Reactions to Dr. Marcus' Discussion of Sexuality

[drvmargulies]

Dear Fellow Meorot Fellows,

I had a few ideas that I wanted to share, and hopefully this can turn into a bit of an online discussion as people see what I have to say and respond.

1. Shomer Negiah: As it relates to questions of modern orthodox identity, the label of "shomer negiah" is a fascinating study. I have heard that the term shomer negiah is a recent innovation of the 20th c. as part of a campaign to shift the meaning of the question "Are you shomer?" away from shabbat observance in order to make shabbat observance the accepted norm in orthodox society. In effect, this has created a situation where negiah becomes a social barometer in the broad orthodox community used to gauge a person's halachic stringency. As such, it is viewed as a humrah, and much like others said in the discussion, sexual halachot are the first ones to be thrown out for arbitrary reasons as opposed to shabbat observance, prayer, kashrut, etc. Can we shift these social ills by pressing for new terminology? Or creating a new object of shemira?

2. Taharat Hamishpacha: As someone who has studied the laws of niddah quite in depth and plans to study them more in the future, I abhor the term "taharat hamishpacha" because it focuses the student of halacha onto the aspects related to tumah and taharah which, bluntly, do not apply anymore in the absence of the beit hamiqdash. Instead, the status of niddah retains a status of ervah—sexual prohibbition, which is the central question. Many women are made uncomfortable by the halacha calling them "unclean" and "impure" and this is due to the heavy focus on calling niddah taharat hamishpacha. Further, it places a focus on the family as a whole, something that recalls the superstitious belief found in the talmud and later sources that a child born of a sexual encounter during niddah, while not a mamzer (that's a cool shiur of it's own), carries some social and religious stigma. Thus, observing the laws of niddah protect the home as a whole from "niddah cooties." I think that viewing the halachot in this way create a very negative view of the issues at hand, and again perpetuate a feeling of uncleanliness. Instead, niddah must be viewed as a halacha like many others that the husband and wife observe (or not ...) within the privacy of their relationship, exclusive of the children and the family at large.

3. As regards Dr. Marcus' suggestions about pushing the halachic system forward regarding male masturbation and premarital physicality based on medical and sociological evidence that repressive halachot are detrimental to psychological-sexual health and marital relationships, I am not sure where to stand. On one hand, we see examples of halachic change driven by developments in medical science and psychology across the generations. (Extending the prohibition against killing animals on shabbat to lice because Pasteur proved that they do not spontaneously generate, revisions of the halachot regarding breaking shabbat for premature newborns, the questions involved with hemophiliacs and milah, and metzitza b'peh and herpes as some examples). On the other hand, to eliminate a law because it is detrimental to a person's health is different for a hoq type law and one where the medical or scientific reality underlies the law. On the other hand, we know that the midrash says: Asher yaase otam haadam vahai bahem, velo sheyamut bahem (The laws were given that we should live by them and not that we should die because of them.), and ein gozrim gezeirah sheein haqahal yecholah laamod bah (We do not enact edicts that the community is unable to sustain). Thus, if the question were posed to a prominent and competant posek, perhaps moderate change could be effected in our times, albeit slowly, as is the "orthodox" way... :)

4. As regards orthodox identity, my wife and I chose not to affiliate ourselves with a particular denomination, at least currently, because we dislike labeling Jews and dividing our tiny community amongst the world's nations; however, if one were to chose a denominational box, it would be orthodox for a number of reasons. I would be conservative or reform or reconstructionist for many fewer reasons. Food for thought. How do we chose the criteria? What makes us orthodox, for ourselves, if we are in fact orthodox? Must there be an accepted standard definition? Is it based on practice or belief (cf. orthoprax.blogspot.com)?

Best,

Dan