Part 2

Part 2: The Sequel Never Has To Be As Good.

While I do try to separate morality from halacha, I do also believe that Judaism does have an ethical framework. I believe that certain halachot are manifestations of this framework, while others are not, and are morally neutral - or sometimes even morally troubling.

When it comes to sex, I do believe that certain sexual halachot fall under this framework, within the confines of "And you shall love your neighbor as yourself", which I believe translates into my axiom of "Do not consciously use sex or your sexuality to hurt yourself or others".

Example of "moral" sexual halachas:

1. Obligation to provide a wife with sustenance, clothing, and sexual satisfaction, to the point where if a husband refuses to sleep with his wife for an extended periods of time, it is seen as legitimate grounds for divorce. Need I say more? Yes - I would like to emphasize that this halacha treats a woman's sexual desire as legitimate, despite being formed in a social context that often saw such desires as harmful, or ignored them, depending on the specifics of the situation.*

2. Laws about not thinking about person A while having sex with person B

3. Having sex nude, as opposed to clothed. (There are conflicting sources about this, however, the pro-clothing source is framed as a story, the anti-clothing source as a halachik ruling.) This is presumably because wanting to have sex with a woman clothed bespeaks a lack of desire on the man's part, as can be seen from the language: "Rav Yosef cited in a tannaitic tradition, "Flesh: This means the intimacy of the flesh, namely that he should not behave with her in the manner of the Persians, who make love while dressed. This supports the view of Rav Huna, for Rav Huna said, "One who says I do not desire it unless she is in her clothing, and I in mine, must divorce his wife and pay her the marriage settlement." (Kettubot 48a, cited in Boyarin 48) The rabbis were so concerned about having a husband not sexually desire his wife properly (which could lead to her feeling hurt) that they suggested having sex in the dark lest the light reveal a blemish on her body.***

4. Consent - having sex with a woman without her consent is considered a major breach of Jewish law.

Normally, when it comes to forbidden things that do not seem to have a moral valence, I classify those halachas a morally neutral. An example of this is kashrut: It is morally neutral to not eat pork, despite being halachikly forbidden. It is a restriction, but not a major imposition on a person's life.

When it comes to sexually forbidden things that have no moral valence however, I must classify those halachot as morally problematic, because sexuality is such an essential part of a human being, that any restriction in that area is a major denial of an important part of the human experience.

For that reason, I am glad that Judaism generally has a permissive attitude towards sexual behavior: As long as it is within marriage, whatever you do is ok, even if it is not for purposes of procreation.**

Even sex outside of marriage, while viewed as undesirable, is not viewed particularly harshly in Talmudic Judaism. The children of such unions are not mamzers. Furthermore, such unions can be legitimized either a) through using sex as a means of marriage b) through the institute of pilegesh, concubine. As a matter of fact, the ban on single women immersing in ritual baths and on marrying through sex only came later, supporting Boyarin's contention of a negativity towards sex emerging later on, in response to the negative discourse of the mainstream culture that Judaism found itself in during exile. I am not saying that this phenomena is not problematic in it and of itself, but because I believe rabbis to be imperfect interpreters of a Divine Revelation, I am more concerned with issues in the Talmud and Torah, documents that I believe to be sufficiently influenced by such revelation that their authority can not be abrogated.****

Because of this, I am very concerned however, about two main realms of sexual halacha that do forbid actions I believe to be sexually neutral: Nidah and male homosexuality. I will deal with this in my next note.

* The Pandora story has been read by many modern feminist scholars as a treatise on the dangers of woman's sexuality.

** This is evidenced by allowance to have sex whenever one wants, even if one or one's spouse is post-menapausal or pregnant. There is an opinion that after ten years a couple should get divorced if they have no children, but this opinion has long been marginalized and is undermined by the very text itself in the presentation of the opinion, which "came to be honored more in the breach than in the observance". (Boyarin 54) For more on the marginalization of this opinion, please seeדרכה של הלכה: קריאת נשים בתורה, מאת דניאל ספרבר

*** Rav Yosef says the word "Flesh", expounding on that word's appearance in Exodus:21:10, Daniel Boyarin, explains, "Among the three debts a man owes his wife are "her flesh, her coverings, and her seasons"' (Exodus 21:10) While the last is normally understood to mean sexual relations and the first to mean food, Rav Yosef knows of Babylonian tradition (perhaps Palestinian in origin, but not cited in Palestinian texts) that interprets the first term to mean bodily intimacy, the touching of skin during sexual intercourse, and he interprets this to mean nudity during sex." (Boyarin 49)

**** For more on Jewish concubinage, please download Zvi Zohar's lecture at Mechon Hadar: http://www.mechonhadar.org/web/guest/online-learning/guest-presenters