LEV202 Women who rub one against the other--this is forbidden. It is among the acts of Egypt against which we were warned, for it says (Leviticus 18:3): “You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt.” The sages said (Sifra, Aharei Mot, 9:8): “What is it that they would do? A man would marry a man, a woman would marry a woman, or a woman would marry two men.” Even though this practice is prohibited, one does not receive lashes, for there is no specific biblical prohibition and it is not called “intercourse” at all. Therefore, they are not prohibited [subsequently from marrying] into the priesthood on account of licentiousness, and a woman is not prohibited to her husband on account of this... but it is appropriate to give them lashes [on rabbinic authority] for rebelliousness, since they have done a prohibited thing. Maimonides (Rambam), Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 21:8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV251 Bar Kappara asked Rabbi [Judah, President of the Sanhedrin]: What is the meaning of to’evah (abomination, as in Leviticus 18:22, the verse banning homosexual relations)? He then refuted every explanation offered by Rabbi. “Explain it yourself,” Rabbi then said. Bar Kappara replied: Thus the All Merciful One said: to’evah = to’eh ata bah [you go astray in respect to it. He is using a play on words, for this phrase in Hebrew sounds like the Hebrew word for abomination]. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 51a

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV252 See [[LEV842]] Leviticus 20:13 lies DORFF-RUTTENBERGSEX 116

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV420 See [[LEV489]] Leviticus 19:16 idly by DORFF-RUTTENBERGSEX 11-13

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV489 Many ethical principles found in biblical and talmudic texts should apply in all sorts of modern context, including dating. Whether you view the text as Divine or divinely inspired, or just want to be more considerate of others, imagining everyone as having been created b’tzelem Elohim-- in the image of God, and therefore possessing a bit of the divine that renders us all equally worthy--can inspire greater respect toward the people with whom we share the planet. This equality keeps us grounded to our common bond as humans, even as it reminds us to behave in a more divine way. The people in our case may not lack a commitment to commitment, but they may be lacking the commitment to conversation. While rocking a perfectly good boat is an understandable fear, if the person you are looking at is a potential partner for life, working out how to have a discussion about something difficult is a vital skill. Are you allowed to go see your ex who is going through a bad time and keep that from your partner? Does it hurt him or her more to know about it, or to not know about it? Is phone sex or cybersex cheating? Does it matter if you know who you are having sexual relations with or if it's all anonymous? If civilizations form around a shared set of values and behavioral expectations, how do you identify the ethical geography of your relationship? How can you expect to know the answers to any of these questions unless they are specifically discussed? At bare minimum, the Torah seems to tell us, there is the injunction not to stand idly by the blood of your neighbor (Leviticus 19:16). While this can certainly be read as a commandment against endangering your partner, a figurative reading also provides some contemporary resonance. According to texts, blood doesn't just mean literal blood spilling forth from a wounded body, but also the blood that rushes to our faces when we become embarrassed. The word adom, meaning “red” in Hebrew, contains the word dam, which means “blood.” When we are literally or emotionally wounded, we redden. Hence our lesson is to not be the inflictors of wounds that cause such reddening, either through literal or emotional methods. People who have not defined the borders of their relationships should not be surprised when their significant others end up defining them differently. They may unintentionally end up wounding each other. Hillel told us to do under others as you would have them doing to you (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a). Would you like to be treated the way you are treating others when it comes to dating and relationships? If your answer is no, a self-assessment may be in order. Then there is the much loved phrase, “kol yisrael arevim zeh lazeh,” or “all the people of Israel are responsible for each other” (Babylonian Talmud, Shavuot 39a). This kind of nationalistic appeal takes humanity from the general to the particular, in case that kind of appeal strikes a greater residence with the modern Jewish dater. “You shall not … place a stumbling block before the blind,” the Torah tells us (Leviticus 19:14). There is always a temptation to be literal with biblical text, but taking a more figurative approach also indicts those who deceive others: convince your fellow that things are other than they seem to be and you have caused both their blindness and their fall. A policy of honest communication between partners about the nature and depth of their relationship keeps the playing field level. Both partners go from blind to sighted, and no unfortunate unforeseen obstacles lie in their paths. I have always believed that sexual ethics should be the same for all human beings, whether they are involved in casual sex, a friends with benefits situation, or committed partnerships of any sort with anyone of any gender, and that for all of these groups, communication about the nature of the relationship should take place in advance of sexual union. But anecdotally, evidence seems to point to the fact that people feel awkward talking about their relationships, especially in a moment when passions are running high and logical honesty is... not so much. Most people agree that it's not the act of consummation that creates a committed relationship. If there has been no conversation to define a dyad, it cannot be considered exclusive. (By Esther D. Kustanowitz)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV730 Jewish Sexual Responsibility. Today, when casual partners hook up for sex with no apparent strings attached, it may seem naive even to talk of obligations to one another. Yet … questions … still trouble us: What do I have to tell my partner, and does it matter what kind of relationship we have? Jewish traditions emphasize duties, which in turn rest on timeless ideas about our relationships and responsibilities. I want to focus on two such Jewish principles. First, duties toward ourselves flow from the principle that our bodies and lives are the creation and property of the Divine. We do not own our selves, but rather hold and care for them as stewards or custodians. This is why, for example, many Jewish authorities across all denominations forbid smoking cigarettes, since we do not have the right to pollute and to put at grave risk what is not entirely ours. A literal understanding of the source of this duty may suggest a theology that some contemporary Jews do not share. Still, whatever one’s beliefs, the idea that we have a duty to care for and protect ourselves that goes beyond just doing what we want may still resonate. The second Jewish principle I want to highlight is the Golden Rule, first put forward in Leviticus 19:18: “Ve-ahavta l’re’ekha kamokha,” “Love your fellow as yourself.” This makes empathy an obligation and the chief engine of our duties to others. In our deliberations, we must show respect and consideration for others. We are required to put ourselves in the other’s shoes, to think and feel about the impact of our actions. But how should that impact count in our decision-making? And how much? Our specific duties to others derive from the details of our relationships. My obligations towards strangers, neighbors, friends, parents, children, and my spouse may differ in substance and urgency. And in the course of an evolving romantic or sexual relationship, my duties toward the other person also evolve. How then, should we understand these duties toward lovers and sexual partners? If we take the Ve-ahavta seriously, a good starting point might be this: At a minimum, I should treat my partner as I would wish to be treated. I ought, for example, to disclose as much information as I myself would want to have in order to make informed decisions. But this “informed consent” stance does not go far enough. Taken together, the demands of stewardship and empathy generate additional responsibilities--those of protecting and respecting myself and others. Beyond merely being truthful, I should act to avoid my partner’s suffering, even in circumstances in which the partner does not take responsibility for doing so him/herself. If a female partner yearns to go ahead with unprotected sex, it is still the male partner’s duty either to insist on contraception, or to limit activity to sexual acts that cannot get her pregnant. If a potential partner insists he or she does not mind taking the risk, an HIV-positive person likewise still has a duty to insist on using condoms, or to limit their sex to less risky activities. (By Jeffrey Burack)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV842 Our Rabbis taught: “If a man lies with a male …” (Leviticus 20:13): “A man” excludes a minor; “who lies with a male” denotes either an adult or a minor; “as a man lies with a woman” teaches that there are two modes of intimacy [anal and vaginal], both of which are punished when committed as an act of incest.... This [verse] teaches the punishment; from where do we learn the formal prohibition for him who lies [with a male]--that is, from where do we know a formal prohibition for the person who permits himself to be thus sexually involved? Scripture says, “There shall be no cult prostitute (kadesh) of the sons of Israel” (Deuteronomy 23:18) …; this is Rabbi Ishmael’s view. Rabbi Akiba said: [deriving the prohibition from that verse] is unnecessary, for one can read [the unvoweled Hebrew text of Leviticus 18:22, as it appears in the Torah as both] “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman” and “Do not be lain with.” Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 54a-54b

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

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).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM77 See [[EXOD247]] Exodus 16:4 test DORFF-RUTTENBERGSEX 30-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT177 See [[EXOD441]] Exodus 20:13 adultery DORFF-RUTTENBERG 20-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT