[TSE 16.2 (2010) 127‑142] doi: 10.1558/tse.v16i2.127 (print) ISSN 1355‑8358 (online) ISSN 1745‑5170 Judaic Perspectives on Pornography Jonathan K. Crane1 Center for Ethics Emory University 1531 Dickey Drive Atlanta, GA 30322 Jonathan.email@example.com AGHIJKLI If sexually explicit expressions are not automatically deﬁned as obscene or illegal, moral and legal arguments must be made about what aspects of these expressions, if any, warrant restriction. According to some contem‑ porary Jewish ethicists and rabbis, the proper Judaic response is toward greater regulations especially in regard to consuming such material. The Judaic textual tradition’s vast legal and non‑legal materials, however, support a more nuanced relationship to the production, distribution and consumption of erotic materials. Keywords: ethics; law; Judaism; pornography. Know this well and see how far the power of fantasy and thought extend, whether it be for good or evil… You will know the power of fantasy, and you will understand the mystery of thought and how powerful it is at the time of union.2 An Initial Glance Contemporary Jewish scholarship and rabbinic positions regarding por‑ nographic material articulate a strongly negative aTitude.3 If one were 1. Jonathan K. Crane is the Scholar in Bioethics and Jewish Thought at the Center for Ethics at Emory University. 2. Iggeret HaKodesh [The Holy LeTer], p. 188. This source is usually ascribed to Nachmanides (1194–c. 1270, Spain/Israel), but possibly was wriTen by Joseph ben Abraham Gikatilla (c. 1248–1305, Spain), according to Rachel Biale, Women and Jewish Law: The Essential Texts, their History, and their Relevance for Today (New York: Schocken Books, 1995), p. 140. 3. Only one scholarly article (L. Grossman, “A Jewish Approach to the Pornog‑ raphy Issue,” in S. Bayme and G. Rosen (eds), The Jewish Family and Jewish Conti‑ © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011, Unit S3, Kelham House, 3 Lancaster Street, Sheﬃeld, S3 8AF. 128 Theology & Sexuality to assume that these pieces conveyed the totality of Judaic opinion on this topic and applied them to a discussion about freedom of expression, it would be plausible to say that the Jewish tradition favors restricting pornography in all its forms, from its production to its distribution and especially to its consumption. As will be demonstrated here, however, this negative aTitude is at odds with the Jewish textual tradition. For when the textual tradition is taken seriously, it reveals a wide array of legal and ethical aTitudes regarding sexuality, sex, its accoutrements— and expressions thereof. This vast array of texts comprises legal and ethical sources. Whereas Jewish law (halakhah) delineates prohibited, permiTed and required forms of sexual expression, ethical literature (aggadah) details those that are preferred, denigrated and or morally punishable. This paper oﬀers a preliminary exploration of these diverse materials so as to produce a more nuanced perspective on pornography that takes the Judaic textual tradition honestly. This task is best achieved by avoiding a methodology common among contemporary Jewish ethicists and rabbis. These authors assume that sexually explicit material—which for shorthand I will call porno‑ graphy here—is necessarily obscene. There are primarily two ways to nuity [Hoboken: Ktav, 1994], pp. 181–99) and three rabbinic responsa (S. B. Freehof, “Pornographic Literature,” in Current Reform Responsa [Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1969], pp. 240–42; D. Villa, hTp://www.schechter.edu/AskTheRabbi. aspx?ID=133; E. Gurkow, hTp://www.askmoses.com/en/article/237,2233031/Is‑por‑ nography‑a‑sin.html) speciﬁcally address the issue of pornography. There are many books on Jewish sexuality generally, though few discuss por‑ nography explicitly or implicitly. An exception is Rachel Shtier’s piece (“Jews and Pornography,” in Paul Buhle (ed.), Jews and American Popular Culture, Volume 3: Sports, Leisure, and Lifestyle [Santa Barbara: Praeger Publishers, 2007]) which is a brief review of Jews participating in or protesting against diﬀerent aspects of twentieth‑ century pornography; it does not have a discussion of Jewish legal or ethical texts; more on this below. Other works dealing with Jewish sexuality generally include: J. Z. Abrams, The Women of the Talmud (Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1995); A. Bloch, “Lust,” in A Book of Jewish Ethical Concepts (New York: Ktav, 1994); E. B. Borowip, Choosing a Sex Ethic: A Jewish Inquiry (New York: Schocken Books for B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundations, 1969); D. Boyarin, Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997); A. Edwardes, Erotica Judaica: A Sexual History of the Jews (New York: Julian Press, 1967); H. Eilberg‑Schwarp, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Reli‑ gion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990); H. Eilberg‑ Schwarp, God’s Phallus and Other Problems for Men and Monotheism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1994); N. Graep, Silence is Deadly: Judaism Confronts Wifebeating (Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1998); M. Kaufman, The Woman in Jewish Law and Tradition (North‑ vale: Jason Aronson, 1993); D. Novak, “Some Aspects of Sex, Society, and God in Judaism,” in Jewish Social Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992); S. Shva and I. Tumarkin, Ahavah doheket et ha‑basar: ahavah, ta’avah ve‑tashmishei mitah ba‑Tal‑ mud uva‑Midrashim (Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Poalim, 2000) [Hebrew]. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. Crane Judaic Perspectives on Pornography 129 deﬁne the obscene. Either the obscene is subjectively considered dis‑ gusting or perverse, or the obscene is that which the law prohibits.4 These deﬁnitions of the obscene moralize and politicize pornography, respectively. Moreover, they preclude an honest evaluation of how por‑ nography is obscene and whether it deserves regulation. And such deﬁ‑ nitions would hamper an honest examination of these questions from a Judaic perspective. Furthermore, if pornography is deﬁned from the outset as obscene and thus a form of speech that does not deserve pro‑ tection, it raises the question of where the line is (to be) drawn between it and other forms of expression that also have varying degrees of sexual content, like advertisements, ﬁlms and novels. So as to avoid clumping ads, ﬁction, television shows, erotica and other expressions of sexual content into the category of the obscene, this article interrogates the link between pornography and obscenity from within the Judaic textual tradition. Before turning to my task, here are three examples illustrating this contemporary Jewish approach that assumes pornography to be obscene. The earliest mention of pornography is by the great mid‑century Ameri‑ can Reform rabbinic ethicist Solomon Freehof. “The question of pornogra‑ phy in speech and writing,” he begins, “would concern the ethical rather than the legal literature, but the following is what there is in the ancient lit‑ erature and the tradition based on it.”5 Freehof then surveys some non‑ legal sources discussing the notion of ervat davar, which is commonly translated as “unseemly thing,” and ends with a Talmudic opinion that people who tell sexy jokes about a wedding couple will be punished by God (more on these below). He then cites one legal text that proscribes a husband speaking to his wife even when they are alone. With that, he concludes: “Actually the whole maTer of the avoidance of pornog‑ raphy, although it is more ethical than strictly legal, is organized as a series of legal regulations for self‑control in speech. This about covers the strictly legal material.”6 In Freehof’s view, pornography is inherently unseemly and using it risks spiritual dangers. Jewish law, he claims, cor‑ roborates this perspective because it reinforces the virtue of self‑restraint in maTers of (sexual) speech. Freehof adamantly asserts this simply is the Judaic textual tradition about pornography. 4. See discussion in Marty Klein, America’s War on Sex: The A3ack on Law, Lust and Liberty (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006), pp. 59ﬀ.; and L. W. Sumner, The Hateful and the Obscene: Studies in the Limits of Free Expression (Toronto, Buﬀalo: University of Toronto Press, 2004), pp. 13ﬀ. 5. S. B. Freehof, “Pornographic Literature,” in Current Reform Responsa (Cincin‑ nati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1969), pp. 240–42 (241), emphasis added. 6. Freehof, Pornographic Literature,” p. 242. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. 130 Theology & Sexuality A more recent demonstration of this assumption is found at an online website for Jewish teenagers. In response to a question whether Talmudic “rabbis condemn pornography,” modern Israeli Rabbi Villa curtly responds that pornography is “the kind of thing which appeals to man’s [sic] lowest instincts and can be a bad inﬂuence. Besides, it demeans sex, which…is meant to be sanctiﬁed in the context of mar‑ riage. I hope the issue is clear to you now.”7 For Rabbi Villa, pornogra‑ phy is tantamount to the obscene because it oﬀers nothing but moral harms: moral corruption (it is a bad inﬂuence) and moral degradation (it demeans sex). Yet she neither adduces traditional texts demonstrating that Talmudic rabbis actually condemn pornography, nor does she oﬀer an extended ethical argument explaining why pornography should be considered obscene and hence avoided. Hers is more an argument from conviction than from tradition. A more nuanced approach is found in Lawrence Grossman’s schol‑ arly piece in which he distinguishes two deﬁnitions of pornography. Pornography can be viewed as a “sexual stimulant” or as an “agent of dehumanization.”8 Regardless of one’s preferred deﬁnition, Grossman claims that, “from a Judaic perspective, pornography…raises serious moral problems for the individual and for society. Indeed, honest con‑ frontation with the Jewish sources reveals the basic incompatibility between contemporary sexual mores and the Judaic tradition.”9 His analysis of classic texts leads him to conclude that “since sexual stimula‑ tion outside of marriage is forbidden, so is pornography,” and “Jewish sexual ethics clearly condemn the casual, dehumanizing portrayal of sex acts that characterize pornography.”10 In contrast to liberal American Jews, whose “commitment to freedom of expression and fear of govern‑ ment intervention in personal decisions is rooted in a profoundly secu‑ larist outlook,” the traditional form of Judaism that Grossman endorses “stands unequivocally against the debasement of human dignity inher‑ ent in pornography.”11 Judaism’s fundamental rejection of pornogra‑ phy should spur Jews to “look beyond the legal considerations of free 7. hTp://www.schechter.edu/AskTheRabbi.aspx?ID=133. This website is aﬃli‑ ated with the Masorti/Conservative movement in Israel. Another online rabbinic perspective (Chabad) summarily states that pornography is sinful in two ways: (1) “it leads to sin, either in masturbation or in illicit sex,” and (2) “it is itself a corruption of the mind as it forces us to think lustful and sinful thoughts, which is itself sinful.” Nothing more is included in this rabbinic viewpoint. See hTp://www.askmoses.com/ en/article/237,2233031/Is‑pornography‑a‑sin.html (accessed 31 January, 2011). 8. Grossman, “A Jewish Approach to the Pornography Issue,” pp. 181–99 (184). 9. Grossman, “A Jewish Approach to the Pornography Issue,”p. 184. 10. Grossman, “A Jewish Approach to the Pornography Issue,” pp. 189, 193. 11. Grossman, “A Jewish Approach to the Pornography Issue,” p. 195. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. Crane Judaic Perspectives on Pornography 131 speech to the eﬀect that dehumanizing and vulgarizing public expres‑ sion has on popular values.”12 His academic treatment of diﬀerent def‑ initions of pornography notwithstanding, Grossman’s insistence that pornography is inherently demeaning echoes the convictions found in Freehof and Villa. For him as for the others, pornography is obscene and Judaism abhors it.13 Such approaches to sexually explicit expressions preclude an honest assessment of the Judaic textual tradition because they oﬀer conclusions before analyzing available data. A more sophisticated treatment of the topic ﬁrst scours the textual tradition for sexually explicit expressions, analyzes these classic sources for their features and values, and then oﬀers a provisional Judaic perspective. I want to stress that this kind of approach does not a priori deﬁne pornography as obscene, as either morally repugnant or halakhically proscribed. Nor does this method have pretensions of reaching a deﬁnitive conclusion, for one of the hall‑ marks of Judaism is that at every historical moment and textual layer consensus and unanimity are rare. This more honest appreciation of the Judaic textual tradition’s actual aTitudes toward sexually explicit expressions empowers modern Jews to assess whether Judaism consid‑ ers these expressions morally repugnant or illegal or both, and that Jews ought to press regulating its production, dissemination and consump‑ tion. Rather, this approach might actually endorse Judaic rationales for protecting certain forms of sexually explicit communications insofar as they do not contravene Judaic values but, perhaps, even promote Judaic living.14 Visual Forms of Expression The Bible teaches that human nakedness is a wondrous if not danger‑ ous thing to witness. Naked Adam and Eve, for example, saw each other 12. Grossman, “A Jewish Approach to the Pornography Issue,” p. 196. 13. The modern Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce oﬀers a dramatically diﬀerent approach. He demystiﬁes sex by speaking about it publicly. For him, sexually explicit expressions are non‑value‑laden according to Judaism, and therefore are not problem‑ atic. See some of Bruce’s statements in D. Biale’s Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America (New York: Basic Books, 1992), p. 217. 14. Several other scholars deﬁne pornography and then use that deﬁnition to analyze classic sources and thereby declare whether something is or is not porno‑ graphic. See, for example, F. v. Dijk Hemmes, “The Metaphorization of Woman in Prophetic Speech: An Analysis of Ezekiel 23,” in A. Brenner and F. v. Dijk Hemmes, On Gendering Texts (New York: E. J. Brill, 1993), pp. 167–76; A. Brenner, “On ‘Jer‑ emiah’ and the Poetics of (Prophetic?) Pornography,” in Brenner and Dijk Hemmes, On Gendering Texts, pp. 177–93; Marty Klein, America’s War on Sex: The A3ack on Law, Lust and Liberty (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006). © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. 132 Theology & Sexuality and felt no shame (Genesis 2.25).15 Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Esther are shapely and beautiful (Genesis 12.11ﬀ, 24.16, 29.17; Esther 2.7). No one could compare with the stunning beauty of Job’s daughters: Jemimah, Kepia, and Keren‑Hapuch (Job 42.13ﬀ.). Ruddy and handsome King David watches beautiful Bath‑Sheba bathe naked on a nearby rooftop (1 Samuel 16.12; 2 Samuel 11.2). Such biblical texts suggest that, ab initio, acknowledging and viewing human beauty, clothed or not, is neither a crime nor a morally degrading experience. On the other hand, the Bible also claims that viewing another’s nakedness is a morally fraught expe‑ rience (Genesis 3.7, 9.21ﬀ.). Legally, it is prohibited to uncover the geni‑ talia of certain relatives (Exodus 18). And Aaron’s sons were instructed to wear linen breeches when approaching the altar lest they unwiTingly expose themselves and suﬀer death because of it (Exodus 28.42ﬀ.). In short, viewing human bodies is an activity that warrants biblical ambiv‑ alence, insofar as ambivalence means strongly held apparently mutu‑ ally exclusive convictions. The rabbis take seeing human nakedness seriously and express am‑ bivalence about it, too. Certainly beauty is to be praised, especially human beauty.16 For men, observing one’s scantily clad wife is consid‑ ered an appropriate sexual stimulant, as wives are instructed to dress seductively so as to arouse their husbands’ desires and produce arrow‑ accurate seminal ejaculations.17 It is permissible to look upon one’s naked wife, though not during her menses, as long as it is done in the privacy of one’s home, not out on the way or in the wild.18 Viewing images of naked women who are not one’s wife is also a potential legitimate sexual stimulant for men.19 As for women, R. Yohanan justiﬁes siTing 15. It is only later, after eating prohibited food that a sense of shame comes into existence and is connected with viewing nakedness (Genesis 3.7). On this transi‑ tion from unashamed nakedness to shameful gazing upon another’s nakedness, see Jonathan K. Crane, “Shameful Ambivalences: Dimensions of Rabbinic Shame,” AJS Review 35.1 (Spring 2011), pp. 61–84. 16. Upon seeing a beautiful woman, one should praise God who “made beauti‑ ful things in the world.” Tosefta Berachot 7.7. After seeing an exceptionally beautiful person, one should praise God who “has such in His [sic] universe.” Tosefta Berachot 6.4. 17. Sefer Hasidim (Parma), 1084, p. 275. ATributed to Judah heHasid. Found in D. Biale, Eros and the Jews, p. 78. 18. MT Isurei Bi’ah 21.4; SA Even HaEzer 20.4, 25.2. See G. Winkler, Sacred Secrets: The Sanctity of Sex in Jewish Law and Lore (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1998), pp. 67ﬀ. 19. Queen Jezebel painted images of prostitutes on King Ahab’s chariot so as to arouse him. BT Sanhedrin 39b. Grossman, “A Jewish Approach to the Pornogra‑ phy Issue,” p. 183, identiﬁes this text as the sole “reference to pornography in the Talmud… The subjects of the story are Queen Jezebel and King Ahab, two biblical villains, and the intent is clearly to mock the wicked royal pair.” Grossman provides nothing else to buTress his interpretation of this brief Talmudic text. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. Crane Judaic Perspectives on Pornography 133 prominently outside the women’s mikveh with this claim: “When the daughters of Israel come up from bathing and look at me, they will have children as handsome as I am.”20 The medieval mystical tract Iggeret Ha‑ Kodesh claims that seeing a person’s beautiful form contributes to beTer sexual union.21 Perhaps responding to the biblical injunction against sculpting anything in the heavens or on earth (Exodus 20.4ﬀ.; Deuter‑ onomy 5.8f.), the rabbis also express anxiety about viewing human na‑ kedness. They assert that it is far beTer to look at an aTractive woman than to engage with her bodily.22 In a lengthy Talmudic discussion a rabbi claims that merely looking at a woman leads to sin, and looking at a woman’s heel will produce degenerate children. A colleague says this applies even when looking at one’s wife during her menses. Another rabbi chimes in to clarify that “heel” refers to that “soiled place opposite the heel”—that is, the vagina. A fourth rabbi invokes ministering angels to say that parents who look at “that place” (the genitalia) produce blind children.23 Seeing naked bodies is one thing; viewing sexual acts is another. For those immediately involved in the sex act, rabbinic lore and law favors doing so in darkness so as not to view each other’s nakedness.24 Other rabbis allow a light, although there must be a screen between it and the coupling individuals.25 Yet what about watching others engaging in sex? The Talmud twice records a story of R. Kahana who hid underneath the bed of his teacher, Rav, so as to observe how he interacted with his wife. He justiﬁed witnessing Rav’s casual and intimate engagement with her as necessary for his Torah learning.26 That is, proper moral instruction of a pupil includes witnessing, ﬁrsthand or otherwise, (good) sex; conversely, a teacher could very well expect that even his intimate behavior is right‑ fully subject to student observation. R. Simeon bar Yohai oﬀers a dissent‑ ing opinion. In his view, both he and God despise people who have sex in 20. BT Berachot 20a. See also BT Baba Me=ia 84a. The Iggeret HaKodesh references this story at pp. 140 and 162. R. Leib Melamed speaks of watching naked women at a mikveh and becoming spiritually elevated; quoted in D. Biale, Eros and the Jews, p. 125. 21. Iggeret HaKodesh, pp. 140, 162. 22. BT Yoma 74b. 23. BT Nedarim 20a. For a discussion of looking upon penises, especially God’s loins, see Eilberg‑Schwarp’s Gods’ Phallus. 24. BT Niddah 16b; SA Even HaEzer 25.5. 25. Beit Shmuel on SA Even HaEzer 25.5. See also Winkler, Sacred Secrets, pp. 65ﬀ. 26. BT Berachot 62a; BT Chagigah 5b; Tur, Orech Chayim 240. According to BT Nedarim 20b, a man is permiTed to have sex with his wife in any way he desires, which suggests that Kahana witnesses a variety of sexual behaviors. See also MT Isurei Biyah 21.9. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. 134 Theology & Sexuality front of their slaves.27 He does not claim, however, that any tangible pun‑ ishment from God or from humans ensues for those who do. This ambivalence about seeing real and manufactured naked bodies and sex acts correlates with biblical and rabbinic treatment of fantasy— of imagining other naked bodies and sex acts. The last of the aseret hadi‑ brot, the Ten Commandments, forbids lusting after a neighbor’s wife (Exodus 20.14; Deuteronomy 5.18). Coveting is dangerous and can lead to illicit sexual unions with dramatic real‑world punishments, such as bastard children, disease and disgrace.28 It can also preclude spir‑ itual rewards, the rabbis say.29 Therefore several Talmudic rabbis teach that a husband should think only of the wife he is having sex with lest their children be bastards.30 The Iggeret HaKodesh takes this social rami‑ ﬁcation further when it claims that “if a man thinks of sinful and ugly manners [while having sex with his wife], then the embryo is fashioned in an unholy matrix, and is destined to be wicked and unclean.”31 If fan‑ tasizing about another woman constitutes “sinful and ugly manners,” it follows that a man’s imagination in a sex act could eﬀect the moral development of his oﬀspring. Moreover, if in the midst of sex a man thinks “improper thoughts,” he engages in apostasy.32 That is, male fantasy has potential real‑world negative outcomes and is spiritually dangerous. On the other hand, a Hasidic text claims that being sexually tempted in either reality or in one’s mind can lead to spiritual beneﬁts. Should a naked woman, someone not even one’s wife, ask for sex and is obviously aroused, it is beTer for the man to desire her, “but never‑ theless not to have intercourse with her, but rather contemplate her and look at her intensely and he will pass the test and rise to great [spiritual] heights.”33 This text also teaches that it is appropriate for a man during prayer to visualize a woman, presumably naked, standing in front of him so as to reach greater spiritual heights, and he is permiTed to ejacu‑ late during prayer as a result of such arousal.34 27. BT Niddah 16b‑17a. 28. Proverbs 6.25‑35. See M. L. Satlow, Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexual‑ ity (Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press, 1995), for a discussion of prohibited sexual liaisons. 29. M Avot 4.21. 30. BT Nedarim 20a‑b. See the story of Imma Shalom, and Rabbi’s opinion a few lines later. See also BT Kallah 1.1 and BT Kallah Rabbati 1.15. Judaism permiTed polyg‑ amy until Rabbi Gershom outlawed it around 1000 L•. It took another thousand years before all Jews practiced monogamy. 31. Iggeret HaKodesh, p. 146. 32. Iggeret HaKodesh, p. 162. 33. Leib Melamed’s Shever Poshim, 34b‑35a. Found in D. Biale, Eros and the Jews, p. 126. 34. Shever Poshim, 37b‑38a. Found in D. Biale, Eros and the Jews, p. 126. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. Crane Judaic Perspectives on Pornography 135 While fantasy may be dangerous or orgasmic for men, the rabbis encourage women to fantasize—and to fantasize about rabbis, at that! Recall that R. Yohanan displayed his handsomeness to women’s eyes so that later they could fantasize about him and thereby generate children as beautiful as he. Indeed, the Iggeret HaKodesh throughout instructs men to stimulate their wives’ imaginations before engaging in sexual inter‑ course, so as to elevate both of their spiritualities during their encoun‑ ter. A Hasidic text observes that, “when a woman fantasizes about a man, a fantasy about the woman arises in the man.”35 In short, it is sexy for a man to think his wife is enjoying sexual fantasies. Verbal Forms of Expression Ambivalence about hearing or speaking or reading sexually explicit words also abounds in the Judaic textual tradition. The locus classicus for this discussion is an ambiguous phrase in the command to keep a military camp scrupulously clean because God moves around therein (Deuteronomy 23.10‑15). Certain ervat davar—indecent things—are not allowed in the camp. Targum Onkelos translates this phrase as ervat pitgom—indecent words. A rabbinic midrash understands ervat pitgom to be nibbul peh—lascivious talk.36 The Talmud illustrates this kind of speech with this moral story. Since everyone knows for what purpose a bride enters a wedding canopy, someone who speaks lasciviously thereof deserves to be stripped of whatever happiness may be due to him. Moreover, the jaw of Gehinnom gapes wide and deep not only for the speaker of nibbul peh but also for the one who listens and remains silent.37 This line of classical reinterpretation of an ambiguous biblical phrase leads Freehof to conclude that the Judaic tradition clearly con‑ demns pornographic speech. Such a negative position has a precedent with Moses Maimonides, the great medieval legalist and scholar, who observed that the majority of men’s conversations revolve around sex and for this reason extended conversation with women should be avoided whenever possible.38 A few centuries later, Joseph Karo ruled that though it is beTer for a man 35. Ktonet Pasim (Lvov, 1866), p. 33a, by Jacob Joseph of Polonnye, though aTrib‑ uted to the Baal Shem Tov. In D. Biale, Eros and the Jews, p. 132. 36. Leviticus Rabbah 24.7. Ibn Ezra, at Deuteronomy 23.15, thinks ervat davar refers to both words and deeds. 37. BT Shabbat 33a. See also BT Ketubot 8b; Moreh Nebukim, III.8. 38. Rambam, Commentary to M Avot 1.5, which asserts that extended speech with one’s wife, much more a neighbor’s wife, leads to bad things, to overturning the Torah, and to descending into the netherworld. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. 136 Theology & Sexuality not to converse with his wife at all during intercourse, this antipathy about speaking is not absolute. If a man must speak at the time of sexual engagement, let him talk about sexual issues so as to arouse her and inspire her willingness to engage sexually.39 The importance of speak‑ ing to one’s sexual partner to elicit consent and inspire arousal is not insigniﬁcant. For Maimonides similarly rules that a man may not sexu‑ ally engage his wife against her will (that is, marital rape is prohib‑ ited); rather he must secure her consent (da’atah), and engage with her through conversation (sichah) and joy (simchah).40 And Jacob ben Asher, the author of the medieval legal code Arbaim Turim, points to the story that R. Kahana overheard his teacher, Rav, verbally seduce his wife before engaging her, to support his own opinion that it is permissible for a husband to speak with his wife to increase her desire for him.41 This practice of speaking seductively to one’s wife has another Talmudic foundation. The sagacious Imma Shalom, the wife of Eliezer ben Hyrca‑ nus, informs that the secret to her children’s beauty stems from Eliezer’s practice of speaking with her just before sexually engaging with her.42 In short, both halakhah and aggadah condone sexually explicit verbal com‑ munication between sexual partners as legitimate foreplay. Even though it is both lawful and ethically desirable for a husband to speak to his wife before intercourse because it will increase her desire for him and they could generate beautiful oﬀspring, what pre‑ cisely should he say? As early as the Bible, the textual tradition demon‑ strates sexually‑arousing speech. The Song of Songs expresses lush if not lusty phrases that extol and (probably) excite a partner.43 The medi‑ eval Iggeret HaKodesh oﬀers these possibilities. A husband should arouse his wife with words of “erotic passion” to “provoke desire, love, will, and passion, as well as words leading to reverence for God, piety, and modesty.”44 Even early enlightenment Jewish poetry invokes strong sexual imagery: “She closed her hand around me and squeezed/So that 39. SA Even HaEzer 25.2. This leads Freehof to proclaim that pornographic speech is a maTer primarily of self‑restraint, see supra. 40. MT Ishut 15.17. This ruling against marital rape stems from a discussion at BT Eruvin 100b. That source also understands that men are to use speech to solicit sex from their wives. 41. Tur, Orech Chayim, 240. 42. BT Nedarim 20a‑b. 43. Jewish mystical texts take inspiration from and expand upon Song of Songs imagery to speak of (erotic) love for God and between people. 44. Iggeret HaKodesh, p. 172. See also pp. 174ﬀ., which refer to erotic and seductive speech. See also R. Jacob Emden’s (1697–1776) instructions about verbal foreplay, Siddur Beit Yaakov, 158a‑159a. Found in Kaufman, The Woman in Jewish Law and Tradi‑ tion, p. 137. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. Crane Judaic Perspectives on Pornography 137 my beloved could not spring free/She thrust her thighs, down and up/ Racing, racing the horse of her war/For her heart was stormy with the ﬂame of her love.”45 Though no speciﬁc phrases are mandated, sexy words are an important—if not legally necessary—component of appro‑ priate sexual engagement according to both legal and ethical sources. Reﬂecting on Erotica in Judaism The Judaic textual tradition, from as early as the Bible and ampliﬁed throughout the rabbinic, medieval and early modern periods, expresses ambivalence toward sexually explicit expressions. On the one hand, the tradition encourages modesty and restraint in dress and in word, in public and in private. And on the other hand, the tradition permits and promotes seduction and fantasy in both visual and verbal forms. It is therefore inaccurate and misleading to claim categorically that Judaism abhors pornography. At the other extreme, arguing that the tradition condones the production, dissemination and consumption of sexually explicit materials without qualiﬁcation is equally troubling.46 Rather, a mediating position best reﬂects the divergent opinions and rules found in the tradition.47 A more moderate approach to sexually explicit expressions takes into consideration both the harms and beneﬁts that the textual tradition applies to such expressions. The harms associated with these kinds of expression revolve around producing socially if not congenitally abnor‑ mal oﬀspring, and exacerbating personal moral depravity and spiritual damnation. The ﬁrst kind of harm, however, is unsubstantiated: history 45. Judah Leib Ben‑Ze’ev (1764–1811). Translated by D. Biale, Eros and the Jews, p. 162. 46. This article has not addressed child or violent pornography. On the former, the bible instructs that if a man has sex with a virginal and unbetrothed maiden, he is to pay her father a dowry and may not divorce her (Exodus 22.16f.; Deuteronomy 22.28f.). That is, if the act of having sex with a minor receives only a pecuniary pun‑ ishment, it would be diﬃcult to say that speaking about or visually depicting such acts is categorically prohibited. Regarding the laTer, insofar as a husband and wife may have sex in any position they mutually desire, it is conceivable that sadomaso‑ chistic sex would be permissible. Troubling as these observations are, more research into these sub‑genres is obviously called for. 47. This is not to fall in step with Shtier’s claim that “today, it is impossible to make anything touching an antiporn argument. It is diﬃcult to write anything that is critical about pornography for fear of being considered prudish. We are ‘post por‑ nography’ ” (“Jews and Pornography,” p. 204). It is possible, I claim, to show that Judaism’s relationship with pornography is neither antiporn nor proporn, nor indif‑ ferent altogether. There is, if one follows Klein’s argumentation in America’s War on Sex, a call for a healthy relationship between Jews and erotic communication. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. 138 Theology & Sexuality and science have not demonstrated much less proven that pornogra‑ phy produces anti‑social or disabled children. As for the second kind of harm, it also cannot be veriﬁed. On the other hand, sexually explicit expressions also entail certain beneﬁts. From having cause to praise God for witnessing beauty, to securing a spouse’s consent, from enriching one’s proper moral instruc‑ tion, to stimulating a partner’s fantasies, from experiencing prayer‑ ful orgasm and to producing beautiful children—the textual tradition countenances many positive reasons for producing and consuming sex‑ ually explicit material. Though certainly some of these beneﬁts cannot be substantiated, it cannot be denied that they are included in the tradi‑ tion’s deliberations about sexually explicit communication. An honest assessment of the textual tradition therefore must admit that pornogra‑ phy may be beneﬁcial in theory and in fact. Nor would an honest reading of the textual tradition subsequently claim that Judaism considers all sexually explicit material obscene. The tradition does not outlaw these expressions altogether; indeed, the legal codes permit them in certain circumstances. Nor does the tradition con‑ strue pornography as absolutely and always morally degrading. Quite the opposite. Given the bounty of positive reasons for and beneﬁts of producing and consuming these expressions, it would be internally inconsistent to claim that the tradition deﬁnes pornography wholly negatively, as completely perverse and morally degrading. There are, indeed, some opinions in the Judaic textual tradition that do consider sexually explicit expressions morally damaging, but privileging these opinions at the expense of giving due aTention to countervailing posi‑ tions is a question‑begging enterprise. The tradition’s treatment of this issue is more complex than the absolutists mentioned at this article’s start would like to admit. If, however, one were say that all sexually explicit expressions consti‑ tute the obscene, it would be possible then to say that the Judaic textual tradition views sexually explicit expressions as obscene. Such an argu‑ ment is tautological and it would vitiate the meaning of obscenity as it is generally understood. Moreover, it would make it all but impossible to diﬀerentiate between materials that are sexually implicit from those that are sexually explicit. For example, would an advertisement for jeans that portrays the back of a topless woman wearing those jeans be considered obscene? What about speaking of a man wearing a swimsuit? A pho‑ tograph of people kissing? A story of children holding hands? Where would obscenity start and where would it end? The Judaic textual tradition reﬂects the diﬃculty of deﬁning by ﬁat any line between acceptable and unacceptable communication, espe‑ © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. Crane Judaic Perspectives on Pornography 139 cially in regard to sex and sexual fantasies.48 This may be in part because of the individual and cultural nature of eroticism. Medieval rabbis were empowered to determine the dimensions of permissive interaction and exposure between sexes depending on local social mores.49 While modesty customs reﬂect and reinforce local standards of shame, indi‑ vidual preference is respected in regard to being nude and to observ‑ ing nudity.50 Basing himself on such Judaic positions, Grossman rightly argues that sexual subjectivity suggests “that the individual himself [sic] is the best judge of whether he can keep his impulses in check.”51 Each individual, and not a legislating rabbi, is to be the arbiter of what is, and is not, sexually explicit. Insofar as this responsibility devolves to individuals, can sexually explicit expressions be used for just any purpose? The textual tradition discourages sexual stimulation for the sake of autoarousal and male masturbation, especially outside the conﬁnes of a marriage.52 And sup‑ plying sexually explicit materials for medicinal purposes is deemed dangerous.53 Such positions could serve as rationales to restrict distrib‑ uting pornography. Grossman oﬀers another reason to limit distribu‑ tion when he claims that “the industry exploits its actors and models.”54 While perhaps true for some forms of modern pornography, this argu‑ ment does not ﬁnd much purchase in the Judaic textual tradition.55 On the other hand, the principle halbanat panim, the prohibition on embar‑ rassing someone in public, could serve as a Judaic foundation to restrict distributing sexually explicit materials. If the actors are indeed not 48. Regarding other issues, however, the tradition goes to great pain to distin‑ guish between protected and unprotected forms of expression. On incitement, for example, see Jonathan K. Crane, “Deﬁning the Unspeakable: Incitement in Halakhah and Anglo‑American Jurisprudence,” Journal of Law and Religion 25.2 (2010), pp. 329–56. 49. Bet HaBechirah, Gi3in 7a; SA Orah Chayim, 75.1 and 2. 50. Igrot Mosheh, Yoreh De’ah, III:68.4; 47.3. See also Winkler, Sacred Secrets, pp. 64ﬀ. 51. Grossman, “A Jewish Approach to the Pornography Issue,” p. 188. See n. 21 there for additional sources. 52. On autoarousal, see BT Niddah 13b. On the permissibility of extra‑vaginal ejaculation, see Zohar, Emor 90a. On male masturbation, see Winkler, Satlow, Dorﬀ. Though Rambam, in his commentary to M Sanhedrin 7.4, speaks of physical vitiation from ejaculation, this does not refer exclusively to masturbation. This aTitude that masturbation leads to impurity and impurity to loss of life energy is traced in Elliot Dorﬀ, Ma3ers of Life and Death: A Jewish Approach to Modern Medical Ethics (Philadel‑ phia: Jewish Publication Society, 1988), pp. 118ﬀ. 53. BT Sanhedrin 75a. 54. Grossman, “A Jewish Approach to the Pornography Issue,” p. 190. 55. Aside, perhaps, from the opinion that frowns upon having sex in front of household help. BT Niddah 17a. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. 140 Theology & Sexuality willing participants, are shamed within the production of the mate‑ rial, and are ashamed through its distribution, then their shame would be suﬃcient cause for restricting such expressions.56 Though this harm may be relevant to some forms of pornography and Jews would be rightfully dissuaded from producing, distributing and consuming these materials, it would be diﬃcult to make this case for all sexually explicit materials insofar as the vast majority of participants in contemporary pornography includes consenting adults, paid and unpaid alike.57 A Jewish argument against distributing (producing and consuming) pornography could also claim that certain humans are reduced to sexual stimulants, which would be an aﬀront to God. This is because each and every human is created be=elem elohim, in the image of God, and insofar as some humans are reduced to being tools for sexual stimulation, so too is God reduced to being merely a tool for sexual arousal. This argu‑ ment is specious, however. It ignores the fact that sexuality is inherent in being human, a fact the Judaic textual tradition acknowledges and relishes. And it also ignores the fact that the textual tradition counte‑ nances the possibility and desirability of sexually explicit expressions in certain circumstances. A diﬀerent criterion would be needed to justify restricting the distribution of pornography. For example, physical and psychical violence imposed upon the actors would probably secure a stronger Jewish argument to restrict distributing sexually explicit mate‑ rials insofar as causing such injuries in the ﬁrst place is proscribed within Judaism. Nevertheless, insofar as the bulk of modern sexually explicit expressions do not impose such violence upon its actors, it is diﬃcult to extend this argument to the whole genre of pornography (if it can be identiﬁably circumscribed in the ﬁrst place). On the whole, the Jewish textual tradition identiﬁes the appropriate location for the production and consumption of sexually explicit expres‑ sions to be within the conﬁnes of religiously‑sanctioned relationships. So Grossman is not altogether wrong when he says, “Jewish legal litera‑ ture manifests disapproval of erotic stimulation outside marriage.”58 He does err, however, in assuming that the Judaic textual tradition, inclu‑ sive of both legal and non‑legal materials, forbids all erotic stimulation inside marriage. The tonal thrust of the textual tradition favors permit‑ ting if not encouraging Jews to produce and consume erotic expres‑ sions for the purpose of invigorating marital relations. To be sure, this 56. On shame in rabbinic texts, see Crane, “Shameful Ambivalences: Dimensions of Rabbinic Shame.” 57. See research on the industry by Klein. 58. Grossman, “A Jewish Approach to the Pornography Issue,” p. 187. See also p. 189. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. Crane Judaic Perspectives on Pornography 141 is not to say that producing or consuming pornography is a necessary requirement for creating holier sexual relations. Because the bedroom is generally protected from rabbinic legal interference, as long as the people involved therein are mutually consenting adults in a sanctioned relationship, sexual expression, arousal and fantasy are theirs to create, explore and enjoy. Abbreviations BT JT SA MT Babylonian Talmud Jerusalem Talmud Shulkhan Arukh, by Joseph Karo Mishneh Torah, by Maimonides B„G…„†‡JKˆ‰Š Abrams, Judith Z. The Women of the Talmud. Northvale, NJ: J. Aronson, 1995. Amsel, N. The Jewish Encyclopedia of Moral and Ethical Issues. Northvale, NJ: J. Aronson, 1994. Bayme, S., and G. Rosen. The Jewish Family and Jewish Continuity. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV, 1994. Biale, D. Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America. New York: Basic Books, 1992. Biale, R. 1995. Women and Jewish Law: The Essential Texts, their History, and their Rel‑ evance for Today. New York: Schocken Books, 1995. Bloch, A. P. “Lust.” A Book of Jewish Ethical Concepts. New York: Ktav, 1984. Borowip, E. B., and B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundations. 1969. Choosing a Sex Ethic: A Jewish Inquiry. New York: Schocken Books. Boyarin, D. Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Brenner, A. “On ‘Jeremiah’ and the Poetics of (Prophetic?) Pornography.” In A. Brenner and F. v. Dijk Hemmes, On Gendering Texts, pp. 177–93. Brenner, A., and F. v. Dijk Hemmes. On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible. New York: Brill, 1993. Crane, Jonathan K. “Deﬁning the Unspeakable: Incitement in Halakhah and Anglo‑ American Jurisprudence.” Journal of Law and Religion (2010) 25.2, pp. 329–56. —“Shameful Ambivalences: Dimensions of Rabbinic Shame.” AJS Review 35.1 (Spring 2011), pp. 61–84. hTp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0364009411000031 Dijk Hemmes, F. v. “The Metaphorization of Woman in Prophetic Speech: An Analy‑ sis of Ezekiel 23.” In A. Brenner and F. v. Dijk Hemmes, On Gendering Texts, pp. 167–76. Dorﬀ, Elliot. Ma3ers of Life and Death: A Jewish Approach to Modern Medical Ethics. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1998. Edwardes, A. Erotica Judaica: A Sexual History of the Jews. New York: Julian Press, 1967. Eilberg‑Schwarp, H. The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011. 142 Theology & Sexuality — God’s Phallus and Other Problems for Men and Monotheism. Boston: Beacon Press, 1994. Freehof, S. B. “Pornographic Literature.” In Freehof, Current Reform Responsa, pp. 240–42. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1969. Graep, Naomi. Silence is Deadly: Judaism Confronts Wifebeating. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1998. Grossman, L. “A Jewish Approach to the Pornography Issue.” In S. Bayme and G. Rosen (eds), The Jewish Family and Jewish Continuity, pp. 181–99. Hoboken, Ktav, 1994. Gurkow, E. hTp://www.askmoses.com/en/article/237,2233031/Is‑pornography‑a‑sin. html Kaufman, Michael. The Woman in Jewish Law and Tradition. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1993. Klein, Marty. America’s War on Sex: The A3ack on Law, Lust and Liberty. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006. Nahmanides, and S. J. Cohen. 1993. The Holy Le3er: A Study in Jewish Sexual Morality. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1993. Novak, D. 1992. “Some Aspects of Sex, Society, and God in Judaism.” In Novak, Jewish Social Ethics, pp. 84–103. New York, Oxford University Press. Satlow, M. L. Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Shtier, Rachel. “Jews and Pornography.” In Paul Buhle (ed.), Jews and American Popular Culture, Volume 3: Sports, Leisure, and Lifestyle. Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2007. Shva, S., and I. Tumarkin. Ahavah doheket et ha‑basar: ahavah, ta’avah ve‑tashmishei mitah ba‑Talmud uva‑Midrashim. Tel Aviv: Sifriyat poalim, 2000 (in Hebrew). (Loving and Pressuring the Flesh: Love, Passion and Sex in the Talmud and Midrashim). Sumner, L. W. The Hateful and the Obscene: Studies in the Limits of Free Expression. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004. Villa, Diana, hTp://www.schechter.edu/AskTheRabbi.aspx?ID=133 Winkler, G. Sacred Secrets: The Sanctity of Sex in Jewish Law and Lore. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1998. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2011.