Download Observance of the Laws of Family Purity in Modern

Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:340–345
DOI 10.1007/s10508-007-9261-5
CLINICAL CASE REPORT SERIES
Observance of the Laws of Family Purity in Modern–Orthodox
Judaism
Mark A. Guterman
Received: 1 December 2006 / Revised: 11 April 2007 / Accepted: 25 August 2007 / Published online: 19 October 2007
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract This research is a follow-up to a previous study
measuring the observance of the ritually unclean period
(Niddah) among Modern–Orthodox Jews. A total of 267
participants completed an online questionnaire comprised of a
list of 16 ‘‘strict’’ and ‘‘lenient’’ forbidden behaviors. Participants reported whether they had engaged in these behaviors
during Week 1 (the actual menstrual period) and during Week
2 (the ‘‘clean days’’ following the cessation of bleeding).
Results showed that laws were being violated, with more
transgressions during the second week than the first week.
Additionally, more ‘‘lenient’’ laws were being broken than
‘‘strict’’ ones. Level of religious observance was significantly
negatively correlated to the number of transgressions. However, there was no significant correlation between the number
of transgressions and the age at marriage, sex, or how long one
had been married.
Keywords Sex Judaism Jewish law Orthodox Judaism Orthodox Jews Purity Ritual
Introduction
Orthodox Judaism holds that the observance of the Jewish
code of law, Halakha, goes hand-in-hand with rabbinical
interpretation of these laws, teachings, and rules, and that
both have been part of Jewish life and tradition since its
inception (Keshet-Orr, 2003). However, due to the Enlightenment and the emancipation of Jews, a split divided the
M. A. Guterman (&)
Department of Psychology, School of Psychology (T-WH1-01),
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Metropolitan Campus, 1000
River Road, Teaneck, NJ 07666-1914, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Jewish community. On one side, there was a movement
towards embracing modernity through religious reformation
and assimilation. On the other side (as a reaction to this idea
of reformation), Ultra-Orthodoxy materialized, struggling to
maintain traditional beliefs and practices by totally rejecting
modernity. During the nineteenth century, Modern–Orthodoxy was presented as a solution to this split. It sought to
adhere to traditional religious commitments (such as the
observance of Halakha) while, at the same time, embracing
many aspects of modern culture (Kaplan, 1979; Kurzweil,
1985; Leibman, 1982). This type of dialectical approach
seems to offer a harmonistic identity: these Jews are both
religious and modern (Schachter, 2002).
The Halakha details strict rules governing every aspect of
the daily lives of Jews, including the sexual lives of married
couples. Jewish law expressly forbids any physical contact
between spouses during the days of menstruation and for a
week thereafter. In addition, there are Harchakot, which are
laws set up by the Rabbis to prevent anyone from getting
close to violating Niddah (Eider, 1999; Y. Lehrfield, personal interview, August 22, 2006). These Harchakot, along
with all rabbinical interpretation, carry the same weight of
transgression as the original laws, and should be viewed as
such (Eider, 1999; Keshet-Orr, 2003).
According to stipulated ritual, an Orthodox Jewish wife is
responsible for ensuring that she is no longer exhibiting
vaginal bleeding by swabbing herself carefully with a linen
cloth for each of the seven days following the overt cessation of the menstrual flow (Burt & Rudolph, 2000; Eider,
1999). The seven clean days after menstruation culminate
with the wife’s obligation to immerse that night in the
Mikvah, the ritual bath. This entire period of time, from the
beginning of the ‘‘bleeding days,’’ until the end of the seven
‘‘clean days,’’ when the woman immerses herself in the
ritual bath, is called the ‘‘Niddah (ritually unclean)’’ period.
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:340–345
It is only at the end of the Niddah interval, after the ritual bath,
that spouses are permitted to physically touch one another.
This ‘‘two weeks on/two weeks off’’ pattern of contact
characterizes marital life until menopause, with two notable
time frame exceptions: pregnancy and nursing (until postpartum menstruation resumes), when uninterrupted contact is
permitted (Eider, 1999; Ribner, 2003). These ‘‘Laws of
Family Purity’’ represent an integral aspect of identity as an
Orthodox Jew (Donin, 1972; Wasserfall, 1992).
The Laws of Family Purity provide some potential benefits (e.g., heightened sexual interest following a two-week
abstinence) as well as some challenges (e.g., the tension of no
physical contact for two weeks) to Jewish couples, and have
been the focus of some attention (Burt & Rudolph, 2000;
Guterman, 2006; Hartman & Marmon, 2004; Ostrov, 1978;
Petok, 2001; Wenger, 1998/1999).
Hartman and Marmon (2004) conducted interviews with
Orthodox Jewish women. During these interviews, several
observations were made. Many of the interviewed women
found Niddah to be ‘‘particularly difficult,’’ as compared to
other religious obligations. One interviewee described her
difficulty with Niddah as, ‘‘My needs for being touched are
not just sexual; they’re human.’’ This lack of distinction
between sexual and platonic touching during Niddah is the
cause of much controversy amongst Jews (Hartman & Marmon, 2004) and critics of Judaism. In fact, some have referred
to the laws of Niddah as ‘‘primitive blood taboos’’ (Wenger,
1998/1999). While these complaints are certainly not permissions to transgress, they may help to understand why so
many couples choose to decide for themselves which aspects
they will (and will not) follow (i.e., the laws that prohibit
certain types of sexual contact).
Religion has long been considered an important influence
on sexuality, defining the normative and penalizing the
deviant. Research across disciplines has explored the relation between religiosity and sexual behavior (Davidson,
Darling, & Norton, 1995). Previous studies have used a
number of diverse methodologies (e.g., surveys, interviews,
meta-analyses), and have studied the relation between religion and sexual behaviors (e.g., premarital sex, cohabiting,
sexual behaviors while dating). Studies have found that
women who more often attended religious services were less
likely to have had premarital intercourse (Sack, Keller, &
Hinkle, 1984; Thornton & Camburn, 1989). Other studies
have found that this correlation persists through adulthood
(Barkan, 2006). Studies have also reported that college
students reporting higher levels of religiosity were less likely
to give or receive oral sex or to participate in intercourse
(Francis, 2006; Mahoney, 1980). Significant differences
have been found regarding the degree of religiosity and the
age of the beginning of sexual intercourse (Davidson et al.,
1995; Hardy & Raffaelli, 2003). Women with religious
beliefs reported fewer premarital sexually active friends
341
(Sack, Keller, & Hinkle, 1984). All told, well over 40 studies
have found that increased levels of religiousness significantly correlate with lower levels of sexual activity (MurraySwank, Pargament, & Mahoney, 2005). The main factor at
the root of these findings is that different religions attempt to
regulate sexual behavior and, to an extent, they are successful. Therefore, one would expect that, within Judaism,
higher levels of religion would correlate with lower numbers
of transgressions of the laws of Niddah.
While attention has been given to the emotions and
thoughts of Jews observing the laws of Niddah, and studies
have examined the relation between religiosity and sexual
behavior, there is very limited research in exploring the
actual adherence to these religious guidelines for sexual
activity.
Of the American Jewish population of 5.2 million adults
and children, 46% belong to a synagogue. Among those who
belong to a synagogue, 22% are Orthodox, meaning that
over 526,000 Jews in America are dealing with these Laws
of Family Purity (Kotler-Berkowitz et al., 2004). Given the
importance of religion to so many people’s sexual decisions,
as well as the fact that therapists must deal with many issues
among Jews regarding Niddah (Keshet-Orr, 2003), empirical studies are needed to examine how well religious Jews
adhere to their laws. The first study to look at the observance
of Modern–Orthodox Jewish couples found that many laws
were being broken overall and that more ‘‘lenient’’ laws
were being broken than ‘‘strict’’ ones. In addition, the study
found that older congregants were more likely to break the
laws than younger ones (Guterman, 2006). This study was
intended as a follow-up, to examine more closely, and in
greater detail, the observance (or lack thereof) of Niddah
among Modern–Orthodox Jews. Specifically, this study
examined the difference in observance between the two
weeks of Niddah.
Method
Participants
Participants were married, self-identified Modern–Orthodox
Jews who filled out an online questionnaire survey. They
were recruited via popular Modern–Orthodox online communication methods (see below). Participants were asked to
complete the survey only if they defined themselves as
Modern–Orthodox. The survey was available worldwide on
the Internet.
The final sample consisted of 119 men (44.57%) and 148
women (55.43%). It is not known whether any of the participants were couples, though this is doubtful as all responses
were obtained from separate IP addresses (i.e., no one used
the same computer).
123
342
The men were, on average, 35.45 years old (SD = 10.83;
range, 21–70). The women were, on average, 33.53 years
old (SD = 10.40; range, 19–61). The reported age at marriage for men was, on average, 24.57 years old (SD = 3.48;
range, 20–38). The reported age at marriage for women was,
on average, 23.48 years old (SD = 5.04; range, 18–64).
Measures
Demographic questions included age, sex, age married, and
a ‘‘religious observance’’ section (see below). These demographic questions were included because they logically seem
to be the most important factors that may influence which
types of behaviors are transgressed during the ritually
unclean period. The ‘‘religious observance’’ section contained four questions. The participants were instructed to
rate, on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 6 (excellent), their
religious observance of the following: eating kosher, Sabbath, daily prayers, and blessings on food. These items were
taken from a previous religiosity scale (Rettinger & Jordan,
2005). In this study, the four items had a Cronbach’s alpha of
.78.
The questionnaire included a list of 16 behaviors, divided
into two categories. The ‘‘lenient’’ (Harchakot) items were
composed of four behaviors: passing items to each other,
sleeping in joined (not separated) beds, sitting on the same
cushion on a couch, and tapping each other on the shoulder,
with a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 for Week 1 and .87 for Week
2. The ‘‘strict’’ (actual Niddah) items were composed of 12
behaviors: holding hands in private, holding hands in public,
kissing not on lips, kissing on lips without tongue, kissing
passionately (with tongue), heavy petting (rubbing/squeezing/etc.), orgasm-directed caresses for the man (hand-job),
orgasm-directed caresses for the woman (fingering), oral sex
for the man (fellatio), oral sex for the woman (cunnilingus),
anal intercourse, and vaginal intercourse, with a Cronbach’s
alpha of .91 for Week 1 and .95 for Week 2. These categories
were supported by Rabbi Y. Lehrfield, who pointed out that
there were two main categories of items: those which were
strictly forbidden by the Torah (categorized as ‘‘strict’’), and
Harchakot, those laws instituted by the Rabbis to prevent
the community from violating the Torah-forbidden laws
(categorized as ‘‘lenient’’). It should be mentioned, however, that all these behaviors (whether ‘‘strict’’ or ‘‘lenient’’)
are expressly forbidden by Jewish law (Eider, 1999; Y.
Lehrfield, personal interview, June 19, 2005).
These 16 items were listed twice–once under the heading
of ‘‘Week 1’’ (the actual menstrual period) of the Niddah
(ritually unclean) time of each month, and again under the
heading of ‘‘Week 2’’ (the ‘‘clean days’’ following the cessation of bleeding) of the Niddah (ritually unclean) time of
each month. Items were scored as either 0 (‘‘no’’) or 1
123
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:340–345
(‘‘yes’’). Menopausal women were instructed to note how
they acted during their years of menstruation.
Procedure
Modern–Orthodox Jews were targeted for this online
questionnaire survey using popular online communication
methods (newsgroups [e.g., soc.culture.jewish.moderated,
Rational Judaism], Yahoo! Groups [e.g., JewsTalk, TeaneckShuls, EdisonHighlandParkBulletinBoard], and other
message boards [e.g., Hashkafah]). This allowed access to a
large sample of the Modern–Orthodox Jewish community.
Potential participants were asked to complete a quick,
four-minute survey. Participants were given an explanation
of the survey, emphasizing how important it was to be completely honest, and guaranteeing the participant’s anonymity
several times.
Results
Descriptive statistics of frequencies were carried out on the
data. During Week 1 (the actual menstrual period), an average of 3.76 behaviors were transgressed (SD = 4.08; range,
0–16). During Week 2 (the seven ‘‘clean days’’ following the
cessation of bleeding), an average of 4.83 behaviors were
transgressed (SD = 5.17; range, 0–16). The breakdown of
participants performing each type of transgression is displayed in Table 1.
A 2 (Sex) · 2 (Behavior Type: proportion of ‘‘lenient’’
vs. proportion of ‘‘strict’’) · 2 (Time: Week 1 vs. Week 2)
repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to
test for any main effects or interactions. Mean proportions
of transgressed behaviors are displayed in Table 2.
Two significant main effects were found. First, a main
effect of Time was found, F(1, 265) = 46.45; p < .001,
eta2 = .15, indicating that more behaviors were transgressed
during the second week of Niddah than during the first week.
Second, a main effect of Behavior Type was found, F(1,
265) = 352.24; p < .001, eta2 = .57, indicating that there
were a significantly larger proportion of ‘‘lenient’’ behaviors
transgressed than ‘‘strict’’ behaviors. In addition, two
interaction effects were found. First, Time interacted with
Behavior Type, F(1, 265) = 11.33; p < .01, eta2 = .04.
Specifically, there was a larger increase in the proportion of
‘‘strict’’ behaviors, compared to ‘‘lenient’’ behaviors, being
committed (see Table 2). Second, Sex interacted with Time,
F(1, 265) = 8.38; p < .01, eta2 = .03. Specifically, men,
compared to women, showed a larger increase in the overall
behaviors being committed from Week 1 to Week 2 (see
Table 3).
Correlations between religious observance and number
of transgressions during each week were performed. For
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:340–345
343
Table 1 Participants performing each type of transgression
Men
Women
Week 1
Week 2
Combined
Week 1
Week 2
Week 1
Week 2
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Pass Items
97
36.33
101
37.83
82
30.71
86
32.21
179
67.04
187
70.04
Joint Beds
Same Cushion
43
78
16.10
29.21
44
81
16.48
30.34
35
63
13.11
23.60
49
73
18.35
27.34
78
141
29.21
52.81
93
154
34.83
57.68
Tap Shoulder
66
24.72
68
25.47
58
21.72
63
23.60
124
46.44
131
49.06
Hold Hands (Private)
51
19.10
54
20.22
44
16.48
50
18.73
95
35.58
104
38.95
Hold Hands (Public)
41
15.36
44
16.48
34
12.73
41
15.36
75
28.09
85
31.84
Kiss (Not on Lips)
50
18.73
51
19.10
44
16.48
52
19.48
94
35.21
103
38.58
Kiss (No Tongue)
42
15.73
45
16.85
31
11.61
44
16.48
73
27.34
89
33.33
Kiss (with Tongue)
20
7.49
35
13.11
14
5.24
29
10.86
34
12.73
64
23.97
‘‘Lenient’’ Behaviors
‘‘Strict’’ Behaviors
Heavy Petting
17
6.37
31
11.61
18
6.74
36
13.48
35
13.11
67
25.09
Hand-job
13
4.87
24
8.99
13
4.87
30
11.24
26
9.74
54
20.22
Fingering
6
2.25
19
7.12
10
3.75
26
9.74
16
5.99
45
16.85
Fellatio
8
3.00
17
6.37
7
2.62
19
7.12
15
5.62
36
13.48
Cunnilingus
2
0.75
15
5.62
2
0.75
17
6.37
4
1.50
32
11.99
Anal Intercourse
3
1.12
3
1.12
2
0.75
6
2.25
5
1.87
9
3.37
Vaginal Intercourse
4
1.50
13
4.87
6
2.25
23
8.61
10
3.75
36
13.48
Table 2 Mean proportions of transgressed behaviors
Week 1
Week 2
Lenient
Strict
Lenient
Strict
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Men
0.50
0.39
0.16
0.24
0.57
0.42
0.26
0.34
Women
0.48
0.40
0.14
0.23
0.50
0.40
0.20
0.30
Combined
0.49
0.40
0.15
0.23
0.53
0.41
0.23
0.32
Table 3 Mean proportions of total transgressed behaviors
Week 1
Week 2
M
SD
M
SD
Men
0.33
0.29
0.42
0.35
Women
0.31
0.29
0.35
0.33
Combined
0.32
0.29
0.38
0.34
Week 1, results showed a moderate negative correlation
(r = –0.57; p < .01; n = 267). In other words, as one’s
religious observance score increased, the number of transgressions during Week 1 decreased. For Week 2, results also
showed a moderate negative correlation (r = –0.53; p < .01;
n = 267). Overall, these two correlations show that the
scoring of the religious observance questions can be used as
a predictor of number of transgressions during the Niddah
period.
Two more correlations were tested. The first determined
that there was no significant correlation between age at
marriage and number of transgressions across weeks (Week
1: r = .01; Week 2: r = .05). The second showed that there
was no significant correlation between how long one had
been married, and the number of transgressions across
weeks (Week 1: r = .16; Week 2: r = .16).
Discussion
Based on the above analyses, it is concluded that, despite the
prohibitions, nearly every participant reported transgressing
at least once during the taboo period (with an average of 3.76
behaviors during Week 1 and 4.83 behaviors during Week
123
344
2). This supports the previous study which reported that,
over the course of the two-week period, 3.34 behaviors were
transgressed, on average (Guterman, 2006). One may
wonder why 3–4 violations constitute nonobservance; after
all, a score of 3.4 (out of 16) is fairly observant. However,
the reader is reminded that performing any one of these
behaviors is a sin according to Jewish law. Therefore, while
it may be better than committing 16 sins, each of the 3 or 4
behaviors was still a transgression.
The interviews conducted by Hartman and Marmon
(2004) may shed some light as to why these transgressions
are taking place. One woman found the laws ‘‘dehumanizing’’ in that they disregarded her emotional needs. Another
described her ‘‘intense frustration and inner turmoil’’ and felt
‘‘bound inextricably’’ to a ritual which caused her so much
‘‘personal torment.’’ In fact, a number of women expressed
frustration about the absence of a sexually neutral space
wherein they could relate to their husbands. Specifically,
they wanted to have platonic physical contact with their
husbands, which would not lead to sexual activity. Many
interviewees did ‘‘not see the logic in [Niddah]’’ and stated
that their lives ‘‘would’ve been much better without it.’’
The most important finding of this study was that, despite
the Halakha seeing no difference between weeks one and
two, there was a significant difference in the amount of
transgressions being committed during the two weeks;
participants were more ready to ignore the Halakha during
the second week of Niddah. These data seem to reveal that it
is not necessarily the Laws of Family Purity that are being
observed; rather, it may be that the restrictive nature of the
laws is simply convenient when a woman is actually menstruating. Once she has stopped menstruating, however, the
stringency of the laws may seem too great (or may seem
unimportant in the first place), and are therefore disregarded.
The reasons for abstaining from sexual behaviors during the
actual menstruation are still unclear: is it due to religion or is
it due to fear of menstrual blood? Future studies should
compare the ‘‘clean days’’ of Niddah to the permitted weeks
(following immersion in the Mikvah), so as to further assess
whether this increase in Week 2 is a full return to normal
activity or whether there is still some restraint. This will help
clarify if these religious Jews are following the common
pattern of many non-religious individuals, who limit their
sexual behavior during the menstrual period itself and
increase their frequency in the weeks thereafter.
The reason for the difference in adherence between
‘‘lenient’’ and ‘‘strict’’ laws may also be better understood
by referring back to the women interviewed by Hartman and
Marmon (2004). In the absence of a sexually neutral place
for these couples, many seem to have drawn their own lines,
and decided that the ‘‘lenient’’ laws (which are of a more
platonic nature) are not as important. This certainly follows
the logic of the complaint quoted above, ‘‘My needs for
123
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:340–345
being touched are not just sexual; they’re human.’’ Following the same logic, couples may have felt that they can
decide for themselves, without the rabbinical guidelines,
what ‘‘comes close to violating Niddah,’’ and therefore
ignored the ‘‘lenient’’ laws across weeks.
Finally, it is important to note that the ‘‘religious observance’’ section, a Likert scale rating one’s religious
observance of eating kosher, Sabbath, daily prayers, and
blessings on food, correlated well with transgressive
behavior. This supports the reliability of the scale (Rettinger
& Jordan, 2005), and allows for future studies to include this
new, shorter version (containing only four items) to help
determine religiosity.
These results fit well with the previous literature on
the subject. As mentioned earlier, over 40 studies have
demonstrated that higher levels of religiosity correlate with
lower levels of sexual behavior (Murray-Swank et al., 2005).
Although this study looked at a different religion (i.e.,
Judaism), the results remained. That is, religious observance
was inversely correlated with the total number of sexual
behaviors. This suggests that these effects are not religionspecific, and can be applied to Judaism as well.
The replication of the results of Guterman (2006), coupled
with this study’s much larger sample size (and evenly sexed
sample), makes the findings of these two studies hard to
ignore. Certain laws are simply disregarded in the Modern–
Orthodox Jewish community. The fact remains: public rules,
whether they are of a religious or social nature, are often
broken.
The main strengths of this study lie in its straightforwardness and anonymity. Very little research like this has
been conducted within the Jewish community, and it would
be interesting to have comparative data of adherence and
transgression in other ritual realms within Judaism. Furthermore, this is the first Internet-based study of this topic
among this group, yet it reports similar results to the previous study, in which the sample was recruited through a
synagogue (Guterman, 2006). This suggests that future
studies in this area can make use of the advantages that
Internet research has to offer.
Being a survey, there were some inherent problems with
the design. For one, it is hard to ensure that the participants
told the entire truth. Repeated guarantees of anonymity
probably helped, but there is no way to know for sure.
Trying to reach a representative sample of the population is
always difficult. It was for this exact reason that the survey
was conducted online. However, this may have led to some
complications in the sample (i.e., a response bias); one does
not know how typical of Modern–Orthodox Jews the sample
was. Yet, the results showed that there were both participants who transgressed none, or few, of the laws, as well as
participants who transgressed many of the laws. This seems
to suggest that this study obtained a representative sample of
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:340–345
the Modern–Orthodox Jewish community, since there were
participants from both ends of the spectrum. Additionally,
there is room for speculation as to whether the same results
would have emerged had the sample been recruited through
Orthodox synagogues, rather than the Internet. However, the
previous study (Guterman, 2006) used the recruiting method
and obtained extremely similar results. Of course, an even
larger sample size may tell us more information. Further
research in this area is strongly recommended. Research
should focus on other denominations of Judaism, and how
well the laws are followed within these sects.
Acknowledgment The author would like to thank Orit Avishai,
Stephen Armeli, Robert McGrath, Winnie Eng, J. Kenneth Davidson,
Sr., and David Moore for their comments on earlier drafts of this
article.
References
Barkan, S. (2006). Religiosity and premarital sex in adulthood. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45, 407–417.
Burt, V. K., & Rudolph, M. (2000). Treating an Orthodox Jewish
woman with obsessive-compulsive disorder: Maintaining reproductive and psychologic stability in the context of normative
religious rituals. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 620–624.
Davidson, J. K., Darling, C. A., & Norton, L. (1995). Religiosity and
the sexuality of women: Sexual behavior and sexual satisfaction
revisited. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 235–243.
Donin, H. H. (1972). To be a Jew. New York: Basic Books.
Eider, S. D. (1999). Sefer Hilkhot Niddah = Halachos of Niddah.
Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers.
Francis, L. (2006). Attitude toward Christianity and premarital sex.
Psychological Reports, 98, 140.
Guterman, M. A. (2006). Identity conflict in Modern-Orthodox
Judaism and the laws of family purity. Method & Theory in the
Study of Religion, 18, 92–100.
Hardy, S., & Raffaelli, M. (2003). Adolescent religiosity and sexuality:
An investigation of reciprocal influences. Journal of Adolescence,
26, 731–739.
Hartman, T., & Marmon, N. (2004). Lived regulations systemic
attributions: Menstrual separation and ritual immersion in the
experience of Orthodox Jewish women. Sex & Society, 18, 389–
408.
345
Kaplan, L. (1979). The ambiguous Modern-Orthodox Jew. Judaism,
28, 439–448.
Keshet-Orr, J. (2003). Jewish women and sexuality. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 18, 215–224.
Kotler-Berkowitz, L., Cohen, S. M., Ament, J., Klaff, V., Mott, F., &
Peckerman-Neuman, D. (2004). The National Jewish Population
Survey 2000-01: Strength, challenge and diversity in the American Jewish population. New York: United Jewish Communities.
Kurzweil, Z. E. (1985). The modern impulse of traditional Judaism.
Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House.
Leibman, C. (1982). The evolvement of neo-traditionalism among
Orthodox Jews in Israel. Megamot, 27, 231–249.
Mahoney, E. R. (1980). Religiosity and sexual behavior among
heterosexual college students. Journal of Sex Research, 16,
97–113.
Murray-Swank, N., Pargament, K., & Mahoney, A. (2005). At the
crossroads of sexuality and spirituality: The sanctification of sex
by college students. International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 15, 199–219.
Ostrov, S. (1978). Sex therapy with Orthodox Jewish couples. Journal
of Sex and Marital Therapy, 4, 266–278.
Petok, W. D. (2001). Religious observance and sex therapy with an
Orthodox Jewish couple. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy,
26, 22–27.
Rettinger, D. A., & Jordan, A. E. (2005). The relations among religion,
motivation and college cheating: A natural experiment. Ethics &
Behavior, 15, 107–129.
Ribner, D. S. (2003). Determinants of the intimate lives of Haredi
(Ultra-Orthodox) Jewish couples. Sexual & Relationship
Therapy, 18, 53–62.
Sack, A. R., Keller, J. F., & Hinkle, D. E. (1984). Premarital sexual
intercourse: A test of the effects of peer group, religiosity, and
sexual guilt. Journal of Sex Research, 20, 168–185.
Schachter, E. P. (2002). Identity constraints: The perceived structural
requirements of a ‘good’ identity. Human Development, 45, 416–
433.
Thornton, A., & Camburn, D. (1989). Religious participation and
adolescent sexual behavior and attitudes. Journal of Marriage &
the Family, 51, 641–653.
Wasserfall, R. (1992). Menstruation and identity: The meaning of
Niddah for Moroccan women immigrants to Israel. In H. EilbergSchwartz (Ed.), People of the body (pp. 309–327). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Wenger, B. S. (1998/1999). Mitzvah and medicine: Sex, assimilation,
and the scientific defense of ‘family purity’. Jewish Social
Studies, 5, 177–202.
123