latitude in the private domain of relationships between individuals, mishnaic rules governing women’s relationship to the public domain tell quite a different story. Here, all women are systematically excluded from the religiously prestigious male domains of communal leadership, collaborative study, and public prayer.

Excerpted and reprinted with permission of The Continuum International Publishing Group from The Encyclopedia of Judaism, edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green.

The post Women in Rabbinic Literature appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

The post Women in the Bible appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Is consuming pornography consistent with these values? From the perspective of Jewish law, consumption of pornography poses a number potential problems. For one, it typically goes hand in hand with masturbation which, for men at least, has historically been considered sinful. For another, it runs the risk of sparking impure thoughts, which the ancient rabbis banned both for intrinsic reasons and because they might lead to sinful action. Pornography also seems to run afoul of the Jewish value of modesty, or tzniut, which mandates a certain reserve or restraint in dress and overall conduct. And finally, modern pornography may pose problems from the standpoint of Jewish ethics, given that at least some sexually explicit content is produced in ways that are exploitative of the performers.

For all these reasons, Jewish authorities on the whole have taken a dim view of porn. Eric Yoffie, the former president of the Union for Reform Judaism, has said that the pervasiveness of pornography is a sign of moral crisis since it “debases the sexual act and detaches it from love and commitment.” Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, the best-selling author who has written approvingly of all manner of sex acts aimed at increasing pleasure and intimacy, nevertheless draws the line at pornography, even when used to stimulate lovemaking between married partners. “They may be making love while watching the film, but in spirit and in mind they might as well be with the people in the video,” he writes in Kosher Sex.

Porn and Masturbation

Though some contemporary authorities have taken a more lenient view, Jewish law is fairly explicit in barring masturbation for men. The source of this prohibition is sometimes attributed to the biblical figure Onan who, after being charged with propagating the family line by fathering children with his brother’s widow, Tamar, instead withdrew from her and ejaculated on the ground — a crime for which God took his life. Many commentators subsequently understood the prohibition on masturbation as barring the spilling (or wasting) of sperm. Others consider Onan’s sin to have been disregarding his duty to procreate with his late brother’s wife and see the source of the masturbation ban in concerns about ritual purity. 

Whatever the reasons for the prohibition, traditional Jewish sources also banned activities that might lead to it. The Talmud records a teaching (Niddah 13b) that anyone who intentionally causes an erection is ostracized by the community. Elsewhere, the Talmud goes further, stating that touching one’s own penis, even during urination, is prohibited. In Avodah Zarah 20a, the Talmud states that one may not look at things that might lead to arousal and thus to improper seminal emission, including a beautiful woman, a woman’s colored garments, and even animals when they are mating. Even if porn were not consumed specifically as a masturbatory aid, these sources would seem to forbid it for even running the risk of it. 

Female masturbation is considered less problematic in Jewish tradition, as it doesn’t raise concerns about spilled seed. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, a leading 20th century Orthodox authority, dismissed multiple grounds for objection to female masturbation, including that sexual thoughts might lead to actual transgressions. So for women at least, watching porn might still be an issue, but not for this reason. 

Pornography and Impure Thoughts

While some Jewish sources directly tie concerns about gazing lustfully at a woman to concerns about improper emissions, not all of them do. In Tractate Shabbat, a teaching is ascribed to the school of Rabbi Yishmael that a certain biblical generation of Israelites required atonement because they “nourished their eyes with nakedness.” (The phrase in question, zanu eiyneyhem, could also be translated as “their eyes fornicated.”) Later in the same passage we learn that anyone who gazes upon a woman’s finger, it is as if they have looked at her genitals. The Shulchan Arukh, the medieval Jewish law code, formalized these prohibitions and added several more, including watching a woman do laundry, smelling a woman’s perfume, or walking behind her in the marketplace. These passages make no mention of such thoughts leading to actual sins. 

These and other sources that bar looking at sexual images but do not mention a concern with illicit sexual behavior imply that the thoughts themselves are problematic. In Hebrew, this is known as hirhur arayot, literally “thoughts of nakedness” (or more generally hirhur aveirah, “thoughts of sin”). The source of this prohibition is often attributed to the verse in Numbers 15:39, which describes wearing tzitzit fringes as a mitzvah intended to remind the wearer not to follow the lustful urges of the heart and eyes. The Talmud (Berakhot 12b) teaches that this verse prohibits three types of thoughts: heresy, licentiousness and idol worship. Elsewhere the Talmud teaches: “Thoughts of transgression are worse than transgressions.” Commenting on that teaching, Maimonides writes: “Man sins only by his animal nature, whereas thinking is a faculty of man connected with his form — a person who thinks sinfully sins therefore by means of the nobler portion of his self.”

All of which suggests that the quality of one’s thoughts are of concern, even if they don’t directly lead to sin. So even if watching pornography did not lead to a sinful actions, the lustful thoughts that such material is designed to conjure are nevertheless problematic.

However, as with masturbation, it’s not clear that this prohibition applies to women. The sources cited above are all clearly aimed at barring men from thinking about or gazing at women. The Talmud also features an unusual story that seems to suggest sexual thoughts are not problematic when women are the ones thinking them. The story concerns Rabbi Yohanan, known to be the most beautiful among the ancient rabbis, who would go and sit by the bathhouse so that when women who have just immersed themselves after their menstrual cycles emerged, they would see him before they reunited with their husbands. Rabbi Yohanan reasoned that if the women had his beauty and Torah scholarship in mind as they had sex, their children would be beautiful and learned as well. Implanting thoughts of another man in the minds of women while they have sex with their husbands doesn’t seem to have troubled the Talmud, which reports only one challenge to Rabbi Yohanan’s practice from colleagues who worried that it might give him impure thoughts. 

Tzinut, Or Modesty

Modesty is widely considered a core Jewish value, but its precise dimensions are defined in radically different ways, both historically and among contemporary Jewish communities. The word itself appears only twice in the Bible, once each in the latter two sections, the Prophets and the Writings. Micah 6:8 describes the three things God requires of human beings: “To do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk modestly with your God.” Proverbs 11:2 states that “wisdom is with those who are modest,” a verse on which the commentary Metsudat Tzion explains: “those who conceal themselves out of their great humility.” 

The Talmud contains a number of teachings indicating that extreme concealment was a practice of the most learned and pious. We are told that two sages — Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi — never looked at their own genitalia. (Interestingly, a passage in Bava Metzia 84a compares the penis sizes of two other rabbis, so that abstention was evidently not universally observed.) Rabbi Yosei was also reputed to have claimed that “the walls of my house never saw the seams of my robe,” meaning that he was so modest he would only change his garments under the bed sheets. One of the most famous stories in the Talmud concerns a student who, ostensibly wanting to learn from his teacher, hid under his bed as the teacher had sex with his wife. When the teacher kicks him out, the student responds: “It is Torah, and I must learn.” 

Even if done for noble or innocuous purposes (like getting dressed), Jewish sources tend to be restrictive when it comes to being naked or observing the naked body. This is unambiguously so in public settings. Deuteronomy 23:15 explicitly barred the ancient Israelites from exposing ervah — a Hebrew word that was understood by the rabbis in various ways, but in its plain meaning refers to nakedness. Even in private, some Jewish authorities take a restrictive approach. In some ultra-Orthodox communities today, even married couples will avoid gazing at each other naked, as required by various halachic authorities.

In liberal Jewish communities where standards of dress are far more relaxed, Jewish authorities have attempted to redefine the parameters of tzniut in ways that are more attuned to particular communal mores while still upholding the core value. In a 2017 paper, the Conservative movement’s legal authorities afforded wide latitude around the particulars of dress in deference to what is considered communally appropriate, while also emphasizing that one must be modest in one’s thoughts and careful in what one gazes at, noting that non-sexual imagery can also be eroticized. “The intent of the gaze matters a great deal,” the paper states. “A person ought to be sufficiently self-aware to avoid looking at something for the purpose of titillation.” 

Jewish consumer ethics

Over the years there have been credible allegations of exploitation and mistreatment of performers in the adult industry, including charges of human trafficking and employment of underage actors. To the extent these allegations are true, consuming porn may be inconsistent with Jewish expectations of how consumers spend their money. 

The Talmud states that one may not purchase stolen goods, a ruling codified by Maimonides in the Mishneh Torah. As exploiting or underpaying workers can be construed as a kind of thievery, some authorities might apply this prohibition to pornography that is produced in a manner that “steals” from actors by treating them improperly. 

There’s also an issue in Jewish law about facilitating the sinful behavior of others. The classic source for this prohibition is the injunction in Leviticus 19:14 known as lifnei iver, which prohibits placing “a stumbling block before the blind.” This rule is generally understood as barring any behavior that would lead others to sin. The Talmud (Avoda Zara 65b) bars one from selling a garment woven with wool and linen to a non-Jew for fear that person might then turn around and sell it to a Jew. In the context of pornography, consuming adult videos may both enable the sinful behavior entailed in its production as well as expand the producer’s capacity to create material that would lead to any of the potential sins outlined above.  

Conclusion

For all these reasons, Jewish authorities from across the denominational spectrum have generally taken a dim view of pornography. Some Jewish thinkers, however, have identified ways in which watching porn might be deemed consistent with Jewish values. In a lengthy treatment of the subject published by the Reconstructionist movement, Rabbi Ariel Wolpe outlines a series of questions one might consider in judging whether pornography is religiously appropriate. They include the ethics of its production, its potentially adverse effects on relationships and physical health, and whether it honors the holiness of sexuality. Rabbi Jonathan Crane, writing in the Reform movement’s 2014 volume on sexuality, The Sacred Encounter, suggests that Jewish tradition “favors permitting, if not encouraging, Jews to produce and consume some forms of erotic expressions for the purpose of invigorating marital relations, with perhaps more freedom in the verbal than visual arena.”

The post Judaism and Pornography appeared first on My Jewish Learning.

Over the years, there have been different Jewish understandings of when, with whom and what proper intent entail.

Sex Within Marriage

The traditional Jewish ideal is sex within the context of a marital relationship. This is the only kind of sex that is considered kiddushin (holy). However, Jewish tradition has also traditionally permitted sex outside of marriage provided that the woman is not married or betrothed to someone else — though this is considered less ideal. 

Sex within a marriage is not only permitted but encouraged. But it absolutely should be consensual. Men are forbidden from raping their wives (Eruvin 100b) and are also also supposed to move slowly enough in the act to make sex enjoyable for their wives. As the Talmud explains:

“Rabbi Yochanan observed: If the Torah had not been given, we could have learned modesty from the cat, honesty from the ant, chastity from the dove, and good manners from the rooster, who first coaxes and then mates.”

While according to the Talmud wives do not owe their husbands sex, they themselves are due conjugal relations alongside other forms of basic support. In other words, sex is considered his duty, and her right. How frequently he must offer it depends on what his occupation will allow (Ketubot 61b).

All pleasurable consensual acts are permitted in the context of marriage, as the Mishneh Torah 21:9 observes:

“Since a man’s wife is permitted to him, he may act with her in any manner whatsoever. He may have intercourse with her whenever he so desires and kiss any organ of her body he wishes, and he may have intercourse with her naturally or unnaturally (traditionally, this refers to anal and oral sex) provided that he does not expend semen to no purpose. Nevertheless, it is an attribute of piety that a man should not act in this matter with levity and that he should sanctify himself at the time of intercourse.”

There are also traditional restrictions on marital sex. Jewish law prohibits sex during menstruation (Leviticus 18). Though the Torah prohibits only intercourse during this time, when the woman is called niddah and later rabbinic authorities prohibited all physical contact. These restrictions apply for the seven days following a woman’s period and extend until she has immersed in a mikveh, a ritual bath. This category of laws is often referred to as Taharat HaMishpacha, or “family purity,” and though they have fallen out of favor with most contemporary Jews, many women — both liberal and traditional — are rediscovering and reinterpreting these laws to suit modern sensibilities.

Sex and Procreation

The first commandment in the Torah is “Be fruitful and multiply,” and procreation is one of the reasons that sex is considered holy. According to the Talmud, this commandment applies to men but not women. For men to fulfill it, according to the school of Hillel, they must have at least one son and one daughter.

Contraception was debated among rabbinic authorities because some think it conflicts with the Jewish principle that a man is forbidden to “waste seed” (i.e., emit semen without purpose). The interpretation of the biblical sources for the prohibition of emitting semen in vain are ambiguous. In Genesis 38:7-19, Onan, the son of Judah, “spills” his seed on the ground as instructed by his father (more on that story here). Some rabbis consider this to be the reason for the prohibition, while others viewed this act as unnatural intercourse, with no leverage in the discussion.  

The Talmud permits contraception under certain circumstances, especially when pregnancy could be detrimental to the mother or other children (for instance, forcing her to wean a child too early). The Talmud also records that women who did not wish to have more children (for instance, those that suffered terribly in childbirth) took potions in order to become infertile. 

There is a famous passage in the Talmud called “The Beraita of the Three Women” that outlines some instances in which women are allowed to use birth control: if they are pregnant, nursing or a minor. In the passage, the woman uses a moch (absorbent) and there is a discussion about what precisely is meant by this word. Ultimately, a few stricter interpretations forbade the use of any contraceptives, while the majority of authorities interpret this passage to permit the use of contraceptives. Of all forms of birth control, most modern rabbinic authorities prefer the birth control pill. Still, there are more liberal rabbinic authorities that will permit the use of condoms especially in cases where sexual intercourse poses a medical risk to either spouse. The duty to maintain health and life supersedes the duty of the male to procreate. Reform and Conservative rabbis permit all forms of contraception.

Sexual Pleasure & Companionship

Judaism recognizes the importance of sexual pleasure and companionship for its own sake — not just for the purposes of procreation. In Genesis, God recognizes that “it is not good for man to be alone” and creates Eve.

As stated above, the Torah requires that a husband fulfill his wife’s need for intimacy. Exodus 21:10 lists marital intimacy as one of three basic things that a husband must provide to his wife (the other two are food and clothing). And the Talmud provides a detailed schedule for men’s conjugal duties, organized by profession. While a man of independent means is obliged to sleep with his wife every day, a camel driver is obligated only once in 30 days, and a sailor once in six months. That being said, a woman is allowed to reject her husband’s sexual advances, and Judaism forbids a man from pressuring his wife sexually.

Forbidden Sexual Relations

There are a number of prohibited sexual relationships according to Judaism. Leviticus 18:6-24 details three classes of forbidden sexual activity: familial relationships, adultery and bestiality. The familial relationships are broken down into longer lists of prohibitions from the Bible and the Rabbis.

Rape is discussed in the Torah and in Jewish law and is condemned unequivocably. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the verse states: 

“If a man finds a virgin girl who was not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, the man who lay with her shall give 50 shekels of silver to the girl’s father, and she shall become his wife because he violated her. He shall not send her away all the days of his life.”

It is important to make the distinction that rape costs a monetary offense for virgins rather than widows, or nonvirgins, for which it would not cost. If the rape is to a minor, then the father receives the money. 

The rabbis prohibit marital rape, based on the verse from Proverbs 19:2, “Also without consent, an improper soul; he who is hasty with his feet is a sinner,” which is interpreted to mean that it is forbidden to force one’s wife in marital relations, the result being children of bad character. (Eruvin 100b, Kiddushin 13a, Yevamot 53b-54a)

Sex and the Evil Inclination

Despite the holiness of sex, rabbinic tradition often associates the sexual drive with the yetzer hara, the evil inclination. Paradoxically, however, the evil inclination isn’t all that bad; it can be harnessed for productivity and holiness. Indeed, according to a famous midrash, “Were it not for the yetzer hara, no man would build a house, marry a wife, or beget children.”

Sexual Imagery in the Kabbalah

The sexual imagery found in the Kabbalah, medieval Jewish mysticism, is also worth noting. As Arthur Green wrote in The Second Jewish Catalog, “Kabbalists see the very origins of the universe as a never-ceasing process of arousal, coupling, gestation, and birth within the life of a God who is both male and female, and proclaim this complex inner flow of divinity, described in the most graphic of sexual terms, to be the highest of mysteries.” 

In contrast, many of the medieval philosophers were far less openly appreciative of sex. In the Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides wrote, “The law about forbidden sexual intercourse seeks in all its parts to inculcate the lesson that we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in contempt, and only desire it very rarely.”

Normalizing LGBTQ Relationships

The source for Judaism’s traditional restriction on homosexual sex comes from two verses in Leviticus (Leviticus 18:23 and Leviticus 20:13). Both verses apparently condemn male penetrative homosexual intercourse. The latter verse says that if a man lies with another man, both have committed an abomination and should be put to death. The verse does not comment on female-female sexual acts, though later commentators also disapprove.

Interestingly, the sources against homosexual relationships don’t condemn sexual orientation, rather only if someone acts on that impulse. The desire for homosexual relationships is thus not prohibited. 

In the modern era, many Jewish movements have found reinterpretations of the verses in Leviticus in order to allow homosexual relations. Over the last many decades, lesbian and gay relationships have become normalized in Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, and even some left-wing Orthodox circles.

The post Judaism and Sexuality appeared first on My Jewish Learning.