\
The Canadian Jewish I^ews^Fr^
ahout M control?
pij A'discussion between Mrs. Alma Birk, noted journalist; jiiiii Benjamin Celles, Rabbi of the London, (England) Fihchley Synagogue and vice'cbairmin, Jewish Marripge Education Counelll and Rabbi Michael Leigh, Minister, Edgware and District Reform. Synagogue, The discussiori is based on a report on fhifs subject presented to the British Council
..V of Churches/n October 7966. (JCNS)
BIRK: Rabbi Gelles, Rabbi Leigh - the first question I would like to ask you is what is the Jewish attitude to se^? Is it that sex is hoiy? Is it a neutral attitude? Is it that if s bad except for procreation, or is it a positive attitude because it is a pleasurable thin^ LEIGH: I would say that Judaism has got a very positive attitude towards sex; the first mitzva cominanded in the Torah is to be fruitful and multiply. The Talmud condemns the single or celibate man. I think the Jew fulfils himself spiritually as well as physically in marriage, because whehhemjar-ries he sets up "a house in Israel", a place where he can fulfil the mitzvot and where he can create children, who themselves can fulfil the mitzvot.
When a Jew takes a wife, both he and she are sanctified, and the human body and its functions which .are brought into play in this marriage relationship are the gifts of God, which, like the C r eation its elf, are'' very good".
GELLES: Procreation then is nothing but a repetition, as it were, of the original
act of the creation of man, and since this takes place through the instrumentality of the sex instinct, the sex instinct as such is hallowed by the Almighty. Sex therefore carries out the work of the Almighty inpppulating His world. Our sages say that bringing children into the world multiplies the divine image. The sex instinct, therefore, is a mostpositive element in maintaining the earth to the gloi7 of God BIRK: The working party which recently presented its report on " Sex and Morality" to the British Council of Churches was doubtful whether there was a Christian position on sexual morality at ail. They said that the Christian faith is concerned less with a single fixed position than with commending a characteristic attitude. How does this inyour view accord with Judaism?
LEIGH: I could not accept this neutral attitude. We Jews believe in Torah min Hash-amayim, that God, through the Bible, made some special revelation of moral truths to man and which gives us the fundamental distinction between right and wrong, valid for all men at all
BACKGROUND
London (JCNS) - The relevance erf age-old Jewish teaching to the problems of the day is being dramatically vindicated by the current debate on the laws of divorce in Britain.
times and places.
BIRK: Are'you saying that Judaism has a single fixed positiorf? '
LEIGH: Yes.
GELLES; I agree most emphatically.
BIRK: Can we now go on to the Jewish attitude to marr riage and how it differs from the Christiaif?
GELLES: Marriage is that divine institution by which the vyorld is to be maintained. However, procreation is only one of the two major functions of marriage, the other being companionship.
We have, therefore, a combination of the relational and the prpcreational character of marriage, which in i^s blend has always stood out as a wonderful example of idealism and holiness, as well as tenacity to maintain one's identity. Furthermore, marriage is considered to be the natural state ot man: a-person who does not marry is considered to be without joy, without happiness, without blessing.
BIRK: But this doesrft apply to a woman, does if?
GELLES: The duty to found a family and have children devolves on the man. Apart from this, woman is a full and equal partner with man in the sacred task (rf maintaining Jewish family life.
LEIGH: In substance I agree with Rabbi Gelles on this. I think there was, and maybe still is, a tendency in Christianity to maintain a distinction between love, love of God or love of man, on the one hand, iai J marriage on the other hand, which in parts of the New Testament appears to be thou^t of as something carnal, d^rading.
As far as we are concerned the beautiful act of sex is sanctified in marriage and only there is true love ful-ailecL I agreewitklbi^^j^urti when it speaks about 'niai*-'
At its last meeting, the Church <rf. England Assembly - cided almiDiSt.V\ih&iliiri<I^Hy^^ change in the grounds of civil divorce, from the prejfent "matrimonal offence" to "irreparable breakdown". This is a
return to the spirit of Jewish law, and shows that the daugh- . „ u
ter religion can still draw nourishment from its ancestral--^"t down roots; it affectsthe
personality at the deepest
riage as "soil in which the complex plant of love can
roots.
TTiat marriage is meant to be a life-long union has been taught by Judaism in all ages. It is a civQ contact freely entered into; but it is also a divine institution. Marriages, in the picturesque rabbinic imagery, are "made in heaven".
If a marriage broke down, therefore, the rabbis not surprisingly counted it a disaster: "The very altar shed tears over the man who sends away the wife (rf His youth", says the Talmud. But for two people to be forced to cwitinue a partnership which has ended in all but legal form is unthinkable to Judaism, whose keynote is compassion.
The school of Shammai, the stem legalist, held that a man shcill divorce his wife only for unfaithfulness. The school of Hillel. and Rabbi Akil^, authentic interpreters of the true Jewish spirit, on the other hand, allowed divorce for any cause that signifies thata marriage has broken down, down.
In early times, a man could "send away" a wife simply by giving her a "bill of divorcement (Gel)". Butl?y the year 1,000 C.E., with the progress of rabbinic law, he could do so only with her willing consent. A religious court CBetH Din), however, could compel either party to consent to divorce in certain cases, such as adultery and what would today be described as extreme incompatibility.
The New Testament followed the line rf Shammai. Basing itself on the scriptural saying that man and wife are "(me flesh" (Genesis 2,24), it barred all divorce (or, according to some interpretations, permitted it only for the wife's adultery).
It was not until 1857 that a marriage could be legailly dissolved in England (except by special Act of Parliament), and then only on the ground of adultery. Since then, the country's divorce laws and practice have been gradually liberalised, but the basis for divorce has remained the "matrimonial offence", whether it be adultery, cruelty or desertion.
Successive attempts to ease the English divorce laws were stoiitiy resisted by the Church of England and the Catholics (but not the Firee Churches). When Mr. Leo Abse, Jewish M.P.:for Pontypool, in 1963 promoted legiislatibn to allow divorce after a long period ol "separation", he was opposed . by the heads of all the religious denominations except the /■^hief Rabbi.- ^'^ ■.
Within the last year there has been a ^amatic change in Christian thinking, bringing it close to the Jewish tradltiwu^ Following a Church report^ published under the title "putting Asunder", the Church of England's official policy, as embodied in the Church Assembly's decision, now is that the, concept,of the matrimonial (rffence should be done away with. The courts should grant divorce exclusively if they are satisfied that a marriage has irretrievably broken down.
The Church of England will in general stiU not, however,, remarry a divorced person in Church. But jeven the doctrine tha^t in the eyes of God a man and his wife are indlssolubly joined for life is being looked at afresh.
As the.Law Commlsision pointed oui in a report issued last November more divorces do not necessarily signify aloosen-ing of family life: they are merely a recognition that a marriage has broken down. Thus, the Commission recalls that the divorce rate has increased In Britain in recent years, but finds that "marriajge as" an institution i^ healthy state as compared with the pastf'.
This conclusion/Is supiwrtediv the position The high - but falling -divorce rate there is lio doubt largely due to the uproo!ting e^erlenced hy many of its present-Inhabitants. It has, however, not been suggested that tnei
level". It stresses the fact that marriage is a moral as well as a 1^1 union.
Pd like to add to this stress on the relational aspects of marriage that marriage and sex bring out the full personalities of the two parties and in very specific spiritual qualities; qualities of unselfishness, respect, desire to give each other pleasure, the sheer dedication to each other and the idea of responsibility to each other.
BIRK: Itappears, then, tiiat there's less fear andagreat-er acceptance of sex in Judaism than in Christianity?
GELLES: It is because Judaism accepts this world entirely and unconditionally as good, as the report of the Creation says: ''It was good"; whereas Christianity, of course, lives under the shadow of its concept of original sin.
BIRK: Are there any sex-
ual practises between husband and wife, which are forbidden by Judaisnf?
GELLES: Judaism is very definite that the sex act has to be performed in the natural and normal manner, and must allow for thepossibility of procreation.
BIRK: But anything that is done privately between husband and wife is still not all right under Jewish law if it does not follow the conventional Idea of sexual intercourse? GELLES: Correct. BIRK: May I ask you your views on pre - marital sex. The Church's working party did not endorse the accepted Christian view that chastity consists of obedience to the rule defying sexual intercourse outside marriage. They said: "Sexual inter-QQurse before marriage, already widespread, is likely to become universal". How does Judaism view this, and how do you personally?
LEIGH: I think this is the big drawback of the Church's report that it does not give a clear enough line which I think it is the duty of a religious body to do. It talks, more ia terms of educating people to moral values, rather than actually stating vyhat the moral values are. As a rabbi I would state cat^oric-ally that, as I understand Jewish law, there can be neither adultery nor other extra-marital relations.
BIRK: That is quite absolute in your view. There are no extenuating circumstances or hard caseS?
LEIGH: No, I would certainly be quite firm on this, file sort of reasoning this report uses is that "everybody's doing it", and there^ fore we should adapt ourselves to this situaticMU The fact that everybody was persecuting' Jews .did not make , a wrong into a right. I would say that it is the duty of religion to state categorically when something is right and when something is wrong.
BIRK: But this Ignores the sexual and emoticxial development of young people and the fact that marriage once took place earlier and sexual ihtercourse was then sanctified by law. Surely there must be some adaptation to the physical and social cpnditbns prevailing in these times.
GELLES: Certainly the question of sex is a pressing one in all ages, and particularly in our permissive society, which has cheapened sex. Instead (rf try hig to influence people to control sex as far as that is possible they take the line ot least resistance. But the higher one aims the better is the result.
It is as essential today as ever beforethatyoungpeople learn to control the sex instinct, in the same way as you have to learn to control other instincts. I blame society for hot produci% the
JURIST TO HAMILTON NEGEV
Thie Hon. Mr. Justice Abraham H. Lieff of the Supreme Court of Ontario will be the guest speaker at the Negev Testimonial Dinner In honor of Irving Zucker, well-known Hamilton business
JUSTICE LIEFF
executive and Jewish communal leader, on April 16th,
strong bonds ol family which have always distinguished Jews .at the Adas Israel Synagogue,
have been loosenhig, and there is some evidence that they have not.
Divorce rate (per 1,000 population)
England ^l^ew ^.67 / .0.80 0177'■ 0.96
Zeala
in^
' U.S.A. 2.48
(1951) Israel^
^' 1.5 ,
Hamilton, According to an announcement made by Norman Levitt, chairman of the Dinner Committee. /, The( prbceeds of this dln-
erf the Jewish NatI(Hial Fund, are used to reclahn a major track (rf land in Israel's Negev Desert in the name of the honoree and toprepareit for settlement by new Iinmi-grant families arriving in . the country.
Mr. Justice Lieff began his distinguished career in his chosen profession of the Law iii his native Ottawa In 1926, becoming assistant Crown Attorney in 1935, Magistrate of Carleton County in 1939, being- elevated to the Supreme Court of Ontario in 1963. At the same time, he has given distinguished communal service as ai leader in three major areas of con-t^porary Jewish life — the qrnagogue, education and Zionism, as a National Vice-preslderrt of the United Synagogue of America, ais Chairman of the Board of Education of Ottawa's Talmud Torah School system and as a life long active Zionist. He . has also held leadershipP9^y^ itl(»is in an impressive list of Anon-sectarian charitable
right type of education by which young men and women would feel proud of being able to,deal with the sex instinct so that they would be masters of it and hot Its slaves.
LEIGH: I agree very much with Rabbi Gelles. I think also, as the report brings out, just to have sex before marriage isolates one aspect and only one aspect, of the whole complex which we call love, and it also, as a result ot this, tends to make the sex act a rather greedy andpos-sessive thing.
It shows no respect of the one for the other. Neither of the two parties can tell at the time what subconscious psychological effect this may have on them, which may threaten them when they do get married' and undermine their whole basis of respect for marriage.
BIRK: I don't think one can divide this into black and white compartments, since many gree^, possessive sexual acts take place withhi marriage as well as outside marriage. But whati find extremely disturbing is that if one holds this very hard-and-fast rule, as you both do, it means that Judaism has taken no real cognisance of the knowledge of psychology we now have, the knowledge of sex motivations, and the whole working of human emotions. As far as your concept of Judaism is c(Hicerned, Freud need not have lived at all.
GELLES: May I answer this;? In former days any offence was considered purely in terms of morality. Nowadays, with the great knowledge of psychology as well as sociology, we begin to realise that a moral judgement may not be the complete answer to our investigation into ttie sprii\gs and motives pf (yi^minal j^tipns. Nevertheless you ^must not rob, you must not steal, although we may understand the man. and perhaps have more compassion towards him than they used to have centuries ago.
BIRK: But, Rabbi Gelles, while I accept that a criminal act, whatever the motivation, is wrong, Icannotaccept that every act of pire-marltal sex is necessarily wrong. I think ifs terribly important, especially with young people, to understand why these things happen and not to set i?) a System of moral law tiiat one knows perfectly well they are not going to be able to keep, and which drives young people away from Jjdaism. This dpesi^t mean giving a free charter to indulge in premarital sex, but it does mean not taking the categorical view you do.
LEIGH: You mention the p^chologists. Now the sort of line thatpsychologiststEike is that.in order to express one's self naturally one should indulge in sex, in order to be healthy one should induge in sex. This seems to me to be a very material type of motivation. One (rf the spiritual criteria of Judaism is the creation of the Jewish home and if you're going to have sex outside the Jewish home, you will undermine one ci Judaism's greatest contributions to mankind, namely the family, and the home.
BIRK: Is it true that Ju^ daism 'jpermits greater sex-
ner, uhder the^sponsorshlp and humanitarian causes.
WILL BE HONORED Rabbi Gedatia Folder of. Toronto's Shomrai Shabos Congregation, who will be honored at a 'dinner In recognition of the publico-. tlon of'hi» soventh book of Holocha.Yetoday Ye»hurun, ..Volume" V. The affair will take place SMndoy' efvening, March 12th, 8:30 p.m. in the dining hojl of the Meyer bnd Minnie .Lebovic Building, 625 ' FJnch Avenue West.
ual freedom to men than to women.
GELLES: This is-not so. Both are commanded to abstain from extra-maritai relations.
May I, however, come back to one point. Let us not think for one moment* that the permissiveness In society today is in any way entirely new; it existed in the HeUenistib era and even before. It Is only because we keep more records and statistics in our modern age that we seem to be overwhelmed by it.
BIRK: Rabbi Leigh, although I don't agree, I can understand Rabbi Gelles taking this view, but I find it strange that a Reform minister should have whatI consider a very illiberal view on sex.
. LEIGH: The Reform synagogue has not carried out nmny radical changes in the basic Jewish approach. It has made, certainly in this country, some changes in the administration of the get and a few other modifications to limited areas.
But as far as sex is concerned, it has never claimed to make any alterations there or, to my knowledge, • in any other basic rhoral approach. We consider ourselves bound by rabbinic law in this matter - with one exception, and that is in the question of birth control.
GELLES: Weare,inprin-ciple, against contraception but with some exceptions, in. cases of danger to life or to the mental welfare of the person concerned. But each case, and this is most important, has to be judged after medical advice has been obtainedby a rabbi, who alone can give permission. In any case, a man must never use anything by which the male reproductive cells would be destroyed.
BIRK: I take^It^ accept that mariy Jewish couples are breaking the Jewish law all the time; otherwise there would be far bigger families everywhere, wouldn't there?
LEIGH: I would say that birth control is an example (rf where, I think, the Hal-acha can progress, not to break up Jewish married life but to strengthen it. There is, of course, always the danger of promiscuity if you permit contraceptives.
BIRK: Don't you think promiscuity Is there before the question of contraception arises, and that without contraceptives there would be many more illegitimate chil-dreri?
LEIGH: Reform rabbis who have discussed this matter think that there are enough moral sanctions within the whole corpus of Jewish law itself, and this Is indeed a question of education in Jewish values. If young Jews were aware of the basic Jewish values and really took therri seriously, they would not be so ready to flout them. Within marriage I would say that contraception can heighten the love relationship.
BIRK: Can I ask you both about contraception for unmarried people. TTie working party sayjs that while it disagrees with young unmarried people having sexual intercourse. It believes there is a good social argument for enabling them to have it in safety. If you don't agree with contraception for unmarried people, doyou believe It is better for young Jews to produce illegitimate children rather thanget contraceptive advice?
GELLES: This In a way, I think, seems to beg the questions. One cannot just leave matters, to chance and say, if this would be done what would be our approach.
I feel altogether that to consider the possibility of making illicit sexual relations easier, is itself to be deplored, because it will weaken the moral fibre of the people. Orthodox Judaism would have nothing to do with atypolicy by which even Indirectly the sex act would be conslderedis, lef s say, per-misslble or not frowned upon . if It takes place outside marriage. >
: BERK: -I see contraceptive advice In a framework of real sex education, which is more widespread, more frank and starts earlier.
FIGURES IN BRITAIN'S RECENT SEX VS. MORALITY JCNS DEBATE - From left to right; Rabbi BENJAMIN GELLES of London's FinchleySynogogoe (Orthodox)- ALMA BIRK. on editor of Novo Magozine; and Rabbi Michael Leigh, of'a L^don •'ReforS!" (Conservative) Synagogoei The debate followed a liberal statement on sex pobhshed by The British Council Of Churches. This recorded discussion deals with the topic of Jewish attitude to sex.
Wouldn't you agree that Judaism has responsibility for seeing that teachers who specialise in religious instruction should be trained in psychology and human relations, and that ministers should have training and awareness of these subjects?
GELLES: I am not in favor of contraceptive advice centres for single people because I am not in favor of putthig temptation in their way. For the same reason I would not want to see slot machines for contraceptives.
BmK: If the skilled people at tiie advice centres for the unmarried see for instance that a girl is emotionally disturbed they enable her to get help with her problems. If you don't have advice centres how are you going to reach young people's sexual problem^
LEIGH: I would certainly agree with the report's suggestion that courses for religion school teachers should include training in human relations, including sex I
presume, and also that rabbis should be trained. I think this is very important.
Pd say in my own case as a rabbi, I feel sometimes half equipped to deal with marriage guidance cases although i did attend a short course given by the Marriage Guidance Council. I still feel an enormous sense of responsibility when couples come to me with marriage difficulties.
BIRK: What is your attitude to practising Jews -probably many are members of your own synag(^es - who do not keep the moral laws which you have so clearly e3?)ressed and which you both firmly support?
GELLES: Where you have an area densely populated with strictiy observant Jews this problem is not as great as perhaps in a different type of setting. I do not deny that the stresses of adolescence are felt; obviously they are intended to be felt by nature and by the Almighty in order to persuade people to get married. But I consider
it iftost emphatically a question of education.
I would like to see a campaign initiated t6 make the Jewish population aware of the great concept of Jewish family life, and m this sex has its proper place. Iniust refer here to the yeca^an work undertaken by the Jewish Marriage Educat^^ Council in London; and provinces. '^W
AS an Orthodox rabbi^I must add that the time hie come to speak, .of cour^ with dignity and humllitjjj about some of the main irii-stitutlons of Jewish mari^l life, by which its stabil||r and its sanctity have large^ been secured. I refer especially to the laws concerni||: the period of separation af^ the mikva. We should speak so much abojrt thedji-ficulties which sexpresen^ but rather of the beauty «f married life which is ei^i-hanced by the sublimated sex instinct by which ol^ founds a family, has ch^
Continued on Page 8
HUMAN REUTIONS
A Rejecting Mother
Question: I am 51, fairly attractive and have been married 32 years. My daughter is married and has three children. My son is away at collie.
I seem to have lost interest ui my children. My daughter is competent but a disappointments She inaiTied aif:ii«Eulfi|i^ young man.' She -seems happjj.pi-? >
Nfy friends feel I am not human because I don't run to see my grandchildren every other day as they do. Frankly, my daughter and her friends bore me. After an hour of their conversation and my grandchildren's noise and crying, I am happy to leave.
My dau^ter's husband does very well. I feel no obligation to her.
Why should I feel guilty for wanting to spend what money we have only on our-' selves? I realize how littie I would have without my husband. I do not work and raily socialize with friends. My daughter is not demanding. My son is busy, with his own affairs. I can't stand my son-in-law. My son is average in his studies but outstanding In appearance. Both my children have very sloppy speech and do not wish to improve. • * *
Answer: If all problems were suddenly solved^ the spark ot incentive that makes for progress might be taken out of the business of living.
Many of the problems that arise from time to time are* very much the same basically. But they present differentfacets at different stages in a person's life, and require a new resolution as the person enters each new age.
This" does not necessarily mean that there is something wrong with the per- . son. Quite the contrary, acceptance of the fact of continuous emotional development, and the ability to adjust to it, show maturity.
Only after their children have gwie off: and built their own lives are someparents able to e^^ress their dependence on them, and very often through criticism* This can range all the way from criticism of the s poor way in which the daughter runs her houses to her choice of a mate.
DR. ROSE N. FRANZBLAO
She then justifies this behavior by saying that the job ot being a parent is finis-ed and now she has to rebuild her own life.
Basically, however, the frustrations and feelings of deprivation of the ybunger ••-•^,^(^^fi(fe(eii.i|te asfi^vife atnd
^ttOthw,^ kce'stilt jp^lltl^^^^ had all the good thttgs of iifei^^M e)9?Wt-ed her children to fulfill her frusttafed dreams. • * * *
When the children do not live up to these dreams and hopes, she feels they have let her down and not repaid her for all she has given, done and dreamed for them. But actually, deep down, she feels disappointed in herself for not haying achieved what she wanted in her own realm, and for not having shaped her children as she wanted to.:
Feeling let down by her children, she punishes them by withdrawal of love, .^attention and material gifts. Then she giyps to herself things which she denied herself . during her childreifs growing years; But she does not feel aiy the more..worthy <rf getting or enjoying these things. She justifies this self-concern by sayingjVin effect, "What you didn't give me, after^11 I did for you, I now have the right to ^ye to myself." /
Making your husband the center of your life, which he evidently has not beei(tea time, Is good and sound. This should ittid him to make you the' center of his-ltfe. The feeling that you are wanted and desired now, more than ever before, should be the result. However, this feeling of worthiness and desirability must cwne from within yourself.
To make your husband your first interest is good, but to make him your afly interest might set you up for another disappointment. For it would require that he fill your whole life and therefore haye/too life of his own.
V When you give to and hel|^ others wki will be less harsh ai yourself andtiien less critical of your family, whom ybu really love.
STUDY..MISS!ON MEETS ^/-theig^bovn photo^d^ pgrtotlth/iv nded a Stiidy Mission meeting of'Toront^N Unlted^Jewish Appeal rocently at the
dtte_________
of Mr. and Mrs. Alex G. Fisher', s^en addressing the group,
Jqcl< Frjodmdn, Q.C./ one
overflow crowd vyhith' .1 recently at the,hom« of, the Mission members^ Is
V