LEVITICUS | 25:17 wrong — LEV1016 When Violations of Dignity Nullify Consen...
LEV1016 When Violations of Dignity Nullify Consent. The concerns are different when we consider the other sexual behaviors over which Jim and Sarah disagree [in case study-AJL]. First, even the more liberal school of thought in Jewish tradition, which allows for a wide range of sexual expression, requires mutual consent. And, second, we are dealing here with fetishes such as demeaning talk, spanking, and sado-masochism, which are by their very nature and design degrading. These kinds of behaviors violate the principles outlined above of dignity, respect, and modesty. They are, in fact, a violation of kevod ha-beriyot, the universal standards of dignity and respect that are due to everyone. Because respect for kevod ha-beriyot is really respect for God, as humans are created in the divine image, this is not a subjective matter. Just because I want something and I do not consider it degrading to me does not mean that it is not a violation of human dignity. “Do not wrong one another” (Leviticus 25:17) prohibits me from causing any kind of emotional distress to another person. This is called ona’at devarim (verbal wronging), under which rabbinic interpretation includes not only speech, but any action that damages others’ emotional well-being (See Rashi to Leviticus 25:17) or causes them emotional or psychological pain (See Rashi, Bava Metzi’a 59b, s.v. hutz; Maimonides, Sefer ha-Mitzvot, no. 251.) The rabbis of the Talmud punished the sage R. Rehumi for causing his wife to cry because they knew how damaging the emotional pain one person inflicts on another can be (Babylonian Talmud, Ketubbot 62b). Furthermore, physical violence is prohibited by the Torah. Not only may we not harm another, we may not harm ourselves (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Shevu’ot 5:17, Hilkhot Hovel u-Mazik 5:1; Bava Kamma 92a]. Even raising a hand against anyone in a threatening way is outlawed (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 58b). Technically, these acts—ona’at devarim and assault--are prohibited only if they are committed in a malicious or harmful manner. If they are done to achieve a positive benefit, they may be permissible. In this case, Sarah and Jim claim that these acts will give them sexual pleasure. However, these acts are not benign; they violate the spirit of the law, which frowns on violence, aggression, and cruelty. They are also harmful to this relationship. While Sarah likes to be spanked, Jim personally finds the thought of spanking his wife to be degrading to her. What may appear to be a positive benefit to one partner causes hurtful distress to the other. Degrading speech, slapping, sado-masochism and the like are degrading acts and are a violation of the human dignity of both the actor and the person being acted upon. We may not violate others’ dignity, and we may not violate our own either. It is for this reason, suggests rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, that Jewish law compares those who behave in undignified ways to dogs (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 40b. See, The Lonely Man of Faith, 13). We must insist that others treat us with respect. The first chief rabbi of pre- state Israel, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, insisted that “protecting [the respect] one rightfully deserves is not a matter of arrogance; on the contrary, there is a mitzvah to do so.” Finally, cross-dressing and menage a trois are both violations of local prohibitions. Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross-dressing, especially when done to elicit erotic pleasure (See Rashi to Deuteronomy 22:5). And marriage is designed to be monogamous and modest: the Ten Commandments ban adultery (Exodus 20:13), even when consensual. A person may not think of one person while being intimate with another (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayyim 240:2); and a couple may not have intercourse, a private and intimate act that demands modesty, when someone else is present (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayyim 240:6). Jewish law prohibits someone from even sleeping in the same room with a married couple for fear that another's presence might restrain the couple from intimacy (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 63b; Shulchan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 25:5; Mishneh Brurah to Orach Chayyim 240:52). These forbidden acts are viewed as violations of the mandates of respect, dignity, and modesty owed to one's partner and due to oneself. (By Mark Dratch).
Source Key | DORFF-RUTTENBERGSEX |
Verse | 25:17 |
Keyword(s) | wrong |
Source Page(s) | 137-9 |