That the Western world finds itself in the midst of a continuing moral crisis is a self-evident fact which needs no documentation. We can repeat, with complete appropriateness to ourselves, the plaint of R. Haninah of Sepphoris: “Zimri was only one in his generation, and because of him 24,000 of Israel died – and we have so many Zimris in our generation!” The traditional moral restraints that have prevailed for centuries in Western civilization are crumbling, and Jews are not the least of those affected by the moral and spiritual rootlessness of our generation. Indeed, we probably feel the consequences of this massive displacement even more than do others, for the fulcrum of Jewish life and continuity has always been the family, and it is the family that is the first victim of moral delinquency. Nevertheless, for the sake of perspective, it is good for us to remember, in the course of our deliberations, that such anti-moral impulses are not new in history. Indeed, the statement of R. Haninah itself is indicative of moral laxity in third-century Palestine. There is considerable truth in a recent assertion that there is a permanent revolution against traditional Jewish sexual morality, but that the style and form and intensity of the revolt change in different historical epochs. What makes our contemporary problem more serious, however, is that one overriding fact which makes all the problems of the modern Jew so much more consequential: the world is smaller than it ever was. Communications technology has transformed the whole world into one little “shtetl,” and we can no longer hope to localize spiritual infections and pray that they will disappear without afflicting others elsewhere. A new somersault in morals in Hollywood, the revelation of novel escapades of perversion in London, an excitingly original style in mini-morals out of Paris, and fresh examples of the sexual itinerancy of celebrities in Italy – these are the pace-setters of moral degeneracy throughout…

I. Israel: am, goy. But at beginning: mishpahah. Stability Jewish family (despite silly jokes). Now: divorce, alcoholism, delinquency, and inter-marriage. Story: Who needs a home? Now have to add: New morality. Two versions or components: a) Hugh Heffner – Playboy – “bunnies”; b) Sex community – personalistic and anti-tradition. II. Heffner: bachelor morality – “cool,” impersonal, woman inferior: depersonalized to “thing.”III. Morality: based on home, family, marriage. Talmud: every successful marriage a triangle – Shechinah ish and ishah – esh and Name of God. Kiddushin – holy and Nisuin – elevated.Purposes Marriage: 2 accounts of creation: perpetuation, companionship. a) Peru u’revu – Hillel & Shammai. Need for J. pop. explosion. b) Lo tov heyot ha-adam levado. Raavad: Sex and sexuality. Y. Z. Mecklenburg tov. Also: animals created with mates, man must yearn for one, earn her love. (Talmud – always realistic and unprudish – yet delicate, sensitive. HAKOL YODIN KALLAH LAMAH NIKHNESAM LE’CHUPPAH)IV. Approach to Sex as such: Two extreme views sex – both based on common source. Gnosticism – duality worlds, contempt this world. Hence against strongest involvement, which is sexual love. So: anti-sexual.This antagonism expressed 2 opposite ways: abuse or non-use, libertinism or asceticism, pagan-orgiastic or Christian-monastic.Modern variants: pagan–Hafner; ascetic–celibacy. Judaism: opposed paganism. Giluy arayot. Yehareg v’al yaavor. Reading on Yom Kippur: Perishah me’arayot.Also opposed: Christian – “Better marry than burn.” Jesus and Paul bachelors. We: Kiddushin – Humans sanctify, can desecrate. Judaism’s Sex Theory: no contradiction betw. morality and sexuality.V. Hence: Judaism unequivocally opposed to Heffner’s “New Morality.” Remarkably, J. opposition to Playboy not only because latter exploitative – but: latter too anti-sexual!Second version: sex community. Ag[ain]st Heffner: discard trad. moral restraints. But diametrically opposed on depersonalization. E…

(1) I begin with the assertion that to discuss sex as such is already to distort any perspective that can give it meaning. For we must consider not only sex, as a purely biological act, but sexuality in the sense of maleness and femaleness that includes but far transcends the merely biological relationship, which bespeaks that infinitely varied and delightfully subtle interplay of personal factors that make the relationship between man and woman so endlessly interesting and fulfilling. Only with animals is the relationship between male and female restricted to sex; with humans, it must include sex, but must be built upon sexuality in its broadest ramifications. It is because sexuality is so inclusive, that your conduct and orienta- tion towards this one area of life is really an index and a measure of your entire personality. Because sex cannot be separated Tout)from all the rest of your life, therefore, how you conduct yourselves, how you speak, how you think, how you act in this area really tells us every- thing about yourself. (2) The background. Ancient pagans -- sex glorificatL on, fertility rites, example: frog-woman deity in ancient Egypt and the plague of frogs. Fertility rites as a tie-in of sex and economics. -2- Christian reaction: revulsion, as ”reaction” pulling to the opposite extreme: celibacy and monasticism. Paul: ”Better to marry than to burn.” Marriage and sex as a concession -- therefore, marriage as a sacrament. The devil resides in the flesh. Sex as the original sin -- the relation of the serpent and Eve as an adulter- ous one. Hence, profoundly negative attitude towards sex. Jesus, Paul and other founders of Christianity were bachelors. Today: on a conscious level, the New Morality is reversion to ancient paganism. But inwardly, I suspect the old Christian negativism towards sex remains in force. For the constant and determined effort to reach new lows of morality in such things as public display of nudity indicates a desire for compensation,…

In discussing the setback in personal relationships in contemporary life, mention the scene in ״The Bald Soprano,” by Eugene Ionescu: A man meets a woman, engages her in polite conversation, and they discover to their surprise that they came into New York on the same train from New Haven that morning. Further conversation reveals that they live at the same address on Fifth Avenue. As time goes on, they leam further that they share the same apartment and have the same seven year old daughter. Husband and wife meet, never having known each other beforre. Thus: Lo tov heyot ha-adam levado . Marriage has as one of its two goals affectionate companionship, the banishment of anomie and alienation, not levado. In further discussion of code morality add, that without code morality we have nothing. But does that mean that once we do ob-serve the rules, that Paradise will materialize, that automatically there will become love and "meaningful personal relationships?"No, obviously not. The case for code morality can not be based on illusion or propaganda. First, love and relationship are certainly cherished in Judaism, but not as the highest goal. People who for psychological or cultural reasons can not be "turned on" are no less valuable, nor is their life any less meaningful. Human beings who have made the greatest contribution to history have not necessarily been those who have developed deep relationships. One of the secular saints of our time was Albert Schweitzer. Yet a woman who worked as a nurse with him, volunteering to bexvk סיץ \,Av*\q told me a couple of years ago that she never saw a more dedicated man -- and a colder, more tyrannical and impersonal human being. He gave his life for others, and treated those others in a patron-izing and condescending fashion. Is Schweitzer to be condemned to the limbo of those who could not live up to the misunderstanding of Buber’s I-Thou? (Mention Ramban on ve-ahavta le-relakha kamo-kha -- that it is haflaeah to expect it in the…

קשה עלי פרידתכם. במסיבה זו, טקס של פרידתכם מישיבתנו, קבלו-נא את ברכתי הלבבית, ותרשו לי גם מלים ספורות של עצה טובה. דברתי עד עתה על ערכים ותפקידם באופן כללי, עכשיו אתמקד על ערך אחד ומיוחד שלדעתי הוא מן החשובים ביותר בכל היהדות – צדקה. איני מתכוון לסתם צדקה לעניים וכדומה, כי יודע אני שאין אתם זקוקים לעידוד ממני על כך. איני מתכוון אפילו לצדקה לישיבתנו – אם כי הרעיון מוצא חן בעיני... כוונתי לפסוק בישעיהו כפי שבדרש על ידי חז״ל. הנביא אומר (ישעיהו ס״ג:א) "אני מדבר בצדקה, רב להושיע", וחכמי המדרש שואלים: "באיזו צדקה?" ומציעים שלוש תשובות בפתיחתא לרות רבה: א) "בצדקה שעשיתם את עולמי, שאילו לא קבלתם את תורתי... כבר היה העולם מתמוגג והולך". כשאנו מקבלים את התורה בכל לבבנו ובכל נפשנו, אנו מקיימים את העולם; אנו כאילו כותבים צדקה לכל באי עולם, כי בלי תורה והמוסר האלקי שבה העולם היה מתפוצץ וחרב. ב) "בצדקה שעשיתם את עצמכם, על שקבלתם את תורתי, שאלמלא כן הייתי מכלה אתכם מן העולם". כשאנו שומרים מצוות ה׳ ואיננו סרים ח״ו מדרכה של תורה, אנו מגינים על עצמנו; אנו כותבים צדקה לעצמנו, כי בזה אנו זכאים לחיות ולהצליח בעולמו של הקב״ה באופן מכובד ומשמעותי. לפעמים שבי רעיונות נשגבים ונפלאים על תלמוד תורה בתור צדקה – לעולם כולו, ולעצמנו בפרט. אבל הביאור השלישי (כפי שמדרש זה מובא בילקוט) הוא היותר מתמיה והיותר נפלא, וזהו: "בצדקה שעשיתם עמי, שקבלתם את התורה, שאלמלא כן היכן היתה מלכותי?" השמעתם כזה? מי שלומד תורה ומחזיק תורה ומרביץ תורה – עושה צדקה להקב״ה בכבודו ובעצמו כביכול, שאלמלא התורה שאנו לומדים על כל הודה והדרה, על כל מצוותיה והלכותיה, לא היה מקום בעולם להקב״ה! אנו אחראים למלכות שמים בעולם. התורה שאנו למדנו ולומדים ושאנו עתידים ללמוד – היא צדקה שאנו כותבים אל רבש״ע. זוהי הצדקה אליה אני מתכוון. זהו ערך עליון ביהדות, וזוהי משימה נשגבה לכל אחד מאתנו. לטובת העולם, לטובתכם-אתם, ולטובת הקב״ה כביכול בעצמו – זכרו היטב היטב מה שקלטתם ומה שלמדתם ומה שקבלתם ממוריכם ורבותיכם וישיבתכם. חזקו ואמצו, והיו ברכה!

Rabbi Lamm explores the topic of peace in the home.

Rabbi Lamm explores topics of sex and sexuality in the Jewish tradition.

Rabbi Lamm explores Jewish law and thought in relation to homosexuality.