Religion & Beliefs

Does a Mikvah Dunk Make Pre-Marital Sex Kosher?

On January 24th, Rabbi Yona Metzger, the Chief Ashkenazi rabbi in Israel, issued a prohibition against unmarried women immersing themselves in mikvahs. Rabbi Metzger's decree was in response to the recent condoning of premarital sex by various other rabbis and … Read More

By / February 18, 2008

On January 24th, Rabbi Yona Metzger, the Chief Ashkenazi rabbi in Israel, issued a prohibition against unmarried women immersing themselves in mikvahs. Rabbi Metzger's decree was in response to the recent condoning of premarital sex by various other rabbis and halachic authorities, who believe that the act is halachically tolerable on the condition that women immerse themselves in the mikvah. Metzger, on the other hand, doesn’t want there to be any way for people to circumvent a rabbinic restriction against premarital sex. Among other commands, he instructed mikvah attendants—commonly known as mikvah ladies—to prevent single women from taking the ritual bath. Rabbi Metzger’s prohibition came at a coincidental time for me: Just a few days earlier, I had used the mikvah for the first time—as an unmarried woman. I grew up in a religious community where the idea of going to the mikvah in order to make premarital sex kosher was absolutely taboo. Barring conversion, a girl would first step into the mikvah on her wedding day, and from then on she’d dunk one week after every period. Premarital sex was out of the question, so there was never any discussion about whether going to the mikvah would make it less problematic. I figured I’d see the inside of a mikvah just before I saw the underside of a chuppa, and for a long time that arrangement seemed fine to me. Then I met Ben. He was sweet, smart, funny, and attractive, and we had a kind of chemistry that I wouldn’t have believed existed if I hadn’t experienced it myself. When we first slept together I didn’t worry or wonder about the halachic implications. Having sex with him felt like surfacing after being under water for too long. Though our life paths diverged, and a move I made left little hope for a committed relationship, we've done our best to see each other as often as possible. In the three years since meeting we've had sporadic trysts whenever we could manage to be in the same country at the same time. Then, this past December, everything changed: Ben announced that he was moving to New York for work. Suddenly we were venturing into the land of real relationships. He began talking about introducing me to his parents and spending the holidays with my family, and I found myself feeling simultaneously excited and terrified. As we began to plan our first weekend together as residents of the same country, I couldn’t stop thinking about going to the mikvah. I had recently met a number of girls who went despite the fact that they weren’t married, and I’d done some research about the rules against premarital sex. As far as I could tell, going to the mikvah nullified the main halachic problem with sex between Ben and me. That said, I really didn't want to go. It’s not that I find the mikvah to be gross, insulting, or misogynistic. Refraining from sex while I have my period makes perfect sense to me, and I like that the mikvah schedule enforces an ebb and flow to the sexual aspect of a relationship. It seems like a sensible way of keeping things exciting in the bedroom—I just couldn’t see past a number of logistical nightmares. What if, for example, the mikvah lady asked about my husband? What if I ran into someone I knew at the mikvah, and they outed me as a single girl? Finally, the idea of standing naked in front of some Orthodox woman was horrifying. Though I’ve always been fairly religious, I don’t exactly look the part, what with pink highlights in my hair, black nail polish, and a pierced nipple. I couldn’t imagine how a mikvah lady would respond to my body, and found myself worrying obsessively that I would be called fat.

Despite my hesitation, my excuses seemed more and more feeble as the weekend approached. I could go to a mikvah in a different neighborhood so that I wouldn’t be recognized, and I would just have to fib to the mikvah lady if the topic of husbands came up. A mikvah lady’s only real job was to make sure that my hair was completely submerged when I dunked. My marital status, I told myself, was none of her business. Besides, not going to the mikvah after obsessing about it all week would just be lame. The night before Ben and I had plans to meet up, I found myself standing outside the West Side Mikvah. I was buzzed in and shown to a nice bathroom, where I washed my hair, cleaned inside my bellybutton, and tried to remove every spec of the mascara I’d put on that morning. The bathroom had a laminated list of instructions that reminded me to take off all of my jewelry and nail polish, so I spent twenty minutes attacking my recent manicure and pedicure with nail polish remover wipes, and then gingerly removed my nipple ring. The mikvah provided a nice Frette robe, and I gave myself a once over in the floor-to-ceiling mirror before pressing the button on the wall to summon the mikvah lady. When she knocked on the door, I steeled myself for what I imagined would be an imposing old lady in a big hat. To my surprise, I was greeted by a girl who couldn’t have been much older than me, wearing a casual long dress, and no hat or wig. She walked me down the hallway to the mikvah itself, and I stammered that I was a ba’al teshuva, new to religious life, and so it was my first time at the mikvah and I might need instructions. She smiled at me and touched a piece of pink hair.

“Does it come off?” she asked, raising her eyebrows.

I expected her expression to be judgmental or rude, but when I told her that it didn’t, she nodded and moved on without another comment. She asked to see my hands and I held them out, expecting quick approval because I had spent so much time trying to get rid of the black nail polish. Instead, she shook her head and produced a handful of Q-tips, which she dipped in acetone and used to get in the crevices of my nails. I stood there for almost ten more minutes while she worked on my hands, feeling panic creep into my chest. She was sweet, and we chatted politely, but I began to shake, suddenly wondering if this was really the right thing to do. I was sure she was going to call me out on my non-marital status at any second. “Next time,” the mikvah lady said gently, “if you take your nail polish off a few days before mikvah day this won’t be so hard.”

When she said ‘mikvah day’ she smiled to herself, and I stole a glance at her own fingernails—it looked like she had just removed some red polish. I guessed mikvah day was approaching for her, too, and felt my nerves peak and then fall. My toenails weren’t satisfactory either, but after another five minutes of intensive Q-tip work my feet and hands were approved. I held my breath while the mikvah lady checked to make sure there were no hairs on my back, and then I stepped down into the water, momentarily shocked by how warm it was. I had studied up on exactly what the procedures were, but standing naked in the water my mind went blank, and I had to ask for directions. The mikvah lady instructed me to stand just below her and dunk once, making sure that the water touched my entire body.

As I surfaced she sang out, “Ka-sher!”

I said the blessing, and then dunked twice more.

“Ka-sher!” she called, and then again: “Ka-sher!”

She held the robe up in front of her so that she couldn’t see me while I came out of the mikvah, and as I tied the belt around my waist she said, “Mazel tov! May you have much hatzlachah. You and your husband and your family!”

I cringed at the mention of my husband, but said "thank you" and offered a weak smile in response. She led me back to the bathroom where I’d left my clothes and wished me well again. When I was finally alone I got dressed quickly and then exited through the lobby, where a woman took my twenty-dollar fee and said, “You know, we have hair dryers you can use if you want.” I shook my head and hurried out. On the subway home I couldn’t stop thinking about the way the mikvah lady said ‘mikvah day,’ and about the soft smiles I had exchanged nervously with women in the waiting room. I didn’t feel spiritually cleansed or particularly close to God, but I did feel a strange connection to the other women in the mikvah. There was something quiet and nice about women coming together to help each other prepare for intimacy, even when it involved Q-tips and nail polish remover and cleaning my belly button. During my weekend with Ben I kept thinking back to the way I had been so closely examined. Though it had made me uncomfortable and anxious, it also seemed appropriate to make myself completely vulnerable—literally naked—in front of God in preparation for being vulnerable and naked with my boyfriend. The simple fact is that Ben and I would have had sex that weekend whether or not I went to the mikvah. According to halacha, the punishment should have been karet: being cut off from the community, and probably premature death. Ben and I had previously transgressed the rule against premarital sex, so maybe we were already screwed (no pun intended) but by going to the mikvah I was changing our pattern. Instead of ignoring halacha altogether, I was doing my best to reconcile it with my actions. I recognize that it isn’t the ideal scenario, but I bet it’s a pretty common one, and I’m not sure what would have been gained—by anyone—if the mikvah lady had refused to let me in, or if I hadn’t gone at all. Most people don’t wait for permission to have sex. If they want to do it badly enough it happens, regardless of religious law, societal expectations, or even the input of the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel. No one in the religious world is encouraging couples to have premarital sex outright, or promising that a dunk in the mikvah will automatically purify a relationship, but a few rabbis and scholars have pointed out that if a woman goes to the mikvah, the couple’s sex life is no longer illegal by Jewish law. If anything, the recent publicity and discussion around this issue may have inspired some women to take on a new mitzvah, and a handful of relationships may well have become less halachically problematic. Rabbi Metzger's concerns are valid, but his reaction is naive. A prohibition might stop some women from going to the mikvah, but it won’t stop couples from engaging in premarital sex.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dippin.single Dippin Single

    Thanks for sharing your story! I thought I was the only one that actually went to the Mikvah as a single woman. (Although, I don’t preprtend to be married). I’ve started a blog about my experiences. You should check it out: http://thesingledip.com/

  • Pingback: Vicki Handon

  • haytoon

    Great article, and a good closing point. Metzger can think (and do) whatever he wishes (within reason, hopefully), but premarital sex will happen regardless of what he and his black-hatted shock troops do. 

  • Rachel76

    Thank you anon.  I too, have had relationships that included premarital relations, and where I wouldn't go out and reccommend others to do the same, I can definitely say that having had those experiences has in many ways, led me to my beshert, and helped me to recognize him when I found him.  I don't regret them, nor do I sit and brood about them and feel that they have cast any clouds or doubt upon my relationship.  I am sorry for them, I have done teshuvah for them and the waste of time and feelings involved, but I would not be who I am today without them.  Some lucky people can meet their beshert without having previous "baggage," however I don't believe whether or not one has had premarital sex or previous relationships will dictate how their marriage will turn out.  I also am still waiting for a halachic source from David F. regarding premarital sex being assur.  Does that mean Avrohom Avinu did something assur by taking Hagar and then Hagar again after Sarah Imenu was niftar (as Keturah) as a pilegesh?  If someone is in a committed (i.e. no other sexual partners) non-married relationship, and they are going to the mikvah for this relationship….I believe that qualifies them as being in the pilagshus relationship, which many, many of our ancestors in the Torah, also participated in.   So why is it considered assur now and by whom?

  • Rachel76

    Hmmm…cheeseburgers are definitely assur…whereas the worst thing halachically a non married woman going to the mikvah is doing is making herself a pilegesh (which, actually there is NOTHING halachically wrong with.  See Rav Yaakov Emden's responsa on pilagshus. 

     So how about instead of discouraging a fellow Yid from doing a mitzvah, and leaving her open for a chait that invloves kareis and turning her off of being a Torah Observant jew, keep your halachically misled opinions to yourself????  And don't scare people off from doing ANY mitzvos at all?

  • Anonymous

     so you went to a mikvah where noone would recognize you, and then posted this article for everyone to see on line. hmmmmmmm

  • Anonymous

    Married Man, how would you know? People were just not writing down monogamous love stories, perhaps. Everything had to be written on vellum then, skins, a hugely expensive material. Vellum was saved for religious and legal matters of weighty importance. And even so, they STILL included Shir Ha Shirim, on vellum. The thousand years you mention is the period of the widespread use of paper, a much cheaper material, so more personal things got written down. You might count your blessings. The greener grass is just chlorophyl and starch. What can you possibly think it might be? Gold? Silk? Platinum? No, it's the same material. YOU ARE NOT MISSING ANYTHING. You have the best, and don't know it. You are having a purely mammalian thought, not a human one, a lower brain stem instinct. Ignore it. Shabbat Shalom, and may everybody have your good mazel.

  • Happily married man

    "The overriding assumption is that sex happens in a monogamous unit, with marriage being the legal tie that formalizes it."

    Not when the halachot were written. Romantic love between men & women was not really a popular concept in the ancient world. Women were there for sex and child-rearing, and polygamy was common. Multiple sexual partners was forbidden for women, but not for men. Loving, monogomous relationships are an innovation (a good one, but an innovation nontheless) of the last millenium. It had very little part in ancient Judaism, Shir HaShirim nonwithstanding.

  • Happily married man

    David,

    You write:

    "It is very rare to look back at one's life and regret not have more lovers."

    Actually, it's quite common, especially among men. I love my wife and we enjoy our sex life, but, at least on a basic physical level, I wish I had had more sexual experiences when I was single. I think many, many men feel the same way. Some women as well.

  • Ronald McDonald

    If you weren't asking for radical change, you would be doing this privately, not telling the whole world about it.  With your name and picture in the comments, too boot.  By doing so, this is no longer about you and your "rights".  It's about deliberately going against Torah, publicly, in an attempt to get others to do the same.  That's so far beyond just letting you do what you wanna do that it's not even worth commenting on.

     I'm curious, though, since you state you were raised religiously, what your parents think of your actions.  Or your teachers and rabbis.

    It's one thing to eat a Big Mac.  Whole 'nother matter to open up a McDonalds…

     

     

  • Anonymous

    Married-ness has now become a shades-of-grey, many-steps continuum, in some cases, maybe in many cases. (Hi, Craig.) OK. That's how it is now. BUT- no mikvah, until you take the big step, and truly do the job, and marry. Why? Because you are supposed to be inching your way toward the Chuppah. There has to be a permanent difference between being married and not being married. One is kosher and one is not, ok? When you get there, mazal tov, mikvah time, welcome to the grown-up club. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT GOING TO EFFECTIVELY ABOLISH MARRIAGE, SO YOU CAN STOP WORRYING. Keep worrying, and keep working toward it.Good luck. Really. Lots of nice people have got there, eventually, successfully. Sure it takes time. Keep slogging. But keep your eye on the goal. Shacking up is not a life, not long term. Yes, you deserve better. So, in fact, does he. I mean this in a nice way. We all want to dance at your wedding. We wait for a solid gold guarantee that the other guy will never get weird on us, but there are no guarantees. When you feel you know enough about him or her, do it. You're not stupid. You know. Trust yourself. But eggs is still eggs.

  • David N. Friedman

    OK, Anonymous–you give a partial answer to my question.  I  will not characterize it from my subjective experience–unlike you, I honor your thoughts.  You refuse to back up your point that sexual activity can enhance one's "growth and communication
    skills, self-awareness, self-esteem and other useful relationship
    skills?"  Why hedge on something that is in your children's best interests? They might ask you and you will admit the "bad" news that you did not do yourself the favor of enhancing your growth, communication skills, self awareness and self-esteem.  How could you Mom? 

    Regarding your argument that suggests, in effect, there are no red lines, no laws in Judaism and I have misunderstood the nature of Judaism.  Sorry, I have no such misunderstanding.  I have also never suggested that all Jewish law mandates total abstinence.  The thread on this blog concerns unmarried women at the mikveh and whether or not a mikvah can or should accomodate unmarried women.

    As far as I know (and I will look into the matter) not one halachic authority has suggested that the prohibition against unmarried women should be changed.  This has nothing to do with an individual case–and it is a big contrast from so much of Jewish law where opinions vary.  This is a law that has nearly unanimous halachic weight behind it–that is very rare.  Don't smack me with the fact that the law in general is flexible–that is MY POINT.  As I said previously, one needs to take to heart why this prohibition is so strongly made.

    I stand with the judgment of the Rabbis.  Opponents of the prohibition need to petition the Rabbis and understand their reasoning.  It is a big more than a hunch than their reasoning has a basis and I pointed to the web of law surrounding the laws of family purity, the encouragement of high moral character and the need to discourage promiscuity as some of the factors.  There are many more.

    I regret to say that the prohibition exists for reasons other than I am a supposedly bad guy. 

  • Anonymous

    "I am here to debate the proposition on its merits, not to justify it based on my experience"

    Then maybe you should stop insisting, based on YOUR experience, that people will always regret previous relationships once they marry.

    "I fear people want to change the law to cover for their own mistakes in
    life and so they won't feel like they have poor character."

    Again, your BT is showing. Halacha for most people today is a matter of personal choice. People choose to keep none, some or all of it for any number of reasons: personal, spiritual satisfaction, because God told them to, because their parents told them to, because that's how they grew up, because that's what they feel like doing on any particular day.

    People (rabbis, ordinary Jews) change the laws to fit any number of needs on any give day because they can. Because we don't have a Pope or any other kind of central authority that tells us not to. Get used to it. This is the nature of Judaism. Chassidim who visit prostitutes- changing the law. ( I used to meet them in the elevator of my building when I went to Stern). Charedim who decide to ban Jewish music concerts- changing the law. Happens every day.

    If you have found an optimum halachic interpretation that works for you, great. But you are dead wrong to assume that your interpretation applies to everyone else.

    "No law can allow for a varying impact and the law cannot be opposed simply because one person might benefit less than another. "

    Sorry, you're in the wrong religion. Esteemed poskim decide everyday based on a variety of personal and external factors how Jewish law should be applied in individual cases. I'm sorry to burst your bubble. And you seem to be missing the salient fact that there are Orthodox opinions on the books that are more flexible about premarital relationships than you would like to think. If you would like monolithic inflexible law, try Catholicism.

    "I sense that if you broke up with your husband to be and then had a
    sexual affair with another man, before rejoining him, you would assess
    this as a mistake. "

    Huh? Why and how on earth can you make any assumptions about how I would feel about a hypothetical situation that never happened? Because that's how YOU would feel. ( I guess you just can't resist going back to your own feelings. It's natural, but most grown ups learn how to overcome this feeling).

    As I stated previously, I had plenty of physically intimate, non sexual relationships before I met my husband and I never regretted any of them, so it's hard to see why I would regret such a relationship I might have had had I broken up with my husband. What you seem to fail to understand is that most people don't see previous sexual relationships as horrific emotional baggage that is filled with guilt, remorse, anguish, etc. They see them as a part of life. Sex is a part of life- it is an important way of connecting with someone, but it does not cause irreparable damage if you break up with someone you've had sex with. This is a very teenaged view of sex, and I strongly urge you to get counseling if you seriously think this way about relationships.

    I will encourage my daughters to have as many relationships as they feel they need to have before they find their husbands. If one or more of these relationships becomes sexual but then they discover that actually, they really don't want to marry the guy, I believe enough in my daughters' characters and belief in themselves that they will have no problem moving on with their lives to find their true soulmates.

     

  • David N. Friedman

    Anonymous, you have clearly lived the right side of this question and you are to be applauded for coming close to the standard.  You had no pre-marital sex with someone other than your husband so you have my wondering about your stand nonetheless. 

    Yes, Anonymous, it would be a mistake to project. . I am here to debate the proposition on its merits, not to justify it based on my experience and certainly not based upon a theory that I am psychologically twisted.  The topic is about no person–it is about the law.  I fear people want to change the law to cover for their own mistakes in life and so they won't feel like they have poor character.  This feeling should not be honored.  Elisheva is great, Tamar is fine, my past is over and it is not part of me.  Good people are not to be branded with accusations of having poor character simply because we made mistakes since we all make mistakes.  The trouble is only in the poor perception that all actions are equal and denial that in retrospect, better choices could have and should have been made.

    No law can allow for a varying impact and the law cannot be opposed simply because one person might benefit less than another.  I can't imagine why people struggle so much with the concept.  The test of the law and the test of morality is to posit the polar opposite.  If sexual abstinence is not good training for married life and monogamy, then, let's suggest sexual freedom and promiscuity.  At a slightly higher level than the relative modesty proposed, everything falls apart and everyone clearly sees that there is great cost and risk.  Therefore, if at a slightly higher level, the poison is real, why is a certain smaller amount of poison believed to be cost free?

    If Jews wish to abandon virtue, modesty and morality that is one stand and it is quite another to believe that these things can be acquired without some effort.  Further, denial that one choice is better than the other is oddly selective. 

    I sense that if you broke up with your husband to be and then had a sexual affair with another man, before rejoining him, you would assess this as a mistake.  I need to ask you if you are really sure about what you are saying and I will argue again that no parent wants their child to have a lot of different sexual relationships so that he/she will appreciate the spouse to be all the more.  Do you really mean to say that your children should go out and seek many sexual partners so they can "grow and develop their communication skills, self-awareness, self-esteem and other useful relationship skills?"

  • Anonymous

    "If I were Tamar, I'd find this condescending, but she can speak for
    herself.  I can say that it's presumptuous.  David, why are you so
    confident that Tamar (or any other traditionally-minded Jew who's had
    sexual relationships before marriage) is likely to regret them? "

     

    I find this very ironic because this guy sounds just like the exes I dated before I met my husband !(btw, I'm Ortho and have been married for 7 years).

    David, you sound like the typical BT burdened with much guilt and regret (and probably a healthy dose of sexual hangups, which was probably a major factor in your attraction to Orthodoxy.)

    Here's a newsflash: Most psychologically healthy people do not regret past relationships. They actually use these relationships to grow and develop their communication skills, self-awareness, self-esteem and other useful relationship skills.

    I actually did have physical, non-sexual relationships before marriage and my husband-to-be and I couldn't really wait for the big day. (we were off by a few months). I don't regret any of the previous relationships I had or the premarital sex. If anything, those relationships just make me appreciate my husband that much more!

    Basically, David, it's a big mistake to project your issues on everyone else. It's just not the case.

  • David N. Friedman

    Tarfon, your questions bring up the point that people make all kinds of generalizations without foundation and this is disappointing.  It is my position that anything worth stating is worth documenting with fact or good argument.

    The statement that halachic authority is essentially the exclusive  area for Orthodox Rabbis is accurate.  This is because having a foundation in the law requires more training than is offered by the Conservative movement and the JTS of today.  Is it  possible that a non-Orthodox Rabbi could command the requisite background and experience–yes, it is possible as long as that training would be from Orthodox venues and this is the exception and not the rule.

    It is with true sadness that one can assess the standards of the Conservative movement as woefully inadequate.  A young graduate came to a shul I attended about 6 years ago.  I wanted to quiz him about the rigor of his training.  He told me that he was told at the beginning of his training that any one of his classmates could be "as great as Rashi."  I chuckled, thinking he was joking, but he was quite serious.  Concerning the seriousness of the learning, it is apparent that by Orthodox standards, it is not very good.  Indeed, if this was medical or law training, it would be exposed as inadequate to meet legal or medical standards. No survey is required to understand the inadequacies.

    Please compare two Rabbis in my hometown.  At the Conservative shul, the current Rabbi (far better than the last 4) has zero background with any formal Jewish education at all–he is simply a guy who worked as an academic and then had a mid-life crisis.  At age 45, he went to California and took the 2.5 year survey course offered by the Conservative movement.  One year later, he is a Rabbi at my hometown shul.  By comparison, a far younger Rabbi heads the Chabad center.  He has had at least 7 years of formal training in the US and Israel.  He received a serious ordination from a Rabbi who is known in the world of Torah Judaism.  He had 10 previous years of serious Jewish learning at yeshivot in Brooklyn.  His father is a scholar, his uncle is a Rabbi.  He is only 28 years old while the rabbi at the conservative shul is about twice his age.  If someone has a question about Jewish law–one might see benefit in meeting with the "senior" Rabbi in town.  That would be a tragic mistake since it is apparent that the young Rabbi has knowledge while the older one knows almost nothing.

    You see where Tamar is misled to "look at the texts" and "find an advisor" but not to find a qualified Rabbi and this is malpractice of halacha.  People understand this process as "garbage in and garbage out."   Dov is quick to say this is an "ideological war" and he is correct.  So understand what laws are on the table at the JTS and with the Conservative Rabbis–it is precisely on political and ideological matters such as gender equality, homosexuality, and sexual issues that gins the participants.  What an odd approach to the law that has a fetish with such political matters!!  I would hope you find this a red flag and troublesome.  If the law can evolve–a new and vital group of halachic "authorities" might assess the law to be evolving in different ways and directions–instead, these "authorities" see it evolving in only one way!  How convenient.

    The punchline with all of this is the easy realization that these interpretations have created rifts in the community under the spell of "religious pluralism."  The allegation is clear and consistent:  "my authorities are as good as your authorities."  Nope, sorry they are not.  The way of pluralism is the way of destruction of the Jewish family, which is already far too fragmented.  Note now how Dov and Tamar *agree* with this point from a recent posting made by Tamar concerning Dov's rejection of the notion of pluralism.  That takes the cake.  The contradictions are voluminous and all the jokes aside about the confusion inherent in the Conservative position, this is no laughing matter.

    I can only suggest you take two aspirin and call a kosher Rabbi in the morning. The only way a graduate of the JTS program can be as "good as Rashi" is understanding that these young people are pre-ordained politically concerning the virtues of the sexual revolution and the ACLU. Alas, Rashi lacked these virtues.

  • tarfon

    "Winning is not apparent when every halachic authority (all halachic authorities require Orthodox training) totally disagrees."  No, not all halachic authorities require Orthodox training.  The Conservative movement has its own halachic authorities, most of whom do not have, and none of whom is required to have, Orthodox training.  You may not accept them as authoritative for yourself, but you can't blithely define them out of the category of halachic authorities.

    "Another objection to your perceptions concerning the halachic process, I have noticed that when someone asks a very knowledgeable Orthodox Rabbi about a fine point in the law, he is quick to consult a higher authority. When a Conservative Jew with only a bit of training seeks to assess the validity of a fine point in the law, they seek to make an answer for themselves through their own sensibility."  First, are you comparing Orthodox rabbis with Conservative rabbis, or with Conservative laypeople?  

    If you're comparing them with Conservative rabbis, what survey have you done?  And if your experience were exactly the contrary, wouldn't you be complaining that the reason Orthodox rabbis don't often consult more knowledgeable authorities is that they themselves know a great deal, and that the reason Conservative rabbis do tend to consult is that they themselves are ignorant?  And if you're comparing Orthodox rabbis with Conservative laypeople, isn't this apples and oranges? 

  • David N. Friedman

    Tamar,the law may have depth and nuance and the truth has different angles–all of which are valid.  This understanding can't apply to every law, minor and major.  I would like you to finally acknowledge that there is power and meaning in the fact that every halachic authority refuses to touch the prohibition of unmarried women using the mikveh.  This is because we ain't talking about "strawberries," that is, an issue of a practice that presents flexibility for an individual in a private matter.

    If a Rabbi gives one woman a pink slip to use the mikveh because it seems a special case, he would be hard pressed to deny it to another. The difficuly is that such permission affects more people than the individual unmarried woman and has public consequences.  It changes the standards of the mikvah and therefore changes the community.  No Rabbi is therefore willing to take that kind of step but more to the point, almost no Rabbi is even sold on the concept that the standards of sexual conduct need to be liberalized in the first place.

    You cannot be interested in halacha at the same time flippant about whether we are speaking about Orthodox authorities.  As I said to Elisheva–the hypocrisy of being so "Orthodox" about the hechsher on the cream cheese and so liberal about the sexual standards of the community is too huge to ignore–you simply must face this reality.

    If Dov thinks that the liberalized view is "winning"–there must be some evidence for the assertion.  Winning is not apparent when every halachic authority (all halachic authorities require Orthodox training) totally disagrees. 

    Another objection to your perceptions concerning the halachic process, I have noticed that when someone asks a very knowledgeable Orthodox Rabbi about a fine point in the law, he is quick to consult a higher authority. When a Conservative Jew with only a bit of training seeks to assess the validity of a fine point in the law, they seek to make an answer for themselves through their own sensibility. This is why they always tend to get different answers. If one is shopping for an answer one has already determined is correct for oneself after being "an engaged Jew looking for answers in the texts"–this is not the nature of our wondrous system.

  • David N. Friedman

    Elisheva, so I also felt you might be more comfortable in a Conservative shul, such as it is.  I applaud your desire to pursue a halachic path, even if in this particular case, Conservative Judaism differs from the halachic standard of the halachic authorities.

    Perhaps you will continue to value the fact that you have an option, perhaps later you will agree that there is only one standard.  Until then, you live with a contradiction many people cannot stomach.

    A Conservative shul holds by Orthodox standards concerning food (in most situations) so that if a nice guy goes out and buys $60 worth of cream cheese with the wrong hechsher on it–it will be tossed very quickly.  That's right, if the cream cheese is a tiny bit off–it is not accepted and no discussion is permitted.  On the other hand, when it comes to a woman and a communitiy's sexuality–well, close enough is OK in your case and in another case, we had better not ask so they won't tell.

    Today you might find comfort at that shul, tomorrow I hope you will want to be treated better than the cream cheese. 

  • Anonymous

    A woman goes to the mikvah at night so that he hubby can watch the children, as he is home from work then. Men and women go at different times, if there is only one mikvah. Yes, men have to go to the mikvah, too! Ask your rabbi when. He can also go any time he wants a spiritual boost. Some go before every Shabbat. Some go before major holidays. Here is a little piece about our demographics: http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/107183.html 

  • Elisheva Wolfe

    David, I am a member of an unaffiliated minyan.  I didn't go to a Conservative mikva simply because the West Side Mikva was closest to me at the time, but I'm happy to go to a Conservative mikva should it be convenient for me.  Though I prefer not to label myself as Conservative, Conservadox, Modern Orthodox, Orthodox, etc., I'm perfectly happy with the status of halacha in Conservative Judaism.

  • Tamar Fox

    First I want to thank everyone who has been so engaged in this discussion, especially tarfon, Dov, David, eve and Michal.

    David: You champion a system of law “which has been in place for a couple of thousand years” but that is exactly the point, the system has been in place for thousands of years.  The halachot themselves have changed.  Different rabbis and rabbinic experts throughout time have taken different views of the same texts, and have made rulings for their communities based on whatever view they hold.  If one rabbi says something (say, eating strawberries) is permitted, and another says it’s forbidden, both views can easily be based in halacha.  Both views then are halachic.  It is our responsibility as engaged Jews to look at the texts ourselves, and to choose our own halachic advisor carefully.  The simple fact is that pre-marital sex between a man and woman who has gone to the mikvah is allowed by some rabbinic authorities.  That they are not Orthodox is neither here nor there (and I’ve heard of a number of Orthodox rabbis, in Israel and New York, going off the record with congregants, and telling them that using the mikvah for premarital sex is permitted).

    I neither understand nor have any time for your bizarre condemnation of Conservativ Judaism, but since you don’t seem to understand or have any time for the movement itself, I think this is a fair trade.  

    You also ask again about hanky-panky.  First of all, I’d like it if you were a little more explicit with your definitions.  What, exactly, is hanky panky?  Personally, I draw a big red line between sexual permissiveness and not being shomer negiah (which is presumably where you got hanky-panky).  I don’t encourage readers on this blog to jump into bed with strangers, or even to kiss strangers.  What I do say is that as far as I’m concerned, having some degree of a physical relationship with your partner before you get married is perfectly acceptable via halacha, and is modeled by various Biblical characters.  I don’t think kissing my boyfriend will have any kind of detrimental effect on my marriage down the line.  (You disagree.  I know, and don’t even remotely care.)

  • David N. Friedman

    The point of citing another law was to indicate that the majority of Jews violate almost all the mitzvot so the test is not whether or not a law is being violated by the majority–it is whether or not it is counter-productive or obsolete or harmful.

    Regarding Shabbos, the person who is keeping Shabbos in a good faith way but is not aware of other Shabbos laws has no parallel with the subject at hand. That person is to be applauded for doing a good job.  And this brings up the point concerning what is feasible and what is not.  For many Jews of good will–davening three times a day or being scrupulous about all the laws of Shabbot can be said to be not feasible–it simply depends on one's background, knowledge experience and abilities. Elisheva understands completely that it is a subterfuge to enter a mikveh as an unmarried and whether or not one guards one's sexuality is a choice and a matter of character. Character choices are feasible to everyone.

    Those who lobby for sexual freedom will not concede that this is a lesser choice–they believe it to be a higher goal.  This is why I am commenting on this thread–it is not productive to knock people who make mistakes since I also make mistakes.  The problem is when we have the temerity to twist mistakes into mitzvot and are unwilling to know the difference.

    Matters of sexuality are far more significant and there is serious law that addresses it.  We abandon those laws at our peril and such a shift would be harmful for far more people than it could help–this is my conclusion and it is the conclusion of the Rabbis. 

    Eve, would you agree a risk of pregnancy, a social disease, a warped sense about men or the harm to one's character or soul is a different category of mistake than walking with high heels through the grass or picking out a fly from the soup without also taking out a bit of the soup on Shabbos?

  • eve

    in terms of your analogy to shabbat – i wonder if you would tell someone who is not aware or even is aware but isn't careful about 'borer'  (seperating) or 'lash' (kneading) and all the 'toladot' that come from them (watermelon seeds, making egg salad),  but who doesn't cook on shabbat that they are not keeping shabbat properly, or would you applaud the effort they are making. i'm not saying eliminate rules, i'm saying not be judgemental and not to take a simple black and white approach.

     i also think there is a huge difference between your formulation of 'lets make a deal' and mine of 'deal with'. as yisrael points out, there are other reasons unmarried women might have traditionally gone to the mikva (like before yom kippur). the problem when the talk then turns to morality and purity is that i wonder how much of this is caught up in fear of sexuality and more specifically, of dealing with the realities of women's experiences in a nonsexist way. i'm not accusing you specifically, but the system and society in general.

  • David N. Friedman

    Eve, the problem with "let's make a deal" with those outside the law is to consider where that will lead us. Why not eliminate all laws pertaining to Shabbos since only a minority are truly, fully shomer Shabbos? 

    The law, a standard, should not be eliminated simply because a minority reach the standard since this is true of all standards. The point of having a moral compass is to give us a direction.

    You are correct to cite that this is a complex issue and Yisrael Meded was correct to point out that having a mikvah brings together a veritable web of laws and traditions. If we eliminate this one prohibition, the consequences for the entire enterprise would need to be re-formulated in a way which would disturb far more people than it could possibly "help"–assuming the purest and best possible case of sex between a committed soon to be married good-faith single woman.

  • eve

    excellent article.

    as a married woman with conflicted feelings about mikva, i appreciate your sharing your thought.  i think the halachic and personal issues involved are far more complex and subtle than some of the comments here profess.

    i also wonder how a ban would be enforced at all – it just seems like a gratuitous statement to win points with people who already agree.

    and, i do think the condom analogy works. people are having sex. lets deal with that instead of just going with 'abstinance only' which has been proven to be ineffective.

  • David N. Friedman

    Conservative Judaism has been a movement in crisis for so long–the problem goes well beyond what is happening at any one shul.

    My arguments pertain to the larger reality.

  • tarfon

    A brief and partial reply to David.  I know the shul to which David refers, because I'm a member, and board member, there.  It is just not true that "most of its frum members left"; the renaissance of a nearby OJ shul under a vibrant and liberal rabbi did attract some of our members (~5-8 families), but a substantial corps of observant members remain.  It is also not true that we have not been able to maintain a daily minyan on a regular basis; while there are occasions when we fail to do so, we have a twice-daily minyan on a regular basis.  There has not been a "rapid exodus of [our] most observant and highly involved members"; as noted above, a few families have switched to the rejuvenated nearby OJ shul, but they were hardly uniformly observant or highly involved, and we remain a very active and relatively observant shul.  It is, finally, far from the mark that we have "almost no programming" — we have 4-5 weekly text classes, an active Chesed committee, an active social action committee, a full-service funeral practices committee (tohara, sh'mira, seudat havra'ah, minyanim), and more.

  • David N. Friedman

    OK, ,Dov–so you are a master of projections.  If your point of view is correct, why isn't there a kosher Rabbi on your side of the "ideological war?"

    You clearly make my points stand without refutation.  The trouble is that "ideological war" is not going to win heart and minds and if there is a legitimate claim that the law is counter-productive and harmful to the community–the Rabbis will look at it closely.  It is true that I put my faith in the law, our traditions while you put your faith in contemporary mores.  Your contempt for Judaism is loud and clear.  Who is being narrow and ideological?  Surely not me and not the system of law which has been in place for a couple of thousand years.  To repeat, I want calm and unity and you want war and we have the spectacle of you denouncing "narrow-mindedness" while at the same time luxuriating in ideological warfare.  I want nothing to do with bigoted battles– please stop screaming at me and petition the Rabbis.

    Your tortured reasoning concerning what is considered halachic and what is not ignores a consensus of opinion which is based into our wondrous system.  This is why minority opinions are preserved in the Talmud.  I have said it several times, when and if substantial Rabbinic opinion sees a need to change the law–it will be changed. The law cannot be one thing and another–it must reach a decision. The opposing side is not ALSO halachic–and when the Rabbis say that the truth has many sides this is to say that there is nuance and texture and exceptions.  It does not mean that the law can accept everything as equally valid.

    I also encourage you to stop blaming the messenger and I invite you to petition the Rabbis and demonstrate some cause but I warn you that the burden for change is with your side.

    Good luck with your battle.  But if you care–please be the first person to explain the upside of sexual permissiveness–why are we a better and holier, healthier and stronger nation if we enshrine hanky-panky in our law? 

     

  • Yisrael Medad

    The problematics of single women going to a Mikveh is not restricted to sex.  The entrance to the Temple Mount is prohibited to women except if they have last had sexual relations three days previously (due to the din of poletet) and then a mikveh.  However, even Rabbi Goren, when I conferred with him many years ago, could not find permission for non-married virgin women as, at least for Ashkenazi women.  The strong Ashkenazi custom, and I understand that for Sefardim it is less stringent, is that they not be allowed to go to a mikveh since the only reason for doing so in the Diaspora would be for sexual relations and that wasn't permitted.

    So, the young ladies devoted to the Temple Mount struggle have come up with a unique solution.  On the day of their Chuppah, after going to the Mikveh, they ascend to the Temple Mount, as much as feasible in each situation.  Others have decided that the ascent to the Temple Mount and being part of the effort to make sure it remains Jewish and that the Waqf does not further destroy Jewish historical and archeological remains is more important than the prohibitive custom.

  • Dov Friedman

    My first time ever encountering you David, and everything I heard is
    true.  It really is impossible to argue with you.  You combine an
    interesting mix of baseless assertions and relentlessness.  Your favorite
    words in these posts seem to be "obviously" "everyone
    agrees" and the like.

    Bottom Line:  I can't take too much time responding to you because an argument
    not based on substance is not an argument worth having.  We could continue
    to trade "I think" back and forth but no one would change.  And
    if the turn of the century French movement in the cafes has taught us anything,
    the real purpose of a debate is not to convince or sway someone but to
    show someone your perspective fully so they understand it and to hear
    their's.  At that point the argument is over.  Sadly, that was
    impossible here because a) as tarfon said, you like to make broad psychological
    and sociological pronouncements without the slightest attempt to ground them in
    evidence or even argumentation (since, of course, "everyone knows"
    these things and they are "obvious"), and b) you don't seem
    interested in understanding the other side; rather, you want to refute
    it.  In that case, just a few choice, especially egregious passages from
    you last response:

    "please consider how one might read your arguments when you
    contend that I am wrong in asserting that a prohibition against pre-marital sex
    is Rabbinic halacha and then, a few paragraphs later, you agree that all
    Orthodox Rabbis of today agree that pre-marittal sex is to be prohibited. 
    Huh?"

    The reason you have such difficulty with that is clear.  A) halacha for
    you is strictly equivalent to the majority of Orthodox halachic opinions. 
    B) you're interested in blindly following the Orthodox authorities of today
    after they synthesize for you the sources — i.e., you want your halacha
    pre-chewed.

    My responses: A) unfortunately for you, not everyone holds this view of
    halacha.  see tarfon's impassioned defense of conservative as
    halachic.  Even if individually one finds fault with the specific halachic
    reasoning, this does not mean that the argument itself is not halachic. 
    When people make a good faith effort to grapple with sources and come out with
    a conclusion this is living within a halachic mindset.

    B) The problem here is that there are thousands of years of sources and
    opinions that shed light on this issue.  I don't necessarily have to defer
    to prevailing contemporary Orthodox Rabbis' understandings to be halachic.

    "First you claim I am wrong that the prohibition helps the Orthodox to
    not engage in pre-marital sex, then one sentence later, you say that the law
    'diminishes the number of people having actual intercourse.'"

    You didn’t say helped the Orthodox you said stopped the
    Orthodox.  And this isn’t even the
    point.  The very very narrow issue
    is, if the Orthodox Rabbis know that people are violating one thing they view
    as a sin (premarital sex) then what should the do about it.  Should they put up another “protective
    barrier” around the halacha to compound the sin or should they condemn that sin
    while also making sure that sinners do not violate a totally separate
    prohibition.  And don’t quibble with that
    and talk about sexuality as one thing. 
    The sources say your flat out wrong – go read some and find that out for
    yourself.

     

    Further, it’s absolute BS that the Jewish community is all
    involved in sex in the community.  Like
    patently false.  So much so that it’s
    disturbing that you profess to be Orthodox and believe this.  One (of many examples): A woman goes to the
    mikva at night.  Why?  Some (if not all) would say this is to make
    sure that the sexual life of a woman and her husband are discreet.

     

    And your whopper of the day:

     

    “I am here to help unite us under Jewish law.  You are
    here to battle and divide us and you want victory in an ‘ideological war.’”

     

    What a load of crap. 
    You’re a uniter like the Inquisition and the Crusaders united.  ‘Be like me and I’m perfectly happy to
    include you.’  You’re happy to unite
    everyone under your understanding of Jewish law.  It is you who is pushing an extremely narrow
    view of halacha.  It is you who implies
    that as long as Elisheva is using a Conservative mikva to “fudge the issue” that
    you’ll be far less up in arms.  It is you
    who attempts to act in your posts as the wise old man who is here to bestow his
    sagely wisdom on the benighted few of us who do not see the error of our ways.

     

    You’re right about one thing.  I have made it my goal to fight an
    ideological war against those people in the world who want to monopolize “true”
    and “legitimate” Judaism – and all accompanying positions of power and
    influence within the greater Jewish community – for one narrow, closed-minded
    belief system.

  • David N. Friedman

    C'mom Tarfon.  I can't fathom your arguments since they are so divorced from the real facts on the ground.  Conservative machers all agree that halacha is selective at best and most agree it is out the window.  More to the point, most conservative shuls are much closer to the Reform than Orthodoxy and this was not the case until recent decades.  This is in large part related to trends within the Jewish Theological seminary which is ordaining Rabbis of very dubious quality who speak with complete and total opposition to halacha and seek to re-define Judaism in the same way as the Reform movement has done.

    I know these issues intimately and first hand.  I was once affiliated with a large right-wing Conservative shul and I have witnessed the decline of this fine shul–perhaps the best of its type in the entire nation.  In the last 8-15 years–most of its frum members left for Orthodox shuls with regret and I was among those who simply had to leave.  The last straw was a detailed, lengthy conversation with a famous Conservative Rabbi based in a Western state who is convinced most of the Torah is a cut and paste job, has no integrity, no historicity, there is no binding halacha and he wants to help redefine Judaism in his politically-correct image.  Is this divorced enough for you, Tarfon?  Who is being "irresponsible?"  One of my pals at the old Conservative shul who stayed behind readily admits that Conservative movement will soon be over in a few short decades with all Jews forced to choose between Orthodoxy and Reform. He is a board member so he cannot leave!  Even in its prime, this "best in the nation" shul could not garner 10 for a minyan (it allows women to be included as part of the minyanim) on a regular basis out of a membership of many hundreds of Jews.  The smell of declione was overwhelming and such stories are common from what I have experienced and read about in Chicago, Miami Beach, etc.  The Conservtaive shul from my small home town was very close to Orthodoxy when I was a kid–it is now very, very close to the Reform shul–this is a very common trend and this is why Conservative Jewry is in sure decline.  The numbers are going down quickly but numbers can also even be misleading.  The "good" Conservative shul I referenced has not actually lost membership–even with the rapid exodus of its most observant and highly involved members.  The replacements are far less likely to participate and  are likely to be intermarried.  So this model shul has not lost the mebers by the numbers but has almost no programming and much less content that demonstrates fealty to halacha.

    There is not a good argument to suggest that Conservative Jewry across the board in America is committed to halacha and there is great evidence to suggest it is very committed to the same kind of liberal activism so common in Reform Judaism.  Note Chancellor Schorsch's pained final address–he said it all.  He took office decades ago for a movement with credibility but left with strong doubts about the future.

    I fear if Elisheva stays with the Conservative shul, she may get a better welcome but when asked about her concern over committing an aveira, the response might be "what is an aveira?" 

  • David N. Friedman

    First, btw, that was my compliment to Michal, posted anonymously by accident.

    Dov, please consider how one might read your arguments when you contend that I am wrong in asserting that a prohibition against pre-marital sex is Rabbinic halacha and then, a few paragraphs later, you agree that all Orthodox Rabbis of today agree that pre-marittal sex is to be prohibited.  Huh?

    Documenting that observant households have far less socially destructive problems is not necessary since this is obvious and so well documented.  There could hardly be a bigger contrast between the communities and it is clear when one sees yeshiva life in the US or in Israel and compares it with secular counterparts.  For example, I am a big fan of EFRAT-CRIB in Israel that encourages young women to not kill their babies because they lack the financial resources to take care of them.  Shockingly, many thousands of children are aborted every month in Israel.  As a percentage of the populations, it is clear (based upon what I was told) the overwhelming number of out of wedlock births come from non-observant households.

    I respect the fact you come from an Orthodox background–I do not and I am a BT. First you claim I am wrong that the prohibition helps the Orthodox to not engage in pre-marital sex, then one sentence later, you say that the law "diminishes the number of people having actual intercourse."   Ok–so this makes me wrong–or right?  Perhaps you mean to say that the law does stop the Orthodox from having intercourse but they are total demons about *oral* sex–is this your point?  If so–(I am guessing since I am trying to find a way to figure how you can disagree again by agreeing) you want ME to document my points when they are commonly known and you want to just let that one fly without documentation?

    But your final broadside is interesting. You state:  1) issues of women's role in the community. 2) issues of sexual mores
    (yes, morays was wrong — typing quickly and on little sleep).  And
    it's a shame (for you guys — not for us!) that Orthodox Rabbis'
    willful act of sticking their collective heads in the sand is driving a
    committed, vibrant flock of young (and attractive!) Jews over to join
    our ranks.  This is an ideological war — and y'all are losing.

    I fully disagree and I am pleased to do debate whether or not Orthodox Judaism is more positive towards women than heterodoxy or MO and that sexual questions need to be amended to keep our collective heads out of the sand.  I find this entire conversation very distressing since it is an area which has been the pride of the Jewish people for so long. We have taught character and sexual propriety to the world and today–people want to throw in the towel.  Jews have traditionally maintained that sex is everyone's business and this is why I reject your contention so thoroughly–what you do affects me and affects the community.  We are not only responsible for one another, we affect one another.  Your anger at Orthodoxy and your willingness to do ideological battle (thank you so much for the honesty–it is the correct phrase) over these questions is daunting.  When under attack from the outside (as we once were many decades ago), we are united.  When our community is accepted by the others, we attack each other and you go straight for the Rabbis–especially our most distinguished ones.

    I am here to help unite us under Jewish law.  You are here to battle and divide us and you want victory in an "ideological war."

    This is tragic.  I surely do not wish to fight if the price of Judaism's victory is your agony.

    Since all others have refused, please state the upside of sexual permissiveness and please state what is to be gained by smashing all the law you wish to smash concerning sexuality.  Define your agony so others can understand it.

    I await your response. 

  • tarfon

    Plainly, I meant to say, "But you _neither_ acknowledge error nor try to explain how my point was wrong." 

  • tarfon

    Oh, David, you haven't refuted my points at all.  I asked you to provide evidence that people (even traditionally-minded people) generally regret having had premarital sexual relationships.  In response, you cite nothing but blithe generalizations.  

        "I am making the point from a place of wisdom and from the other side of the goal line and all married people understand this intuitively–this is why it is good for young people to model from people like their parents."  No, it isn't so that all married people know this.  I'm as old as you are; I've been married for nearly 30 years; I'm _quite_ traditional; and I do not regret my own premarital relationships.  

        "I ask you to consider the psychological damage of sharing one's sexuality with a string of lovers and then attempting to reveal oneself in the deepest way when the committed spouse is a reality."  Again, you've been challenged repeatedly for evidence that having relationships before marriage is psychologically damaging, and you've provided none.  You're entitled to your view that it's immoral; you may even be "entitled" to your view that it's psychologically damaging.  But if you assert the latter view in a public forum, you have an obligation to explain your basis; you haven't.

        I also noted that your characterization of the Conservative Movement decisions about homosexuality was factually wrong, and I explained how.  You respond by saying, "Regarding the Conservative movement and its stand, please, I understand the 'facts.'"  But you acknowledge error nor try to explain how my point was wrong.  

        Instead, you change the subject:  "The FACT you should consider is the one I directed to Elisheva, please consider how destructive its outreach to homosexuals has cost and will continue to cost the Conservative movement.  Thousands have left and will continue to leave  and now are Orthodox because the Conservative movement has taken it upon itself to proclaim that they are no longer associated with halachic Judaism."  

        There are two points that must be made in answering this comment.  First, whether the Conservative movement will lose more from the departure of the folks you describe, or whether it will gain more from the continued affiliation of folks who, whether themselves gay or straight, believe strongly in the legitimacy and desirability of the permissive view among the Law Committee, and who are quite traditional in their practice in other areas of halacha is pure speculation, and is hardly "fact" (let alone "FACT").  

        Second, it just isn't true that the Conservative movement has proclaimed that it is "no longer associated with halachic Judaism."  The Conservative movement — including both the rabbis who supported the permissive responsum and those who supported the non-permissive one — maintain that they _are_ adherents of halachic Judaism.  You may disagree with the permissive responsum; you may even think that that ruling departed very substantially from traditional halachic reasoning.  You would be in good company — even the chief author of the non-permissive responsum thought that.  But committing error as to the legitimate bounds of the halachic process (if that is what it was) is different from proclaiming oneself divorced from halachic Judaism.  That characterization is not only inaccurate; it's irresponsible.

  • Anonymous

    Michal says:

    I doubt atheists hesitate before jumping into bed with people they
    love. Why bother if you don't see a structure saying it's better to
    wait? But if you DO see the structure, and accept it, it shouldn't be
    so hard to see monogamy as an ideal in its own right. It's totally not
    my business (except for fulfilling my function as a random internet
    commenter), but I have a much harder time with "why get married" than
    "why have sex." People had premarital and extramarital sex since the
    beginning of time, and will continue to do so no matter what rabbis
    say. People have also married the wrong people and ended up divorced or
    worse, trapped in abusive relationships. But people have also had
    wonderful fulfilling marriages with their first partners. And you can't
    have that without the same exact leap of faith that yes, sometimes goes
    in the wrong direction.
    Having sex with your boyfriend/girlfriend because that's where you
    are in the relationship and it feels right is the easy choice. Nowadays
    it's even become the safe choice. And caring enough about halacha that
    you'd rather put a band-aid on the relationship by incorporating some
    aspects of TH just makes that decision more comfy. But it's far more
    adult – and far more in the spirit of Torah – to play for keeps.

    Michal is right on target and this is because Michal lacks the kind of ideological bigotry popular on the Jewcy blog.

    Thanks for the clear-headed common sense, Michal! 

     

  • David N. Friedman

    OK, Tarfon, your points are too easy to refute.

    It is interesting that you harp on the point that pre-marital sexual relationships are primarily regretted and that could have and should be avoided in retrospect, in the eyes of most married, traditional Jews.  Are you a married person?  A Jewish marriage is very intense and the bond is total.  Kissing and sleeping around creates a lot of negative baggage which can easily harm a full marital bond and this is why the more secular part of our community tend to be the most divorced.  It is revealing that the promoters of sexual adventuring love to say that one's sense of self is created by the combination of all one's previous lovers.  This is dangerous and incorrect–it is not self-fulfillment and it is not healthy if one is striving for a Jewish marriage.  I honor Tamar and I do not condescend to her.  I trust that she wants real intimacy and life-long marriage. Let's stick to the principle, please.

    I am making the point from a place of wisdom and from the other side of the goal line and all married people understand this intuitively–this is why it is good for young people to model from people like their parents. Understanding what is a regrettable choice and a mistake can only be seen in retrospect–indeed, if you think Tamar's choices are sacrosanct–I could call Tamar as a witness concerning her suitors this year–all regrettable in her eyes.

    When married–how do those past flings seem in retrospect–can any of them look good?  This is unlikely and seeing them as refinements is a delusion–people are never made better or more attractive by failed pre-marital relationships except to the extent they can have MORE failed relationships in the future and make different mistakes. I ask you to consider the psychological damage of sharing one's sexuality with a string of lovers and then attempting to reveal oneself in the deepest way when the committed spouse is a reality.  Comparisons become destructive, the reflexes created by untrustworthy past lovers become precisely the kind of "learning experience" no one should suffer so that a level of trust and intimacy is much harder to have and maintain.  Please direct me to even one Orthodox Jewish father who is quick to tell his daughter to go out and play the field so as to learn and grow from the experience–just make sure he has a condom.  The danger is extraordinary and the benefits are very pale by comparison.  Hanky-panky has become a Western norm but it has come at a great cost and is contrary at the most fundamental level to our tradition.  Jewish parents desperately want what is best for their children and if the only defense is "that is the way it is"–this is not nearly the kind of defense that will overturn thousands of years of Jewish wisdom in this area.

    Regarding the Conservative movement and its stand, please, I understand the "facts." The FACT you should consider is the one I directed to Elisheva, please consider how destructive its outreach to homosexuals has cost and will continue to cost the Conservative movement.  Thousands have left and will continue to leave  and now are Orthodox because the Conservative movement has taken it upon itself to proclaim that they are no longer associated with halachic Judaism.  This is why it is preferable for Elisheva to go to as mikvah at a conservative shul–but I asked her opinion.

  • tarfon

    Dov has already addressed many of David's points, and I concur.  A common theme (and I must note that this theme has recurred in previous exchanges with David) is that David asserts things, both halachic and sociological/psychological, without substantiating them.

        1. "As for not having regrets, I must object.  As I have said to you, my best guess is that one day you will be very happily married and the relationships that you do not regret today you may well perceive differently.  I am saying that this is a very common part of maturity and even if it does not apply to every traditional minded Jew–it applies almost all of the time.  It is very rare to look back at one's life and regret not have more lovers. I am not imposing my regrets–I am simply a messenger for the news that these relationships lack vitality as time fades and marriage takes place."  

        If I were Tamar, I'd find this condescending, but she can speak for herself.  I can say that it's presumptuous.  David, why are you so confident that Tamar (or any other traditionally-minded Jew who's had sexual relationships before marriage) is likely to regret them?  You leave yourself an out by saying that your generalization does not apply in every case, but what's your basis for saying that it "applies almost all of the time"?  (Your statement that people don't often regret not having _more_ lovers is irrelevant — the question is whether they regret having those that they did have.  Likewise irrelevant is your last statement that old relationships "lack vitality" as one goes through married life — the gourmet (kosher) meal that I ate three years ago "lacks vitality" three years later, but there was nothing wrong with enjoying that pleasure then.  And don't respond that premarital sex isn't permissible — first, Dov and I and others have challenged that assertion, and second, it isn't the point here.)  

        In sum, if your argument is that experience shows that people generally regret premarital sexual relationships, provide some evidence other than your own individual case.

        2. "Surely, you can find a mikveh at an Conservative shul that will finesse your situation.  I need to ask you if you believe that this is a good thing for the community?  As for Torah-based prohibitions, the Conservative movement is quick now to strike from the Torah any distinction between heterosexual and homosexual among its ranks and as a matter of policy."  

        First, David, your characterization of the Conservative movement's views on homosexuality is factually wrong.  There were three responsa that were approved by the movement's Law Committee.  Two of them would maintain the traditional proscriptions on _all_ homosexual relations.  One would allow those whose sexual orientation was homosexual (but, I think, not bisexuals) to have same-sex sexual relations _except_ for male anal sex.  That responsum would allow commitment ceremonies but not kiddushin for same sex relationships.  You are welcome to disagree with that responsum, but you cannot say that even it, let alone the movement as a whole, is eliminating all distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual.

        Second, what do you mean in asking whether Elisheva's opting to use a Conservative mikveh (if she were to do so) would be good for the community?  Are you suggesting that the use of a Conservative mikveh rather than an Orthodox one is, per se, bad for the community — why?

        I'd also like to address a couple of Michal's points:

        1. No one here has argued for permitting "multiple partners," in the sense of having multiple partners simultaneously.  I don't recall any post or comment that argued that sex should happen _outside_ a "monogamous unit."  (Surely you don't think that a sequence of partners is any more problematic than a single partner — if it were, then Judaism would not allow remarriage after divorce or widowhood.)

        2. "The purpose of [toharat hamishpaha] is children. Mikvah night is timed to coincide with women's most fertile days of the month."  And if you don't eat pork, you won't get trichinosis.  Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a poor method for determining ta'amei hamitzvot.  Mikveh night does coincide with the beginning of most women's most fertile days, but that hardly shows that fertility is the "purpose" of these laws.

  • Michal

    I wanted to say mazal tov on going to the mikvah — I'm glad it's working for you.  Still, I see the rabbi's dilemma on this one – it's a tough dance between encouraging people to commit the lesser aveira and being seen as actively encouraging people to go against halacha. Staying quiet and looking the other way would have been a far better response than being so vehemently against a practice that in its end result will do more good than harm, halachically speaking. Women who aren't having premarital sex aren't likely to be going to the mikvah on a whim, after all.

    Having said that, it makes me sad to see that so many people are taking the accurate view that halachically premarital sex isn't such a big deal, and using that argument to extrapolate that multiple partners isn't such a big idea, either. And that's not really the case. The overriding assumption is that sex happens in a monogamous unit, with marriage being the legal tie that formalizes it. People are going to do what they're going to do, and in our society having sex with more than one person until you find "the one" is considered not only normal but even preferred. Elisheva writes that she wants to wait to see if the honeymoon lasts. And if not, okay, bye Ben and our future, and hello new guy. Being ready for marriage used to be (and in some communities occasionally still is) much simpler. Do you love the person? Is there chemistry? Do you want to be with them when you're 90? Or even, if you turn 90 and you have no contact with this person, will you feel like something is missing in your life? If the answer is yes, you take the leap and get married. If it's no, then why rush into sex?  Leaving aside the answer that sex is fun and a good way to connect and makes you feel incredible, etc — I'm asking from a religious perspective, not a common-sense one. And I mean "religious" and not "observant" — after all, why wait at all if there wasn't some Big Guy saying so, regardless of whether you're Orthodox or Reform or Catholic? I doubt atheists hesitate before jumping into bed with people they love. Why bother if you don't see a structure saying it's better to wait? But if you DO see the structure, and accept it, it shouldn't be so hard to see monogamy as an ideal in its own right. It's totally not my business (except for fulfilling my function as a random internet commenter), but I have a much harder time with "why get married" than "why have sex." People had premarital and extramarital sex since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so no matter what rabbis say. People have also married the wrong people and ended up divorced or worse, trapped in abusive relationships. But people have also had wonderful fulfilling marriages with their first partners. And you can't have that without the same exact leap of faith that yes, sometimes goes in the wrong direction.

    Having sex with your boyfriend/girlfriend because that's where you are in the relationship and it feels right is the easy choice. Nowadays it's even become the safe choice. And caring enough about halacha that you'd rather put a band-aid on the relationship by incorporating some aspects of TH just makes that decision more comfy. But it's far more adult – and far more in the spirit of Torah – to play for keeps. The purpose of TH is children. Mikvah night is timed to coincide with women's most fertile days of the month. And if you don't want to have a kid with someone (whether you inevitably choose to have children or not), if you don't see a future with them, wouldn't it make more sense to move on and find the fairy tale, so you can be a part of it for as long as possible?  

    I'm not trying to be judgmental about making the choice to have multiple partners. I just think that being realistic about sex and relationships while treating halacha as purely nuts-and-bolts practice is a surefire way to lose sight of the joy that is built into doing it as written. There's a magic to mikvah night. It's not just a gateway to sex. And I'd hate for it to become that.

    Not sure why I care, I do think it's each couple's business and not mine, but I do.

  • Anonymous

    Losing…..?  You know perfectly well who has the most children.

    People should imagine themselves at sixty. Childlessness waits for us all. Jewish grandchild-lessness waits for us all. One problem is that the people who are sixty today don't seem to mind! Baloney. See through their lies! Don't end up like them! It is agony, my young friends. I escaped, but not by much. I alone survived to tell you… (Job)

     

  • Dov Friedman

    Oh man.  A lot to say.  I'll quote and then respond:

    "As I explained, this is why it is correct to assess the choices of the
    various communities and it is understood that the halachic standards of
    the Orthodox community lead to life-long marriages while the
    individually-conceived standards in the non-Orthodox community lead to
    far greater pain, a much greater likelihood of divorce, broken homes
    and far worse"

    Back up your assertions, man.  Not only didn't you cite anything here but you happen to be dead wrong on this issue.  I have heard quoted by rabbis and doctors who have investigated this that in fact the rates of a whole host of societal "problems" remain the same between observant and non-observant communities.  This includes spousal abuse, rape, child abuse and molestation.  I can't opine specifically on divorce, but considering the host of ills above, do you really want to go there and make this argument.  Bad idea — research the issue first.

    "The burden of unmarried women using the mikveh is a problem and the
    "don't ask don't tell" solution  which has been proposed is a sure way
    to divide the community"

    About as much of an issue as me smoking crack cocaine in my house.  Maybe it's against some communities' definition of "The Law" but how can you argue that it tears apart a community when the community does not need to enter Elisheva's bedroom — and shouldn't

    "As explained previously, we agree that the prohibiton against unmarried sex is rabbinic and it is still halacha."

    Again, not true.  We don't agree.  All we can determine is that many halachic authorities have read the sources as forbidding pre-marital sex.  This does not mean that it is "Rabbinic Law."  It means there are many poskim who feel that way.  Other poskim are free to disagree.  Jewish law is fun–and fluid–like that.

    "The mikveh is entitled to assume the women are married."

    And the government can assume I'm not getting high as a kite in my house.  This is exactly why the government can't barge into my home and check for my crackpipe.  Similarly, the mikva lady shouldn't ask questions.  Communal services should be communal services.  Halacha, though incumbent on the Jewish people, is necessarily a personal issue and a daily personal struggle.  Perhaps if rabbis decided to act as spiritual guides instead of as the secret police, we'd have a more vibrant, spiritual community.

    "The law keeps the Orthodox world from having pre-marital sex–obviously."

    Really?  You think so?  Unfortunately, I can't show you how wrong you are here.  It certainly dampens the numbers.  But it does not stop Orthos from having sex.  I grew up in an Orthodox school in Maryland, went to a Dati Yeshiva in Israel, and have many many Orthodox friends at college.  Here's what it does: 1) diminishes the number of people having actual intercourse.  2) infuses sexual life with tremendous (and undesired by those feeling them) feelings of guilt.  3) leads to early, early marriage before either partner has had a chance to establish him/herself in the real world.

    Here's what it does not do: Prevent kids from sexual experimentation!  Shomer negiah is a crock and even the people that want to follow it struggle mightily with it and often end up breaking it.  This is because people have perfectly normal desires and needs — to feel loved, both emotionally and physically.  If it's against halacha then they are doing a sin.  If it's not then they aren't.  That's not even the issue.  The issue is that the rabbis have an easy way of not compounding sins that are being done anyway (if we can call them that).  The rabbis have a responsibility to help us sin less!  Not make barriers that make us sin more!

    "almost every Orthodox Rabbi one can get to go on the record who agrees with the prohibition."

    Much to my dismay, this is true.  And I sincerely believe that the attrition from traditional orthodox ranks toward open orthodoxy (think R. Weiss), traditional Conservative (think R. Roth et al), and non/post-denominational Judaism is coming from two sources: 1) issues of women's role in the community. 2) issues of sexual mores (yes, morays was wrong — typing quickly and on little sleep).  And it's a shame (for you guys — not for us!) that Orthodox Rabbis' willful act of sticking their collective heads in the sand is driving a committed, vibrant flock of young (and attractive!) Jews over to join our ranks.  This is an ideological war — and y'all are losing.

  • David N. Friedman

    As explained previously, we agree that the prohibiton against unmarried sex is rabbinic and it is still halacha.  That it is not sourced in Torah is correct, as I explained to Tamar, much of what all Jews honor very scrupulously is rabbinic.

    I never suggested it was the mikveh's lady's business regarding Elisheva's reported guilt and subterfuge. I was asking about her state of mind.  The mikveh is entitled to assume the women are married and I don't think Elisheva has a disagreement about this standard for an Orthodox-run mikvah.

    Your parsing of the word "religious" misses the mark.  The law keeps the Orthodox world from having pre-marital sex–obviously.

    Regarding changing a law –I said what you indicated and since the mass of Orthodox Jews can live with the standard, as Elisheva admits (it is simply not feasible for her–she did not argue it is not feasible for the observant part of the community at large) when we have split Orthodox opinion about these matters–then we can talk about supercession of the law.  Today, it is not one Israeli rabbi with the opinion–it is almost every Orthodox Rabbi one can get to go on the record who agrees with the prohibition.

     

  • David N. Friedman

    Elisheva– I appreciate the fact that you say that you do not expect the Orthodox world to encourage your behavior.  Like ZBird, I was led to believe that you were speaking as an Orthodox woman–I apologize and I regret the confusion and this explains much of what you said and requires me to amend some of what I said to you.

     Surely, you can find a mikveh at an Conservative shul that will finesse your situation.  I need to ask you if you believe that this is a good thing for the community?  As for Torah-based prohibitions, the Conservative movement is quick now to strike from the Torah any distinction between heterosexual and homosexual among its ranks and as a matter of policy.   My question to you is given the stakes, do you have any fear that a differing policy among the Jewish communities regarding unmarrieds in a mikvah or married homosexuals is a good thing or a bad thing?  Can you see that these kinds of conflicts can have devastating impact on a community already needlessly fractured? –now we also have good reason to not like each other.

    Your comment please. 

     

  • David N. Friedman

    OK, Tamar, to your last point first, yes I am willing to tip my hat to Elisheva who is looking at the issue and she is thoughtful and engaged. As for not having regrets, I must object. As I have said to you, my best guess is that one day you will be very happily married and the relationships that you do not regret today you may well perceive differently.  I am saying that this is a very common part of maturity and even if it does not apply to every traditional minded Jew–it applies almost all of the time.  It is very rare to look back at one's life and regret not have more lovers. I am not imposing my regrets–I am simply a messenger for the news that these relationships lack vitality as time fades and marriage takes place.  I am also familiar with the popular perception that pre-marital relationships are exciting and wondrous–I simply ask you to consider the source. I am aware of the common thought that one must kiss a lot of toads to find a prince–I am here to say that this is not the Jewish way. Are these relationships helpful or hurtful for the future married Jewish woman you will be?

    You are stuck with a lack of a principle here, Tamar.  For what greater good, for what utility, for what principle is there a defense of hanky-panky–YOUR punch-line?  The commitment that comes with marriage is substantially different than the kind of pre-marital relationships that commonly exist in our non-traditional community.  As I explained, this is why it is correct to assess the choices of the various communities and it is understood that the halachic standards of the Orthodox community lead to life-long marriages while the individually-conceived standards in the non-Orthodox community lead to far greater pain, a much greater likelihood of divorce, broken homes and far worse.

    I must react with outrage to your contortion of my point made to Elisheva–completely misrepresented.  I reacted to her cold conclusion concerning her rejection of the  law by saying "that is just the way it goes"–it is one thing to not live fully up to the standard–but to reject the law coldly leads one to honestly wonder if "that is just the way it goes" for one thing–how can one support any of the law?  To say that one has difficulty with one law–is not surprizing and I am not imploring her to observe anything.  Even the best Jews miss the mark in one area or another. All Jews deserve respect who make a good faith effort.  This is not the same as having opposition to a law–or when asked to explain, to say–"that is just the way it goes."  This is not the kind of response that goes with a solid effort to honor the law and she can defend it or not–fine.  

    Finally, we have already agreed on another board that the ban on pre-marital sex is not a Torah-based law and is rabbinic.  Surely, you and Elisheva scrupulously hold many rabbinic-based laws (the entirety of which is called halacha) so I must ask you about this apparent bit of hypocrisy. The rabbis needed to explicitly create laws regarding shomer negiah and pre-marital sex to lessen the chances of promiscuous sex in the community.  In our day, we have the sight of a young Jewish woman named Monica Lewinsky having oral sex and other sexual conduct with a President of the US in the Oval office–need I say more.  I will say that Clinton echoed the claims of some on this blog very closely and denied that according to his understanding of morality, he did not actually have "sexual relations" and he did nothing that was improper under Biblical terms. Reasonable people can easily conclude that this is a man of poor character who is trying to employ vagaries in the law to excuse conduct which is obviously immoral.

    You spent way too much time making an impossible argument, namely, that having the character to wait to have sex is like having the talent to sing and dance or having the talent to run a marathon.  These are dreadful analogies since having good character is not a talent like singing and dancing–some people can sing and some people can't while all of us are required to have good character.  Elisheva was quick to admit that some people can wait until marriage and she cannot.  This "feasibility" requires some explanation and our Rabbis are very open to individual cases of special needs.  

    The burden of unmarried women using the mikveh is a problem and the "don't ask don't tell" solution  which has been proposed is a sure way to divide the community.  

     

  • Anonymous

    There are web sites to explain what a "baby" is. It's too gooey to go into here.

  • Anonymous

    Somebody else could catch his eye. Someone who is more beady-eyed and target-focused. Without a marriage, he is up for grabs. Why not? He is good material. You may be frustrating him. It is not a compliment to him, your foot-dragging. He may become hurt. Many would. Someone may be watching for just the moment to throw her harpoon. Of course, lots of nice people have a completely easy time finding a husband in their middle thirties. Sure they do. No problem. As for your career, well, gee. That really counts. Are you famous? Internationally important? Wow. Definitely don't jeapordize that. Endless moving is so broadening to the mind. If someone else getting him would just be a three-week bummer, sure, wait and see. If it would be  one hundred percent unacceptable, a call the police, burn down the building, problem, then make your move. Stuff happens. As you have a career, surely you know what it means to close a deal. If you ever want to have a baby, that is a whole other hurrier. Of course, lots of nice people have babies in their forties, very easily, and then sprint around after their ten-year olds in their yoga-supple fifties. Sure they do. No worries, mate. No worries at all.

  • Elisheva Wolfe

    I'm going to work backwards in my responses to people. 

    First, Zbird–I'm not orthodox, and I never claimed to be.  I grew up in what I referred to as a "religious community" and I refer to myself as observant, but I'm not now nor have I ever been Orthodox.  Caring about halacha is not a right limited to those who are dues paying members of an Orthdox shul.  And, mikvaot are generally not defined as exclusively for any one denomination.  If I told the mikvah lady that I was Conservative or unaffiliated or Reform I think she would likely have still encouraged me to use the mikva.  That said, there are more open communities with their own mikvaot for this express purpose, and when I have access to such mikvaot I fully intend to utilize them.  I'm not asking the Orthodox world to encourage my behavior.  I know they don't approve.  But when you get down to it, preventing me from using the mikvah is allowing me to commit an aveirah (sex while still in a state of niddah) which I wouldn't do if I was allowed in the mikva.  I don't know many (or any) Orthodox rabbis who encourage people to do aveirot they have a way of avoiding.  

    I wasn't saying that my behavior was like that of a 14 year old, I was saying that when you're dealing with a situation that you know is unavoidable, there's a more mature and effective way of dealing with the issue then just prohibiting it.  

    Anonymous–thanks for your encouragement (I think) but I don't think Ben and I are ready for marriage anytime soon.  We both have professional concerns to take into account (it's not clear how long we're going to get to be in the same country) and I'd really like to see how long this honeymood of sorts lasts before I make lifetime commitments. 

     David–Tamar and Dov have pretty much covered everything I might have to say to you, but if you respond I'm happy to continue the discussion.

    Andoatnp–Though I didn't love my mikvah experience, I do plan on making this a regular part of my routine, and generally observing the laws of tahara.  To what extent has yet to be determined.  I'm excited to use the Conservative mikvah at Beth Hillel next time I'm in Chicago.   

     

  • Avigail

    When you swim in the sea,

    And an eel bites your knee,

    That's a moray! 

  • zbird

    Elisheva,

     I was mostly with you until you compared the whole mikveh issue to giving 14-year-olds condoms. The question of whether government should make it easier for young people to have safe sex is one of public policy, the key word being public.  It's an issue government decides based on what would best protect the rights and welfare of the population at large.  So government naturally has to act with the understanding that people can be weak, standards can be broken, and not everyone will agree with those standards in the first.  When laws or other social policies are made without regard to those considerations (i.e.: the drug laws), the laws prove to be disastrous.  

    Rabbi Metzger has different goals then the government.  Sure, he may care about the public welfare, but his job (at least when it comes to halachic prohibitions) is to enforce his interpretation of halacha within the orthodox community.  I'm not taking a stand on the argument about whether pre-marital sex is halachically permitted–I don't personally care and don't have nearly enough information to decide who is right.  But if you disagree with the prohibition, you don't need to remain part of the orthodox community. 

    Jews in America have so many options when it comes to religion–apart from Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, you can try New-Age, Integral, Humanistic, Reconstructionist, and probably 25 other types of Judaism, as well as countless other spiritual traditions and non-traditions.  And if none of those movements suit your fancy, you have the right to get together with friends and start a community (mikveh included) that conforms to your beliefs.  So while I have no problem with Elisheva and her boyfriend having sex, I don't see why she needs to make the orthodox bend to her way of thinking. 

    Also, it's a bit pathetic for Elisheva to compare her dilemma to that of a 14-year-old about to have sex.  14-year-olds are children who need to be cared for and protected from the consequences of their naturally immature decisions.  Elisheva is an adult and therefore should be able to make conscious decisions about her personal life and face whatever consequence they bring.

    –Z

  • Anonymous

    Why not just marry the guy? You have liked each other for three years, which is enough time. Work on your self esteem. Gee wiz. Fat my eye. If you have self esteem issues, work on them, and have a nice marriage. Piercings are icky but it comes out. Your hair color doesn't matter. Do you know how lucky you are to have found a nice man who likes you, and whom you like? Go for it. If you're a little flabby, figure out a brief stretch routine to do every day, standing in the shower, with your muscles loose and warm from the hot water. Walk more. Take the stairs. Go easy on fattening foods. It's not rocket science. Get a new make up, and some cosmetic dentistry. You can TOO face his family.

  • Tamar Fox

    David, it's funny that you're saying Elisheva is blending points and confusing the issue since, as far as I can tell, that's pretty much your full time job. But let's looks at the highlights of your response and see if we can make any sense out of them. (And props to Dov–welcome to the foray! You rocked that comment out).

    First, you're questioning this concept of feasibility. Why is it feasible for some and not others? Well, let's say I told you that I'm going to start training for a marathon. I might have a friend who trains with me, and though we both say we're going to start out by running three miles a day four days a week, and slowly build up, she might not have the stamina to keep it up, or she might not have the will power to make sure she gets out of bed and onto the running track every morning. It may be feasible for me, but it might just not be something she can keep up at this point. Same goes for sex. It's going to be much harder for some than for others. That's not such a diffcult idea to grasp.

     

    Not only do I not understand what your point is in regards to traveling on Saturday night, but I've been shomeret shabbat my entire life and I've literally never had the dilemma you seem to be concerned with. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume somewhere you have a point. It seems to be built around this idea that having premarital sex impinges on one's character, which is simply not true. What is it about having sex with someone she loves that has made Elisheva any less of a good person? I think what you'd like to be saying is that not following halacha makes her less of a good person, but then Dov has some bad news for you: pre-marital sex is not anti-halachic. There are plenty of reputable halachic sources that have no problem with a couple engaging in pre-marital sex if the woman immerses in the mikvah. You have yet to cite a source in defense of your position, but I'll give you a few places to look with detailed analysis of the issue:

    First, you'll want to read Rabbi Tzvi Zohar's article from Akdamot (it's 70 pages long and in Hebrew, btw. I'm planning on tackling it with a chevruta, and I suggest you do so as well). I also suggest that fascinating and fantastic translation of Rabbi Yaakov Emden's responsa regarding this issue. It was translated into English for the publication of Sacred Secrets by Gershon Winkler, which I highly recommend. You can download both sources online. The Zohar piece is at http://www.bmj.org.il/pdf/akdamot/17zohar+.pdf

    and the Emden piece is at http://pilegeshpersonals.com/Rabbi_Yaakov_Emden's_responsa_on_Pilegesh.pdf

    though I seriously encourage you to have a look at Sacred Secrets as a whole.

    At the end of your bizarre and convoluted argument you write to Elisheva, "I just don't understand why you observe any of the halacha." So, because you don't understand why she observes halacha, she has to hold by your standards? Or maybe, if her reasons for observing halacha aren't solid enough she just shouldn't observe at all? What utter crap. She's not obligated to observe in a way that you understand.

     

    Finally, your point (again) that if some people can do it why can't she is ridiculous and empty. Some people can sing and dance. Some people can make perfect souflees. Some people can learn all of shas in seven years, and some people can wait to have sex. That doesn't mean everyone can or should do any of those things. And I don't think the non-Jews who are waiting are doing it because of an influence from Judaism. There are, of course, Mulims who wait to have sex, and Buddhists, and people who are just plain afraid of intimacy.

     

    I'm sorry that you regret your sexual past David, but imposing your regrets on others is unfair and disrespectful. Elisheva has told us that she doesn't regret her actions. We have every proof that she's thoughtful and engaged and responsible in regards to this issue. I'm not sure what more we can ask of the young people in our community.

  • Faith

    Thank you for this lovely post.  I have often considered going to mikveh but it is likely one experience I will never have.  I quite appreciate your honesty.

  • Dov Friedman

    David, I must take your long post point by point. It seems to me you have made quite a few
    errors both in logic and in your understanding of halacha.

    “The fact that most Jews do not honor the law (almost any Jewish law) is
    true and this is no excuse to find and seek new standards–unless there is
    evidence that a law is unfair, unjust or counter-productive.”

    Let’s assume for a moment that the idea running through your post is true –
    that pre-marital sex is actually against a strict interpretation of
    halacha. Your understanding of when a
    law can be superseded is mistaken. It is
    not merely in a case of lack of “justice” in the law. You may be familiar with the concept of “G’zera
    She’ein Ha’Tzibbur Yachol La’amod Ba” – a decree to which the community is
    incapable of living up. Even in an
    understanding that deems pre-marital sex against halacha, an honest understand
    of the development and extension of halachic principles would show that this is
    a later development. Elisheva is
    absolutely correct that the tzibbur is having considerable difficulty (or
    straight up no success at all) holding themselves to this standard. Thus a rollback of what is clearly a halchic extension
    would seem appropriate.

    “The sexual standards have served the Jewish people well over time and it is
    a matter of character that brings Jews to follow the standards today. Sadly, I
    engaged in pre-marital sex and it is clear to me that in retrospect–it was a
    big mistake.”

    This is your hypothesis and your experience.
    It is impossible to turn your own experiences into an ironclad
    rule. “Served well over time” – says
    who? A historical approach to halacha
    will show very clearly that these morays have changed considerably over time in
    a variety of different directions.

    But the fact is that the law DOES stop religious Jews from engaging in
    pre-marital sex–it simply fails to prevent secular minded Jews.

    Let’s take just a moment to remember that “religious” means, roughly,
    infused with a spirit of belief and connection to God. It does not mean halachic. A good word for that in English would be
    observant. And your use of secular is
    exceedingly presumptuous. The thought
    that Jewcy is a bunch of secular Jews is frankly ridiculous. There is a tendency in some observant circles
    to be sloppy with terminology. Let’s not
    do that here. You mean to say that
    observant Jews understand that pre-marital sex is against halacha. But even that assumption would be
    wrong. As evidenced by the Jews who do claim
    to be bound by halacha and who claim – with help from textual sources – that pre-marital
    sex is acceptable within halacha. Now
    you and many others would say they are “wrong” but that’s nothing more than a
    good faith Makhloket L’Shem Shamayim (dispute for the sake of heaven/God/Jewish
    understanding)

    “It is no wonder that a secular Jew would violate Shabbos. On the other
    hand, It is a wonder why a serious religious Jew would violate a sexual law”

    Your premise cannot be accepted for the reason stated above. There is no monolith when it comes to permissible
    sexual contact pre-marriage. Once can
    honestly observe halacha and engage in pre-marital sex. The fact that some people deny this
    possibility does not matter except when those people control the levers of
    power (like the shameful, scandalous, and intellectual lightweight Metzger) and
    try to force their narrow view of halacha on an non-consenting mass of people

    “You conclude that the mikvah was great–so why no specific remorse about
    the subterfuge?”

    Why show remorse when it is none of the mikva lady’s business who chooses to
    immerse in a mikva? The idea that these
    women should be the halacha police is ridiculous and the evolution of this
    custom is anathema – a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the halachic
    world today

    “Sex is holy in the context of a marital relationship and not in any other
    context. The "fact" that Jews
    have a lot of pre-marital sex, a lot of Jews do not keep Shabbos, a lot of Jews
    do not study Talmud/Torah– is not relevant to the efficacy of the law in the
    first place.”

    Ahh…a very nice intellectual sleight of hand. Sex is holy in a marital context – says you. But not to everyone who believes in
    halacha. And that is exactly why this is
    issue is different than not observing Shabbat.
    Many orthodox like making this connection but they ignore the fact that,
    quite simply, there is no agreement on the nature of permissible pre-marital
    sexual contact. If you look in the
    sources, you may even find for yourself that the issue is not so cut and dried.
    Your adamant insistence that halacha forbids
    pre-marital sex does not make it so.

  • David N. Friedman

    Thanks, Elisheva, for the response.

    I am trying to separate out the issues and you have a way of blending them. Your reference to condoms must be at public schools and not in our  religious schools. 

    Thanks for being so quick to agree that "many people do wait to have sex" and this contrasts with your stand that your choice to wait was not feasible.  Why not?  What is it about your situation that makes it not feasible but a reality for others?

    I a focusing on the problem by comparing it to other aspects of the law.  No doubt you are shomer Shabbos.  Often, it is difficult to keep Shabbos when one has a trip on Saturday night and there is difficulty in waiting.  Since I became observant, I wait and I do so because I have a lot at stake in observing as many mitzvot as I can. My guess is that you have the commitment to wait as well.  But as fundamental as Shabbat is for the Jew, I don't think that catching a plane before the end of Shabbos constitutes a real character test.

    As my son knows, Jews tend to make quite a stink about the imperative to "make good choices."  We all make mistakes.  The controversy comes when a mistake is not recognized as one and you have taken the stand that you do not believe you could have made a better choice–even when such a choice directly impinges on one's character and I find this problematic.  You simply say, twice, that it was not feasible. It seems that often, it is not feasible to wait until the end of Shabbos to make a trip work out and yet, we always seem to find a way to make it feasible by waiting.  I just don't understand what there is a about a sex act that makes waiting for it to happen  infeasible and you make no attempt to explain it–except to say "that is just the way it goes."  Then, ,I just don't understand why you observe any of the halacha.

    It seems you have a burden to argue the matter with an affirmative case concerning how one's character is not harmed by pre-marital sex.  You have taken a public stand against the law and I wish you could articulate a more persuasive point of view concerning why the law should be eliminated or amended.

    Since you are quick to concede that some people have no trouble waiting much longer–including non-Jews influenced by the merit of the Jewish standard–your point is not at all helped by acknowledging this fact. 

  • andoatnp

    You seem to imply in your article that you will become a regular visitor to the mikvah, but it wasn't entirely clear.  Was the experience good overall, and do you plan on going again in the future, or was once enough?

  • Cavanaugh

    Isn't there a bracha for saying over non-kosher food if one is forced to eat it to sustain life? The one I can actually find with a google search, bore nefashot rabbot, was used during the Shoah, and it would be trivializing it to use it over a cheeseburger one just wanted to have for the pleasure of it. I get the sense that saying it over non-kosher food neither rendered the food kosher nor made matters worse. That it allowed Jews of that time to survive with their dignity and faith intact, I think, means one should probably not be quite so flippant about it.

    Likewise, if an unmarried woman is going to be having sex, but needs to maintain some kind of connection to G-d and to her own sense of the right thing to do, it seems to me like doing the mikvah is still a blessing.

  • Yaakov

    "Kind of like making a bracha …

    over a cheeseburger"

     

    Nu, so you think it's better not to say the bracha? What if the bread is kosher? Aren't half steps better than none?

    I don't eat cheeseburgers, but I do say a bracha over food at my local shul, even if I might have doubts about the hashgacha.

  • Elisheva Wolfe

    David, you're right that many people do wait to have sex.  All I can say regarding my relationship with Ben was that waiting didn't seem feasible to either of us when we started sleeping together, and it doesn't seem any more feasible now.  We were 20 when we met, it's been more than 3 years and neither of us is really thinking about marriage in the near future.  Certainly some people have no trouble waiting for much longer, but neither of us are prepared to wait any longer than we did.  I do understand that it wasn't a halachic decision, but it's not one I've ever regretted (I've never asked Ben, but I bet he'd say the same).  You think we're in the wrong here, and so does halacha and I guess that's just the way it goes.  

     

    I'm not asking anyone–Rabbi Metzger included–to give Ben and me blessings and send us off to bed.  But at this point we're doing everything we can to stay within halacha, and as far as I can tell nothing is gained by the prohibition.

    The argument here is essentially the same as the argument about whether condoms should be distributed in schools.  Do we think fourteen year olds should be having sex?  No.  But if they're going to have sex, which they are, despite our objections, should we do everything we can to make sure that they have safe sex and protect themselves?  I think so.  From everything you've written, David, I assume you don't agree, but that's just where we're going to have to part ways. 

     

  • David N. Friedman

    Truly, Chevy, some people do a much better of a job than others and further–some make an effort and others do not.  The suggestion that "no one is virtuous" indicates that virtue is an unachievable commodity when this is not at all true.  It is the very opposite of the fundamental pre-requisite of having good moral character and being a holy nation.  Holiness does not mean that we have NEVER missed the mark.  It means that we accept the standards and we make a good faith effort to hit the target.

    Absent from the posting from Elisheva was any sense as so why sex just had to take place and if we all make an effort–some of us really go out of our way to have a Jewish life–why not in this major category of sin?

    Temptation never ends and we all have opportunities to have one form of forbidden sex or the other–simply because I am married does not mean that the temptation is over.  Refraining is a baseline demand of Judaism and one cannot say, ,with good faith regarding a sexual affair, "it just happened"–surely, in defense of the action, one  would have to speak about overwhelming pressure and when a Jew is trained in a serious way, the pressure to cut Shabbos short for convenience or eat treif food or chase after one's secretary diminishes.

     

  • ChevyNazi

    No one is truly virtuous. We just look toward virtue and try our best.

  • Helen Jupiter

    …does the law stop religious Jews from engaging in pre-marital sex?  Many of the "religious" Jews i've known have been just as likely to have premarital sex–not to mention cheat–as "secular" Jews.  I've also known plenty of "secular" Jews (and others) who abstain for personal principles.  Religious Jews may aspire to something higher or different, but in the end, they're just human beings with desires, faults, and flaws, like everyone else. 

     

  • David N. Friedman

    Elisheva,I am quick to compliment you on the fact that are asking if what you have done is kosher although it is clear you know the answer quite clearly–it is not.

    The fact that most Jews do not honor the law (almost any Jewish law) is true and this is no excuse to find and seek new standards–unless there is evidence that a law is unfair, unjust or counter-productive. The sexual standards have served the Jewish people well over time and it is a matter of character that brings Jews to follow the standards today. Sadly, I engaged in pre-marital sex and it is clear to me that in retrospect–it was a big mistake.

    Absent in your long detailed entry, is any discussion about the reasoning that brought you to have sex with Ben in the first place. It just happened. I am so pleased that you had guilt and anxiety about being asked about your marital status by the mikvah lady since this demonstrates you knew you were missing the mark. Your ending is quite puzzling and this is why I need to challenge your positing in the same way as I have challenged Tamar's. You write that "most people do not wait to have permission to have sex" and you end on a note disparaging the Rabbis since you believe that their reactions are "naive" and the law will not stop more people from engaging in pre-marital sex.

    But the fact is that the law DOES stop religious Jews from engaging in pre-marital sex–it simply fails to prevent secular minded Jews. And this is where the trouble begins with your writing. What was so important to be gained by not waiting–didn't you both feel pressure to wait–especially since the relationship seemed like it is going in the direction of marriage? You see, it is no wonder why a secular Jew would fail to say a bracha before eating. It is no wonder that a secular Jew would violate Shabbos. On the other hand, It is a wonder why a serious religious Jew would violate a sexual law and this is precisely why the editors of Jewcy are so pleased to invite you to speak so openly about your experience.

    Indeed, it can be argued, if even the religious are having pre-marital sex–why shouldn't all of us?

    You conclude that the mikvah was great–so why no specific remorse about the subterfuge? Perhaps that will come in the years ahead–in the meantime, Jews on the fence can read your article and conclude that the red light that was before them that turned into a yellow light is now a green light.

    "Invisible hand" wants to make pre-maritial sex holy but a bath is not the problem. Sex is holy in the context of a marital relationship and not in any other context. The "fact" that Jews have a lot of pre-marital sex, a lot of Jews do not keep Shabbos, a lot of Jews do not study Talmud/Torah– is not relevant to the efficacy of the law in the first place.

  • Cavanaugh

    Though I’ve always been fairly religious, I don’t exactly look the
    part, what with pink highlights in my hair, black nail polish, and a
    pierced nipple. I couldn’t imagine how a mikvah lady would respond to
    my body, and found myself worrying obsessively that I would be called
    fat.

    This reminded me of something I'd read in Zeek:

    Hearing Beneath the Surface: Crossing Gender Boundaries at the ARI Mikveh 

    It's quite a different perspective, but possibly one of interest. 

  • Rachel Heller

    To Elisheva–thank you for your honesty. I moderate a group that may be of interest to you–see http://mikveh.livejournal.com.

     All the best,

    RSH 

  • invisible_hand

    yes, human sexuality is treif treif TREIF, anonymous.  you got it.  well done.

     

    my friend says about this: it's so frustrating how the rabbis have such an opportunity to create a holy way for people to do this sort of thing, but they're balking.  jews are having lots of premarital sex.  fact.  by balking at finding a kosher way to do something that is not really even forbidden is simply a missed opportunity to have jews follow halakhah. 

  • Anonymous

    over a cheeseburger.