-1

A friend of mine is a part-time magistrate in Sullivan County, New York. He often hears cases of hasidic men being caught with prostitutes. Moreover, he tells me that the cases of STDs among hasidim in Sullivan County is surprisingly consistent with county-wide infections overall. I was shocked. Many in the frum community are unaware of this, which is unfortunate because it is a serious public health issue. My question: How can these men -- who wouldn't dream of having relations with their wives while nidah -- consort with non-Jewish prostitutes? Isn't a non-Jewish woman also in the class of a nidah? Are they thinking, "if Yehudah could go to a prostitute, it's OK?". I believe that their behavior is 100% wrong, but I understand that some offer a "halachic" rationale for their illicit behavior. What, if anything, could they possibly argue?

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
Bruce James
  • 15,960
  • 2
  • 49
  • 105
  • 4
    See this answer to start with... – Seth J Dec 28 '12 at 14:37
  • 3
    I find the question and some of the answers highly distasteful. Hearsay and rumors are being used to besmirch large groups of religious Jews. In light that all there is here is conjecture, the immodest nature of the discussion stands out all the more. I vote for closing/deleting this question... – Shraga Dec 30 '12 at 16:44
  • @Shraga It might be hearsay, but it isn't a rumor. Moreover no large groups of Jews are besmirched as no one reads this question as saying that the majority of hasidic men consort with prostitutes (if that was the group you were referring to). Finally, I note that the discussion here is not very immodest at all, unless you oppose all discussions of sexuality on this site, but it seems the community has not adopted that policy. – Double AA Dec 30 '12 at 17:03
  • 1
    @Double AA, I think that "often hears cases of hasidic men" together with "the cases of venereal disease among hasidim is quite high" and "a Satmar community in Jerusalem" clearly qualifies as "large groups". As far as discussions of sexuality, my objection is specifically because the discussion is based on hearsay, thus creating a discussion about people visiting prostitutes which has no real purpose. – Shraga Dec 30 '12 at 17:26
  • @Shraga I didn't know so many people lived in a certain Satmar community in Jerusalem, nor that STD rates which still very small (even if larger than other communities) constitute such a large part of that community. If you insist we can remove the word 'hasidic' from the question but overall it's really irrelevant. As for hearsay, we have lots of questions on this site prompted by things heard from friends. – Double AA Dec 30 '12 at 17:32
  • 1
    @Double AA, I guess one can argue what constitutes a "large" group. I have no problem with removing the word "large" from my comment, my objection would still stay the same, as in "Hearsay and rumors are being used to besmirch groups of religious Jews". In any case, my main problem here is that the tone on this page is clearly accepting of the purported phenomenon as being true, which it shouldn't be. – Shraga Dec 30 '12 at 17:42
  • 1
    As far as removing 'hasidic' from the question, that may be a good idea. I have a niggling suspicion that if it would have just said "religious Jews" in the question, there would have been more people protesting... – Shraga Dec 30 '12 at 17:43
  • 1
    @Shraga I strongly disagree with your suspicion. I find actually that people get more defensive when their specific group is mentioned than if a general one was. It's always easy to say that the problem lies in someone else's community. – Double AA Dec 30 '12 at 17:45
  • 1
    @Shraga The tone on the page is one that tries to answer the question. None (or very few of us) know if Mr. James' friend has accurately reported his finding, but there is certainly no reason it can't be true nor a reason we can't deal with it as a hypothetical. – Double AA Dec 30 '12 at 17:51
  • 1
    @Double AA, you misunderstood me as to the "specific group" issue, and I actually agree with you. I think the reason why people on this page are more or less willing to entertain the "truth" of the allegation is because they are not Satmar/Hasidic. If the question would have stated "religious jews", people would have felt that it may refer to their community and thus protest. I did notice that LazerA did voice his suspicions as to the "Satmar community" claim. – Shraga Dec 30 '12 at 18:00
  • @Shraga No, you misunderstood me. When it's a general claim, one can blame it on someone else. But when one's own group is singled out, one is more likely to complain. That's why I think a general claim would have attracted few complaints, but a specific claim is likely to draw fire from the group in question because people don't like hearing about potential problems in their own group and get defensive. It's not rational. – Double AA Dec 30 '12 at 18:07
  • 1
    Also, note Shalom's statement: "if it truly is a phenomenon". In fact, the only two people on this page who explicitly say they believe this phenomenon is real are the two people who claim personal knowledge. – Double AA Dec 30 '12 at 18:12
  • Not an answer, but see http://www.chabad.org/650873. – msh210 Jul 10 '13 at 16:19
  • Why [tag:tamei-tahor-ritual-purity]? – Double AA Oct 29 '14 at 15:09
  • I think it would be highly productive to edit this question to read "are there any halachic justifications for Jewish males to frequent non-Jewish prostitutes? Is there an issue of nidda? What is the nature of the prohibition and is it more or less severe than the prohibition of a Jewish nidda" I think this contains all the essential elements of the question and avoids all offensive elements. – mevaqesh Feb 17 '15 at 03:04
  • 1
    Some of these people (most?) have serious tsuris that drive them to do this, their tsores should quickly end. Others have calculated, I am told, that visiting a goyishe prostitute is the least harmful option from a Torah standpoint to satisfy the sex drive of one who cannot manage to get married. (They know it's wrong but believe they can do no better...G-d will judge.) – SAH Aug 07 '18 at 21:51
  • In response to other questions raised: I believe this is a real phenomenon. However, I would like to add emphatically that the opposite is a real phenomenon, too. In these communities, specifically in these communities, there are people, seen and unseen, who pour the entire energy of their existence into serving G-d, whatever it may cost; who cling to holiness like a last lifeline; and who fight and win wars with serious temptation on a daily basis for no reason but a desire for goodness and a love of G-d. I daresay these are real Jews and real chasidim. And indeed they exist and are among us. – SAH Aug 07 '18 at 22:02

2 Answers2

15

The premise of your question seems to be that ostensibly religious people never sin, which is obviously absurd. These men are sinners, who are acting in violation of Jewish law, and if their behavior ever became public knowledge, it would scandalize their communities.

The simple reality is that sexual immorality is not, and never has been, exceptional or unusual. Sexual sin exists in every human society, and the Orthodox Jewish world is no exception. Maimonides writes (Hil. Issurei Biah 22:18-19):

There is nothing in the entire Torah that is more difficult for the majority of people to separate themselves from than sexual misconduct and forbidden relationships. ... You will never find a community that does not have some people who are promiscuous regarding forbidden relationships and prohibited sexual conduct.

LazerA
  • 5,593
  • 1
  • 26
  • 57
  • 2
    +1 I rather think his premise is that he's trying to be melamed zchus, no? – HodofHod Dec 28 '12 at 18:00
  • 4
    @HodofHod By saying that maybe Jewish law permits immoral behavior? That is like being melamed zechus on a Jewish thief by saying that maybe Jewish law actually permits stealing money. – LazerA Dec 28 '12 at 18:05
  • 1
    Touche! Well reasoned. – HodofHod Dec 28 '12 at 18:10
  • 3
    @HodofHod I don't blame his intention in asking, but nor do I have any desire to melamed zchus in this instance. – Double AA Dec 28 '12 at 18:14
  • 1
    Exactly which "sins" are prevalent will vary from one community to another, so this is not a complete answer. However, the question does become more sociological than theological at this point, inasmuch as it is possible to separate the two. – TRiG Dec 29 '12 at 00:33
  • You state the obvious but miss my point. Shalom correctly notes that there are people who consider themselves as working within the law and not sinning. Morever, there is a resistence in the community to recognizing the problem (much less illegal drug use). A few years ago there was even people who believed they could bring concubines home. This is not just sin -- giving into lustful urges -- it is delusion. – Bruce James Dec 30 '12 at 05:07
  • 1
    @BruceJames I absolutely agree that there is a great deal of self-delusion, denial, and outright hypocrisy involved in this issue. Yet, the fact is that none of these men wants his family, or his rabbi, or his neighbors to know that he engages in this behavior. Which means that, despite whatever they may say when talking among themselves or to outsiders, they are fully aware that their communities do not accept their "justifications" as valid. As the Rambam points out, the temptation of sexual sin is such that it is common for people to find false justifications in the law for sinful behavior. – LazerA Dec 30 '12 at 18:46
  • 1
    @BruceJames, I think the essential point of this answer is "no" (to the original wording of your question). There is no Halachic justification possible. There might be delusional and stretched reasoning of pseudo-Halachic analysis going on inside the heads of those participating in these activities, and perhaps even discussed quietly among co-sinners, but this is, ultimately, sinful behavior without any Halachically redeeming points, not even the tiniest of loopholes. – Seth J Dec 31 '12 at 14:18
  • I fully expected, and certainly prayed, that the answer was a definite "no." However, in other contexts there are Jews who argue that their dangerous or criminal behavior that serves as a hillul HaShem is permitted because they were serving some other purpose that was legitimate, e.g. speeding so they can make a minyan, or laundering drug money to help their charitable institution. I am glad there is at least one area where there is no plausible excuse. – Bruce James Dec 31 '12 at 15:05
  • @BruceJames Those are just additional examples of false rationalizations for forbidden actions. False justifications for immoral and illegal behavior is ubiquitous in every society. In religious societies, such false justifications take religious forms. That does not mean that they have any legitimate basis whatsoever. – LazerA Dec 31 '12 at 17:47
9

First of all: the behavior you describe is wrong. Let's make that entirely clear.

I can think of two-and-a-half justifications people may use, to better understand the phenomenon (if it truly is a phenomenon).

1a: Halachically speaking, the Biblical prohibition of "nida" per se only applies to Jewish women. (See Rambam Issurei Biah 4:4). (Rabbinically, all gentile women are automatically nida as well, but that's at the rabbinic level.) It would appear that the Torah was focused on conduct within the Jewish community; it was so crazy for someone to go outside it that it never bothered to apply these prohibitions there.

1b: As a corollary, this could (if read sideways through a giant ton of personal bias) lead someone to believe that Judaism only cares about how you deal with other Jews; anything to do with a non-Jew somehow "doesn't count for real." G-d forbid! But I could see how someone could think that.

2: Rabbi Aaron Rakkefet-Rothkoff has suggested that in certain circles of certain Hassidic communities, there is little legitimate room for honest intimacy (at the emotional or physical level) between a husband and wife, due to ideas of "modesty" and "holiness" taken to some rather sharp extremes. Just as the Talmud discusses (with horror) a lifestyle whereby one wife is "for procreation" and one is sterilized and used "for pleasure", a misguided individual could conclude that his respectable, publicly-appropriate wife gives him no opportunity whatsoever for physical enjoyment -- and nor could or should she; therefore he goes for something "on the side."

The remedy for this, obviously, is for the community to validate a strong, two-way relationship (emotional, spiritual, and yes, physical) between spouses. When the Talmud applies "love your peer as yourself" to your spouse, that's a subtle reminder that while that person of the opposite gender has some different laws in Judaism, she is still a human being, and she is still your peer.

Once again I can't begin to defend any such actions (which I hope are rare); but I think this may explain the mentality behind them. And of course, humans are very complex creatures and their desires can lead them into some very strange thinking and behaviors.

Community
  • 1
Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
  • 2
    I think the lack of Biblical prohibition has more to do with the Tumah/Tahara concerns (or lack of them) among non-Jews than it has to do with concerns of concerns of sexual promiscuity. Remember, back then even Jewish single women were Tehorah 75% or the time. – Double AA Dec 30 '12 at 02:03