The Pew Report and the Orthodox Community (and Other Assorted Comments), part 1
Marc B. Shapiro
1. Here is a short piece I wrote a right after the appearance of the Pew Report. (The endnote is not part of the original article.)
There has been a great deal of discussion in the wake of the recent release of the Pew Research Centerโs โPortrait of Jewish Americans.โ Some have focused on the reportโs evidence of increasing intermarriage and lack of any Jewish connection of many in the younger generation. Others have zeroed in on some of the surveyโs anomalies and results that are simply not correct. For example, the survey informs us that 1% of Ultra-Orthodox Jews had a Christmas tree last year. I would be willing to bet that in the entire world there isnโt evenย oneย Ultra-Orthodox Jew with a Christmas tree, and 1% means at least a few thousand Ultra Orthodox households have Christmas trees. After adding in the Modern Orthodox, we are told that 4% of Orthodox Jews have Christmas trees. Being that the survey places the Orthodox at 10% of the Jewish population, and also tells us that there are 5.3 million adult Jews (another one the surveyโs surprises), this leads to the result that more than 21,000 adult Orthodox Jews have Christmas trees in their homes.
Since these results are not just improbable, but impossible, it raises the general question of how reliable the survey is when it comes to the Orthodox. Can anyone believe the survey when it tells us that in the 18-29 age bracket the Modern Orthodox only account for 1% of the countryโs Jews while the Ultra-Orthodox account for 9%, or that in the 30-49 age bracket, the Modern Orthodox are 3% and the Ultra Orthodox 10%. We are also are told that 24% of Ultra-Orthodox Jews handle money on Shabbat but only 19 percent of Modern Orthodox Jews do so. (Who was it that said the Ultra-Orthodox areย frummerย than the Modern Orthodox?!)
When you read results like these you can only wonder what went wrong, and I hope we get some explanation as to how such results were generated. (Professor Jonathan Sarna has written to me that all surveys have absurd results for various reasons, and โone is to look at broad trends and ignore absurdities.โ) Perhaps there was confusion about the way the questions were asked. Such confusion is the only way I can explain that only 64% of the Ultra-Orthodox agree that a person can be Jewish if he works on the Sabbath. The truth is that every Ultra-Orthodox Jew knows that a person who works on the Sabbath is still Jewish (albeit a sinning Jew). I presume that those who answered โnoโ to the question understood it to be asking if one can be a โgood Jewโ and work on the Sabbath. (In case anyone has been wondering, I use the term โUltra-Orthodoxโ since that is what the survey uses. I donโt know why no one told the survey directors that this term is no longer regarded as appropriate.)
The sort of anomalies I have mentioned appear to be confined to matters of religious life, and other areas seem more believable. For example, we are told that 37% of Modern Orthodox households have incomes in excess of $150,000, which places them in the top ten percent of Americans. This strikes me as on the mark and illustrates one of the great problems with Modern Orthodoxy in the United States. Anyone who has been to Israel knows that there are non-haredi Orthodox Jews in all areas of life. You see men with kippot who are bus drivers, security guards, and doing every other job imaginable. Yet in the United States, Modern Orthodoxy has become largely an upper middle class phenomenon. The cost of a Modern Orthodox lifestyle, which includes expensive schools and camps, is simply beyond most peopleโs reach. I believe that this cost is a major reason why the Modern Orthodox camp has not picked up much in the way ofย baโalei teshuvah.[1]
I have no doubt that many of the non-Orthodox admire the Modern Orthodox lifestyle, and would be willing to try it out, before learning the cost. Many non-Orthodox would also be happy to send their kids to Modern Orthodox schools, but they are not going to sacrifice a middle class lifestyle for this. Those who grow up Modern Orthodox and remain in the community are prepared to make the financial sacrifices (as well as limiting how many children they have). But for those who are not part of the community, the entry fee is simply too high. Needless to say, there are also those among the Modern Orthodox who drift away because of the financial cost, and this drifting often begin when the first child is enrolled in public school. As I see it, the financial burden is the great Achillesโ heel of Modern Orthodoxy, and what prevents it from any real growth. By the same token, those of us in the Modern Orthodox world must recognize that one of the great strengths of the haredi community is that there is room in it for everyone, from the wealthy real estate developer to the blue-collar worker. If, as so many predict, the future of American Orthodoxy is with the haredim, money (or lack of it) will play an important role in this story.
Since these results are not just improbable, but impossible, it raises the general question of how reliable the survey is when it comes to the Orthodox. Can anyone believe the survey when it tells us that in the 18-29 age bracket the Modern Orthodox only account for 1% of the countryโs Jews while the Ultra-Orthodox account for 9%, or that in the 30-49 age bracket, the Modern Orthodox are 3% and the Ultra Orthodox 10%. We are also are told that 24% of Ultra-Orthodox Jews handle money on Shabbat but only 19 percent of Modern Orthodox Jews do so. (Who was it that said the Ultra-Orthodox areย frummerย than the Modern Orthodox?!)
When you read results like these you can only wonder what went wrong, and I hope we get some explanation as to how such results were generated. (Professor Jonathan Sarna has written to me that all surveys have absurd results for various reasons, and โone is to look at broad trends and ignore absurdities.โ) Perhaps there was confusion about the way the questions were asked. Such confusion is the only way I can explain that only 64% of the Ultra-Orthodox agree that a person can be Jewish if he works on the Sabbath. The truth is that every Ultra-Orthodox Jew knows that a person who works on the Sabbath is still Jewish (albeit a sinning Jew). I presume that those who answered โnoโ to the question understood it to be asking if one can be a โgood Jewโ and work on the Sabbath. (In case anyone has been wondering, I use the term โUltra-Orthodoxโ since that is what the survey uses. I donโt know why no one told the survey directors that this term is no longer regarded as appropriate.)
The sort of anomalies I have mentioned appear to be confined to matters of religious life, and other areas seem more believable. For example, we are told that 37% of Modern Orthodox households have incomes in excess of $150,000, which places them in the top ten percent of Americans. This strikes me as on the mark and illustrates one of the great problems with Modern Orthodoxy in the United States. Anyone who has been to Israel knows that there are non-haredi Orthodox Jews in all areas of life. You see men with kippot who are bus drivers, security guards, and doing every other job imaginable. Yet in the United States, Modern Orthodoxy has become largely an upper middle class phenomenon. The cost of a Modern Orthodox lifestyle, which includes expensive schools and camps, is simply beyond most peopleโs reach. I believe that this cost is a major reason why the Modern Orthodox camp has not picked up much in the way ofย baโalei teshuvah.[1]
I have no doubt that many of the non-Orthodox admire the Modern Orthodox lifestyle, and would be willing to try it out, before learning the cost. Many non-Orthodox would also be happy to send their kids to Modern Orthodox schools, but they are not going to sacrifice a middle class lifestyle for this. Those who grow up Modern Orthodox and remain in the community are prepared to make the financial sacrifices (as well as limiting how many children they have). But for those who are not part of the community, the entry fee is simply too high. Needless to say, there are also those among the Modern Orthodox who drift away because of the financial cost, and this drifting often begin when the first child is enrolled in public school. As I see it, the financial burden is the great Achillesโ heel of Modern Orthodoxy, and what prevents it from any real growth. By the same token, those of us in the Modern Orthodox world must recognize that one of the great strengths of the haredi community is that there is room in it for everyone, from the wealthy real estate developer to the blue-collar worker. If, as so many predict, the future of American Orthodoxy is with the haredim, money (or lack of it) will play an important role in this story.
* * * * * *
The Pew Report reported very high levels of intermarriage in the Jewish community.[2]ย Yet even among those who would never dream of intermarrying, we know that some engage in sexual relations with non-Jews. There is an interesting responsum in this regard by the late R. Moshe Stern, the Debrecener Rav,ย Beโer Moshe, vol. 4 no. 141.
R. Stern testifies to receiving numerous questions regarding this matter by the very people engaged in such behavior. For those who donโt know anything about R. Stern and who asked him questions, I can tell you that these were definitely not Modern Orthodox people or members of the Lithuanian yeshiva world.[3]
This volume ofย Beโer Mosheย was reprinted in 1984 without any changes. However, sometime after that the volume was reprinted again. There is no indication of when this took place, as the title page is the same as the 1984 edition. (Presumably, the reprint was after R. Sternโs passing in the summer of 1997.)
Someone called my attention to how the responsum appears in this most recent reprint.
The censorship of this responsum can only have one purpose, namely, so that people donโt learn about how some members of R. Sternโs community (the Hungarian hasidic world) are having sexual relations with non-Jewish women.
What is the remedy for these men who are intimate with non-Jewish women? Repentance, of course. Yet there is a very strange opinion as to how to go about this repentance. R. Solomon Ephraim Luntshitz, in hisย Keli Yekar[4]ย to Numbers 19:21, says something which is so โout of the boxโ that I am shocked that it has not yet been censored from the Mikraot Gedolot. (Yes, I realize that it is just a matter of time.)
![]()
![]()
R. Luntshitz is discussing the statement inย Yomaย 86b: โHow is one proved a repentant sinner? Rav Judah said: If the object which caused his original transgression comes before him on two occasions, and he keeps away from it. Rav Judah indicated: With the same woman, at the same time, in the same place.โ In context, this means only what it says, but not that someone should actually put himself in this situation. Yet this is exactly the lesson R. Luntshitz derives.
He refers toย Berakhotย 34b, โIn the place where penitents stand even the wholly righteous cannot stand.โ R. Luntschitz cites an opinion that theย baโal teshuvahย (penitent) of a sexual sin has to put himself in the exact same situation as he was before, that is, to be alone with the very same woman and overcome his inclination. This is not permitted to one who is โwholly righteousโ since he is forbidden to put himself in this situation. But the penitent needs to do this in order for his repentance to be complete, and this explains how a wholly righteous one cannot stand where the penitent stands, since the penitent has to put himself in a situation that would be forbidden for the righteous one. R. Luntshitz explains that the very act of repentance, i.e., being alone with the woman, โmakes the pure [the tzaddik] impure and the impure [the sinner] pure.โ
This is a strange passage for any number of reasons, not least of which that the action of being alone with the woman is itself sinful, even if it never leads to any sexual activity. Yet R. Luntshitz tells us that in this case we have an exception, and true repentance requires intentionally putting oneself in the exact same situation one was beforehand and this time overcoming oneโs inclination. Of course, there is no guarantee that the person will emerge successfully from this self-imposed test. R. Israel Isserlein reports such an occurrence, where an individual put himself in this situation in order to achieve proper repentance, but ended up sinning again![5]ย Sefer Hasidimย earlier warned against falling into precisely this trap.[6]
R. Luntschitzโs point is also found in hisย Olelot Ephraim, vol. 2, no. 228, showing that he was entirely convinced of his position.
R. Luntschitz was the rabbi of Prague, yet a later incumbent of this position, R. Ezekiel Landau, strongly rejects R. Luntschitzโs point. He acknowledges that many shared R. Luntschitzโs error, which I think is interesting since I canโt imagine anyone having such an opinion today.[7]ย R. Landau doesnโt tell us who else advocated R. Luntschitzโs view, but R. Mordechai Harris,[8]ย R. Dovid Yoel Weiss,[9]ย R. Yaakov Levi,[10]ย and Nahum Rakover[11]ย provide sources. Among these sources are R. Joseph ben Judah Loeb Jacob,ย Rav Yeviย (Netanya, 2012), to Psalms 36:3, who quotes the Baal Shem Tov as offering the same approach as R. Luntschitz.
Jewish men getting together with non-Jewish women is, of course, not a new thing. The Talmud,ย Sanhedrinย 82a, already refers to this possibility with regard to Torah scholars (!), concluding: โIf he is a scholar, he shall have no awakening [i.e., teaching] among the sages and none responding among the disciples.โ[12]ย Avodah Zarahย 69b-70a deals with the status of kosher wine on the table when Jewish men are sitting together with a non-Jewish prostitute. Yom Tov Assis, in his article โSexual Behaviour in Mediaeval Hispano-Jewish Society,โ[13]ย discusses the situation in Spain where it was not uncommon for Jews to have non-Jewish mistresses.[14]ย Avraham Grossman also deals with this matter and his discussion includes other parts of medieval Europe as well.[15]
In R. Judah ben Asherโs responsa (Zikhron Yehudah, no. 91), we are told about the problem of Jews having sex with their non-Jewish slave girls (and also having impregnating them). A few centuries later, R. David Ibn Zimra testifies that there were men, learned in Torah, who even thought it was permissible for them to have sex with their slaves.[16]
The fact that the prohibition on occasional sexual relations (ืืจื ืื ืืช) with non-Jewish women is only rabbinic[17]ย no doubt contributed to many not taking it very seriously.[18]ย Maimonides,ย Hilkhot Issurei Biahย 12:2, writes:
ืืื ืืื ืขื ืืืืื ืืจื ืื ืืชย ืืืื ืืืชื ืืืช ืืจืืืช ืืืืจื ืกืืคืจืื ืืืืจื ืฉืื ืืืื ืืืชืืชื. ืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืื ืืชย ืืืื ืขืืื ืืฉืื ื ืืื, ืืืฉืื ืฉืคืื, ืืืฉืื ืืืื, ืืืฉืื ืืื ื. ืืื ืื ืืืืื ืื ืืื ื ืงืจืืช ืืงืจื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืื ืืฉืื ืืืื.ย ืืื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืืืจืืื.
R. Moses Isserlesย [19]ย even mentions the view of theย Turย that intermarriage itselfย (ืืจื ืืืฉืืช)ย is only a rabbinic prohibition.[20]ย The Bah explains theย Turโs view,ย Even ha-Ezerย 16, as follows, leaving no doubt as to the matter:
ืืื ืืฉืืจ ืืืืืช . . . ืืื ืืื ืืืกืืจ ืืื ืื ืืชืืจื ืืืคืืื ืื ืขืืืื ืืจื ืืืฉืืช ืืื ืืืืจื ืืจืื ื.
This approach, incidentally, could explain how Esther married Ahasuerus, as the prohibition on intermarriage was not yet established.
Maimonides disagrees with theย Turย and assumes that there is a biblical prohibition to marry any non-Jew (ืืจื ืืชื ืืช), not simply the seven Canaanite nations. Therefore, he claims that Solomon converted all the women he married.[21]ย However, R. Raphael Berdugo disagrees, and states that there was no halakhic problem with Solomon marrying these women without converting them.[22]ย This leads him to discuss the story of Pinhas killing Zimri and the whole concept ofย kanaโin pogโin bo.ย R. Berdugo explains thatย kanaโin pogโin boย only applies when dealing with sexual relations that are public, promiscuous, and the woman is an idolator.[23]
ืืื ืืืจื ืงื ืืื ืคืืืขืื ืื ืืื ืืจื ืืคืงืจ ืืขืืืืช ืข"ื ืืืคืจืืกืื.
According to R. Berdugo, following theย Tur, Jews who are married to non-Jews are only violating a rabbinic prohibition. I mention this since I recently met someone who thought that in messianic days intermarried Jews will be subject toย kanaโin pogโin bo. I originally thought that this was a clear error. If you look at Maimonidesโ formulation,ย Hilkhot Issurei Biahย 12:4, you find that contrary to R. Berdugo he indeed includes all non-Jews, not just idolators, as subject toย kanaโin pogโin bo. (And see his very strong words against Jewish-Gentile sexual relations inย Hilkhot Issure Biahย 12:6-7.)ย Yet he is just as explicit that the sexual intercourse has to be public, just like with Zimri.
ืื ืืืืขื ืืืื ืืื ืืจื ืืชื ืืช ืืื ืืจื ืื ืืช ืื ืืขืื ืืคืจืืกืื, ืืืื ืฉืืืขืื ืืขืื ื ืขืฉืจื ืืืฉืจืื.
Based on this, it was clear to me that according that according to Maimonides (followingย Avodah Zarahย 36b) an intermarried Jew is not subject toย kanaโin pogโin bo,ย asย living together is not the same thing asย ืฉืืืขืื ืืขืื ื ืขืฉืจื. Even if one were to reject this point, in the very next halakhah Maimonides states:
ืืืื ืืงื ืื ืจืฉืื ืืคืืืข ืืื ืืื ืืฉืขืช ืืขืฉื ืืืืจื . . . ืืื ืื ืคืืจืฉ ืืื ืืืจืืื ืืืชื.
This means that the act of zealotry must take place during the actual sexual act, or at least this is what I thought. But when I investigated a bit I learnt that while my understanding is shared by many, there are also many who assume otherwise. For example, the always interesting R. Shemariah Menasheh Adler states that an intermarried man is indeed subject toย kanaโin pogโin bo.[24]ย He claims that Maimonidesโ statement just quoted only refers to one who is engaged in an act of promiscuous sex in public. With such a man he can only be killed in the act, but Maimonides is not referring here to a man who is publicly living with a non-Jew. In such a case, R. Adler claims, there is no need for the zealotry to beย ืืฉืขืช ืืขืฉื. As for Maimonidesโ explicit wordsย ืื ืืืืขื ืืืืย ืืื ืืจื ืืชื ืืชย ,ย R. Adler claims that this only refers to the first act of marital sexual intercourse, and that it needs to be in public forย kanaโin pogโin boย to be applicable, but not once they have already established a home and are living together.ย R.ย Adler also quotes R. Solomon Kluger[25]ย as agreeing with his basic point, and I have found others as well.[26]
We have seen lots of strange stuff in recent years. Is it only a matter of time before someone disgusted with the high rate of intermarriage decides to act the part ofย kanaโin pogโin bo?
It is also worth noting that most commentators and halakhists assume thatย kanaโin pogโin boย only applies when there is a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman, not the reverse. Despite this, we indeed have some examples in Jewish history of โhonor killingsโ. For example, in 1311 a Jewish woman who married a Christian and became pregnant was killed by her brothers.[27]
In 1557 an Italian Jew killed his sister because her alleged sexual activity embarrassed the family. Elliot Horowitz, who mentions this case, adds: โAzariah Finzi, the girlโs father, saw fit to defend this action by his only son, asserting that it was โinappropriate for one calling himself a Jew, especially a member of one of the best families, to suffer a veil of shame upon his face, being mocked by all who see him for the blemish attached to his familyโs reputation.โโ[28]
Inย Teshuvot Hagahot Maimoniyotย toย Sefer Nashim, no. 25 (found in the standard printings of theย Mishneh Torah), there is a responsum which describes how a woman cheated on her husband, apparently with a local non-Jew, and became pregnant. According to her father, she also killed her baby (โthe mamzerโ[29]) after it was born. Her father, worried that she would apostatize, asked, indeed pleaded with, the local rabbis to permit him to kill his daughter by drowning her in the river. The rabbis turned the request down.
ืื ืืืื ืฉื ืฉืจื ืืคื ื ืฉื ืื ืืื ื ืืืชืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืื ืื ื ืืืืจืืช ืื ืื ืืืชืจ ืืืจืื ืืชื ืืืืืขื ืื ืืจ ืืืืืื ืื ืืขืืื . . . [ืืืจ ืืืื] ืื ื ืืืงืฉืื ืืื ืืื ื ืชืืื ื ืฉืชืชืืจื ืื ืืืืจืื.
The case is actually quite sad since she was probably a teenager in over her head. The responsum describes how she would run away from home but her mother would convince her to come back. When her father rebuked her for her behavior, her reply was, โI am not the first woman who did something bad.โ
R. Asher Ben Jehiel,ย She'elot u-Teshuvot ha-Roshย 18:13, deals with a case of a woman who was intimate with a non-Jew and became pregnant from him. R. Asher affirms the local rabbi's decision to cut off her nose. (See also R. Matityahu Strashun,ย Mivhar Ketavimย [Jerusalem, 1969], p. 158 n. 3.)
R. Asher Ben Jehiel,ย She'elot u-Teshuvot ha-Roshย 18:13, deals with a case of a woman who was intimate with a non-Jew and became pregnant from him. R. Asher affirms the local rabbi's decision to cut off her nose. (See also R. Matityahu Strashun,ย Mivhar Ketavimย [Jerusalem, 1969], p. 158 n. 3.)
Also relevant is a very strange story recorded inย Taโanitย 24b. It begins by telling us that R. Yose ben Abin left his teacher, R. Yose of Yokeret. His reason was, โHow could the man who showed no mercy to his son and daughter show mercy to me?โ Letโs leave aside the story of R. Yose of Yokeret and his son. Here is what the Talmud records about him and his daughter.
He had a beautiful daughter. One day he saw a man boring a hole in the fence so that he might catch a glimpse of her. He said to the man, "What is [the meaning of] this?โ The man answered: "Master, if I am not worthy enough to marry her, may I not at least be worthy to catch a glimpse of her?" Thereupon he exclaimed: "My daughter, you are a source of trouble to mankind, return to the dust so that men may not sin because of you."
Although he did not physically kill his daughter, he did express the wish that she die (according to some it was an actual curse), and in the opinion of many commentators this is exactly what happened (seeย Hagahot ha-Bah, ad loc.). What makes this text so shocking is that the daughter was entirely innocent of any improper behavior. In other words, it was her very existence as a beautiful woman that created the problem, and as such it was better that she simply exit this world before any more men were led into sinful thoughts. I see no way that this story can be brought into line with mainstream rabbinic thought, despite many attempts to do so.[30]ย (At a future time I can present some lessons that contemporary moralists have derived from this story, which also are quite shocking.)
Returning to the matter of Jewish-Gentile sexual relations, while theย Shulhan Arukh, Even ha-Ezerย 16:1, following Maimonides,ย Hilkhot Issurei Biahย 12:2, tells us that occasional sexual relations (i.e., no marital relationship) with a non-Jewish woman is only rabbinically prohibited,[31]ย R. Nissim of Gerona disagrees. Yet if we are indeed dealing with a Torah prohibition then what does the Talmud[32]ย mean when it states that the Hasmonean Beit Din decreed against sex with a non-Jewish woman? If it was already forbidden according to the Torah, there would be no need for such a decree.
R. Nissim suggests that the Hasmonean Beit Dinโs decree was designed to add an additional penalty onto an already existing prohibition. It is not that occasional sex with a non-Jewish woman was banned by the Hasmonean Beit Din, but they merely added the penalty of lashes. The reason for this, R. Nissim points out, is that sometimes people are not concerned about heavenly punishments likeย karet, but they are concerned with an earthly punishment.[33]
Yet this is a minority view, and the standard approach is that there is no biblical prohibition on occasional private sex with a non-Jewish woman. Here is how theย Encylopedia Talmuditย sums up the matter[34]:
ืืื ืขื ืืืืื ืืจื ืื ืืช, ืืืกืืจื ืืืืจื ืกืืคืจืื, ืืืจื ืฉืื ืืืื ืืืชืืชื.
(In case people are wondering, I donโt think that this is the sort of information that should be spread among the masses, precisely because that some people might decide that violating a rabbinic prohibition is not such a big deal.)
I keep stressing Jewish men and non-Jewish women, since the situation of Jewish women and non-Jewish men has its own issues that should be postponed to another post. But with regard to Jewish women who are intermarried, let me note that according to R. Ovadiah Yosef, such a woman should be told to go to the mikveh. He also adds that she should not tell the mikveh lady about her situation (I assume because she might then be refused entry).[35]
To be continued.
* * * * * *
In an earlier postย hereย I mentioned some of the shocking things said by R. Chaim Kanievsky about R. Shmuel Auerbach. Someone asked me if I could put together a list of the harshest things said by Torah scholars about their contemporaries. This would be an interesting project, and we can also find some very harsh things in this regard in talmudic and midrashic literature. I must stress, however, that often these shocking (to our ears) statements are not as harsh as they sound, since they were not meant to be taken literally. Some rabbis use figures of speech that everyone understands are simply part of a literary genre.
Here is one such example. R. Abba Mari of Lunel, in his attack against the Jewish rationalists, tells us that if he had the power he would do as follows to his opponent[36]:
ืืงืจืข ืกืืืจ ืืื ืืืืืช ืืืื ืืืจืก.
This means โI will cut open his heart so as to stir his blood.โ I am sure people in medieval times would also be offended by such a statement. Yet its meaning then was far removed from what it would mean today, and if any of our contemporaries spoke like this we would assume he needed to be institutionalized.
After reading the post, some also wrote to me to express dissatisfaction with the rabbinic leadership in the haredi world. Contrary to what some think, this sort of feeling is not new, and in every generation people have been disappointed with the rabbinic greats. Here, for example, is what appears in the anonymous letter printed at the beginning of R. Mordechai Benetโsย Parashat Mordechai.
ืืืฃ ืืืืืืื ืืืืืื ืืจื ืื ืืฉืืืืื ืจืง ืืขืฆืื ืืืืืืืื ืืืืืช ืขืฆืื ืืืืื ืืื ืื ืืืืืช ืืจื ืืขืืจืจ ืชืฉืืื ืืขืืื.
Finally, a couple of people corresponded with me regarding the stories of great rabbis who had totally sublimated their emotions. There are other stories that could be told of rabbis who were not even (at least outwardly) emotionally affected by the death of a child. This is sometimes held up as an example of piety and acceptance of Godโs decree. Yet R. David Ibn Zimra (Radbaz) had an entirely different perspective.[37]ย Regarding one of the โgedolei ha-dorโ who when his son died did not shed a tear, Radbaz was asked if this is a good characteristic or not. In his reply, Radbaz does not mince words about how wrong this is, seeing such โpietyโ as cruel, un-Jewish, and evidence of a psychological problem (to use a modern formulation):
ืื ืืื ืจืขื ืืืจื ืขื ืงืืฉื ืืื ืืขื ืจืืข ืชืืื ืช ืื ืคืฉ ืืืื ืืืช ืืืืจืืืช ืืืื ืืจื ืืคืืืืกืืคืื ืืืืืจืื ืื ืื ืืขืืื ืืื ืืื ืืขืฉื ืชืขืชืืขืื
[1]ย Alan Brill has recently written as follows:
Centrism requires its members to live in the top six percent of U.S. income. The community is known for kitsch engagements and weddings, and other signs of conspicuous consumption in the name of religion. In the face of the recent economic downturn many will remain in the community and follow whatever guarantees survival in suburbia.
โThe Emerging Popular Culture and the Centrist Community,โ in Yehuda Sarna, ed.,ย Developing a Jewish Perspective on Cultureย (New York, 2014), p. 30. As with everything else Brill writes, this essay is well worth reading. On this same page he refers to the fact, noted by others, that for most Centrist Orthodox Jews, their Orthodoxy has nothing to do with doctrine but is about lifestyle and family values.
Being Orthodox is about family on Shabbat,ย shivaย calls, hospital visits, sharingย simchas, and helping others. They consider the warmth of the community as their Orthodox Judaism, yet are oblivious to doctrine and practice demarcations. . . . Many define faith as โeveryday moralityโ rather than institutional commitment or theological Orthodoxy.ย
I would add that not only is this not new, I believe it is how traditional Judaism has always functioned and is applicable to much of the haredi world as well. In other words, many in the Orthodox world would agree with the Reconstructionist saying, "Belonging is more important than believing." See Mel Scult,ย The Radical American Judaism of Mordecai M. Kaplanย (Bloomington, 2014), p. xiii.
From Brillโs article I learnt that Aish Hatorah put on a recent Purim megilah reading โthat featured as emcee and guests of honor the non-Jewish Chris Noth, who played Mr. Big onย Sex and the City, and Snooki, of the MTV showย Jersey Shore.โ See alsoย here. Brill uses this example, and others, to show the influence of contemporary culture.
I am fascinated by how the haredi world tolerates this sort of thing in the name ofย kiruv. I personally am very turned off by this, but am apparently in the minority. When I told a couple of twenty-somethings that I think that the following Aish video, with almost three millions hits, makes a mockery of whatย Yom ha-Dinย is all about, they thought I was simply out of touch. Yet as I noted to them, contrary to the implication of the video, Rosh ha-Shanah is indeed about spending the day in synagogue in prayer, not about having fun and breakdancing to non-Jewish music.
Regarding another type of โintermarriageโ, see Francesca Trivellato,ย The Familiarity of Strangersย (New Haven, 2009), p. 94, that Sephardim in seventeenth-century Amsterdam were forbidden by their community to marry Ashkenazim. (Poor Sephardim were also given a higher charity subsidy than Ashkenazim.)
[3]ย Seeย Beโer Moshe, vol. 4, no. 146:26-27, where R. Stern speaks very strongly against the practice in Boro Park and Willamsburg ofย men and women going for walks on Shabbat on Yom Tov, as this leads to a mingling of the sexes.
[4]ย For some reason the title of this commentary is almost always written asย Keli Yakar, yet the second word should beย Yekar, as appears in Prov. 20:15.
[5]ย Leket Yosher, ed. Kinarti (Jerusalem, 2010),ย Hilkhot Yom ha-Kippurim, p. 304.
[6]ย Sefer Hasidim, ed. Margaliyot, no. 167. While preparing my Torah in Motion classes on R. Joseph Hayyim I found a strange passage in hisย Ben Yehoyada,ย Sotahย 36b. Although the Talmud, ibid., records the view that Joseph intended to sin with Potipharโs wife, R. Joseph Hayyim says that this is not to be taken literally. Rather, Josephโs intention was to inflame his lust for her so that would then be able to overcome it which would be a great spiritual victory. He says the same thing about King David and Abigail. Although the simple meaning of the Talmud,ย Megillahย 14b, is that David wished to have sex with her, R. Joseph Hayyim states that here, too, all David wished was to arouse his lust in order to then overcome it.
ืืื ืืื ืืขื ืื ืืฆื ืืื ืืข"ื, ืืขื ืื ืืืืืื ืืฉืชืืข ืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืืื ืื ื ืืืฉืื ืขื ืืืชื ืฆืืืง ืืฉืจ ืืื ืืื ืืงืจืื, ืฉืืืงืฉ ืืืืื ืื"ื, ืืื ืืืื ืชื ืืืชื ืืขืืจืจ ืืชืืื ืืงืจืื, ืืืืขืืืจ ืืฉ ืืืฉืง ืืืืื, ืืื ืฉืืขืช ืฉืืืืข ืื ืงืืืช ืืืขืฉื ืื ืชืง ืขืืืชืืช ืืชืืื, ืืืืื ืืฉ ืืืฉืง ืืจืืข, ืืืืื ืืืคืจืืฉ ืืขืฉืืช ืจืข
(R. Luntshitz, in the passage fromย Keli Yekarย I cited, specifically states that only one who has already sinned in such a fashion and is engaged in repentance can put himself in this situation, but a tzaddik is absolutely forbidden to do so).
R. Joseph Hayyimโs comment reminds me of the notion that one who has not sinned, and thus has nothing to repent for, should purposely commit a sin. This will then allow him to fulfill the mitzvah of teshuvah, which he would otherwise not be able to do. In a future post I will discuss this.
Regarding King David, I found something quite strange in Etan Levine,ย Marital Relations in Ancient Judaismย (Wiesbaden, 2009), p. 129. Levine writes: โAnd though the sages hardly regarded extramarital affairs as meritorious, their antipathy to divorce led some of them to opine that extra-marital relations with an unattached, sexually-permitted female was preferable to terminating a marriage.โ This might be true, but no valid source is cited to support this idea.. In his note to the quoted passage, Levine writes: โKing Davidโs case was interpreted as proof: it was to prevent his divorcing any of the 18 wives permitted to a king that he was allowed to sexually tryst (ืืืื) with Abishag without marrying her (I Ki. 1:1f.). See the Babylonian-born Simeon bar Abba (d. ca. 310CE), a disciple of Rabbi Johanan whose homily he cites in Tbย Sanhedrinย 22a.โ To begin with, R. Shaman (ืฉืื) bar Abba is not quoting R. Johanan inย Sanhedrinย 22a. What he says is that the fact that David was permittedย yihudย with Abishag shows how much divorce was disapproved of, for otherwise he would have divorced one of his wives and married Abishag. But where does Levine get the notion thatย yihudย means โsexually tryst.โ The Bible itself (!) is explicit that David โknew her not.โ
[7]ย Derushei ha-Tzelahย (Warsaw, 1886),ย derushย 1, no. 11.
[8]ย Yad Mordechaiย (Jerusalem, 1955), pp. 43-44.
[9]ย Megadim Hadashim: Berakhotย (Jerusalem, 2008), pp. 360-361.
[10]ย Gan Naulย (n.p., 2009), pp. 108ff.
[11]ย Takanat ha-Shavimย (Jerusalem, 2007), pp. 588ff., 595ff.
[12]ย The Talmudโs teaching (quoted byย Shulhan Arukh, Even ha-Ezerย 16:2) is very clear, and events of recent years have shown us that even Torah scholars are not immune to such behavior. Yet I canโt say I was surprised to find that even these clear words are distorted. R. Gedalyah Axelrod,ย Migdal Tzofim, p. 148 (parashat Pinhas), states that the Talmud andย Shulhan Arukhย couldnโt really mean that a Torah scholar might have sexual relations with a non-Jew. Therefore, he explains that they really mean that the Torah scholar causesย othersย to do so, by performing fraudulent conversions, and these โconvertedโ women (who are still halakhically non-Jewish) then marry Jews. This is very niceย darshanut, but how can anyone take this seriously as an actual explanation of the Talmud andย Shulhan Arukh? The Maharal knew better, and inย Derekh Hayyimย 4:4 heย gives the following example:
ืขืฉืจื ืชืืืืื ืืืืื ืืืฉืืื ืืืื ื ืื ืก ืืืืช ืืื ืืช ืืื ื ืืืข ืืืื ืฉืื ืืืื ืฉื ืฉืืื ืืกืชืจ.
See also R. Hayyim Vital,ย Sefer ha-Hezyonot, ed. Eshkoli (Jerusalem, 1954), p. 33:
[13]ย In Ada Rapoport-Albert and Steven J. Zipperstein, ed.,ย Jewish History: Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramskyย (London, 1988), pp. 25-59.
ืืื ืฉืืช ืฉืขืืจื ืฉืื ืชืืืื ืืื ืื ืงืจื ืืขืืช ืืกืคืจืืื "ืืื"ืขื ืืืื ืืืชย
[13]ย In Ada Rapoport-Albert and Steven J. Zipperstein, ed.,ย Jewish History: Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramskyย (London, 1988), pp. 25-59.
[14]ย Seeย Sefer Hasidim, ed. Margaliyot, no. 701, that the level of Jewish sexual morality will mirror what appears in society at large.
ืืื ืฉืื ืื ืื ืืจืื ืื ืื ืืื ืืืืืืื ืืจืื ืืงืืืืช ืืืื ืื ืื ืืจืื ืืืืจืื ืืขืจืืืช ืื ืืืื ืื ื ืืืืืืื ืื ืืืืื ืืืืชื ืขืืจ.
See also R. Solomon Ben Adret,ย Sheโelot u-Teshuvot ha-Rashba, vol. 1, no. 1209:
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย
ืืื ืืช ืืฉืจืื ืฆื ืืขืืช ืื ืืื ืฉืืืืจ ืื ืืืืชื.
I was surprised to see Michael Satlow write: โThere is no rabbinic law against intercourse with a prostitute.โย Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexualityย (Atlanta 1995), p. 166. This is incorrect, asย Sanhedrinย 82a explicitly states:
ืืืช ืืื ื ืฉื ืืฉืืื ืื ืืืจื ืืื ืขื ืืืืชืืช [ืก"ื ืืืืื] ืืืื ืขืืื ืืฉืื ื ืื ืฉืคืื ืืื'
See also Geoffrey Aldermanโs article, โIt is Not a Sin to Visit a Prostitute,โ in hisย The Communal Gadflyย (Brighton, 2009), pp. 267-268. I donโt know how he can write such nonsense as the following:
As far as I am aware, there is no general halachic prohibition on Jewish men sleeping with prostitutes, unless the whore is herself Jewish. If not, then, according to the Talmud, a Jewish man who feels the need to visit a prostitute must simply take care to do so in a town in which he is not known โ which strikes me as very sound advice.
If the whore is Jewish, however, we are faced with the certainty of multiple acts of adultery [!], all of which are prohibited. This is because intercourse is itself a form of marriage. So the first Jewish man a prostitute consorts with becomes her husband [!]; if she wishes to consort with anyone else, this first Jewish customer will have to give her a get [!]. So will the second, and so on. [!] (I am ignoring for my present purposes, considerations of mikveh, since I have yet to learn of any brothel that has one.)
It is actually a common kabbalistic view that one who has sex with a non-Jewish woman will be reincarnated as a Jewish prostitute. See e.g., R. David Ibn Zimra,ย Metzudat David, no. 612.
[15]ย Hasidot u-Mordotย (Jerusalem, 2001), pp. 229ff.
[16]ย Sheโelot u-Teshuvot ha-Radbaz, vol. 1, no. 48.
[17]ย Seeย Sanhedrin, 82a,ย Avodah Zarahย 36b,ย Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Issurei Biahย 12:1-2;ย Shulhan Arukh, Even ha-Ezerย 16:1, and the commentaries ad loc. R. Moses Isserles,ย Darkhei Moshe, Hoshen Mishpatย 34:4, writes:
ืื ืขื ืืืืื ืื ืืืคืกื ืจืง ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืื ื ืืื ืืืืืจืช ืืืช ืืื ืฉื ืืฉืืื ืื.
R. Shlomo Goren,ย Mishnat ha-Medinahย (Jerusalem, 1999), p. 142, points out that sex with a non-Jewish woman does not fall under the category ofย arayot, even rabbinically.
ืืขื ืืฃ ืืืืจ ืืืืกืืจ ืืื ืื ืืืืจื ืืืกืืจ ืขืจืืืช ืืคื'ืืืจืื ื.
R. Joseph Kafih, commentary toย Mishneh Torah,ย Issurei Biahย 12:2, raises a problem with the standard understanding of Maimonides that occasional sex with a non-Jewish woman is only a rabbinic prohibition. Even though Maimonides,ย Issurei Biahย 12:2, writesย ืืื ืืกืจื ืชืืจื ืืื ืืจื ืืชื ืืช, what is one to do with halakhah 9 [no. 8 in R. Kafihโs edition] which implies the opposite? R. Kafih writes
ืืื ืืขืฉื ืืืืจื ืจืื ื ืืงืื ืื'ื ืฉืืืื ืื ืืขืืช ืืืฉืจืื ืชืืืจื ืืคื ื ืฉืืื ืชืงืื ืืืฉืจืื ืขื ืืื, ืืืืืจืื [ืืืจื ืืืขืฉื ืจืงื] ืฉืืื ืืกืืจ ืืืืจืืชื ืืืื ืชืงืื ืืื ืขื ืืื?
Presumably, Maimonides in halakhah 9 is only referring to a public sexual act, which would be regarded as a biblical violation.
[18]ย After writing this sentence I found that R. Solomon Ibn Verga said the same thing. Seeย Shevet Yehudahย (Jerusalem, 1955), p. 134:
I donโt mean to imply that there wasnโt sexual immorality involving Jewish men and Jewish women, as there was plenty of this as well. R. Asher ben Jehiel,ย Teshuvot ha-Rosh, nol. 37:1, even speaks about the practice of engaged couples living together (ืืืืจ ืืืื) before marriage. He tells us that the women did not go to the mikveh since they were embarrassed to do so before marriage. But they werenโt embarrassed to live together before marriage.
ืืืจ ืืชืืืื ืืกืคืจื ืืชืช ืขืื ืืื ืืื ืืช ืืืจืฅ ืืจืื ืืืจืืย ืืงืฆืชื ืืงืื ืืืชืจ ืืืืจ ืื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืงืืช
I donโt mean to imply that there wasnโt sexual immorality involving Jewish men and Jewish women, as there was plenty of this as well. R. Asher ben Jehiel,ย Teshuvot ha-Rosh, nol. 37:1, even speaks about the practice of engaged couples living together (ืืืืจ ืืืื) before marriage. He tells us that the women did not go to the mikveh since they were embarrassed to do so before marriage. But they werenโt embarrassed to live together before marriage.
[19]ย Even ha-Ezerย 16:1.
[20]ย Since the consequences of intermarriage are so devastating, one must wonder why there is no explicit biblical prohibition. Be that as it may, in coming years watch for the Conservative movement to halakhically legitimize intermarriage by relying on the view that it is only rabbinically prohibited. As with other rabbinic prohibitions previously abolished by the Conservatives, they will argue that this too can be set aside for important societal concerns.
Maggid Mishneh, Hilkhot Ishutย 1:4, recognizes that one cannot logically explain why certain sexual acts are biblically prohibited and others had to wait for the Sages to prohibit them.
ืืื ืชืชืื ืืืื ืชืืื ืืืฉืจืืืืช ืืืืชื ืืื ืืช ืืืื ืืืืืื ืืืืจื ืกืืคืจืื ืืคื ืฉืืืกืืจ ืืขืจืืืช ืืื ืืืืืจื ืืืืจ ืฉืืื ืื ืืขื ืืื ืคืจืืื. ืืื ื ืชืจืื ืฉืื ืืืืชื ืืื ืืกืงืืื [ืฆ"ื ืืฉืจืืคื] ืืื ืืื ืืืืจื ืกืืคืจืื ืืืื ืื ืืืช ืืืฉืจืืืืช ืืื ืื ืืชืืจื ืืืจืช ืืืืืื ืืื ื ืืืช ืืื ืืื ืืืืจื ืกืืคืจืื.
Regarding theย Turโs assertion that there is no biblical prohibition to marry women who are not of the Canaanite nations, this has been hard for many to accept. Theย Arukh ha-Shulhan, Even ha-Ezerย 16:2, states that โit appears to meโ that even according to this opinion, if the Jewish man and non-Jewish woman actually live together there is a Torah prohibition. How could theย Arukh ha-Shulhanย say this when theย Tur, Even ha-Ezerย 16, states explicitly that contrary to Maimonides, sexual relationsย ืืจื ืืืฉืืชย with contemporary non-Jewish women does not incur a biblical penalty? Is there a real distinction between sexual relationsย ืืจื ืืืฉืืชย and living together as husband and wife?. Here are theย Arukh ha-Shulhanโsย wordsย (following which he cites a talmudic proof for his understanding):
ืื"ื ืืจืื ืื ืืืคืืื ืืืืืืงืื ืขื ืืจืื"ื ื"ื ืื ืืื ืืืืชื ืืืืขื ืืืชื ืชืืื ืืืจื ืืืฉ ืืืฉืชื ืืืื ืขืื ืืืืืจืืืชื
For others who argue that despite the simple sense of his words, theย Turย must hold that there is still a biblical prohibition for a Jew to marry a non-Jew, seeย Otzar ha-Poskim, Even ha-Ezerย 16:1. See also R. J. David Bleich,ย Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. 2, p. 273.
Nevertheless, the severity of the stricture against intermarriage tends to indicate that, even according to theย Tur, some form of biblical prohibition against intermarriage with non-Jews who are not members of the Seven Nations must exist. The question to be resolved is the nature of the biblical prohibition.
With reference to those who have argued that intermarriage (and even non-marital Jewish-Gentile sexual relations) violates Torah law, Shaye J. D. Cohen writes: โThis may be good halakhah and good preventative medicine, but it is bad history and bad exegesis.โ โFrom the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage,โย Hebrew Annual Reviewย 7 (1983), p. 30.
[21]ย Hilkhot Issurei Biahย 12:2, 13:14.
[22]ย Mesamhei Levย (Jerusalem, 1990), commentary to ch. 1 (p. 229).
[23]ย Seeย Hilkhot Issurei Biahย 12:5 that there is noย kanaโin pogโin boย when it comes to aย ger toshav.
[24]ย Seeย Geulat Yisraelย (London, 1950), pp. 95ff.
[25]ย Commentary toย Even ha-Ezerย 16:2, in the standard eds.
[26]ย See also R. J. David Bleich,ย Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. 2, pp. 275ff., who argues that intermarriage is the equivalent of a public act of sexual intercourse, and thus biblically forbidden according to all.
[27]ย See Renรฉe Levine Melammed, โThe Jewish Woman in Medieval Iberia,โ in Jonathan Ray, ed.,ย The Jew in Medieval Iberia 1100-1500ย (Boston, 2012), p. 272.
[28]ย โJewish Confraternal Piety in Sixteenth-Century Ferrara: Continuity and Change,โ in Nicholas Terpstra, ed.,ย The Politics of Ritual Kinshipย (Cambridge, 2000), p. 159.
[29]ย Although her father called the babyย ืืืืจ ืื ืืืื, the term was only being used colloquially, since a child of a non-Jew is not halakhically a mamzer.
[30]ย R. Samuel Edels, Maharsha, ad loc., states explicitly that R. Yose of Yokeret was wrong in cursing her so that she die.ย )How many other examples do we have of commentators criticizing talmudic sages?)ย However, I donโt think Maharshaโs approach will make matters much easier for many readers, because he suggests that instead R. Yose should have cursed her that she become ugly!
ืืื ืืคื ืขืฉืย ืืงืืื ืฉืชืฉืื ืืขืคืจื ืืฉืืื ืื ืืื ืื ืื ืืงืืื ืฉืชืฉืื ืืฉืืจืืจืืชื.
R. Mordechai Karvalho of Tunis,ย Meira Dakhyaย (Livorno, 1792), ad loc., also wonders why the daughter had to die. After all, โare we commanded to kill everyone who is beautiful?โ He suggests that R. Yose should have kept her inside the house so no man would ever see her.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย
ืืืชื ื"ื ืืื ืื ืขืฉืชื ืฉืื ืขืืืจื ืื"ื ืืื"ื ืืืืืืื ืืืืจื ืืืจืื ืฉืื ืืจืื ืืืชื ืฉืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืชืื ื ืืื ืื ืฉืืื ืืคื ืชืืจ ืืฆืืืื ืื ื ืืืืืชื
This idea, of keeping unmarried women off the street, is found in various Jewish sources. In his recently publishedย Asaf ha-Mazkir, p. 61, R. Meir Mazuz refers to R. David Kimhi's commentary to 2 Sam. 13:2:
With reference to my question at the beginning of this note, R. Mazuz,ย Asaf ha-Mazkir, p. 128, cites the great R. Raphael Joseph Hazan,ย Hikrei Lev, vol. 1,ย Yoreh Deah, no. 26 (p. 29b), that R. Simeon ben Yohai was mistaken in thinking that animals are subject to individual providence:ย
Not noted by R. Mazuz is that R. Hayyim Palache cites R. Hazan without objection. Seeย Amudei Hayyimย (Izmir, 1875), p. 101a.
[31]ย Inย Hilkhot Issurei Biah, 12:6 (followed byย Shulhan Arukhย 16:2), Maimonides writes that if one who had sex with a non-Jewish woman is not killed byย kanaโimย or given lashes by beit dinย ืขืื ืฉื ืืคืืจืฉ ืืืืจื ืงืืื ืฉืืื ืืืจืช. The context of this halakhah, and the previous ones, is an act of public sexual relations, the sort that is a Torah violation and subject toย kanaโin pogโimย bo. Yet some understand Maimonides to be also referring toย privateย sexual relationsย ืืจื ืื ืืช. Seeย Beit Shmuel, Even ha-Ezerย 12:4. This position is hard to understand, since as has been pointed out by others, how can there beย karetย on a rabbinic prohibition? A punishment ofย karetย would seem to imply that we are dealing with a Torah violation, yet Maimonides is explicit that this is not the case with non-public and non-marital sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman. This problem leads R Yosef Rein,ย Penei Yosef: Sanhedrinย (Bnei Brak, 2009), p. 648, to offer the original suggestion that Maimonides is talking aboutย ืืจืช ืืืจืื ื. To complicate the matter even more, inย Sefer ha-Mitzvot, neg. com. no. 52, Maimonides indeed states that there isย karetย for non-public sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman, which contradicts his position in theย Mishneh Torah. R. Kafih, in his commentary onย Sefer ha-Mitzvot,ย explains:
ืืืจื ืืืชืืืืช ืืืฉืจืื ืืืืืช ืฆื ืืขืืช ืืืืช ืืื ืชืฆืื ื ืืืืฆื
R. Mazuz also refers to R. Asher ben Jehiel,ย Piskei ha-Rosh, Ketubotย 7:15, who says that in Spain the ืื ืืช, which I assume also means unmarried women, would only go to the bathhouse in the middle of the night, since they were accustomed not be seen outside. In order to show that this was the practice of the pious women of medieval Spain, R. Mazuz cites another source,ย Tikunei Zohar, no. 58:
ืฆืจืืื ืืจืชื ืืืืื ืืชืืื ืืืืื ืกืืืจื ืืืกืืืจืช ืืืืช ืืืื
With reference to my question at the beginning of this note, R. Mazuz,ย Asaf ha-Mazkir, p. 128, cites the great R. Raphael Joseph Hazan,ย Hikrei Lev, vol. 1,ย Yoreh Deah, no. 26 (p. 29b), that R. Simeon ben Yohai was mistaken in thinking that animals are subject to individual providence:ย
ืืจืฉื"ื ืื ืืืข . . . ืืื ืืืืช ืืื ื ืื
R Mazuz cannot accept this sort of language when dealing with R. Simeon ben Yohai:
ืืื ืืืื ื ืืืืืง ืขื ืจืฉื"ื ืืกืืจื ืืขืืื, ืืื ืืืขื ื ืืื ืืืข
Not noted by R. Mazuz is that R. Hayyim Palache cites R. Hazan without objection. Seeย Amudei Hayyimย (Izmir, 1875), p. 101a.
[31]ย Inย Hilkhot Issurei Biah, 12:6 (followed byย Shulhan Arukhย 16:2), Maimonides writes that if one who had sex with a non-Jewish woman is not killed byย kanaโimย or given lashes by beit dinย ืขืื ืฉื ืืคืืจืฉ ืืืืจื ืงืืื ืฉืืื ืืืจืช. The context of this halakhah, and the previous ones, is an act of public sexual relations, the sort that is a Torah violation and subject toย kanaโin pogโimย bo. Yet some understand Maimonides to be also referring toย privateย sexual relationsย ืืจื ืื ืืช. Seeย Beit Shmuel, Even ha-Ezerย 12:4. This position is hard to understand, since as has been pointed out by others, how can there beย karetย on a rabbinic prohibition? A punishment ofย karetย would seem to imply that we are dealing with a Torah violation, yet Maimonides is explicit that this is not the case with non-public and non-marital sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman. This problem leads R Yosef Rein,ย Penei Yosef: Sanhedrinย (Bnei Brak, 2009), p. 648, to offer the original suggestion that Maimonides is talking aboutย ืืจืช ืืืจืื ื. To complicate the matter even more, inย Sefer ha-Mitzvot, neg. com. no. 52, Maimonides indeed states that there isย karetย for non-public sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman, which contradicts his position in theย Mishneh Torah. R. Kafih, in his commentary onย Sefer ha-Mitzvot,ย explains:
ืืืืืจ ืฉืขืื ืฉื ืืืืจ ืืืืืื ืืจืชืืช
Needless to say, this is a very unlikely explanation, and if Maimonides wanted to say what R. Kafih writes, he could have easily done so instead of speaking of actualย karet.
[32]ย Sanhedrinย 82a,ย Avodah Zarahย 36b.
[33]ย Seeย Hiddushei ha-Ran, Sanhedrinย 82a, and also R. Aryeh Leib Heller,ย Avnei Miluim, Even ha-Ezerย 16:1:3. R. Simhah Lieberman,ย Bi-Shevilei ha-Amim,ย no. 14, has a very good discussion of the matter. See also the sources showing the seriousness of the offense in R. Michael Bacharach,ย Arugat ha-Bosem, Even ha-Ezerย 16:2. R. Aviad Sar Shalom Basilea also argues against those who claim that occasional sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman is only rabbinically prohibited. Seeย Emunat Hakhamimย (Mantua, 1730), ch. 29. Among the points he makes is if occasional sex with a non-Jewish woman is only rabbinically forbidden, then what is the point of theย yefat toarย law? This is a special law that permitted what otherwise was already forbidden. He also quotes R. Judah Briel that sex with a non-Jewish woman is included as part the prohibition of wasting oneโs seed. (It is not clear if R. Briel is speaking homiletically or halakhically. See alsoย Torah Shelemah, Ex. 20, no. 334, for the midrashic statement that one who has sex with a non-Jewish woman violates fourteen [!] separate Torah prohibitions. Regarding this statement, see also Louis Epstein,ย Sex Laws and Customs in Judaismย [New York, 1967], p. 176.)
R. Basileaโs point aboutย yefat toarย can easily be refuted. See e.g., Mizrachi to Deut. 21:11 who suggests that the entire point of the law is to permit sex with aย marriedย non-Jewish woman, something that otherwise would be forbidden. It implies nothing about occasional private sex with an unmarried non-Jewish woman, which was permitted in the days of the Torah.
ืืืื ืฉืืืืช ืฉืืื ืืฆืื ืขื ืื ืขืืื ืืืืื ืจืืฉืื ื ืืื ืื ืงืจื ืืืชืืจื ืื ืื ืืกืจื ืชืืจื ืืื ืืจื ืืชื ืืชย ืืื ืืจื ืื ืืช ืืืืื ืจืืฉืื ื ืฉืืื ื ืืื ืืคื ื ืืฆืจื ืืจืข ืืื ืืืกืืจื ืืื ืืืืจื ืกืืคืจืืย ืืืื ืื ืงืจื ืืืฉืจืืืย ืืฉืื ืืฉ ืืืืจ ืืืฉืื ืืฉืช ืืืฉ ืืืฆืืจืื ืงืจื ืืืชืืจื ืืฆ"ืข . . .ย ืื ืืคืจืฉื ืืืืช ืื ื ืืชืื ืืื ืืืฉืช ืืืฉย . . . ืืืืฆืืจืื ืงืจื ืืืชืืจื ืืฉืขืช ืฉืืื ืืืื ืฉืืืฉืช ืืืฉ ืืืกืืจื ืืขืืื ืงืืืืจื, ืืื ืืคื ืืื [ืฉืจืื] ืืคืืื ืืขืืื, ื"ืฉ ืืฉืขืช ืฉืืื, ืืืื ืื ืืื ืืฆืื
According to some, another novelty of theย yefat toarย law is that it also permits rape, which otherwise is forbidden.
See also James Diamond, โThe Deuteronomic โPretty Womanโ Law: Prefiguring Feminism and Freud in Nahmanides,โย Jewish Social Studiesย 14 (Winter 2008), pp. 61-85.
See also James Diamond, โThe Deuteronomic โPretty Womanโ Law: Prefiguring Feminism and Freud in Nahmanides,โย Jewish Social Studiesย 14 (Winter 2008), pp. 61-85.
To the sources I cited, add R. Eliezer of Metz,ย Sefer Yereim, ed. Schiff, no. 20, who specifically states that aย yefat toarย cannot be raped ([called to my attention by R. Chaim Rapoport], and seeย Toafot Reโem, ad. loc., note 13, that this is already a talmudic dispute).
On the other hand,ย Maggid Mishneh, Hilkhot Ishutย 14:17, states:
ืืขื ืื ืืคืช ืชืืืจ ืืืืฉ ืืื ืืื ืืชืืจื ืืืชื ืชืืจื ืืื ืื ืื ืืฆืจ ืืจืข . . .ย ืืืขืื ืืขื ืืจืื
R. Pinhas Horowitz,ย Ha-Makneh, Kiddushinย 22a, understands Rashi to permit rape of aย yefat toarย (I havenโt seen others who agree with this).
ืื ืฉืคืืจืฉ"ื ื"ื ืืงืืืืฉืื ืชืืคืกืื ืื ืืื ืืคืจืฉ ืฉืืืื ืืงืืฉ ืืืชื ืืข"ื ืืื ืืฆืื ื ืงืืืืฉืื ืืข"ื ืื ืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืข"ื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืงืจื ืืืื'ืืืืจืืช ืืช ืืืงืืืื ืืื ืื ืืชืจืฆืืช ืืืชืงืืฉ ืื ืืื ืื ืืชืจืฆืชย ืืื ืขืื'ืืข"ืย ืืืืื ื ืฉืืชืืจื ืืชืืจื ื ืื ืืืฆื"ืจ
It is precisely with these sorts of passages in mind that, as I have quoted on a number of occasions, R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg states that when there is a dispute among the early authorities, we should decide the halakhah in accord with contemporary sensibilities.
ืืืืื ืืืืจ"ื [ืืืจื"ื ืืื ืืจืื] ืื ืฉืืืื: ืฉืืงืื ืฉืืฉ ืืืืืงืช ืืจืืฉืื ืื ืฆืจืืืื ืืจืื ืื ืืืืจืืข ื ืื ืืืชื ืืืขื, ืฉืืื ืจืืืงื ืืืขืช ืืืจืืืช ืืืืจืืช ืืืืืื ืืืืขื ื ืื ืชืื"ืง (ืืชืื ืืืืื ืจืื ืืืืื ืืขืงื ืืืืื ืืจื, ืืืง ื ืกื'ืื).
See also my postย here.
There are a number of laws in the Torah that are not in line with modern conceptions of morality (the one most in the news these days deals with homosexuality). But I thinkย yefat toarย is unique in that I have never seen an English language discussion of the law in an Orthodox publication that actually deals with its parameters in any detail, and cites what the rishonim say about the law. (Searching on the internet I found Jacob Bernstein, โEshet Yefat Toโar: A New Lookโย here, but this too does not elaborate in sufficient detail on the morally difficult aspects of the matter.) Could it be that this law is more morally problematic for moderns than the laws dealing with homosexuality and slavery of which we have seen endless discussions? And if so, why?
There are a number of laws in the Torah that are not in line with modern conceptions of morality (the one most in the news these days deals with homosexuality). But I thinkย yefat toarย is unique in that I have never seen an English language discussion of the law in an Orthodox publication that actually deals with its parameters in any detail, and cites what the rishonim say about the law. (Searching on the internet I found Jacob Bernstein, โEshet Yefat Toโar: A New Lookโย here, but this too does not elaborate in sufficient detail on the morally difficult aspects of the matter.) Could it be that this law is more morally problematic for moderns than the laws dealing with homosexuality and slavery of which we have seen endless discussions? And if so, why?
Here is one final source regardingย yefat toar. R. Reuven Katz,ย Dudaโei Reuven, vol. 2, p. 217, states explicitly that theย heterย ofย yefat toarย is not proper or ethical, but nevertheless in necessary. While this is a quite provocative formulation, it really reflects the outlook of the Sages. Nevertheless, I donโt know if any contemporary halakhic authorities would write this wayย (emphasis added).
ืืื ื ืงืืื ืื ืกืืืืช ืืืืืืืช ืืืชืจ ืืืืจย ืฉืืื ื ืืืื ืืืืกืจื, ืืืื ืฉืืชื ืืื ืืื ื ืืืืืื ืืืชืขืื ืืชืืคืขื ืื
Regarding rape, there is one other strange thing I would like to share. Maimonides,ย Hilkhot Ishutย 15:17, forbids marital rape. In a case where a woman is in a situation ofย yibum, and she does not want the Levirate marriage, she is not forced and instead the man must take part in theย halitzahย ceremony (although according to Maimonides she is regarded as aย moredet). Seeย Hilkhot Yibum ve-Halitzahย 1:2, 2:10. However, there is a special halakhah when it comes toย yibumย that even if the man forces her to have sex, it is still a validย yibumย and she becomes his wife. (Hilkhot Ishutย 2:3).
R. Isaiah of Trani (the Elder),ย Teshuvot ha-Rid, ed. Wertheimer (Jerusalem, 1987), no. 59, responds to an unnamed questioner who thought that it was permissible for a levir to force his sister-in-law to have sex with him (i.e., to rape her). R. Isaiah expresses his surprise that anyone could make such a mistake (although he acknowledges having heard of others who also erred in this way):
ืื ืฉืืชืืชื [!] ืืื ืืื ืืืคืื ืืช ืืืืื ืืืชืืืื ืื ื ืืื ื ืืืืจืื ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืฉ ืืื, ืฉืื ืขืืชื ืขื ืื ืืื ืฉื ืืคื ืืช ืืืืื ืืืชืืืื . . . ืื ืืืืื ืืื ื ืจืืฆื ืืืชืืืื ืืืืื ืจืืฆื ืฉื ืืืฃ ืืืชื ืืคื ืื ืื ืืื ืืื ื ืืจื
R. Isaiah then states that if the levir was chasing after the woman to rape her (in order to fulfill the mitzvah ofย yibum), we are commanded to save her from him, even if we have to kill him. (See R. Avraham Shapiro,ย Shiurei Maran Ha-Gaon Rabbi Avraham Shapiro: Yevamot, Gittinย [Jerusalem, 1995] p. 170.)
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย
So far we havenโt seen anything surprising. But in his note to R. Isaiahโs responsum, the editor, R. Avraham Yosef Wertheimer, writes as follows:
ืืืฉ"ื ืจืืื ื ืืืฆืื ืืืฆืืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืืฉ ืืืื ืืื ืขื"ืค ืืื ืืงืืื ืืฆืืช ืืืื ืืืื ืขืืื ื ืืื ืืข ืืื ื ืืืชื ืืฆืื
Wertheimer doesnโt understand why R. Isaiah thinks it is necessary to stop the levir from raping the woman, since after all, he is intending to perform a mitzvah. How Wertheimer could write this after seeing what R. Isaiah explains in his responsum is beyond me.
In a future post I will discuss how the commentators deal with Maimonides,ย Hilkhot Melakhimย 4:4, which appears to be saying that the king may take women as his wives and concubines even against their will.
[34]ย Vol. 5, s.v.ย goy, col. 297. See also vol. 3, s.v.ย boel aramit.
[35]ย Maโyan Omer, vol. 7, p. 26. See, however, ibid., p. 294, that on another occasion R. Ovadiah saw no need to instruct intermarried women to go to the mivkeh (and see ibid. for the editorโs explanation of the different answers). See also R. Rafael Evers,ย Va-Shav va-Rafa, vol. 3, no. 147, for R. Yitzhak Shmuel Schechterโs responsum stating that an intermarried woman should go to the mikveh. This is a very practical question today. Pretty much every outreach minyan has attendees who are intermarried or living with non-Jews. I have also come across people in such circumstances in regular Modern Orthodox synagogues.
When it comes to sexually active single women, both R. Ovadiah and R. Moshe Sternbuch believe that they should be allowed to use the mikveh if they so desire. Seeย Maโyan Omer, vol. 7, pp. 234,ย Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, vol. 1, no. 484. See alsoย Maโyan Omer, vol. 7, p. 261, that we should not advise women to do this (i.e., it is only if they come on their own that they should be allowed to use the mikveh).
[36]ย Teshuvot ha-Rashba, ed. Dimitrovsky, vol. 1, p. 639. See Neuman,ย The Jews inย Spain (Philadelphia, 1944), vol. 2, p. 125.
[37]ย Sheโelot u-Teshuvot Ha-Radbaz, no. 985. See also R. Solomon Schueck,ย Torah Shelemahย (Satmar, 1909), vol. 2, p. 114b-115a.