Jewish Identity: Sexuality, Doctrine and Faith

Home , Concubinage, JDate, Judith Plaskow

JEWISH IDENTITY: SEXUALITY, DOCTRINE AND FAITH

Sara Salman

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

The Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Masters in Arts

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, FL

December 2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express sincere gratitude to my committee members for all of their guidance and support, and a special thanks to my chair for her persistence, patience and encouragement during the writing of this thesis. I am grateful to the Center for Women,

Gender and Sexuality Studies for providing the discipline to conduct this research. Last but not least, I wish to thank my family and friends for all of their support.

ABSTRACT

Author: Sara Salman

Title: Jewish Identity: Sexuality, Doctrine and Faith

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Mary Cameron

Degree: Masters of Arts

Year: 2015

Contemporary studies demonstrate that non-marital sex (heterosexual penetrative

sex) is on the rise and opinions about it have become more liberal, as shown by The Pew

Research Center and a study published in 2014 by ChristianMingle and JDate. Pew research also revealed that there are 5.3 million Jews in the United States and one out of five ethnic and cultural Jews report having no religion (Lugo 23). The combination of these two societal trends has caused new issues to emerge in the age-old debate within educational, civic and religious communities about non-marital sex. The conflict over non-marital sex can be traced through the writing of contemporary cultural and feminist critics and parallel trends in rabbinic thought. Socio-sexual change (here explored through the rise in non-marital sex) does directly affect Jewish religiosity and identity.

JEWISH IDENTITY: SEXUALITY, DOCTRINE AND FAITH

List of Figures ...... vii

Chapter I: Introduction ...... 1

Chapter II: Literature Review and Methodology ...... 4

Literature Review ...... 4

Methodology ...... 16

Chapter III: Patriarchy, Prostitutes and Pre-Torah Times ...... 18

The Prostitute and the Concubine ...... 24

Incest and the Patriarchal Protector ...... 28

Chapter IV: Contemporary Jews, Contemporary Rabbis and Traditional Doctrine: A

Standoff ...... 32

Contemporary Rabbis with Traditional Opinions ...... 32

Jewish Identity and Sex: Broad Patterns ...... 40

Contemporary Confusion: Dating, Dating Advice and JDate ...... 45

The Covenant, the Safe Place, the Marriage ...... 49

Chapter V: The Jewish Identity Crisis ...... 54

The Generation Dilemma ...... 60

The Generational Disparity over Non-Marital Sex ...... 62

Chapter VI: Analysis and Conclusion...... 66

Bibliiography ...... 70

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Would you have pre-marital sex?...... 41

Figure 2. How much influence do these individuals have on whom you date?...... 42

Figure 3. How much influence do these individuals have on whom you marry?...... 43

Figure 4. How important are these items to a successful relationship?...... 44

Figure 5. Is being Jewish about culture/ancestry, religion or both? ...... 57

vii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Judaism as an organized religion is over five thousand years old and Jewish reliance on the doctrine (which includes the Torah, Talmud, Mishneh Torah and

Halakhah) for guidance and identity remains applicable today. While the relevancy of doctrine in daily life could be read as an indicator of the stability of the Jewish faith, the possibility of doctrine maintaining a strong presence for five thousand years is in itself questionable. Sages could not have predicted the kinds of changes in societal behavior and social conformity for generations to come. And furthermore, for the purposes of this study, traditional doctrine cannot adequately and legally regulate the sexual behavior of the Jewish population today, and its failure to do so has had a profound influence on

Jewish religiosity and identity.

As a people, Jews are meant to abide by and honor doctrine as it is interpreted by religious leadership. Judaism is divided into movements and each movement has its own platform supported by its own rabbis and congregations. While all Jewish movements have separate, but related, belief systems and internal ways of interpreting social pressures, this research specifically examines the weight and influence of non-marital sex in Reform and Conservative Judaism. Non-marital sex is defined as heterosexual, oral, anal or vaginal sex between two Jewish people who are not married and who are not having sex with the intent to marry each other. Those who participate in non-marital sex

are either not married at the time, have never been married or perhaps will never marry.

Lastly, the research used in this thesis is current and applicable to practicing Reform

and/or Conservative Jews spanning across the ages of 18 to 60, referred to here as

“contemporary Jews”.

Contemporary Jews abide by the traditional doctrine, which includes the Talmud,

which is a written source that includes the Mishnah (oral tradition), the Gemara

(interpretation), and rabbinic opinion and proverbs. But, the primary historical texts

used to interpret Jewish laws pertaining to sex are the Halakhah which is the law derived

from the Torah, written before the third century, and the Mishneh Torah written by Rabbi

Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides) in the twelfth century. These two sources reveal that

the law was meant to police, protect and regulate men in order to restrict prostitution and

incest; however, the laws have instead oppressed and silenced women. For example,

Maimonides, “argues that the incest prohibitions are necessary because otherwise

incestuous relations would be very common. A man has constant and easy access to the

females of his household: they are under his control and he can summon them easily and

with no fear of reprimand or accusations of impropriety” (Biale 180). Maimonides

discusses incest because his aim was to not only restrict sexual activity in general, but

also to ensure that Jews saw incest as a shameful act that should not take place between

the, “root and the branch [Guide of the Perplexed III :49]” (Biale 180).

Maimonides discusses incest and non-marital sex because they were topics of

controversy at the time the Mishneh Torah and the Halakhah were compiled, just as they

remain today. Modern statistics indicate that non-marital sex is a rising social trend

which can be evidenced in a study by ChristianMingle and JDate that reveals that 56% of respondents in 2013 and 63% of respondents in 2014 admit to having sex before marriage

(ChristianMingle 77). Considering this upward trend in non-marital sex and the fact that

the data was gathered from a database that categorized its respondents by type of religion, 2

one questions how the conflict between contemporary societal views surrounding sex and

traditional doctrine affects Jewish religiosity and identity.

This research will look at how contemporary Jewish society is struggling to

rationalize their sexual behavior in conjunction with the rules of their religion.

Preliminary observation suggest that contemporary Jews seem confused, misguided and

misinformed about how to interpret and apply the doctrinal stance on non-marital sex to

their modern day lives. Jewish identity is a vital factor in defining Jewish religiosity and devotion, and how Jews connect with their ancestry, culture and doctrine indicates how they perceive the role of Judaism in their lives. For example, research indicates that since

1950, the percentage of Jews who label themselves as Jewish based on their religious beliefs has declined by 50% (Lugo 7), while simultaneously the number of Jews who identify as not having a religion, as atheist, or as agnostic, but still label themselves as

Jewish has increased. With regard to Jewish identity and attitudes towards non-marital sex, this research on contemporary Reform and Conservative Jewish perspectives includes factors such as dating, cohabitation and generational differences. This thesis hypothesizes that if Jewish religiosity is declining then the rise in non-marital sex is a contributing factor to this decline. Furthermore, the rise in non-marital sex and decline in religiosity directly influences what it means to be Jewish and how Jews identify with

Judaism, resulting in a shift in Jewish identity.

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY

Literature Review

For over five thousand years, Jewish women were not part of the creation of the

Halakhah (written law), they were not ordained rabbis and they were not seen as an equal sex or gender. Men’s intent to regulate activities that men believed were essential to manhood is what established Jewish law. Since before the first century rabbinic decree made it clear that women were seen as a distraction to male Judaism and religiosity; thus, women’s involvement in temple, prayer and religious events was generally restricted to ensure that men could pray without temptation (Ruttenberg 109). Rabbinic opinion and law suggests that the only way men could cope with and combat carnal sexual desire was to ensure that men saw sex as an obligation and commitment to women (Biale 122). This patriarchal notion silenced women and oppressed female presence and involvement in religious life.

As centuries have passed, Judaism has evolved and the role and power of women has drastically changed due to the influence of the Jewish feminist movement. The first

Jewish feminist conference took place in 1973, and since then the Jewish feminist movement continues to, “reject a Judaism that limits the speech of women” (Adler ix), and strives for equality, liberation and sexual freedom (Plaskow 10). Judith Plaskow, a

Jewish feminist and theologian explains that the conflict between being a woman and being a Jew is what influenced her commitment to and advocacy for the Jewish feminist movement. Plaskow explains,

We are here because a secular movement for the liberation of women has made it imperative that we raise certain Jewish issues now, because we will not let ourselves be defined as Jewish women in ways in which we cannot allow ourselves to be defined as women. This creates a conflict not just and not primarily because the women’s movement is a secular movement whose principles we are attempting to apply to an ancient religious tradition, but because the women’s movement is a different community around which we might center our lives. (Plaskow 35)

Furthermore, Rachel Biale, the author of the renowned 1984 publication Women and

Jewish Law: The Essential Texts, Their History, & Their Relevance for Today asserts that,

Feminism has won the day in America, not in the sense that women’s status is now actually equal to men’s, but in that the essential claim that women are equal to men in spiritual and intellectual potential has become an accepted axiom along with other democratic principles. The debate over feminism has become part of the process of coming to terms with American society which has preoccupied American Jews for the past century. Feminism cannot be ignored by Jews any more than any of the other fundamental tenets of American democracy. (Biale 256)

Feminists like Rachel Biale, Judith Plaskow and Rachel Adler have made substantial contributions to the liberalization of Judaism by specifically defining Jewish feminism and establishing female voice and agency.

For example, in 1984, Rachel Biale’s Women and Jewish Law: The Essential

Texts, Their History, & Their Relevance for Today presents a progressive and forward- thinking analysis, especially considering that the Jewish feminist movement did not truly gain national recognition until the late eighties. In 1995, Biale re-published Women and

Jewish Law with a new foreword in which she informs the reader that in the decade that has passed since the book was published, the lives of Jewish women had dramatically changed (Biale ix). She explains that the scope of these changes varies in different

Jewish communities, but that,

Within all communities, women’s roles in Jewish tradition and contemporary society have become a central concern. Women’s issues have contributed a great impetus to the communal and spiritual life of the American Jewish community. Women’s communal roles, women’s spirituality, gender relations, sexuality and feminist theology are among the most vital issues for discussion in contemporary Jewish life. These debates are engaging people who have previously been alienated from Jewish life and revitalizing the Jewish community’s intellectual discourse in general. (Biale ix)

Biale further notes that her book was originally published during a time when the

Conservative Jewish movement was strongly debating the possibility of allowing women to become rabbis (Biale ix). She notes that a decade later, in 1995, women comprised half of the Conservative movement’s rabbinical school, which indicates that the Jewish feminist movement was cultivating change and growth (Biale ix). Regardless of the empowerment of the feminist movement, Biale wants her reader to understand the repressive role and significance of Jewish Halahkhic law and how it affects Jewish identity. She explains;

Throughout many arenas of social change, cultural flux and intellectual engagement, Jewish law, Halakhah, remains a central theme. It may seem, at first glance that Jewish law is a marginal issue, as it is not central to the lives of a majority of contemporary Jewish women (and men) in North America. However such a view misses the profound impact of the Halahkhic discussion in Jewish life. Halakhah has to be understood not only as compilation of normative law, but as the arena in which Jews have traditionally struggled to balance fundamental values with an understanding of their natures as human beings and as Jews, male and female. The Halakhah, embedded in its social and cultural context, and including its non-legal material (aggadah), offers a kind of window into Jewish self-understanding throughout history. (Biale xi)

According to Biale, when addressing difficult and oppressive social inequities, turning to Jewish law for comprehension is a natural reaction. She specifies that understanding the Halakhah from a gender-conscious perspective is an integral part of understanding, “the role and relationship of women and men in Jewish tradition as a whole and in contemporary Jewish life in particular” (Biale xii). Biale explains that the

lives of Jewish women up until roughly the 1970’s can be perceived in a polarized

manner. She states that,

On the one hand, there were those who sought to expose the sexism, patriarchal structures and male privilege of Jewish culture and society. On the other hand, were those who, although writing from a feminist point of view, nevertheless tried to rescue from Jewish traditional practices and texts moments that are “pro- women,” practices that can be affirming of women’s worth and experience” (Biale xii).

However, Biale does not support the notion that the Halakhah can be perceived as a,

“pro-woman” source, nor a legal doctrine that rescued women from patriarchy and oppression. Rather, she asserts that the Halakhah is a reflection of, “what was known to

men about the lives and problems of women, either by observation or report” (Biale 196),

and due to this, “the true historical reality of women’s experience is silent” (Biale 196).

As an example, Biale discusses gender inequity and how the Halakhah views the

unmarried woman in her chapter entitled, “Sexuality Outside of Marriage: Incest,

Adultery, Promiscuity, and Lesbianism”.

She argues that sex and sexuality are a threat to traditional societies because, “on

the one hand the sexual drive is vital for the creation of family and a social structure. On

the other hand it poses a great danger to those very institutions” (Biale 121). She further

asserts that all western traditional religions are faced with interpreting and coping with

the chasm between legitimate sexuality and, “ascetic denial of libidinal drive” (Biale

121). From her perspective, Judaism copes with this chasm by using the confines of

marriage to control sexual impulse. She asserts:

The Halakhah is concerned with the concrete aspects of sexuality; establishing a marital relationship, the frequency of sexual relations, the times of abstention (niddah) and of course, more than anything else, with procreation. The Halakhah combined the sexual drive of a man by harnessing it to the sexual rhythms and needs of his wife. Sexual abstention is mandated by the cycle of menstruation. Sexual activity is directed to fulfilling the mitzvah of onah meeting and 7

responding to the sexual needs of the woman. The quiet introverted sexuality of the woman circumscribes the active extroverted sexuality of the man. It becomes the center and the regulating mechanism of the intimate martial relationship. (Biale 146)

From Biale’s viewpoint there is a clear dichotomy between male and female sexuality.

While male sexuality is seen as animalistic and threatening to familial structure, female

sexuality is seen as hidden, naturally submissive and introverted (Biale 122). For

example, according to the Jewish traditional laws of marriage, a husband, but not a wife, is meant to initiate sex. Legally requiring a husband to initiate sex verifies that women’s sexuality was intentionally pacified, silenced and regulated by male sexuality. Biale states that, “all these categories of deviant sexual relationships are judged by the same yardstick of “normative sexuality.” Normative sexuality in Jewish law is heterosexual, initiated by the male, and confined within marriage” (Biale 197). While the marital laws pertaining to sex specified gender roles and expected behavior, the laws pertaining to non-marital sex expose a parallel gender inequity. Biale points out that the doctrinal laws themselves are inconsistent and cause confusion, which only furthers the inequity. First

she asserts that,

As long as she is not betrothed or married, a woman may have sexual relations with one or more men without violating any explicit sexual prohibition. Sexual relations outside the framework of marriage are not adultery for a single woman, just as they are not for a single or married man. If a single woman has an exclusive sexual relationship with a man whom she could legally marry, that relationship is construed as a common law marriage, and should she switch her alliance without a divorce, she would be considered adulteress. (Biale 190)

However, Biale then explains that regardless of the fact that sex outside of marriage does

not always constitute adultery; non-marital sex in general for women is prohibited

according to the Halakhah. She states that, “the Halakhah does not accept such non- marital sexuality, but condemns it and labels it promiscuity (zenut)” (Biale 190). Biale

explains that zenut can be defined in one of three ways; “first it is a term connoting professional prostitution. Second, it refers to sexual relations of an unmarried woman which are not aimed at effecting marriage, but rather are done for pleasure. Third, zenut is often used as a descriptive term to condemn any kind of illicit sexual alliance, including adultery” (Biale 190). Biale notes that the concern over zenut is abundantly present in the Halakhah, which is why rabbinic authority wanted to ensure that sex remained a marital act. In order to ensure that sex was an act confined to the marital bed,

Jewish law created the term zenut to shame women who did not remain virgins until marriage. Biale explains that the discussion and regulation of non-marital sex in the

Halakhah proves that it was a topic of concern within traditional Jewish societies.

Therefore, non-marital sex is not a new topic of discussion, but as Biale states, “in the course of fashioning Jewish identities the language of the past always echoes. It reverberates even in the most daring and creative innovations” (Biale xiii).

As of 1984, (when Biale first published her book) the most daring and creative innovation that directly affected the role of women in Jewish society was the Jewish feminist movement. Thus, due to feminists like Rachel Biale, the tools and methods to invoke change could potentially eradicate this echoing of the language of the past. Judith

Plaskow, a pioneer of the Jewish feminist movement, explains that, “the core of tradition is not a given, but a subject of fierce and ever-renewed debate over where Judaism should be headed and who will have the power to decide. To be a Jewish feminist is to enter energetically into this debate, advocating on behalf of Jewish women and other marginalized groups within and outside of the Jewish community” (Plaskow 18). In The

Coming of Lilith: Essays on Feminism, Judaism, and Sexual Ethics, 1972-2003, Plaskow states that women are conflicted between being Jews and being women because the 9

combination of the two identities is undefined. She asserts that Jewish feminists and women in general are faced with a sense of distance between their womanhood and

Judaism, and Plaskow turns to the ideas of Mary Daly to support her assertion. Plaskow quotes Mary Daly when she asserts,

Women have had our power of naming stolen from us. From the day God brought the animals to Adam in the Garden of Eden to see what he would call them, it has been through the words of men that we have known and addressed the world. Although we do not know in advance that their words are not our words, neither do we know that they are. At a time when we are newly discovering and naming ourselves, we need to name anew the world around us. (Plaskow 36)

According to Plaskow, the complexities facing Jewish women are based on the core of traditional Judaism, and she wonders how the Jewish feminist movement can combat,

“the problems we as women face in relation to our tradition, [that] are deep and complex, involving almost every aspect of tradition” (Plaskow 38). She asks, “where then are we going to find the new words, our words, which need to be spoken? How can we find the words that are our words and yet are Jewish words? Can we- how can we- assure

ourselves in advance that if we are true to our own experience we can remain in

continuity with tradition?” (Plaskow 38). She explains that the differences between the

masculine and feminine experience is what oppresses Jewish women and creates certain

polarities that she labels as cultural mythologies. Plaskow explains:

The reality of our lived experience as men and women, while never free from sex- role stereotypes, is also not defined by them. Individuals may struggle with or against sex roles as well as compromise with or accept them. Often in the course of compromise and struggle, the roles are altered or enriched in ways that are significant for theology. And yet, when all is said and done, the “wisdom” the sexual polarity expressed arises out of and is reabsorbed into a general social mythology that is part of the cultural air we breathe. (Plaskow 41)

Plaskow asserts that the Halakhah is the cause for gender polarity and oppression,

identifying the Halakhah as, “the center of feminist agitation for religious change”

(Plaskow 57). She acknowledges that some of the agitation has been alleviated due to

women’s roles as rabbis, their freedom to read the Torah and their at-will liberty to divorce. However, one consistent element that produces conflict within the Jewish movements is sex.

Plaskow argues that sex is defined by a male perspective and control. The sexual norms established by traditional Judaism are based on, “concerns about purity, status and control of women’s sexuality that serve the interests of male elites and that have long ceased to reflect the ethical insights or values of contemporary Jews” (Plaskow 186). In turn, she stresses that there is an abyss between contemporary Jewish sexual behaviors and traditional sexual norms (Plaskow 207). Lastly, she asks valuable yet unanswerable questions when she postulates, “to what extent are the Jewish people bound by the values of the past? How can Jews know what values are too fundamental to be surrendered? [..]

What happens when aspects of contemporary experience seem to offer a richer moral vision then that found in Jewish tradition?” (Plaskow 207). In her book, Engendering

Judaism: an Inclusive Theology and Ethics, Rachel Adler, asserts that devotion to sacred text and traditional Jewish law is part of the core of Judaism, but unfortunately, the laws

exclude and marginalize women. She explains that the Halakhah constantly challenges

the complexities of developing and understanding a Jewish theology because the Jewish

community uses the Halakhah as a source for definitive answers and systematics. Adler

states that, “gender has been used to justify unequal distributions of social power and

privilege. Feminists view these power disparities as a moral wrong and an obstacle to

human flourishing” (Adler xvii).

Furthermore, Adler argues that, “Halakhah is not only a theoretical discourse, but

an institutional structure over which exclusively male decisors exercise authority. These 11

decisors were not eager to correct the system that privileged them” (Adler xx). Adler

supports the notion that despite gender inequity the Jewish feminist movement has helped

Jewish women position themselves in leadership roles in the fields of religious education

and divinity. She states that between 1973 and 1983, “the Reform, Reconstructionist, and

Conservative movements all began ordaining women as rabbis. In all branches of

Judaism, access to religious participation, communal leadership and higher Jewish

education took a quantum leap” (Adler xviii). She acknowledges that the Jewish feminist

movement has made strides in overthrowing the massive gender inequity which is

supported by the Halakhah, but,

Whether gender justice is possible within Halakhah and whether a feminist Judaism requires a Halakhah at all are foundational questions of feminist Jewish theology that have no parallel to Christian feminist theology. A language for critique could not be borrowed from it. Appropriating the terms and methods of Halakhah itself, many feminists concluded, drew them into a game they could not win. (Adler xx)

Adler is not clear about whether she believes that Jewish feminism needs a foundational

source like the Halakhah to answer theological questions at all. She explains that the,

“Halakhah became the feminists’ elephant in the living room. Everyone agreed it was in

the way, and no one knew how to get rid of it”. (Adler xx) She postulates that if the

feminist Jewish movement wants to see change in gender inequities and the ethics of sexuality, Jewish feminists will have to use the traditional laws pertaining to sex to help elucidate the distinction between how past and present Jewish communities adhere to these laws. She believes that, “Jewish attitudes and praxis concerning sexuality differ according to historical context, that they are not untouched by time” (Adler 110).

Adler stresses that when her work was published in 1998 it was the time to establish not only a strong Jewish theology, but a logical and sufficient sexual ethics to

which modern Jews could acclimate. She acknowledges that, even in 1998, society could

have been perceived as, “highly sexualized” and lonely, “with insatiable sexual longings”

compounded with, “our confusion about sexual ethics” (Adler 127). She states,

Right now, Americans are in a time of wandering with regard to sexual ethics. The last thirty years have seen sweeping changes in sexual behavior. It is now common for unmarried people of all ages to engage in sex; adolescents in their hormonal prime, young adults who are finishing lengthy educations and are unready to make lifetime commitments, singles seeking compatible life partners, older widows and widowers wanting inheritances. Feminism has encouraged women to demand equal power in marriages, to strive for economic independence and to leave marriages that are unhappy or violent. More people live openly gay or lesbian lives. Unprecedented technological advances have made it possible for people to have sex without having children and to have children without having sex. There is a bewildering range of sexual options with so many lifted constraints. (Adler 126)

Adler strongly emphasizes that modern Jewish society can be, “sexual in a holy way” and

that we can no longer read, “these texts in fundamentalist and ahistorical ways” so that

we can, “eradicate whatever sexual boundaries we still possess” (Adler 126). Adler

firmly believes that the Torah is not meant to have one fixed meaning, but rather what

she considers, “inexhaustible meanings” (Adler 126). Therefore, she proposes with

optimism that,

What we have learned, what bridges this gap is the human willingness to recreate the world so that what we hold sacred is expressed in all our institutions and relationships. Precisely because sexual values and relations are contextual, and not merely instinctual, because they have varied according to place and time, we have the capacity to create them anew over and over, along with ourselves and our world. (Adler 111)

While Rachel Adler, Judith Plaskow and Rachel Biale all expose the vast gender

inequities within the confines of Jewish law and explain the valuable role of the Jewish

feminist movement, all three feminists call for change without recommending a finite

method. Biale acknowledges that historically Jewish traditional law ostracized women

from Jewish identity, which silenced women and positioned them as other. She confirms 13

that Jews have struggled and continue to struggle to define their roles as humans and as

Jews. Unfortunately, the struggle over identity stems from the Halakhah which only

exacerbates and promotes dichotomies between human versus Jew and man versus

woman. Biale confirms that the traditional written and oral laws of Judaism were

established by men and for men. Due to this patriarchal legal system, valuable societal

topics such as sex received one-sided regulation by male scope and male sexuality.

Therefore, Biale asserts that in order to police the essentialism of male sexuality and

restrict and silence female sexuality the term zenut was used to shame women and their

families. Biale does not offer a detailed solution for how Jews should and will overcome

their silencing and sexual oppression, but she does put out a call for change. Plaskow

answers Biale’s call for creative rethinking and innovation by attempting to trace a new

Jewish theology.

Plaskow strongly affirms that the Jewish feminist movement is an integral part of creative and innovative growth. She admits that Jewish feminists struggle to combat the power of such a deep-rooted body of law like the Halakhah. She explains that regardless of the strides made thus far for women, the abyss between contemporary sexual behavior and traditional sexual norms continues to limit women and Jewish society in general.

Plaskow confirms Biale’s findings that a polarity exists between men and women and this polarity creates opposing binaries not just between human and Jew, but between woman and Jew specifically. She attributes the distance between womanhood and Judaism to the fact that men have been in charge of naming and speaking on behalf of women for centuries. The male-dominated discourse surrounding Jewish identity stands as a barrier to fluid change for women’s Jewish identities.

After centuries of gender inequity and a tradition of strict adherence to the

Halakhah, Jewish feminists are calling for a Jewish theology to help clarify Jewish identity and create a systematic understanding of Judaism and its laws. Establishing a

Jewish theology creates the possibility of overthrowing the Halakhah. As Rachel Adler notes, the Halakhah for the Jewish feminist movement and theologians is, “the elephant in the living room” (Adler xx). Adler further states that while the Halakhah fuels gender inequity, it should be used as a comparative tool to show the Jewish movement how time has directly affected adherence to the law. Adler acknowledges that American society, even in 1998, is in a stage of sexual change and growth and the unprecedented technological advances have created what she labels as, “lifted constraints,” or what can be considered new sovereignty (Adler 126). She also notes that humans today have the ability to recreate the world and she believes that we are definitely capable of taking on such an overwhelming task. Nonetheless, Adler does not offer specific ideas about how to bring about this change or how to eradicate the elephant in the room. Rather, she postulates that Jewish society can either reject the Halakhah in totality or assess it and determine whether the rules it imposes are appropriate and realistic for modern day Jews.

Problematically, none of these feminists have discussed what rejecting or reassessing the Halakhah means for Jewish identity or how such change could affect

Jewish religiosity. If the Jewish feminist movement were to compare the Halahkhic laws pertaining to sex to modern day behavior, would this expose a change in Jewish identity and devotion? Adler, Plaskow and Biale do not discuss a potential decline or increase in

Jewish religiosity, or the long-term effects that their ideas will have on Judaism and

Jewish society. All three feminists discuss valuable strides made due to the advocacy of the Jewish feminist movement, but they also express their continued frustrations with a 15

patriarchal system that has oppressed women for centuries. Finally, while all of these

scholarly feminists address the significance of the Jewish feminist movement, as well as the intricacies of the gender inequity and the confusion it has caused, none of them deeply examine the implications for what this means for Jewish identity for future women and generations to come.

Methodology

This thesis aims to expose evolving thought and the growth or stagnancy of controversial opinions within literature about the conflict contemporary Jews are facing between religious doctrine, non-marital sexual freedom and levels of religiosity and identity.

This thesis employs interpretive textual analysis to the feminist, rabbinic and doctrinal literature to examine whether or not contemporary Judaism is in a state of conflict over non-marital sex and how that conflict affects Jewish identity. A data set of surveys is also used in this thesis to depict statistical trends in societal behavior and decision-making and reveal the positioning of Jewish society in relation to non-marital sex and levels of religiosity. Interpretive textual analysis as well as the specific data set collected will assist this thesis in determining whether or not non-marital sex is a contributing factor to a decline in Jewish religiosity and a shift in Jewish identity.

CHAPTER III: PATRIARCHY, PROSTITUTES AND PRE-TORAH TIMES

Moses Ben Maimon (also known as “Maimonides” or the “Rambam” was born in

1135 in Cordova, Andalusia, Spain and he was a, “descendant of an illustrious Spanish family which for many generations occupied a very important place in Jewish life in

Andalusia” (Zeitlin 1). Maimonides was a, “scion of a prominent rabbinical family that traced its ancestry to Rabbi Yehuidah HaNassi, the compiler of the Mishnah, and further back to King David” (Finkel xii). Maimonides most influential mentor was his father

Rabbi Maimon ben Yosef, also known as the, “dayan (religious judge) of Cordova, from whom he received a wide-ranging proficiency in the Talmud” (Finkel xii).

In 1178, Maimonides completed his magnum opus entitled, the Mishneh Torah.

The Mishneh Torah is comprised of fourteen books that are considered the first

documented codification and compilation of Jewish Biblical and Talmudic law.

Maimonides labeled his compilation the “Mishneh Torah” because in Hebrew it means,

“second to the Torah of Moses who handed down the first constitution of the Jewish

people” (Zeitlin xiv). In his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides explains

that he wrote this masterpiece with the intent to clarify Jewish law (particularly oral

Jewish law) so that the old and even young Jewish population would find a

comprehensive understanding of the law in one source. The Mishneh Torah is an

interpretation and clarification of the Mishnah, which is a written compilation of oral law

and, “is the earliest portion of the Talmud” (Finkel xiv). The Mishnah is, “written in

extremely concise language, the Mishnah formed the basis of all later Talmudic writings, but by itself, it was most difficult to understand.” (Kaplan 4). One of the reasons why the

Mishnah is difficult to understand is because, “rabbinic teachings were studied and transmitted orally… and the Babylonian Talmud, is largely dialectical and dialogical; it reads as an ongoing give-and-take about a myriad of topics” (Kaplan 95). However,

Maimonides wrote the first clear commentary on the Mishnah to help clarify these laws because they are so central to Jewish thought.

After writing the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides continued to write and research in the fields of medicine, astronomy, Talmudic law, philosophy and, interestingly for this thesis, human sexual desire and dysfunction. His Treatise on Cohabitation discusses carnal desire, aphrodisiacs and his view on controlling sexual temptation. He reportedly wrote the Treatise on Cohabitation for the Sultan of Hamat Syria, who ruled from 1186 to 1191 A.D; the Sultan confided in Maimonides about his desire to increase his sexual propensities. Maimonides wrote his Treatise on Cohabitation in generalities to maintain the Sultan’s anonymity, but focused his research on fulfilling the Sultan’s sexual inquiries and needs (Rosner ix). Additionally, Maimonides wrote a book titled the Cure of Soul, which divulged his medical research about, “psychic impotence and priapism”

(Zeitlin 176).

Today, Maimonides would be perceived as a modern day social scientist who took an interest in informing Jews about the Talmudic laws pertaining to sex. Regardless of Maimonides’ seemingly liberal fascination with sex, throughout the Mishneh Torah as well as all of his treatises, he consistently claims that non-marital sexual relations are forbidden in codified Jewish law because harlotry is prohibited (Broyde 97).

Maimonides research indicates that during the twelfth century, sex and sexual desire were 19

topics of curiosity and discussion. Regardless of the cause for Maimonides research, he

continuously reiterates that the Mishneh Torah stands by the expectations of the

Halakhah in stating that non-marital sex is unacceptable. Problematically, in the

Halakhah as well as the Mishneh Torah, the explanation as to why non-marital sex is unacceptable is inconsistent. Michael Broyde’s, Marriage, Sex, and Family in Judaism explores two specific, “diverse attitudes to extramarital sexuality in Jewish Law” (Broyde

96).

Broyde’s first viewpoint asserts that in Maimonides Laws of Marriage 1:4, “it is commonly claimed that Maimonides was of the view that all non-marital sexual relationships were prohibited by the Jewish law prohibition against harlotry” (Broyde

97). Broyde asserts that this viewpoint was also supported by Rabbi Solomon Adret who, “posits that the sexual companionship really is permitted by natural law, and was practiced in pre-biblical times, but was prohibited by operation of normative Jewish law, once the Torah was given” (Broyde 97). During pre-Torah times, non-marital sex was a common, public and agreeable occurrence and the Hebrew term for this street-side sexual encounter is Kedeshah, meaning sacred prostitute. It is said that, “before the time of the giving of the Torah, if a man met a woman in the street and they were both agreeable, he would give her price and they would have intercourse at the roadside, after which he went his way” (Goldman 245). While Israelite society often viewed Kedeshahs as respected citizens and entrepreneurs, “prostitutes were a reality in Israelite society, but biblical legislation took a negative view of their occupation” (Ruttenberg 25). Biblical legislation viewed Kedeshahs as a challenge to Jewish society because as the Torah states, “no

Israelite woman shall be a Kedeshah (Deutoronomy 23:18). Therefore, any man who has

paid intercourse with a woman is to be punished at the order of the Jewish community 20

court for the transgression of this commandment of the Torah, since he had intercourse

with a Kedeshah” (Goldman 245). This viewpoint suggests that the creation and

implementation of the Torah is what redefined the meaning and significance of the sacred

prostitute. Broyde states that the, “classical Jewish law code of the middle of the

sixteenth century has no substantial agreement on the nature of extramarital sexuality.

One view considers all extramarital sexuality as illicit, and the other permits non-marital

sexuality so long as it is not furtive or embarrassing” (Broyde 96). When examining

what Broyde labels as, “no substantial agreement on the nature of extramarital sexuality,”

feminist perspective asserts that the Mishneh Torah, Talmud, Halakhah and the Torah

were all written by men and therefore, they were written with the intent to privilege male

sexuality (Adler xx). A common debated topic within feminist theory is the notion of

essentialism. For an understanding of essentialism the renowned feminist Simone De

Beauvoir explains:

Man thinks himself without woman. Woman does not think herself without man. And she is nothing other than what man decides; she is thus called “the sex”, meaning that male sees her essentially as a sexed being, for him she is sex, so she is it in the absolute. She is determined and differentiated in relation to man, while he is not in relation to her; she is the inessential in front of the essential. He is the subject, he is the Absolute. She is the other. (De Beauvoir 6)

Specifically, when applying Simone De Beauvoir notions about essentialism to the

creation of the Mishneh Torah, Talmud, Halakhah and Torah it is clear that men wrote these doctrine perceiving women as other and man as absolute. While the law labels women who have sex before, after or outside of their marriages as prostitutes, the law does not speak of this dilemma for men, unless they have sex with a married woman or a family member. The Talmud makes an attempt to support male sexuality outside marriage by allowing what rabbinic decree labels as concubinage or pilegesh. If men are

conducting a relationship before, after or during their marriage with a non-married woman, the Talmud presents this as a quasi-marriage. Broyde explains that a “quasi- marriage” is the second common viewpoint that is based on rabbinic decree in the

Talmud.

The Talmud asserts that monogamous sexual relationships with the intent to marry can be considered cohabitation and therefore a quasi-marriage. The Talmud,

“contemplates the possibility that a faithful sexual companion is actually fully and completely married, but without any of the financial obligations or rights associated with a normal marriage” (Broyde 101). The reason why the Talmud contemplates labeling cohabitation as a quasi-marriage is because the Talmud stringently asserts that marriage is required for procreation. Therefore, by labeling a cohabiting relationship a quasi- marriage, the Talmud offered the possibility of creating legitimate children. Furthermore, to ensure that cohabitation can be considered a quasi-marriage the Talmud stipulates that if cohabitation does not result in a marriage or the woman does not remain monogamous, then traditional doctrinal Judaism would perceive this as female prostitution instead of a quasi-marriage. As the Mishneh Torah repeatedly stipulates, “anyone who fornicates with a woman licentiously (z’nut) outside of marriage is liable to biblically mandated flogging for he has fornicated with a prostitute (Mishneh Torah Hikhot Ishut 1:4) (Cohen

637). It can be surmised that cohabitation was labeled as a quasi-marriage to primarily protect men from harlotry and to limit female sexuality to monogamous relationships only.

The two attitudes discussed by Broyde exemplify doctrinal representations of

Jewish laws pertaining to non-marital sex. The first viewpoint explains that sex outside of marriage for women is considered prostitution and during pre-Torah times, non- 22

marital sex was an act that occurred, “on the streets” and, although paid for, was certainly not discrete nor condemned. The second viewpoint infers that if two heterosexual Jews are in a sexual relationship and the woman remains monogamous, this can be perceived as a quasi- marriage. This notion of quasi-marriage allows cohabitation to be a

negotiating tool to help Jewish men legally justify their sexual relationships with women

who are not their wives, but who remain monogamous to them. These viewpoints

combined indicate that the doctrine was established to help maintain the notion that, “pre-

marital continence is not only the correct mode of behavior, but that it is in the best

interests of the individual, the family and society” (Goldman 239). The cause for this

insistence is because rabbinic opinion inscribed in the Talmud demands that marriage is

necessary for Jews to procreate. As Arthur Waskow, a notoriously liberal rabbi and scholar, explains,

For most of Jewish tradition the link between sex and procreation was very strong, but not absolute. This connection strongly influenced rabbinic attitudes toward masturbation, homosexuality, contraception, abortion and marriage. The Rabbis paid great homage to what they considered the first of all the commandments, ‘To be fruitful and multiply, and fill up the earth and subdue it” (Waskow 314).

Finally, Broyde’s two viewpoints indicate that the Mishneh Torah and Torah’s attempt to

clarify rules pertaining to non-marital sex have made it more complex and open to

subjective manipulation in order to fulfill sexual needs. The Torah and the Mishneh

Torah’s rules pertaining to non-marital sex were established to help Jewish men find self- control, but these rules ended up privileging men and silencing women only fueling male essentialism. The Jewish doctrine written by men, privileges men and perpetuates the essentialized man by making women the sex object and “other”. Due to male,

heteronormative control over Jewish doctrine women were faced with a challenging

dichotomy as a wife or as prostitute.

The Prostitute and the Concubine

Heterosexual, non-marital, sexual relationships were not a topic of in-depth

discussion in the Halakhah. The Halakhah directly addresses incest and adultery, but

addresses non-marital sex by using terms like zenut. A zenut or prostitute, according to the Mishneh Torah, is defined as a woman who surrenders herself to any man, and/or any woman who resides in a brothel (Cohen 638). The Torah presents prostitutes as part of the culture, beginning in the first century A.D. Girls and women who were orphans, divorcees, and/or widows typically became prostitutes because they were no longer viable candidates for marriage (Cohen 643). The Halakhah discusses prostitution as an act of non-marital sex and labels it zenut (Biale 190). Zenut is a term used in the

Halakhah that means harlotry or licentiousness (Cohen 636).

According to Rachel Biale, zenut can be defined in three ways. First it can denote

professional prostitution, it can refer to sexual acts performed by a woman for pleasure

without the intent of marriage, and lastly, it is a word that condemns adultery and, “illicit sexual alliances” (Biale 191). The Torah’s decree to restrict non-marital sex resulted in a blatant gender inequity because although the Torah uses the term zenut as a tactic to limit non-marital sex, men were not forbidden from hiring unbetrothed (not married or engaged) prostitutes. Instead, we can understand zenut as a term that stigmatized women

to help control female sexual pleasure, regulate virginity and ensure that men did not

commit adultery. However, rabbinic decree used zenut as a circumstantial term, in

certain cases zenut meant promiscuous prostitution, but in other circumstances zenut could relate to an alternative female sexual companion known as a pilegesh or concubine.

The concubine gave men sexual privilege, and thus reinforced males greater privilege overall in society. But the figure of the concubine complicated female sexuality. Robert Gordis explains that, “in vain did the great Maimonides try to prohibit concubinage; not only did the practice continue, but most contemporary and later rabbinical authorities… accepted it. Acceptance, of course, did not mean approval”

(Gordis 168). A concubine cannot be considered a virgin, a prostitute or a wife, so concubines’ sexuality is dependent upon whether or not the relationship remains monogamous. If the relationship fails, then the woman is automatically labeled as a prostitute because she is no longer a virgin and therefore no longer a candidate for marriage. According to rabbinic opinion, an acceptable concubine was a woman who was not and had never been married and was strictly monogamous with one man. While the concubine was not discussed frequently or consistently in Halahkhic law, it is argued that the term concubine was established to appease patriarchs and monarchs such as

Abraham, Jacob, King David and King Solomon (Broyde 97). Broyde explains that, “the rabbis of the Talmud sensed that this model of faithful companionship was deeply unstable and prohibited it as it seemed to them to devolve into simple promiscuity- twenty minutes of companionship was enough. In this view, faithful sexual companionship was prohibited as a prophylactic rule against promiscuity by rabbinic decree” (Broyde 98). But, rabbinic opinions about concubinage were conflicting amongst rabbis and this resulted in tense and opposing perspectives and arguments. As an example, Rabbi Irving Breitowitz, a law professor at the University of Maryland and

the author of the 1993 publication, Between Civil and Religious Law: The Plight of the

Agunah in American Society, explains:

It would be inconceivable for a religious system to set up the concubine as a viable and equal or even preferable mode of relationship. Such a proposal, it was said, degrades the sanctity of marriages and family life, promotes promiscuity, denigrates women and would be a “cure” considerably worse than the illness it seeks to alleviate. (Broyde 101)

Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel, a 13th century Talmudist, states:

Nevertheless, she cannot be forbidden (to enter) such a relationship and thereby be considered an unmarried woman who engages in promiscuous sexuality (which is prohibited), because in this case she is living with a man in the manner of marriage and it is not promiscuous (and not prohibited). (Broyde 101)

When comparing the perspectives of these two authors, spanning across seven centuries, it is clear that concubinage has been a topic of debate throughout centuries within the rabbinic movement. Rabbi Breitowitz explains that concubinage should not be considered a viable model for a Jewish heterosexual relationship because it devalues the sanctity of marriage and family. He further asserts that concubinage compromises female sexuality because it presents female sexuality as prostitution because it cannot be considered a legal marriage. (Broyde 101). However, Rabbi Asher offers an opposing opinion indicating that in essence, marriage is about monogamy and commitment, which concubinage would provide. These two opinions are an example of how Talmudic law and the Halakhah are not interpreted consistently and do not provide a clear legal ground.

If Jewish society cannot turn to its legal body for answers, it is unclear what Jewish communities and their leaders expect of their members, especially in terms of sexual behaviors. Biale explains:

The problem of sexual relations between a man and a woman who are both free of marital ties is complicated… The biblical prohibitions which form the basis of the sexual code in the Halakhah only prohibit incestuous and adulterous relations. The rabbis attempt to resolve this dilemma in two ways. As a general rule they 26

apply the principle Ein adam oseh be’ilato be’ilat zenut, meaning that one does not generally cohabit with promiscuity (zenut) in mind, but rather the praiseworthy purpose of effecting Kiddushin [Marriage or Bethrothal]. Thus a man and a woman who carry on a full sexual relationship are really presumed married, rather than acting promiscuously. However, when circumstances indicate, the rabbis reverse this rule and render sexual relations a mere act of zenut, rather than an act of betrothal. (Biale 192)

Biale infers in the quote above that the law is manipulated according to the circumstance and can be used as a tool to discriminately control a person or activity, regardless of what the written doctrine promotes or condemns. She confirms that due to the manipulation of power, the rabbinic enforcement of the law creates tension and muddles any potentially finite understanding of the doctrine. It is clear that while written law condemns those who participate in non-marital sex, rabbinic opinion and oral tradition and customs, seen through Talmudic decree, seem to contradict and challenge the rigidity of written law.

This contradiction portrays the traditional doctrine as a conflicting and inconsistent source to rely upon when attempting to understand non-marital sex and its legal, customary and gendered parameters.

While doctrine not only presents a confusing stance on non-marital sex, it also blatantly reveals that the Halakhic laws pertaining to non-marital sex were created to regulate male sexual behavior and oppress female non-marital sexuality. The Halakhah’s insistence that a woman is a harlot, zenut or a concubine if she has sex outside of marriage compared to the Halakhah’s silence in relation to what this means for men only exacerbates the gender inequity. While men can only shame their families and themselves for having sex with a married woman or a family member based on Halakhic law, women cannot have non-marital sex in any circumstance without instantly being labeled as a prostitute.

Incest and the Patriarchal Protector

When Jewish doctrinal law was established, women did not have a public or religious voice and therefore the laws were made by and for men. While doctrinal law imposed stringent rules upon women, the supposed intent was to suppress male sexual behavior. Non-marital sex is a topic that is not concisely defined by doctrinal parameters, but incest, which can be a form of non-marital sex, has absolute and defined constraints in oral, customary and written laws.

Incest is one of very few topics in doctrinal law that applies punishment equally to the sexes (Biale 179). According to the Halakhah, a man is prohibited from having sexual relations with every woman in his family, including extended female family members, dating back to four generations with the exception of his nieces (Biale 179). If a man has sexual relations or marries any woman in his family with the exception of his niece, both parties will be punished equally, which is stated in Leviticus 20. (Biale 179)

As discussed by Rachel Adler, the decisors of the law (men) were less likely to create and impose laws that negatively affected them. As Rabbi Marc Katz reiterates, “in exploring the roots of the Jewish law regarding sex and intentionality, it is important to note that the texts considered were written by heterosexual men. Their context is male centered and heteronormative” (Grushcow 112). Since women did not participate in the creation of

Jewish Law, male and female sexuality are portrayed as a binary. As Biale explains,

Female sexuality is seen very differently. This reflects as much social convention as it does that fact that our sources do not relay women’s feelings and experiences firsthand, but men’s perceptions and conjectures regarding women’s sexuality […] The notion is that though her sexuality is hidden, a woman’s sexual impulse is as powerful as a man’s obvious eroticism; perhaps her passion is even greater than that of man. (Biale 122)

While male sexuality is egocentric, and according to Biale, “a greater threat to familial

and social structures,” female sexuality is considered, “introverted and passive” (Biale

122). The traditional doctrinal laws were established to regulate the imposing threat of

what Biale labels as, “man’s obvious eroticism” (Biale 122). Biale explains, “it [male

sexuality] must be restrained through the controls of marriage, procreative duties,

responsibility toward the woman, and a powerful taboo on male homosexuality and

masturbation” (Biale 122). Biale also explains that due to the patriarchal structure of the

traditional Jewish family, “women rely on fathers, brothers and husbands to be their

protectors” (Biale 179). Doctrinal law therefore supports a need for women to be

protected because men were seen as sexual predators. For example, Maimonides’ Guide

for the Perplexed infers that incest would run rampant due to the male sex drive and the

availability of women in the household if doctrinal law did not restrict male temptation

(Biale 180).

If the father, grandfather and brothers have a duty to protect the women of their

family, this would explain why harlotry was forbidden by the Mishneh Torah and the

Halakhah. Traditional Judaism feared the possibility that women were not virgins, and if

a woman was not a virgin before marriage the only alternative was that she was a

prostitute. The Mishneh Torah and the Halakhah established laws about non-marital sex out of fear that daughters would become prostitutes, thus increasing the chance of incest.

Judith Baskin asserts,

A significant reason for this attempt to deter Jewish men from frequenting Jewish prostitutes was the fear of incest. According to an early midrashic collection of Leviticus, “Whoever hands his unmarried daughter (to a man) not for the purposes of matrimony,” as well as the women who makes herself sexually available not for the purposes of matrimony, could lead to the whole world being filled with mamzerim (illegitimate children0, since from his consorting with many women and not knowing with whom, or if she had intercourse with many men 29

and does not know with whom-he could marry his own daughter, or marry her to his son (Sifra Kedoshin 7, 1-5). Such disastrous misalliances would be far less likely to occur if Jewish men avoided Jewish prostitutes. (Ruttenberg 30)

While the laws pertaining to non-marital sex purportedly protected women from men, they were primarily created to prevent men from shaming themselves and their families by violating doctrinal law that forbids them from having sex with their family members or married women. Doctrinal law was created in a man’s world, by and for men, so the law portrays women as other, temptresses, or wife. The dichotomy between whore and wife was supposedly created to preserve marriage and procreation; however, in actuality it stabilized patriarchy and protected men from their, “obvious eroticism” (Biale 122).

The doctrine asserts that non-marital sex for women was an act in which only prostitutes partook, but Jewish oral law and customary traditions even dating back to the first century, have challenged the doctrine’s rigid rejection of non-marital sex. Rabbinic decree was a vital part of interpreting Jewish law; if rabbinic decree presents conflicting opinion then how could Jewish society not feel conflicted? While society has evolved and there have been shifts in sexuality, Jewish doctrinal law has not accommodated these changes. To change Jewish doctrine is to ask rabbinic opinion to admit to and accept the behavior of the modern society in which we thrive. If rabbis do not acclimate, acknowledge and accept Jewish societal sexual behavior then doctrinal law and Jewish society will remain at odds, which could cause a decline in religiosity. This potential standoff presents hardship in Jewish society, because the growing and revolutionized society fails to relate to and abide by a stagnant legal system that dates back more than five thousand years. If Jewish society can no longer relate to it legal body then how can

Jews relate to Judaism?

CHAPTER IV: CONTEMPORARY JEWS, CONTEMPORARY RABBIS AND

TRADTIONAL DOCTRINE: A STANDOFF

When analyzing Jewish attitudes and perceptions about sex there is a clear binary established between doctrinal law and contemporary behavior. Regardless of the statistical fact that non-marital sex is on the rise in contemporary Jewish society, rabbis are critical of contemporary sexual behavior because it is inconsistent with doctrinal expectations. However, modern rabbinic opinion about non-marital sex mimics the inconsistencies of rabbinic decree dating back to the Talmud, which suggests that non- marital sex has been a topic of debate for centuries. However, to further the confusion, contemporary Jewish societal opinion about non-marital sex is as equally inconsistent as contemporary rabbinic opinion. Inconsistent contemporary rabbinic and societal opinion reveals that contemporary Jewish society is in a perpetual state of confusion over the topic of non-marital sex, and the ramifications for this confusion could directly affect

Jewish identity and religiosity.

Contemporary Rabbis with Traditional Opinions

In a 2010 Pew Research Center survey of 3,412 Jewish Americans, only eight percent of those interviewed were able to identify Maimonides as a Jew, yet anthologies and sources published by rabbis as recent as 2014 continue to refer to Maimonides to explain traditional doctrine (Lugo 8). If Jewish society cannot clearly identify one of the most crucial doctrinal scholars in Jewish history, then the ability of individual Jews to

interpret and digest rabbinic and doctrinal teaching is called into question. As an

example, Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanofsky wrote, “Sex, Relationships, and Single Jews,” which can be found in a very lengthy anthology titled, The Observant Life: the Wisdom of

Conservative Judaism for Contemporary Jews, published in 2012. Kalmanofsky is a graduate of Cornell University, a Wexner Graduate fellow and an ordained rabbi since

1997 who serves temple Ansche Chesed in New York City, established in 1829.

Kalmanofsky points out the difficulties of reconciling modern practice with doctrine established so long ago, he explains,

The Torah promises that Jewish law is not only obligatory, but that it is good and impressing the nation with its wisdom and nobility (Deuteronomy 4:6). Those who walk the path of Halakhah must hope that ancient and medieval norms still retain the capacity to sanctify us, refine us, and help us build a better society. But modern Jews are at least dimly aware that when we practice Judaism, we live out the values of ancestors who lived twenty, fifty or one hundred generations ago. Many of the youngest practices in Jewish law are literally medieval, relative newcomers a mere five hundred years old, while the truly ancient ones come to us from a world almost unimaginably different from our own. (Kalmanofsky 632)

Kalmanofsky depicts Judaism as an ancient religion offering doctrinal wisdom that its people are expected to believe and obey today. He argues that contemporary Jews cannot fathom the world in which scholars such Maimonides and Moses lived; nor could

Maimonides and Moses have predicted the sexualized and complex world of the 21st century.

Kalmanofsky is an example of a modern rabbi who continues to refer to the

Torah, the Halakhah and Maimonides as his main sources for explaining the contemporary Jewish stance on non-marital sex. He exposes his deep and antiquated commitment to traditional doctrinal law when he uses the phrases zenut, pilegesh and concubine to explain the Jewish perspective on non-marital sex today. Kalmanofsky himself is an example of the chasm that contemporary Judaism faces, meaning, in 2012, a 33

contemporary, Conservative rabbi who can be found on Twitter and Facebook, uses terms

created in the first century to explain the Jewish stance on non-marital sex in the 21st

century. He defends his stance by stating that there is a modern misconception that

Judaism allows non-marital sex. He notes that although the Halakhah does not necessarily forbid non-marital sex based on specific circumstances, the message that the

Halakhah was trying to convey was for men to not commit a, “moral breach”

(Kalmanofsky 636). He asserts that by pursuing sexual intercourse with a married woman or a family member, men would be faced with a moral dilemma, which only confirms that Kalmanofsky is cognizant of the gender inequity he preaches. As Leviticus

19:29 explains, “do not make your daughter into a harlot, lest the land itself fall into harlotry and become filled with depravity” (Cohen 636). Kalmanofsky explains that

Jewish doctrine not only condemns harlotry, but also strongly detests incest and adultery.

He asserts that in order to protect daughters and wives, the Jewish doctrine sought to ensure that non-marital sex was perceived as an act of prostitution to police male sexual activity.

Kalmanofsky refers to Rabbi Emden’s Responsum 15 as an example of the gender inequity that exposes the contradictory opinions about non-marital sex. Rabbi Emden first asks, in Responsum 15,

Is there any authority who has ever said that licentious intercourse with a single woman derekh z’nut should be permitted, regardless of whether by rape or seduction? God forbid even considering such a possibility! It should be self- evident that this is universally held to be completely forbidden, either by Torah edict or rabbinic enactment (She’eilat Ya-avertz part 2, responsum 15 [ed. Lvov, 1884, P 8b). (Kalmanofsky 636)

In the same responsum, Rabbi Emden hypocritically asserts that a pilegesh (concubine) is acceptable as long as the she remains monogamous. To further to the confusion, Emden

then asserts that rape and seduction should be seen as a criminal act by men because a

woman would never consent to non-marital sex for pleasure (Kalmanofsky 637). While

Kalmanofsky objects to Emden’s notion that a woman would never consent to non-

marital sex for pleasure, he confusingly specifies that women should find pleasure and

consent to sex solely in a marital, monogamous relationship, excluding concubinage. He

explains that concubinage was often used as an exploitative way for men to have sexual

relationships with what was considered, "non-self-possessed” women, which meant,

“servants, maids, non-Jews, rape victims, widows, sluts and orphans” (Kalmanofsky

642). According to Kalmanofsky, concubinage was a scapegoat for men to step outside

of their marriages, but he does not support such a moral breach. He strongly asserts that

Talmudic sages intended for Jews to procreate and, “Jewish law rejects a person simply choosing to remain unwed because of temperament or personal preference”

(Kalmanofsky 649).

Kalmanofsky’s tone and perspective is based on supporting and respecting the demands of the doctrine. He is not focused on finding solutions for how to accept non- marital sex in modern day, but rather finding ways to accept and support the Halakhah today. He closes his chapter by stating,

Conservative Halakhah should confront the ways in which single people today face different problems and possibilities than our sages ever imagined. Failing to give guidance in these areas would turn the realms of love and sex, for the vast majority of Jews from their later teens into their twenties and thirties and beyond into Halakhah-free zones. It would be to concede that the traditions of Jewish law have nothing to say to the modern situation. That would be faithless. Instead when we bring even these realms into conversation with our legal traditions, we keep our faith in the renewed power of Halakhah to make life meaningful. (Kalmanofsky 656)

The threat of a “Halakhah-free zone” is a dangerous concern for Kalmanofsky. If Jews

in their twenties and thirties perceive that non-marital sex cannot be regulated by the 35

traditional doctrine because it is no longer applicable, how does this position

contemporary Jews and Judaism? Kalmanofsky perceives modern Jews’ choice to have

non-marital sex as a faithless decision so he recommends that contemporary society turn

to the Halakhah to find meaning. In his chapter, he does not address or even

acknowledge that modern day dependency on the Halakhah can create conflict and force

contemporary Jews to make a decision between doctrine and societal evolution. While

Kalmanofsky does not directly discuss this crucial concern, Rabbi Arthur Waskow posits

that the potential conflict that contemporary Jews face could affect contemporary

Judaism.

In 1983 Rabbi Arthur Waskow founded and has remained the director of The

Shalom Center, which is a, “prophetic voice in Jewish multireligious, and American Life that draws on Jewish and other spiritual and religious teachings to work for justice”

(Waskow “Torah, World Politics and Iran”). Waskow is also an avid writer about the

Torah, Israel and world politics for the Huffington Post. In 1995, Waskow published,

Down to Earth Judaism: Food, Money, Sex, and the Rest of Life, which was published 17 years before Rabbi Kalmanofsky’s work. Waskow asserts that Judaism is on the verge of determining how to position sexuality within the confines of modern Jewish life. He explains that there are several factors that contribute to shaping the Jewish outlook on non-marital sex. Waskow states that the first crucial influence is that women are becoming an integral part in reestablishing a new Jewish ethics, which is confusing for society because there is no precedent for this. Nevertheless, modern women’s role in working side-by-side with men to create a new Jewish sexual ethic is momentous in establishing women’s voice. He notes that the gender inequity found in the traditional doctrine presents an imbalance where the man is dominant and the woman is subordinate. 36

However, Waskow does not equate the gender imbalance to a true sexual relationship.

He asserts:

What is emerging today is an egalitarian image of sexuality, then in the new sexual ethic, relationships will probably not be treated in law, or lore or liturgy as sexual if there is a large imbalance in power between the people involved. Such relationships may instead be treated as varieties of rape, or abuse, or harassment or prostitution or even more neutrally as political or business arrangements, but not what society wants to affirm, celebrate and guide under the category of sexuality. (Waskow 313)

According to Waskow, the development of egalitarian relationships can be seen by observing how weddings have become more of a mutual and collaborative process, where people love each other and plan a ceremony together to solidify their love. He postulates that weddings have become more of an egalitarian process because Jews are marrying later in life when they have surpassed puberty and have a better understanding of themselves as individuals. He states:

For few American Jews believe that we can leave or get rid of our complex society, when personalities, careers, life-paths almost never jell in the teens and often not till the mid-thirties, sometimes come unjelled during the forties and fifties, and usually change again with long retirements beginning in the sixties and seventies. It is hard enough to make stable lifelong marriage when one partner is changing in this way; when both are doing so, it is extremely difficult. (Waskow 317)

Waskow is aware of the challenges that Jewish society faces and how those challenges directly affect inter-personal relationships, personal growth and faith. He further specifies that there are six ways in which contemporary Jewish society can interpret modern Judaism’s stance on marriage and non-marital sex. First, he explains that modern Jews can obey the rabbinic decree and live by the notion that non-marital sex is unacceptable. Second, Jews can attempt to restore the notion that people should marry at a young age and third, Jews can practice celibacy until marriage. His fourth idea states that society could perceive marriage and divorce as standard parts of life and 37

acknowledge that most people will marry and divorce several times. Waskow’ s fifth

notion states that Jewish society will have to accept that Jews are having non-marital sex and lastly, his sixth idea postulates that Jews have the ability to create new approaches to sexual relationships if the five previous approaches are not suitable.

After revealing the six stances on non-marital sex he then explains how the majority of these stances will create a negative response and/or are not applicable. First, he explains that Jews can obey traditional doctrine and live by the notion that non-marital sex is condemned, but argues that a large number of Jews live in a, “clouded consciousness that they are alienated from their community and tradition, and are guilty of betraying God and Torah in a very important part of their lives. This will probably not heal or strengthen either individual Jews or the Jewish community as a whole” (Waskow

316). Secondly, Jews can attempt to maintain celibacy until marriage, but he believes this is problematic because the:

Chasm between practice and understanding of the tradition may be one of the most powerful elements driving most Jews away from Jewish life in their pre- married and post-married sexually active years. Who wants to be part of an institution that looks with hostility or contempt on the source of much of ones most intense pleasure, joy and fulfillment? (Waskow 317)

Lastly, Jews could create a new sexual ethic to explicate modern sexual behavior in which Waskow suggests ben or bet zug, which are analogous to pilegesh (concubine). He believes that the actual term pilegesh could taint people’s perspective on this notion so he renames it as ben/bat zug (masculine or feminine member of a couple) to avoid the negative stigma (Waskow 317). He explains, “for some the name may contaminate this approach with its background of imbalance of power and wealth between the parties”

(Waskow 317). By renaming pilegesh, he is recreating the definition of the modern concubine. While he wants to see change in the Jewish movement, his only suggested 38

remedy for change is to rename a practice that was historically viewed with negativity and unease as a quasi-marriage based solely on the willingness of a woman to remain monogamous. By revisiting this term, regardless of its new title, Waskow is recommending a sensitive and confusing solution to a conflict that dates back five thousand years. His notion that there is a, “chasm between practice and understanding” presents the idea that Jews are facing a tough predicament that could lead to a change in identity (Waskow 317). While he is encouraging Judaism to affirm and acknowledge that humans desire different sexual relationships at different times in their lives, he does not offer a new method to help modern Judaism accept his assertion.

Waskow and Kalmanofsky present examples of how subjective and perplexing

Judaism can be, even to people who devote their careers and lives to studying and researching the Jewish doctrine and movement. What does this mean for the movement if its leaders offer conflicting opinions? Kalmanofsky asserts that the Halakhah is meant to provide guidance, but if contemporary Jews live a “Halakhah-free” lifestyle then they are living without faith. However, he does not offer ways for Jews to live a socially acceptable life in contemporary society while stringently following the expectations of the Halakhah. He does not recommend a way for contemporary Jews to continue to feel tied to their faith with full awareness that their actions are not consistent with their doctrine. As for Waskow, he presents progressive ideas and awareness about the positioning of society in relation to sex; however, his only solution is to rename an antiquated and unclear method to help rationalize modern behavior. It is clear that the evolution of sexual activity causes strife for the contemporary rabbinic movement. Is the rise in non-marital sex and the rabbinic debate over how to cope with it an indicator of

the decline in Jewish religiosity? Is non-marital sex a factor that exposes the potential shift in Jewish identity?

Jewish Identity and Sex: Broad Patterns

In 2013, ChristianMingle.com and JDate.com partnered with SparkNetworks to conduct research on, “The State of Dating in America”. This report was created as an annual research initiative to explore shifts in belief systems about heterosexual dating and sex in America. In 2014, JDate, ChristianMingle and SparkNetworks published their second annual report which studied online survey responses of 2,647 single people between the ages of 18 and 59 living in the United States, The age group 45-54 represents the largest percentage of respondents (25%), .and 1,109 participants, or 42%, of participants were self- proclaimed Jews. When choosing a religious identification, respondents offered several religions to choose from but they were also offered “other” and “none” as a self identifier as well. The report covers an array of topics, including infidelity, marriage, intermarriage, cohabitation, religious and familial influence, as well as perspectives on proper dating etiquette.

There are two consistent factors that directly influenced the results of this survey.

First, this survey divided its findings not only by sex, but also by age, indicating that both of these factors could present different results, and second, this survey compared and contrasted its 2013 and 2014 findings, which indicates that a shift in opinions was anticipated. These two factors combined indicate that this survey was not only meant to reveal trends in sex, marriage, cohabiting and the role of religion and religious leadership, but also to help examine how time and age can directly affect opinion.

In this study participants were specifically asked if they would have sex before

marriage. There were several possible answers which consisted of: “No,” “Yes, but only

after we were engaged,” “Yes, if I was in love” or “Yes”. The results revealed that the

majority vote (63%) voted “yes” regardless of age (ChristianMingle 54).

Would you have pre-marital sex? 120%

100%

80% 58% 58% 63% 63% 61% 68% 66% 60%

40% 22% 20% 19% 19% 17% 19% 14% 7% 3% 20% 5% 6% 6% 8% 18% 5% 13% 15% 12% 15% 9% 12% 0% Total 18-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-59

No Yes, but only after we were engaged Yes, if I was in love Yes

Figure 1. Would you have pre-marital sex? ChristianMingle, JDate. "State of Dating in America." Stateofdatingreport.com. SparkNetworks.

The statistical reality that the majority of participants are having sex before

marriage leads to other questions about dating, cohabiting and marriage. This study also

examines the influence religious leaders have on society in relation to dating and marital

decision making, as well as, patterns and expectations about cohabiting.

When the participants were asked, “how much influence do the following individuals have on whom you date,” 22% of women indicated that religious leaders were influential, compared to 16% of men. Yet, 40% of women said that their friends influenced their

dating lives compared to 33% of men (ChristianMingle 41).

How much influence do these individuals have on whom you date?

50% 47% 45% 40% 35% 32% 34% 30% 25% 25% 28% 20% 16% 15% 15% 19% 10% 11% 5% 10% 0%

Total 25-29 30-24 35-44 55-59

Figure 2. How much influence do these individuals have on whom you date? ChristianMingle, JDate. "State of Dating in America." Stateofdatingreport.com. SparkNetworks.

Furthermore, when participants were asked, “how much influence do the

following individuals have on whom you marry,” religious leaders earned 26% response

from women and 19% response from men (ChristianMingle 42). Comparatively, 44%

of women and 37% of men chose their mothers as the most influential people in relation

to whom they marry (ChristianMingle 41). When analyzing this finding it appears that

religious leader’s opinions are not highly influential upon individuals mate selection

regardless of the individual’s age.

How much influence do these individuals have on whom you marry? 70% 58% 60%

50% 48% 41% 40% 37% 38% 30% 29% 19% 20% 17% 22% 18% 10% 14% 15% 0%

Total 18-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-59

Figure 3. How much influence do these individuals have on whom you marry? ChristianMingle, JDate. "State of Dating in America." Stateofdatingreport.com. SparkNetworks. Furthermore, this survey asked, “how important it is for you to share the same

religious background as the person you marry, even if their faith is not as strong as

yours”. The possible answers were: “just looking for someone I like,” “it would be nice

to marry someone of the same faith,” “I would strongly prefer to marry someone of the

same faith,” or “I would only marry someone of the same faith.” The largest portion of

participants (32%) answered that they were “just looking for someone I like”

(ChristianMingle 74).

The survey also asked, “how important are each of the following items to a

successful relationship”. The options were “same race/ethnicity,” “same socio-econ

background,” “same religious background,” “similar career goals,” and “similar income.”

Participants age 45-54 reported the strongest support (75%) of religious background as an

important part of a successful relationship compared to 68% for ages 18-29, 67% for

ages 30-34 and 55-59, and 61% for ages 35-44 (ChristianMingle 50).

How important are these topics to a successful relationship? 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Same race/ethnicity Same socio-econ Same religious Same career goals Similar income background background

Total 18-24 25-29 30-24 35-44 45-54 55-59

Figure 4. How important are these items to a successful relationship? ChristianMingle, JDate. "State of Dating in America." Stateofdatingreport.com. SparkNetworks. Lastly, when addressing cohabitation, the survey asked, “What do you feel is the

minimum amount of time to date before you move in together”. The largest portion of

respondents (30%) indicated that, “the minimum amount of time to date before you move

in together” would be, “more than a year, but less than two years” (ChristianMingle 56).

Considering that the possible responses offered an array of time ranging from six months

to five years or post marriage or engagement, the majority vote indicates that people are

choosing to cohabitate quickly before (and/or if) they wed.

JDate and ChristianMingle published this study because it directly examines non-

marital sex, non-marital cohabitation and the perception of religion in the eyes of the

modern young to middle aged adult, pressured by social conformity and religious

commitment. In publishing their study annually, JDate and ChristianMingle are

effectively documenting history and will potentially expose a revolutionary societal

change. Besides Alfred Kinsey’s research from 1948 and 1953, the willingness of

participants to openly acknowledge and discuss their sexual endeavors is limited,

particularly for the portion of society who are devout and strict Jews. This survey

elucidates three vital factors; first, society is partaking in non-marital sex regardless of commitment, second, the influence of religious leaders on whom a person marries or dates is dissipating and lastly, religion is no longer a key factor in whom a person marries. If contemporary Jews are having non-marital, non-committal sex and they no

longer consider their religious leaders and their religion highly influential, then is

Judaism facing an identity crisis?

Contemporary Confusion: Dating, Dating Advice and JDate

In the twenty-first century, online dating has monopolized the dating world and

there are dating websites based on religion, profession, race, age, ethnicity and fetishes.

While the success rates of relationships materialized from a dating website is evolving,

there are plenty of single people who continue to struggle with online dating and its

unsuccessful matchmaking. JDate is a Jewish online dating website that was established

in 1997 that connects roughly 750,000 Jews worldwide (www.jdate.com). According to

JDate.com, “JDate is responsible for more Jewish marriages than all other online dating

sites combined” and “5 out of 9 Jews who married since 2008 used an online dating site

in their search for love” (www.jdate.com). JDate’s mission is to:

Strengthen the Jewish community and ensure that Jewish traditions are sustained for generations to come. To accomplish this we provide a global network where Jewish singles find friendship, romance and life-long partners within their faith. While deeply committed to Israel and Jewish cultural programs, we provide

support for numerous non-profit organizations of all faiths. These efforts honor our proud Jewish tradition and values. (ChristianMingle)

JDate created a blog website called JMag, a venue for people to ask questions and often

experts and rabbis respond. Rabbi Arnie Singer, a Jewish dating coach featured on

JMag, helps Jewish daters understand the dynamics of dating within the confines of

Jewish law. Rabbi Singer is the author of From I to I Do: How to Meet, Date and Marry

Your Mr. Right, and he also provides relationship advice on jcoach.com and itoldo.com.

A JMag blogger in February of 2013 posted the statement below:

Dear Rabbi Singer: I joined JDate in late October and got a few dates out of it. I then met a guy who traveled from far away to meet me. He would call and text, and after the first date he contacted me to let me know he enjoyed the date. We went on to date for a few weeks, but then out nowhere he stopped answering the phone. My question is this: he wanted to make love to me and I asked if it is acceptable or considered a “sin” (he is an Orthodox Jew). He told me that Judaism does not talk against it, saying that if both people are single, it is ok. I am not sure I trust him about it. Yes, we did it and I think it may be the reason he perhaps broke up with me? I would really like to know if it is ok to have sex without being married… if we are both single and not in the baby productive age any more. Please let me know. – “Confused Dater”. (Singer 1).

Rabbi Singer replied:

Dear “Confused Dater”, According to Jewish law, sex outside of marriage is not permitted, period. Now that we got that out of the way, let me address your issue. The fact that this man is Orthodox doesn’t mean that everything he does is in accordance with Jewish Law. People are people. They don’t always do what they should be doing. As one wise rabbi once said, “don’t judge Judaism by the Jews”. In my opinion the reason he broke up with you had nothing to do with the sex. I’m guessing his intention from day one was to have sex with you, not to enter into a committed relationship with you. Once he accomplished his goal, he had no desire to be in a relationship with you, so he disappeared. Or maybe he was just really messed up. It doesn’t really matter anymore. Don’t torture yourself by over-thinking this unfortunate situation. You did nothing wrong. Move on to find a man who shares your desire to be in a relationship and is on the same page as you regarding sex. As a side note, I believe most Orthodox men and women who are looking for serious relationships want a partner who is either Orthodox, or wants to become Orthodox. If you don’t want to be Orthodox, you shouldn’t date an Orthodox partner. From my experience, it doesn’t usually end well. Wishing you much Mazal in your search for love, -Arnie. (Singer 46

This correspondence portrays a very complex example of opinions about modern Jewish sexuality. While “Confused Dater” is indeed confused about what occurred, and how the doctrinal law applies in general and to Orthodoxy specifically, Rabbi Singer’s response is even more perplexing. He oversimplifies doctrinal law in order to explain to the

“Confused Dater” that the man who she had intercourse with was simply looking for sex and was probably lying about his orthodoxy. Furthermore, if society should not, “judge

Judaism by the Jews” then how can Jewish identity be defined? Is Rabbi Singer blatantly admitting to confusion within the Jewish movement between social conformity and doctrinal law?

Bloggers’ responses to this post indicate that contemporary Jews are confused and struggling to clarify the rules pertaining to non-marital sex. On March 5, 2013 at

8:12pm, Blogger “Sarah” says:

If sex before marriage is a sin then just about everybody is sinning. God made us with our five human senses and sensuality and sexuality is a strong part of us. God created us that way for the purpose of procreation. Stories of physical attraction have been around for centuries, such as Ruth and Boaz, Jacob and Racheal, Samson and Delilah, Queen Ester. In ancient stories, it looks as though man wasn’t even monogamous, such as King Soloman. I believe using people as objects is a sin. Non consensual sex is sinful. Multiple partners is sinful, and child offending is sinful. But true love which leads to physical intimacy is not sinful. It depends on the motivations of the heart and only God can be the judge of that. That is my opinion. (Singer)

Blogger “Charles” rebuts:

“Charles” says: March 19, 2013 at 11:01 pm. Oy! Ladies and gentlemen! Sex outside of marriage is sin, absolutely! What does the Torah say? And if a man entice a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife.– Shemot (Exodus) 22:15, JPS Tanakh If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, and lay wanton charges against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say: ‘I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity'; […] if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone 47

her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. – Devarim (Deuteronomy) 22:13, 20-21, JPS Tanakh (Singer)

Interestingly, both bloggers use ancient examples as a way to rationalize sex in modern day society resulting in strongly opposing views. While blogger “Sarah” admits to a gender inequity historically, she then explains that today non-marital sex is a normative act for both sexes and alludes to the idea that consensual sex is part of human desire which was created and given to humans by God. However, blogger “Charles” strongly asserts that non-marital sex is a sin particularly for women, based on doctrine. “Charles” stands by the legal notion that a man cannot have sex outside of marriage with a married woman and a woman must remain a virgin until marriage or she will be stoned to death.

In 2013, “Sarah” interprets modern human desire, intimacy, love and consensual sex as

Gods creation, but “Charles” relies upon gender discriminatory doctrine dating back many centuries to explain that non-marital sex is a sin for women in particular.

When collectively analyzing bloggers “Sarah and “Charles,” “Confused Dater”, and Rabbi Singer’s responses, it is clear that this blog thread is indicative of the contemporary confusion in relation to doctrinal laws and its expectations pertaining to non-marital sex. Rabbi Singer, a figure who contemporary Jews would turn to for guidance, acknowledges that the doctrine condemns non-marital sex, yet pacifies it in order to help the “Confused Dater” rationalize her sexual choices.

“Confused Dater” joins the thread and states:

“Confused Dater” says: March 8, 2013 at 7:28 am Ok, if sex before marriage is a sin, I take it, but I need some references where to find in Torah. It cannot be sin and no sin in the same time. Depends who is answering the question. The real question is – where is the truth and how do we know it is the truth. I was told that Torah does not talk about this issue, so is it a rabbinical no, no or does it really come from the commands of G-d? Where is the real truth? This is what I am looking for. (Singer) 48

““Confused Dater”” may be looking for what she calls “truth,” but in this case rabbinic

opinion and societal response all reveal different subjective truths and interpretations. To

add to her confusion and her “truth,” the “Confused Dater” consulted with a

contemporary rabbi who pacified her sexual choices to help her rationalize her feelings.

The “Confused Dater” is an example of a modern day Jew who is unsure of how to

rationalize her modern day sexual behavior with her traditional religion. The “Confused

dater,” bloggers “Sarah” and “Charles” and Rabbi Singer are four examples of

contemporary perspectives on non-marital sex. If Jews are participating in non-marital

sex and then interpreting and applying Jewish law in different ways to help rationalize

Jewish behavior, what does this mean for Jewish identity and sexuality?

The Covenant, the Safe Place, the Marriage

When examining Judaism, Jews are supposed to learn about sex through studying

doctrine (the Torah, Talmud, Halakhah and Mishneh Torah, etc.), but societal influence,

subjective rabbinic opinion and doctrinal interpretation are additional factors that

contribute to what sex means to Jewish individuals. If Jews are analyzing and

interpreting the role of sex in their lives in subjective ways then sex is a factor that

influences Jewish identity. As an example, in 2014 an anthology entitled, The Sacred

Encounter: Jewish Perspectives on Sexuality published and presented several unique and personal opinions about sex from a conservative Jews perspective.

When interviewers were asked, “how does Judaism inform your relationship to sex and sexuality,” below are four of the responses:

“Leah Barber-Heinz” states: I am blessed to have been raised and mentored by open-minded and loving souls, including my parents and four rabbis, who shaped 49

my identity and my commitment to Judaism. Because of these strong roots, I have always felt an undeniable freedom to be a faithful Jewish woman while loving and being sexually involved with whom I choose. For me, that can mean being with someone of the same gender or of a different race, culture or religion. To me, this freedom serves to strengthen our faith and cultivate peace, understanding, and love. (Grushcow xxix)

“Jessica Kirzane” explains: There is something comforting about our tradition’s acknowledgement of sex as something that partners should provide for one another- the idea of sex as a need and an obligation. In a world that often treats sex as frivolity or transgression, I find it helpful to recognize that my body’s desires are taken into account in Jewish law and practice. Yet the idea of sex as obligation also troubles me. I would never want to force myself or my partner into participating in sexual acts we didn’t want, for the sake of some legal requirement that reaches into the most private of moments. I believe I am obligated to honor and love my own and my partners desires, not because of some abstract understanding of what men and women are contractually bound to in a marriage, but because I honor and love myself and my partner for all that we are in body and spirit. (Grushcow xxxiii)

“Alina Adams” reveals: The Jewish concept of sh’lom bayit-domestic harmony and good relations between husband and wife-informs my relationship to sex in a very simple way: I have sex when I don’t particularly want to. Sometimes I’m tired, sometimes I have a long list of things I still need to accomplish, and sometimes I’m just indifferent to the whole process. But, I still have sex anyway. Because my husband wants to, because it makes him happy, and because it, honestly, makes dealing with him for the rest of the day much easier. And more peaceful for both of us. (Grushcow xxxiii)

“Anonymous” asserts: For me, sexuality is about vulnerability: trusting someone with my sexual self and desires, and being trusted by them in return. The Jewish framework of covenant gives a safe space to take risks with someone who I trust with my love and my life. We are sanctified to each other. Like the biblical covenant, it is not always equal. We come from different places. But the commitment created an intimate space, in which there is both refuge and adventure. If the commitment is broken, that peace is shattered, like the glass under the chuppah. But at its best, that combination of commitment and safety, openness and risk, is what makes sex sacred; what makes it holy; what makes us whole. (Grushcow xxxvii)

All four respondents share the notion that sex is an obligation, but they each understand and interpret this supposed obligation differently. “Leah” explains that she was raised in an open-minded environment which has enabled her to focus on the

importance of being a faithful woman due to the freedom that has been allotted to her. It is clear that for “Leah” the issue is not the race, sex or religion of her partner, but rather the ability to feel free enough for her to remain true to herself as a faithful Jewish woman.

However, “Jessica” views sex as a complicated obligation.

While “Jessica” would like to view sex as an enriching obligation where both partners fulfill the practice of the laws of Judaism by fulfilling their body’s desires, she fears that sex can be seen as a troubling obligation, one that is forced. She believes, “I am obligated to honor and love my own and my partners desires, not because of some abstract understanding of what men and women are contractually bound to in a marriage, but because I honor and love myself and my partner for all that we are in body and spirit

(Grushcow xxxiii). “Jessica” acknowledges that although there is a contractual agreement based on Jewish law, this agreement should not be a binding factor, but rather the desire to be in partnership should be the true obligation. But, “Alina” views what

Jessica labels as an, “abstract understanding of what men and women are contractually bound to in a marriage” in a literal way.

“Alina” is committed to a marriage in which she feels as though she needs to fulfill her husband’s sexual desires no matter the inconvenience for her or lack of desire on her part. “Alina” asserts that the reason why she continues to partake in unwanted sex is because it creates a more peaceful home and relationship between her and her husband.

It can be inferred due to Alina’s perspective on the dynamics of sex in her marriage that she can relate to, “Anonymous’ s” notion that a covenant is not always created equal.

“Anonymous” asserts that a covenant should be considered a safe space for the individuals involved and should consist of commitment, risk and openness. Anonymous acknowledges that a safe covenant does not always occur because covenants are not 51

always created equal because people come from “different places”. It can be inferred that

“Anonymous” uses the phrase, “different places” to suggest that people interpret

covenants differently and this is a threat to the safety of the covenant if people are not

invested in similar ways. “Anonymous” asserts that a covenant is a risk because trust and

safety are two vital elements and if/when those elements are violated an intimate

covenant is no longer a safe place for sacred sex.

In totality, all four respondents speak about sex and sexuality from the

perspective of creating a covenant or an agreed upon safe environment to explore sexual

desires. While all four respondents use the phrase “safe place”, “covenant” or “faithful,”

“Alina” is the only respondent who uses the term “marriage” to explain her covenant.

“Alina” challenges the value of creating a covenant or safe place like a marriage when sex becomes a forced act to help maintain a peaceful home life. While three respondents indicate that Judaism informs their relationships that sex is based on faith, agreement and safety, “Alina” negates that notion by indicating that her supposedly safe and agreeable relationship is not necessarily what is desired, but rather what is expected of her. If

Judaism informs relationships about sex and sexuality in inconsistent ways, then how can

society be expected to act in a certain way or abide by certain rules that are not clear? If

Jews feel pressured by rules they do not understand or expectations that are not made

clear, does this cause Jews to remove themselves from the practice of Judaism because it

is no longer relatable?

CHAPTER V: THE JEWISH IDENTITY CRISIS

According to The Pew Research Center Survey published on October 1, 2013 entitled, “A Portrait of Jewish Americans”, there are approximately 5.3 million Jews in the United States, but researchers find it challenging to accurately calculate the Jewish population due to shifting Jewish identifications (Lugo 23). As of 2013, “one-in-five

Jews (22%) now describe themselves as having no religion” (Lugo 7). Pew Research center further discovered that since 1950 the percentage of Jews who label themselves as

Jewish based on their religious beliefs has declined by 50% (Lugo 7). One survey conducted by Pew Research Center indicates that while 93% of the participants born between 1914 and 1927 consider themselves Jews-by-religion, only 68% of the millennials (born after 1980) consider themselves Jews-by-religion (Lugo 7). The modern-day causes for a decline in Jewish religiosity have not yet been deeply researched.

Jeremy Uecker, an assistant professor of sociology at Baylor University, asserts that, “the young adult years of many Americans are marked by a clear decline in outward religious expression… This is not new news. In the early 1980’s nearly 60 percent of young adults reported attending church less frequently than they did during adolescence.

Dropping out of organized religion altogether is evident” (Uecker 1667). Uecker further notes that it is estimated that 30-40% of young adults disaffiliate from religion all together (Uecker 1667). Although Uecker claims that there is a marked decline in

religious affiliation for young adults the causes for this decline at this point are suggestions because no definitive answers have been found.

As an example, in 2007, Uecker’s, “Losing my Religion: The Sources of

Religious Decline in Early Adulthood” hypothesized that college education directly affects the decline in young American religiosity. This study examines three different types of religious decline which include: “diminished service attendance, diminished self- reported importance of religion, and disaffiliation from religion” (Uecker 1673).

Uecker’s data came from the 1994, 1995, 2001 and 2002 National Longitudinal Study of

Adolescent Health that was based on interviews of people age 18-25 from several different religious backgrounds. While variables were created to measure sexual activity,

“more than 1,000 respondents indicated that they didn’t know how many times they had sex in the past year” (Uecker 1674). Respondent’s failure to keep track of the frequency of their sexual encounters was an unexpected variable that adds to the idea that cohabitation is a factor in the decline in religiosity. It was determined that it was more challenging for people who were cohabiting to keep track of their sexual activity because they were having sex more frequently due to the convenience of living with their partners. Uecker found that 85% of cohabiters reduce their religious service attendance,

27% admitted to reduced religious involvement, and 22% no longer identified with a religious affiliation whatsoever (Uecker 1677). It is important to note that this study found that religions like Judaism that had racial and ethnic connections for their followers were less likely to disaffiliate completely from their religion.

In this study, Uecker discovered that different data sets reveal that sexual behavior does not directly correlate to levels of religious devotion. But, Uecker explains that sex is a challenging and inconsistent topic for research, he explains that, “cultural 55

and theological differences in religious traditions make assessing its validity challenging

(Uecker 1671). Uecker concludes that a decline in religious participation does not directly correlate to a decline in religious affiliation. He found that adolescents continuously associate with a religious denomination regardless of their lack of attendance at religious services. His study disproved its hypothesis by determining that emerging adults who do not attend college, “exhibit the most extensive patterns of religious decline, undermining conventional wisdom about the secularizing effect of high education” (Uecker 1667). However, this study also determined that, “marriage curbs religious decline, while cohabitation, non-marital sex, drugs and alcohol use each accelerate diminished religiosity, especially religious participation during early adulthood” (Uecker 1667).

Uecker’s findings can directly correlate to The Pew Research Center survey entitled, “A Portrait of Jewish Americans”. The Pew Research Center survey is considered the most comprehensive study of U.S. Jews since 2000. This study surveyed

3, 475 Jewish respondents in 2013. The interviews are divided by 2,786 “Jews-by- religion”, 689 “Jews-of no-religion” and 1,716 respondents who were categorized as neither. According to Pew Research Center, 93% of Jews in the greatest aging generation identify as “Jews-by-religion,” and a mere 7% of Jews in the greatest aging generation label themselves as “Jews-of-no-religion” (Lugo 7). For comparison, 68% of the

youngest generation, known as the millennials, label themselves as “Jews-by-religion,”

while 32% of the millennials claim to be Jewish based on ancestry ethnicity or culture,

but not religion (Lugo 7).

Is being Jewish about culture/ancestry, religion or both?

11% Jews of no religion 6% 83% Both religion & ancestry/culture 26% Religion Jews by religion 17% 55% Ancestry/culture 23% Net Jewish 15% 62%

Figure 5. Is being Jewish about culture/ancestry, religion or both? Lugo, Luis. "The Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project." A Portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings from a Pew Research Center Survey of U.S. Jews (2013). Furthermore, according to The Pew Research Center, U.S. adults who identify as

Jewish has declined by roughly 50% since 1950 (Lugo 8). However, the number of

American Jews who identify as Jewish, but agnostic, atheist or not truly participating in religion has risen. While these statistics seem contradictory or perhaps confusing, the overall idea is that Judaism is in transition and Jews identify subjectively with their ancestry and culture more than their religion. Roughly, 30% of American Jews claim that they do not identify with a specific Jewish denomination (Lugo 10). The Pew Research

Center assessed three main Jewish denominations, which include Reform, Conservative

and Orthodox. The Reform movement is the largest Jewish movement in the United

States, while this was not always the case, over the last decade Jews have shifted their

denomination. This study finds that approximately one-quarter of Jews raised Orthodox

have switched to Conservative or Reform and 30% of Jews who identify as Conservative

have become Reform (Lugo 10). Lastly, 28% of Jews who identify as reform no longer

identify as Jews-by-religion. (Lugo 10). Since The Pew Research Center discovered that

Jewish identity was shifting, they also examined nine different categories of Jewish

identity.

To help grasp a better understanding of Jewish identity, respondents were asked

about the importance of the Holocaust, morality, equality, intellectuality, Israel, Jewish

community, Jewish foods, a sense of humor and, most pertinent to this research, the

importance of observing Jewish law. The results revealed that, “observing religious law is not as central to most American Jews” and only 19% of Jewish adults believe that obeying Jewish law (Halakhah) is a vital part of what it means to be Jewish (Lugo 14).

Furthermore, this study revealed that Jews believe a person can consider themselves

Jewish even if they work on the Sabbath and/or if they do not believe in God. But, 60% of Jews say that if a person believes that Jesus is the messiah he/she cannot consider him/herself Jewish (Lugo 14). In totality, The Pew Research Center findings reveals that the largest net percentage of Jews support the Holocaust, morality, equality and an understanding that Jesus is not the messiah as what defines Judaism. However, one of the least important factors in defining Judaism, at least according to this study, is observing Jewish law. Lastly, The Pew Research Center also discovered that, “Jews tend to be less religious than the U.S. public as a whole. Compared with the overall population, for example, Jews are less likely to say that they attend religious services weekly or that they believe in God with absolute certainty” (Lugo 15). According to The

Pew Research Center, 26% Jews in the United States claim that religion is a crucial part of their lives in comparison to the 56% of the general public (Lugo 15). As The Pew

Research Center explains, “U.S. Jews see being Jewish as more a matter of ancestry, culture and values than of religious observance” (Lugo 47). While 60% of Jews believe that being Jewish is about culture and ancestry, only 15% of Jews assert that Judaism is a matter of religion (Lugo 47). “Jews-of no-religion” can be considered the largest growing self-identified title for contemporary Jews. If being Jewish is an ethnic and 58

cultural identity, then the pressures of the doctrine can be perceived in a multitude of ways.

If “Jews- by- religion” perceive the doctrine as a definitive tool to help regulate their lives, then this could be the culprit for why “Jews- of no-religion” is a growing population. The divide between, “Jews-by-religion” and “Jews-of–no-religion” can be assessed based on generation. While approximately 33% of Jews who are 30 years old or younger claim that they believe that being Jewish is important, 46% of Jews ages 30-49,

50% of Jews ages 50-64 and 54% of Jews who are 65 and older believe that their Judaism is very significant to them (Lugo 51). Based on generation, this study also reveals that older Jews admittedly feel a stronger sense of belonging to the Jewish community indicating that 80% of Jews who are 50 and older express a, “strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people” (Lugo 53). However, 70% of Jews under the age of 50 share the same strong connection to Judaism as the Jews who are 50 and older (Lugo 53).

When assessing and interpreting, “The Portrait of Jewish Americans,” there are two valuable factors that help clarify the positioning of contemporary Judaism. First,

Jewish religiosity is declining, but not based on self-identification (identifying as Jewish), but rather actual religious involvement, which would include synagogue attendance, rituals and community devotion. Secondly, contemporary Judaism is divided by generational opinion and perspective. While the older generations carry the “Jewish-by- religion” statistic, their beliefs about Judaism and commitment to Judaism runs deeper than simply an ethnic and ancestral connection, unlike the younger generations who primarily identify as Jews-of-no-religion. After analyzing this research, it is clear that the

Jewish movement and its beliefs, rituals, and laws do not consistently span across

generations and this causes Judaism to appear as a declining, unregulated religious movement in the midst of an identity crisis.

The Generation Dilemma

Whether Jews are invested for ancestry, ethnicity or culture, staying committed to identifying with and as Jewish seems to conjure confusion and internal strife. The question then becomes: what is different today than twenty years ago? What are

contemporary Jews facing and coping with that their parents never had to address? While

perhaps the overall analysis of the Jewish movement indicates that there is a decline in

religiosity, there is still a large following that continues to identify as Jewish. Is age and

generation a contributing factor to not only the confusion over non-marital sex, but also

the shift in Jewish Identity?

In 1923 German Sociologist Karl Mannheim published an essay entitled, “The

Sociological Problem of Generations.” His research was primarily focused on class and

what he would label as “social location.” He “identifies generation location as a key

aspect of the existential determination of knowledge. Generation location points to

certain definite modes of behaviour, feeling and thought and the formative experiences

during the time of youth are heightened as the key period in which social generations are

formed” (Pilcher 483). Mannheim asserts that generations are formed and developed

based on location which encompasses cultural and geographical positioning. He

postulates that:

The fact of belonging to the same class, and that of belonging to the same generation or age group, have this in common, that both endow the individuals sharing in them with a common location in the social and historical process, and thereby limit them to a specific range of potential experience, predisposing them for a certain characteristic mode of thought and experience and a characteristic 60

type. Any given location, then, excludes a large number of possible modes of thought, experience, feeling and action, and restricts the range of self-expression open to the individual to certain circumscribed possibilities. (Mannheim 168)

Mannheim argues that while data that encourages judgment and perception is not necessarily impressed upon an entire generation, a particular generation and/or class only has access to a specific set of data. When applying Mannheim’s theories to the traditions of Judaism, tradition only truly exists for as long as the location, class and relationship of the movement continue to remain unchanged. Mannheim argues that, “the concrete form of an existing behavior pattern or of a cultural product does not derive from the history of a particular tradition, but ultimately from the history of the location relationships in which it originally arose and hardened itself into a tradition” (Mannheim 169).

Therefore, for the purposes of this research, traditional Judaism’s stance on non-marital sex has continued to be an assimilated fact and carried on from generation to generation and location to location.

Mannheim uses the term “fresh contact” to present the possibility of change within older generations and developing new generations. He postulates that a fresh contact causes novel approaches to assimilation and adds additional and new meaning to what could potentially develop into a new life. Mannheim asserts, “the continuous emergence of new human beings certainly results in some loss of accumulated cultural possession; but on the other hand, it alone makes a fresh selection possible when it becomes necessary; it facilitates re-evaluation of our inventory and teaches us both to forget that which is no longer useful and to covet that which has yet to be won”

(Mannheim 173). He was aware that generation locations are faced with unique conflicts and challenges and each generation has its own independent battles that the following generation will never have to address or conceptualize. This is most likely why 61

generations differ vastly, because generations do not understand the psychologies of each other. He explains:

Any two generations following one another always fight different opponents, both within and without. While the older people may still be combating something in themselves or in the external world in such fashion that all their feelings and efforts and even their concepts and categories of thought are determined by that adversary, for the younger people this adversary may be simply nonexistent: Their primary orientation is an entirely different one. (Mannheim 178)

Judaism at this very moment is facing an internal battle between non-marital sex and Jewish traditional doctrine. However, generation is a factor in understanding how and if this internal battle is affecting Jewish identity. Judaism’s generational differences in the response to the rise in non-marital sex can be viewed as an example of Mannheim’s notions about “fresh contacts” and how “fresh contacts” can alter generational perspectives. While The Pew Research Center discovered that 93% of the oldest generation identify as “Jews-by-religion,” only 68% of the millennials who are considered the youngest generation examined, identify as “Jews-by-religion” (Lugo 7).

This statistical disparity reveals that Jewish identity is perceived differently based on a generational influence. Does this disparity in Jewish identity directly affect Jewish religiosity?

The Generational Disparity over Non-Marital Sex

In 1950, 3.9% of all births were considered “illegitimate” (out-of-wedlock), compared to 4.5% in 1955 and 10.7% by 1970 (Gordis 164). According to the 1975 U.S.

Bureau of the Census, approximately 50% of unmarried women in the United States had sex before the age of nineteen. Therefore, by 1978, 45% of births were out-of-wedlock and 6 out of 10 (60%) births that occurred post-marriage, were conceived-pre-marriage.

As of 1978, non-marital relationships had doubled in the United States. Comparatively, according to the National Center for Health Statistics as of 2002, 90% of American women who have never been married have participated in non-marital sex before the age

of thirty, and 75% have participated in non-marital sex before the age of twenty

(Kalmanofsky 635). Furthermore, the median age for participating in intercourse for the

first time for both males and female is seventeen (Kalmanofsky 635). Comparatively, according to the 2014 JDate and ChristianMingle study entitled, “The State of Dating in

America.” 63% of respondents said they would have sex before marriage, 19% said they would have sex before marriage if they were in love, which leaves 18% of respondents who said they would not have sex before engagement or at all until marriage

(ChristianMingle 54).

The data set, which includes the U.S. Bureau of the Census of 1975, the National

Center for Health Statistics as of 2002 and the 2014 JDate and ChristianMingle study

entitled, “The State of Dating in America” portray generational differences in regards to

non-marital sex that can be directly applied to Judaism. When synthesizing all of the data

ranging from 1975 to 2014, it is evident that the participation in non-marital sexual

activity is consistently growing throughout decades. As the centuries have passed and

non-marital sex has become more common, generations who were taught that non-marital

sex was unacceptable are faced with a dilemma. While the older generations (born 1960’s

or before) taught their children that sex was solely meant for the marital bed according to

the doctrine, the success of their teachings statistically seems dispensable (Ruttenberg

174). A cause for the failed teachings as well as the rise in non-marital sex is divorce.

Divorce for women especially, is a factor that was unexpected and certainly

unpredictable for the sages who created the Torah and the Halakhah. Today the divorce 63

rate is extraordinarily high and the older generations are faced with a decision whether to

wait until a second marriage to have intercourse or to succumb to the social trend of non- marital sex. This positions older generations in a contradictory and hypocritical role as they encourage their children to remain celibate until marriage while themselves partaking in non-marital sex between marriages. While traditional doctrine is still preached and expected in modern temples by modern rabbis, even the older generations who identify as Jewish-by-religion are not obeying the doctrinal teachings. The JDate and ChristianMingle study, “The State of Dating in America” divided the question of whether or not respondents would have sex before marriage by age. Whether the respondents were 18 years old or 59 years old, the majority answer was “yes” they would have sex before marriage. This statistic indicates that perspectives on non-marital sex are unpredictable and even generations cannot be a factor that dictates opinions about sex.

In returning back to the theories of Karl Mannheim, it is evident that the older generations have been influenced by shifting social norms. These generations most likely cannot fathom the restrictions imposed upon their own grandparents, specifically grandmothers, who were shamed for requesting divorce or condemned and labeled a prostitute for having sex before marriage. Furthermore, the generations of today, the eighteen, twenty, and thirty year olds, look at their parents and their conflicting ideas and cannot relate. The millennials look at Judaism and are willing to label themselves as

Jews, but not obey the doctrinal law that is expected of a self-proclaimed Jew. The ramifications for this contradiction do not seem to consume the millennials as they continue to identify as Jewish, but behave in ways that are not consistent with doctrinal demand. The idea that Jews want to identify as Jewish, but not obey and follow the traditional and doctrinal demands of Judaism is the very reason why The Pew Research 64

Center had to create the title “Jews-of-no-religion”. Contemporary Jewish society is

presented with freedoms that ancestors or sages could have never fathomed. While perhaps a majority of the older generations, who more frequently identify as “Jews-by- religion” today, entered their first marriages as virgins, their viewpoints on sex today are beginning to merge with younger generations. The merging of opinions about non- marital sex is an indicator that Jewish identity is shifting and doctrinal law no longer regulates. Perhaps, as Mannheim mentioned, the older generations are beginning, “to covet that which has yet to be won” and realize that the younger generations or (fresh contacts) are causing them to re-evaluate and relinquish that which is no longer useful in society (Mannheim 173)

CHAPTER VI: ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

When analyzed and synthesized in totality, it appears that the rise in non-marital sex is a trend that exposes the chasm that contemporary Judaism faces. Contemporary

Jews are unclear of the relevancy of traditional doctrine and how applicable it is at this present time. The chasm between religious demand and social sexual conformity places contemporary Jews in a challenging position, forcing them to confront a difficult decision about their religious identity. Contemporary Jews identify with Judaism and self-identify as Jews for reasons outside of the doctrine. Problematically, the sources that contemporary Jews turn to for direction and faith based legal guidance are not consistent, are gender-biased and pushing Jews away from the practice of Judaism. The overall confusion is placing pressure upon the contemporary Jewish movement and ostracizing

Jews from identifying with and practicing their own religion.

Non-marital sex is an example of the struggle contemporary Jews face between their contemporary behavior and antiquated doctrinal pressures. As an example of the conflict and hypocrisy, this research examined rabbinic opinion across seven centuries.

Nevertheless, the seven centuries of rabbinic opinion only revealed that opinions about non-marital sex have remained inconsistent. Even when examining current rabbinic opinion some contemporary rabbis in the Reform and/or Conservative movement continue to declare that sex is solely meant for the marital bed, while others make efforts to rationalize and find acceptance in non-marital sex they lack the required tools and methods to facilitate that change in ideology. When synthesizing rabbinic opinion and

contemporary Jewish societal opinion, it is clear that Jewish religiosity is shifting and non-marital sex is an element that illustrates this shift.

The rise in non-marital sex in the Jewish community reveals that Jews no longer relate to the traditional doctrine for guidance and therefore how they identify with

Judaism has shifted from a religious identity to a cultural identity. Jews of younger generations view their Judaism as an ancestral and cultural connection rather than a religious commitment. The only grouping of Jews that identify with Judaism as a religion are the older generations; however, their identity and behavior are equally as contradictory as the younger generations.

This thesis also examined Jewish identity through the scope of generation. While generation may influence how Jews identify, Jews today of all ages are participating in non-marital sex and share the common viewpoint that non-marital sex does not require love or commitment. Therefore, non-marital, non-committal sex is not influenced or coerced by Jewish doctrine. Non-marital sex illustrates contemporary Jews inability to relate to the sexual requirements of their doctrine and their ability to reestablish what it means to identify as Jewish. The process of redefining Judaism can be perceived as losing religiosity because contemporary Jews admittedly no longer value the power of the doctrine as the source that defines Jews and Judaism. Contemporary Jews focus more on their cultural connection to Judaism then their religious commitment. This shift in identity and interpretation of what it means to be Jewish is complex and reveals what is slowly becoming a non-doctrinal, individualized Judaism.

In conclusion, a thorough examination of trends in non-marital sex, rabbinic and societal opinion as well as statistical data examining the positioning of Judaism, prove that contemporary Jews are no longer focused on living a stringent, traditional, doctrinal 67

Jewish lifestyle. While non-marital sex is a factor that helped unpack this revelation,

there are many other contributing factors that can be attributed to how and why

contemporary Judaism is dissolving its ties to traditional doctrine. While there is a

marked decline in Jewish religiosity, research indicates that this decline does not

correlate to a complete secularization of the Jewish movement, but rather how Jews

identify with Judaism. The statistical decline in Jewish religiosity can be perceived as a

strong indicator that contemporary Jews are in the process of restructuring and redefining

what it means to be Jewish. Although the long-term outcome of this restructuring is unknown, what is clear is that the role of the doctrine in Jewish lives is depreciating and is no longer the crucial determining factor in what it means to be Jewish and how to live a

Jewish life.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, Rachel. Engendering Judaism: An Inclusive Theology and Ethics. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1998. Print.

Anschechesed.org." ABOUT US. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

Berkovits, Eliezer, and David Hazony. "A Jewish Sexual Ethics (1976)." Essential essays on Judaism. Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2002. Print.

Biale, Rachel. Women and Jewish Law: the Essential Texts, their History, and their Relevance for Today. New York: Schocken Books: 1995. Print.

Broyde, Michael J, and Michael Ausubel. Marriage, Sex, and Family in Judaism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Print.

ChristianMingle, JDate. "State of Dating in America." Spark Networks, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.

Cohen, Martin Samuel. The Observant Life: the Wisdom of Conservative Judaism for Contemporary Jews. New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, 2012. Print.

De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. New York: First Vintage, 2011. Print.

Dorff, Elliot N. Contemporary Jewish Ethics and Morality: A Reader. New York: Oxford UP, 1995. Print.

Epstein, Louis M. Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism. New York: Bloch Pub. Co,1948. Print.

Finkel, Avraham Yaakov. The Essential Maimonides: Translations of the Rambam. Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1993. Print.

Fishman Tobin, Dodi. "Premarital Sexuality and Jewish Observance in University Students." Thesis, Fairleigh Dickinson University. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1997. Print.

Freitas, Donna. Sex and the Soul Juggling Sexuality, Spirituality, Romance, and Religion On America's College Campuses. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.

Goldman, Alex J. Judaism Confronts Contemporary Issues. New York: Shengold, 1978. Print.

Gordis, Robert. Love & Sex: A Modern Jewish Perspective. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1978. Print.

Grushcow, Lisa. The Sacred Encounter: Jewish Perspectives on Sexuality. New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis, 2014. Print.

Janeway, Elizabeth. Man's World, Woman's Place: A Study in Social Mythology. New York: Morrow, 1971. Print.

Kalmanofsky, Jeremy. "Sex, Relationships, and Single Jews." The Observant Life: The Wisdom of Conservative Judaism for Contemporary Jews. New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 2012. 632-656. Print.

Kaplan, Aryeh. Maimonides' Principles: The Fundamentals of Jewish Faith. 2nd ed. New York: National Conference of Synagogue Youth, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, 1984. Print

Lugo, Luis. "The Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project." A Portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings from a Pew Research Center Survey of U.S. Jews (2013): 37Sup-097. Web. 7 July 2014.

Magid, Shaul. "Jewish Renewal: Toward a New American Judaism." Tikkun 21.1 (2006): 57-60. Tikkun Magazine. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

Magonet, Jonathan. Jewish Explorations of Sexuality. Providence: Berghahn Books, 1995. Print.

Mannheim, Karl. "The Sociological Problem of Generations." Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1952. Print.

Meier, A. M. "Adolescents' Transition to First Intercourse, Religiosity, and Attitudes about Sex." Social Forces 81.3 (2003): 1031-052. Oxford University Press. Web. 23 Jan. 2015.

Pilcher, Jane. "Mannheim's Sociology of Generations: An Undervalued Legacy." The British Journal of Sociology 45.3 (1993): 481-95. Print.

Plaskow, Judith. Standing Again at Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective. New York: Harper San Francisco A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, 1990. Print.

Plaskow, Judith, and Donna Berman. The Coming of Lilith: Essays on Feminism, Judaism, and Sexual Ethics, 1972-2003. Boston: Beacon, 2005. Print.

Regnerus, Mark, and Jeremy Uecker. "Finding Faith, Losing Faith: The Prevalence and Context of Religious Transformations During Adolescence." Review of Religious Research 47.3 (2006): 217-37. Web. 23 Jan 2015.

Ribner, David S., and Peggy J. Kleinplatz. "The Hole in the Sheet and Other Myths about Sexuality and Judaism." Sexual and Relationship Therapy 22.4 (2007): 445-56. Print.

Rosner, Fred. Sex Ethics in the Writings of Moses Maimonides. Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1994. Print.

Ruttenberg, Danya. The Passionate Torah: Sex and Judaism. New York: New York University Press, 2009. Print.

Sinclair, Jennifer, and David Milner. "On Being Jewish: A Qualitative Study of Identity Among British Jews in Emerging Adulthood." Journal of Adolescent Research 20.91 (2005): 91-117. Print.

Singer, Arnie. "Re: Is Sex Before Marriage a Sin?" Web log comment. JDate, Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

Uecker, Jeremy E., Mark D. Regnerus, and Margaret L. Vaaler. "Losing My Religion: The Social Sources of Religious Decline in Early Adulthood." Social Forces 85.4 (2007): 1667-692. Print.

Vance, Carole S. "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality." Pleasure and danger: exploring female sexuality. Boston: Routledge & K. Paul, 1984. Print.

Waskow, Arthur. "Torah, World Politics and Iran." Huffington Post. 3 Aug. 2015, U.S. ed., Religion sec. Web. 7 Sept. 2015

Waskow, Arthur Ocean. "XXVI. Toward a New Jewish Sexual Ethic." Down-to-Earth Judaism: Food, Money, Sex, and the Rest of Life. New York: W. Morrow, 1995. Print.

"Welcome to JDate, the Premier Jewish Community Online for Dating Jewish Singles." Web. 9 Sept. 2015.

Zeitlin, Solomon. Maimonides a Biography. New York: Bloch, 1955. Print.