On a lighter note, I could recommend you follow the advice that God told Abraham:  whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you . . . (Gen. 21:12). On a more somber and realistic note, it’s important to have a frank discussion about this issue with your wife.

For those who are unfamiliar with this subject, here is a brief introduction that will attempt to explain the complexity of this widespread phenomena that exists in Western societies. According to psychologists, sadomasochism involves the giving and/or receiving of pleasure—often sexual—from acts involving the infliction or reception of pain or humiliation. The psychology of sadomasochism is complex. Part of a person’s psychology sometimes seeks submissiveness, or dominance. One could say that S&M views relationships and sexual intimacy in terms of power and control that influence much of people’s social behavior. In homes where a female often plays a submissive role, a female may choose to act out her fantasy of being dominant in a sexual relationship, or the reverse for a man.

While the terms sadist and masochist specifically refer to one who either enjoys giving pain (sadist), or one who enjoys receiving pain (masochist), many practitioners of sadomasochism will alternate between these two modalities of behavior.

Jewish law does not always spell out every kind of sexual situation. We deduce laws based upon comparisons and sound reasoning. In general, Maimonides discusses the manner in which engages in sexual intimacy in the section entitled, The Laws of Forbidden Relations:

• Since a man’s wife is permitted to him, he may act with her in any manner that he desires. He may be intimate with her in any manner he desires. He may kiss any organ he desires,[1] engage in vaginal or anal intercourse or engage in physical intimacy without relations, provided he does not release seed in vain. Nevertheless, it is considered pious behavior for a person not to act frivolously concerning such matters and to sanctify himself at the time of intimacy, as explained in Hilchot Deot. He should not depart from the ordinary pattern of the world. For this act, was given solely for the sake of procreation.[2]

Would Maimonides approve of wearing a black blindfold, or a little slapping of the posterior? Probably not–because he feels that this would not add to the sanctity of lovemaking. However, Maimonides acknowledges that fantasy can have a role in a healthy relationship so long as one fantasizes only about one’s beloved (fantasizing about anyone else is morally wrong; nor should he have sex if he plans on divorcing her, or if he is angry with her, see MT Isurei Bi’ah 21:12).

Since a man and woman may make love any way they like, it seems to me that the lighter non-violent forms of S&M may conceivably be permitted according to this way of reading Maimonides.

There is a second rabbinical source also worth considering. Rabbi Akiba and Ben Azzai (ca. second century CE) argue on a topic that comes very close to this specific issue:

• What is the greatest precept of the Torah? Rabbi Akiba argues that it is the precept, You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18).[3]
• Ben Azzai said: This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind,he made them in the likeness of God (Gen 5:1).  Do not say, “Since I have been put to shame, let my neighbor also be put to shame, for if you do so, know that you are shaming someone who is made in the likeness of God.”[4]    

Based on this rabbinic controversy, one could say that Ben Azzai would oppose S&M since certain people might enjoy receiving pain; however, this does not entitle such a person with obvious masochistic tendencies to inflict his “pleasure” unto others—especially when it pertains to the relationship and a husband and wife have in the bedroom!

I would add that many psychologists think that sadistic and masochistic fantasies usually begin in childhood, and the disorders usually manifest in early adulthood. When associated with antisocial personality disorder, psychologists agree that it may result in serious injury to others or even death.

Ergo, hardcore S&M is definitely out of the question. Some lighter forms of S&M may be permissible. I must confess, for me this subject has little appeal, but here are some basic guidelines I suggest you and your wife discuss together.

Tying someone to the bed is probably fine so long as the ropes or twine does not leave marks in the skin.  Whips and chains are definitely unacceptable. As is always the case, sexual intimacy must be consensual and based on that paradigm, anytime a person feels uncomfortable with a fantasy of S&M, the role-playing must end. I would also add that couples engaging in milder forms of S&M should keep a respectful distance from the S&M community, for what goes on in the bedroom must stay in the bedroom and not beyond. Limits must be defined and respected at all times. Such an attitude will obviously not mesh with much of the secular S&M culture, but Jewish ethics always demands that we treat one another compassionately and lovingly in the act of lovemaking.

In short, fantasy does have a place in sexual intimacy—a fact that Maimonides acknowledges, so long as one fantasizes only about one’s beloved. Fantasizing about anyone else is morally wrong; nor should he have sex if he plans on divorcing her, or if he is angry with her (MT Isurei Bi’ah 21:12).

Therefore, it seems to me  that consensual and playful S&M does not violate the norms of Jewish tradition—provided one does not get carried away with fantasy and remember the Other is never an object, but a feeling and responsive human being.

Answer:  In some ways, your question reminds me of the famous dialogue between Tevya and Golde in Fiddler on the Roof. Tevya asks Golde the famous question: Do you love me? She responds:

• Do I love you? With our daughters getting married and this trouble in the town You’re upset, you’re worn out Go inside, go lie down! Maybe it’s indigestion.
•  Tevya: “Golde, I’m asking you a question…”Do you love me?” Golde finally responds, “For twenty-five years I’ve washed your clothes, cooked your meals, cleaned your house, given you children, milked the cow. After twenty-five years, why talk about love right now? . . . Do I love him? For twenty-five years I’ve lived with him Fought him, starved with him. Twenty-five years my bed is his If that’s not love, what is?”

In Mark Twain’s short story, “The Diary of Eve,” the author narrates how Eve grated upon his nerves while they were in Eden. Although they were in Paradise, Paradise was not in them.  In the beginning, Adam find’s Eve’s presence and personality obnoxious. After they leave Eden, only then do they come to discover real love for one another. After Adam survives Eve, he writes on her tombstone, “Wherever Eve stood—there was Eden.” Mark Twain captures the essence of the primal couple in a way that is unique and precious.

• ·         PRACTICAL TALMUDIC ADVICE 

The Talmud in Tractate Kiddushin says something very important. Although a man may marry a woman through a proxy that he has never seen before, the sage Rav expresses some practical rabbinic wisdom teaches that he must at the very least see her, lest he subsequently discover something repulsive in her that he will find loathsome and violate the biblical commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18).[1]  The principle behind Rav’s practical advice is extremely valuable for all young people contemplating marriage in the Orthodox community in particular. If all you are interested in is fulfilling a mitvah, my advice to you is simple: Don’t get married. Your question reminds me of something I once studied in the Responsa literature decades ago with respect to divorce.

The scholar observed that although there is a precept in the Torah pertaining to divorce, it is not necessarily a precept that one should run in order to fulfill such a “mitzvah.” The “mitzvah” of divorce only applies when the relationship cannot be salvaged for a variety of tragic reasons, e.g., spousal abuse—only then, is it a mitzvah to be considered and fulfilled when therapy and nothing else seems to work.[2] I would therefore have to say that the same principle works in reverse with respect to marriage. It is only when you are really attracted to a person on many emotional and spiritual levels—only then is it a “mitzvah” to get married. Otherwise, you are not being honest to yourself—and especially to another human being you are supposed to love. This is the wisdom of Rav’s statement in the Talmud that you must seriously consider.

Many years ago, a congregant once received an unexpected visitation from a Chabad rabbi in the hospital where he was recovering from an operation. After he arrived, the rabbi enthusiastically said, “Shalom Mr. So-and-so, I’m here to do the mitzvah of visiting the sick!” The man gently said to him, “If you are here to visit me because you are concerned about my well-being, then fine–stay. If you are here merely to fulfill your desire to do a mitzvah, then please leave. I want only someone who is truly concerned about my welfare to see me. I do not wish to see someone who is trying to score points with God.” This anecdote  ought to apply to anyone who is contemplating marriage.

PART 2

You seem to think that romantic love is not only the product of Western literature, e.g., the love story of Tristan and Isolde or, Romeo and Juliette.  There are numerous passages in the Tanakh that stress the importance of desire and attraction which ought to be part of any budding relationship that could lead to marriage.

•  Rebekah, too, was looking about, and when she saw him, she alighted from her camel. And she asked the servant, “Who is the man out there, walking through the fields toward us?” “That is my master,” replied the servant. Then she covered herself with her veil. The servant recounted to Isaac all the things he had done. Then Isaac took Rebekah into his tent; he married her, and thus she became his wife. In his love for her Isaac found solace after the death of his mother Sarah” (Gen. 24:64-67).

It appears that each of them felt a great attraction and chemistry for one another. Remember, there is a good reason why the Genesis stories stress the importance of love at first sight. It is obvious that the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs were not merely interested in fulfilling a mitzvah when they met one another. Sexual attraction is necessary; without it, the world would be bereft of children. However, spiritual values are no less important because they enable two young or older people to endure the various trials and tribulations that marriage inevitably brings.

Take the case of Jacob and Rachel for example:

• Then Jacob kissed Rachel and burst into tears.He told her that he was her father’s relative, Rebekah’s son, and she ran to tell her father (Gen. 29:11).

Later on in the same chapter we read,

• “So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, yet they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her” (Gen 29:11).

On the other hand, if you are willing to make the necessary symbolic sacrifices to give of yourself to another human being, then you will discover that marriage can be an enjoyable experience life has to offer.

Attraction is not always based upon physical chemistry; there ought to be other qualities as well. Marital love is extremely important and it needs to have attraction, values, respect and other qualities to survive. Without these qualities, a marital relationship is apt to becomemartial relationship that is full of strife and disharmony.

Two souls with but a single thought,

  Two hearts that beat as one.

—MARIA LOVEL, Ingomar the Barbarian, II

======

Notes:

[1] BT Kiddushin 41a.

[2] By the same token, there is no precept to brings an atonement sacrifice for sin; it is only a precept if the person sins. However, if he never sinned, there would be no requirement to bring a sacrifice. Sometimes there are implicit principles that govern the corpus of many biblical laws, e.g., the precepts regarding marriage and divorce.

 You ask a difficult question and the answer is far from simple. Numerous laws and passages proscribe revenge and vengeance. Conversely, revenge plays an important role in rectifying injustices that occur. The men and women of the Tanakh were far from perfect people; quite often, they took matters into their own hands—but not without serious consequences.

In the interest of time, here is a sketch I have spent the last few hours organizing.

 Part 1: Famous Biblical Stories about Revenge and Mayhem

• After Jacob died, the brothers feared that Joseph would exact vengeance upon them for having mistreating him in the past.  They come up with a ruse, “‘You shall say to Joseph, Jacob begs you to forgive the criminal wrongdoing of your brothers, who treated you so cruelly.’ Please, therefore, forgive the crime that we, the servants of your father’s God, committed.” When they spoke these words to him, Joseph broke into tears. Then his brothers proceeded to fling themselves down before him and said, “Let us be your slaves!” But Joseph replied to them: “Have no fear. Can I take the place of God? (Gen. 50:17-19).

• When the Midianites induce the Israelites to worship idols, God commands Moses to “execute God’s vengeance upon them (Num. 31:3).

• In the biblical narrative of Dinah and Shechem, the brothers plot revenge because of Shechem and Dinah’s illicit love affair. In the end, Dinah’s brothers exact a bloody revenge and murder all the male members of the town of Shechem (Gen 34f.). Jacob condemns the brothers’ murderous ruse (Gen 34:30).

• Likewise, in Amnon’s rape of Tamar (2 Sam. 13:22) Absalom plans his revenge and later murders his half-brother, Amnon, thus triggering a series of events that nearly destroys David’s kingdom.

•   Toward the end of David’s reign, the Gibeonites exact revenge upon the family of Saul, who nearly wiped out the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1-9). David reluctantly complies to their request because of God’s disapproval of Saul’s behavior. Without exacting vengeance, David’s kingdom would have perished from the famine.

•   David curses Joab and his father’s house for the act of blood revenge for having murdered Abner, and orders that Abner be buried in Hebron. The entire kingdom mourns for Abner because David wished to demonstrate that he had nothing to do with the death of this valued hero (2 Sam 3:31–39). Before David dies, he leaves instructions to his son Solomon to execute Joab, whose crimes against Abner and Amasa must be carried out and Shimei, son of Gera, the Benjaminite of Bahurim,(1 Kgs. 2:5-9).

Summary: As you can see, revenge is carried out in brutal manner; sometimes it occurs with the endorsement of God. However, at other times, human beings unilaterally exact revenge for personal reasons. Only Joseph acts with complete nobility of spirit and personifies the ideal model for forgiveness.

  Part 2: Important Biblical Passages Regarding the Dangers of Revenge

Several biblical verses criticize people who give in to their impulse for revenge:

• You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD (Lev. 19:17-19).

• For vindictive is the husband’s wrath, he will have no pity on the day of vengeance (Prov. 6:34).

• The mercies of the wicked are cruel (Prov. 12:10).

• Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and when he stumbles, let not your heart exult, lest the LORD see it, be displeased with you, and withdraw his wrath from your enemy  (Prov. 24:17).

This latter verse illustrates that even the emotional satisfaction derived from another’s misery is considered sinful; a person is responsible for allowing these dark emotions to control one’s heart and conscience. 

Part 3: Revenge and Vengeance—Theological Considerations

The problem of revenge becomes more complicated when one considers that the Torah sometimes describes refers to God as “vengeful.” 

 I will sharpen my flashing sword,

and my hand shall lay hold of my quiver.

“With vengeance I will repay my foes

and requite those who hate me.

 I will make my arrows drunk with blood,

and my sword shall gorge itself with flesh—

With the blood of the slain and the captured,

Flesh from the heads of the enemy leaders.”

• ( Deut. 32:41-42)

Yes, this passage makes one wonder: If vengeance is inappropriate for human beings, why is it appropriate for God? It is important to remember that the purpose of God’s vengeance is not predicated upon a desire to “get back” at the sinner; it is inextricably related to the process of Divine justice. Evil people are answerable to God’s justice; without this attribute, the moral order collapses. Humankind is ultimately responsible for combating the forces of evil and injustice that exist in its society. Here is another way of viewing this passage.

No person has the right or prerogative to act as God’s agent for retribution—even if the offending party deserves it. Sometimes God acts as on behalf of individuals against their enemies.[1] God also protects the nation of Israel against its enemies.[2] Nevertheless, God sometimes acts a avenger against Israel: he promises to avenge the blood of his servants and prophets against those who slay or oppress them[3], and he avenges himself against his people when they break his covenant[4]. In Isaiah, the prophet often speaks about God’s “day of vengeance”[5], when God’s justice ultimately prevails. 

Part 4: Biblical Precepts involving Revenge

One of the most interesting precepts involving revenge is the “Avenger of Blood.”  In an age when there was no strong centralized government, the Torah allowed the next of kin to kill the slayer who was guilty of purposeful manslaughter, but not in the case of accidental manslaughter—provided the killer remained within the confines of the Cities of Refuge (Num. 35:11). Revenge,  in this case, provided a practical purpose: just because there is no court to exact punishment, do not think the family will allow itself to be trifled with. If one lives in a lawless society or a society where the rule of law is weak, revenge provides serves to help preserve the social order.

  Part 5: Revenge in the Interpersonal Sense

English terms like “revenge” or “vengeance” convey a meaning that is different from similar Hebraic terms. The English word “revenge” derives from the Old French revengier,[6] which in turn derives from the Latin verb vindicare, “to lay claim to, avenge, punish.” In contrast, the verb “avenge” implies the administration of just punishment for a criminal or immoral deed. In the popular sense, revenge tends to convey the idea of retaliation a bit more strongly and implies real hatred as its motivation.[7] 

According to the Book of Leviticus, we find:

• You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD (Lev. 19:17-19).

 The Sages give an example: If a person asks his neighbor to lend him a utensil and the neighbor refuses, he may not hold a grudge against him. If the neighbor later comes and asks him for a tool, he may not get back at him and say, “Just as you refused to lend to me, I am not going to lend to you.” If one does this, he is in violation of the precept, “Do not take revenge" (BT Yoma 23a).

As you can see, taking revenge or bearing a grudge are symptoms of a much greater problem, namely, the root of all cruel behavior–human hatred. Recognizing its existence is essential if we are to succeed in preventing its manifestations.  In terms of the verse’s contextual meaning, the Torah often speaks in terms of generalities before giving specifics. Thus, the verse speaks in general terms, “You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart.” Now what exactly does “hatred” mean?  (1) the failure to criticize a neighbor when s/he does something wrong; (2) revenge; (3) bearing a grudge—these examples derive from a heart that nurtures hostility toward the Other. Of course, there are many other examples one can give, but ultimately it all boils down to the precept of love—“love your neighbor as yourself.”

[Judaism has always viewed love as a verb and not as a noun. To love another person is to act considerately toward the other person’s wellbeing and property—as one would want for oneself.]

Eliminating hatred from the heart is far from easy, but if expunging hatred from the heart is not possible, we can at least make the conscious decision not to allow its manifestation in deed. “Actions mold character” (Sefer HaHinuch, Introd.), i.e., not by thoughts or feelings per se, but by actions.

• When you come upon your enemy’s ox or ass going astray, see to it that it is returned to him. When you notice the ass of one who hates you lying prostrate under its burden, by no means desert him; help him, rather, to raise it up” (Exod. 23:4-5).

Performing noble actions and acting virtuously toward an estranged person goes a long way in transforming the problematic relationship. Kindness allows the feeling of sympathy to overcome one’s primitive impulses of hatred.

The Talmud goes so far as to say that if there is a choice between helping one’s enemy’s animal vis-à-vis helping a friend’s animal who is in need, one must first help one’s enemy.[8] There are  two reasons for this: (1) helping one’s enemy influences the individual to act in a humane and caring way that serves to dislodge the hatred he carries in his heart toward him. (2) By relating to one’s adversary in the spirit of love, the bonds of brotherhood are tangibly affirmed.

The Torah, therefore, asserts that it takes greater self-control and discipline to help an adversary rather than a friend with whom one is willing to help. Helping a friend seems much less of a chore. Philo of Alexandria anticipated this thought expresses the same idea in lucid terms and argues that the purpose of this precept is to instill virtue. Philo adds:

• “When you come upon your enemy’s ox or ass going astray, see to it that it is returned to him . . .” (Exod. 23:4). It follows that just as the shadow follows the body, it is inevitable that an act of kindness will serve to dissolve human enmity. A person who receives a benefit has an inducement to make peace for the future, for he is beholden by his neighbor’s act of kindness. The conferrer of this kind deed has paved the way for an eventual reconciliation. This is the goal of the holy code of laws: studying them creates unanimity, fellowship, and agreement—all of which serves to confer upon humankind the maximum happiness possible.[9]

Notes:

[1] Judg. 11:36; 1 Sam 24:12; 25:39; 2 Sam 4:8; 16:8.

[2] Joel 3:21; Nahum 1:2; Isa. 1:24; Jer 46:10.

[3] Deut. 32:43; 2 Kings 9:7; Psa. 9:10.

[4] Lev 26:25; Ps. 99:8.

[5] Isa. 34:8; 61:2; 63:4.

[6] Revengier derives from re-, intensive prefix, + vengier “take revenge.”

[7] ["The Columbia Guide to Standard American English," 1993].

[8] Come and hear: If a friend requires unloading, and an enemy loading, one’s [first] obligation is towards his enemy… (BT Bava Metziah 32b).

[9] Philo, On the Virtues 117-119.

 Rabbinical texts argue that so long as the hymen remains intact, the young woman is still regarded as a virgin. The term בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâ) is derived from the rare verb בתל (bĕtal), which means, “to sever,” or “separate”).

Being a virgin is not limited to any specific age—one could theoretically be a 70 year old virgin. I recall once hearing a joke from an Arab comic who said that a suicide bomber expects to have seventy virgins in the Afterlife. Once he is there, what he really discovers is that Allah gives him only one virgin, who happens to be seventy years old!

Some scholars take a different attitude and claim that בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâ) means a “young unmarried girl.” Other cognate languages of the Ancient Near East support such a rendering. However, in Joel 1:8, the bĕtûlâ means a “young woman” who has already had a husband. According to this definition, one could not be a 70 year old virgin.

What if she only had anal intercourse or oral sex, could she still be considered a virgin? One might argue that touching a young maiden in any sort of sexual way might disqualify her "maiden" status. For example: Rebekah is praised for being “was very beautiful, a virgin, untouched by man” (Gen. 24:16). Rabbinical tradition adds that the term “untouched” means exactly what it says—she did not act out in any sexual way or manner (see Rashi’s commentary and the Midrash Gen Rabbah 65:6).

In all honesty, biblical interpretation and rabbinical law don't always agree with one another.

Maimonides writes about this kinky situation. According to him if ten men had anal sex with a maiden, they could all be summarily executed by stoning—assuming she was betrothed at the time of her liaisons. However, her virginal status still remains in place! [1] Lastly, it seem based on Maimonides (and some other rabbinical sources)  that if a maiden acted promiscuously and had non vaginal sex with a several men—she could still be considered a virgin according to the Halacha.

The fact that something is "legal" doesn’t mean it is a correct course of action to pursue. It is unfortunate that so many men view sex as a purely physical activity bereft of emotional bonding and meaning. Many young women (and women in general) confuse sexuality with love; they are not synonymous. It is far better for a woman to save her virginity for that one special person whom she truly loves. If a man cannot recognize the unique human being a woman truly is, he is not worth dating or marrying.

Notes:

[1] Maimonides, MT Issure Biah 3:6.

You have asked a great question! Healthy human relationships are predicated upon a principle of trust. Whenever someone tells you something of a personal nature, it is with the understanding that you will not violate that confidence. Whether a person is a physician, lawyer, or clergy—the world of interpersonal relationships requires that people treat one another in a trustworthy manner. The same principle applies to nation states as well.

When examining the question of revealing secrets, the ancient Judaic philosopher named Ben Sira offered these practical remarks almost 2200 years ago.

• Cursed be gossips and the double-tongued, for they destroy the peace of many. A meddlesome tongue subverts many and makes them refugees among the peoples. It destroys walled cities, and overthrows powerful dynasties. A meddlesome tongue can drive virtuous women from their homes and rob them of the fruit of their toil. Whosoever heeds it has no rest, nor can he dwell in peace.  A blow from a whip raises a welt, but a blow from the tongue smashes bones.  Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not as many as by the tongue. [1]

Julian Assange’s  WikiLeaks is an Internet organization that specializes in revealing the hidden secrets most governments prefer to keep hidden. His website began in 2006 and it has produced over 1.2 million documents. There is hardly a country anywhere that has not been embarrassed in one manner of another.

Halachic literature has much to say on this topic. The Talmud mentions that when someone reveals a confidential matter to another, it should not be disclosed unless the person it involves gives express permission [2].

* Early Halachic Discussions

In the early medieval period, Rabbanu Gershom (ca. 9^th century) decreed that anyone who reads the mail of another is subject to excommunication [3]. The principle applies no less to stealing trade secrets as well. According to another Talmudic passage, respecting one’s personal privacy applies no less to the people living in one’s home! R. Akiba warned his son, “My son, don’t even suddenly enter your own home, and certainly not the home of your fellow, without any forewarning.” [4]  Some midrashic texts suggest this is why the High Priest used to wear bells on his garments so that his arrival might not frighten the priests while they were carrying out their priestly duties.

But is revealing information always forbidden? Not necessarily. Sometimes one has a moral imperative to discover confidential information when the evidence is necessary for preventing a serious crime. [5] This applies no less to opening a letter is considered permitted when the intention is to prevent a crime from taking place.[6]

* The Slippery Slope

This depends upon the circumstances. Jonathan Pollard revealed information to Israel about Sadaam Hussein’s plan to build a nuclear reactor. This was information that the United States State Department was legally bound to share with Israel, but chose not to. Israel used the information to destroy the nuclear reactors, but Pollard is serving a life sentence for committing “treason,” when in reality he was guilty of spying for a friendly nation.

In the end, Pollard’s disclosure probably saved millions of lives from being harmed. There are shades of gray that are not easily discernible. If the information being conveyed serves a positive purpose as it did in the Pollard situation, a case could be made that revealing such information is permitted and even necessary.

On the other hand, if one’s motivation is merely to embarrass a country’s leaders, then the motivation is vindictive in nature and can only cause ill feelings between nation states. Gratuitous truth telling can be very dangerous to innocent people and the Wikileaks information has resulted in the death of innocent lives. Such behavior is immoral and Julian Assange is responsible for the unintended moral consequences of his disclosures.

The ancient philosopher Buddha expresses a similar thought, “Words have the power to destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.”

Notes:

[1] Ben Sira 28:13-18

[2] BT Yoma 4b. However, the great early 20^th century moralist, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, a.k.a. “Hafetz Hayyim” went one step further—one must not even reveal potentially damaging information even when it is about oneself either.

• There is a famous story of how the Hafetz Hayim was once riding on a train to the city of Minsk and across from him sat a young rabbinical student, who was studying the Hafetz Hayim’s famous ethical tract on the Laws of Gossip. Unbeknownst that he was sitting next to the author of the book, they started chatting with one another. The young man said, “The famous Hafetz Hayim is a brilliant Sage!” The old pious rabbi demurred, “I don’t think he is particularly brilliant.” The young man countered, “Not only is he brilliant, he is also extremely pious!” The old sage demurred once again, “I personally know him, and I can personally attest he is not so ‘pious.’” The young student got angry and slapped the old rabbi in the face, “How dare you insult the Gadol HaDor—the greatest Sage of our generation?!” And they parted in Minsk. Later that evening the Hafetz Hayim gave a lecture on the Laws of Gossip. In the crowd listening was the young student. After the lecture, he went up to the saintly rabbi and begged for forgiveness, “I did not know who you really were…” The pious sage replied, “It is I who should ask you for forgiveness. You taught me a valuable lesson. Not only is one forbidden to speak disparagingly about others, one is not allowed to speak disparagingly about oneself as well!

[3] “Enactments of Rabbenu Gershom Meʾor ha-Golah,” quoted in Resp. Maharam of Rothenburg, ed. Prague, p. 160a.

[4] BT Pesaḥim 112a.

[5] The Mishnah of Sanhedrin 7:10 states that if someone wants to incriminate a person of the crime of idolatry, one may hide the witnesses and solicit the information from the culprit, who would ordinarily deny it in a court of law. According to the Minchat Hinnukh, this method may be done with any crime and evidently carried out in Jewish courts across Europe, (Rabbi Joseph Babad, Minḥat Ḥinnukh, Commandment #462). Cf. Joseph David, Resp. Bet David, I, Yoreh Deah 158.

[6] Ḥayyim Palache, Resp. Ḥikekei Lev, I,  Yoreh Deah 49.

 In all honesty, forensics is not my area of expertise. However, I am familiar with some other issues pertaining to the treatment of the corpse according to the Halacha. With that thought in mind, I will try to present a well-thought-out answer to your question.

Since the days of the Mishnah, Jewish tradition prescribes a special blessing for nearly all aspects of Jewish life. There are blessings said over new fruits; there are blessings said before the performance of a religious precept; there are blessings even for when you see the President or the Czar! Every aspect of life is bound up with the theme of blessing. In fact, the fundamental meaning of the word, “Jew” means in Hebrew, “to give thanks.”

In our previous posting, somebody asked the question: How is it possible to respect the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel, when many of them behave so violently toward the non-Haredi community?

A different reframing of the question might read: Must respect be earned, or is respect given carte blanche? Moreover, what does Jewish tradition say about these important questions?

According to Hillel’s famous advice, “What is hateful unto you, do not do to your fellow man,” Hillel demands that we treat each person with respect. Authentic religion begins with the cultivation of respect toward others.  Whenever religious teachers fail to instill within their followers a reverence for life, religion becomes a sham.

Two Jewish ethical philosophers, Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas, develop Hillel’s message howbeit through different paths. Buber maintains that God is the third partner in every human relationship. The way we treat our fellow human beings says much about the way we feel about God. Anyone who mistreats his neighbor paradoxically behaves like an atheist.

Levinas adds that the human face reflects the Divine face, and each person must act ethically toward the Other—even if he is not necessarily deserving of respect. Levinas argues if somebody mistreats you, you have no ethical right to mistreat another human being. Two wrongs do not make a right.

In practical terms, Levinas makes a good point. If your employer acts like a jerk, that does not entitle you to act like one also. Standing up to abuse is one thing; you have every right to question his judgement–however, you need not act like a jerk in the process!

The question gets more complicated when you have an entire ethnic group misbehaving, rioting, and threatening the lives of innocent bystanders because of religious reasons.

In this instance, Levinas’s ethical approach breaks down and loses some (but certainly not all) of its validity. Buber’s criticism of Levinas is well known, for Buber claims morality is a two-way street. If somebody mistreats you, there is no a priori responsibility to play the role of a passive victim. You have no obligation to show that person respect. Morality does operate on a symmetrical principle–contra Levinas!

Let us return to our original question: Must respect be earned before it is given?

Not necessarily.

As mentioned above, respect is something we must show to all people; however, if the Other acts in an anti-social manner, society has the duty to incarcerate its offenders, criminals, and deviants. The victimizer is unworthy of respect. It is very difficult to truly respect somebody who has not even a scintilla of healthy self-respect.

This is exactly the problem we now have with the Haredim rioting in Israel.

Assuming that you are new to the Orthodox life, I think your mother is correct; honoring her wishes is certainly one of the most important precepts—especially since she does not mind you dressing like a Modern Orthodox young woman. Your mother has every right to make this demand since you are already acting in accordance with Jewish tradition and law.

The verse, “Do not conform, therefore, to the customs of the nations whom I am driving out of your way, because all these things that they have done have filled me with disgust for them” (Lev 20:23) specifically pertains to not emulating pagan religious traditions. Most Halachic authorities do not consider Christianity as a “pagan religion.” At worst, Christianity is an amalgamation of Judaic and pagan elements; Jews should not regard Christianity as “idolatry.”

Many traditional rabbis would certainly concur with the view that sees gift-giving on Hanukkah as a concession to popular Christian culture—plain and simple. To some degree, these rabbis make a valid point. In Southern California, there was a well-known rabbi of a prominent Reform synagogue who used dress up as “HanuClaus” every year in a blue and white outfit, while wearing a prosthetic white beard. This type of religious capitulation to Christmas is painfully obvious—Oy, oy, oy! This is obviously the wrong message we wish to instill this time of the year about Hanukkah.

While it is true, one could say this custom mimics Christian tradition, there is another way of looking at this relatively new Jewish custom. For one thing, no religion lives in a hermetically sealed environment. Where different religions peacefully co-exist, a cultural commingling of values is inevitable.[1]

The commingling of Jewish and Christian values is not without complete precedent. One interesting example comes to mind:  the 16th century Halachic scholar, R. Yoel Sirkes (better known as the “Bach”) had no problem using Christian melodies in the synagogue provided these melodies had widespread and universal appeal.[2] There is also the ritual of “Schlogging Kaparet,” waving a live chicken over one’s head on the Eve of Yom Kippur. Despite its antiquity, R. Yosef Caro, author of the Shulchan Aruch condemned this practice because of its similarity to Amorite paganism.[3]

In all candor Judaism has since rabbinic times borrowed numerous religious beliefs and practices from its Semitic neighbors, e.g., the belief in demonology (e.g., Lilith) is clearly Babylonian in nature. Many superstitions we have regarding the Evil Eye also derive from pagan sources.[4] In addition, many of the rabbis participated in what we would now identify as occult practices.[5]

With respect to education, it was customary in Jewish communities to give the child a gift upon entering school for the first time. Maimonides was not at all averse to “bribing a child” in order to acclimate the child to the importance of study. [6] So, it is argued (based upon linguistic sources) that giving a child a gift during Hanukkah is not without some antecedent.

This writer would further argue that gift-giving is specifically mentioned in Numbers 7, which delineates all the sundry sacrifices and financial gifts each tribe gave in honor of the Temple’s dedication.  Incidentally, this same theme of gift-giving reappears in the First Book of Maccabees where Judas and his brothers, along with the people, rededicate the Temple by giving gifts to refurbish the Temple.[7]

So, is gift giving such a bad practice during Hanukkah? Traditionalists will definitely prefer giving Hanukkah Gelt; but personally, I see no problem with it so long as we do not include the other Christian traditions of Santa Claus, trees, etc.,  with the celebration.

[3] See Beit Yosef on the Tur O.H. 605, who cites the view of R. Solomon ben Aderet (a.k.a. “Rashba”) and Ramban who prohibit this custom—contrary to the views expressed by R. Hai Gaon. Rashba writes (1235-1310), “I distanced myself from this custom greatly and instructed that it be abolished, and with grace from Heaven my words were heard and, thankfully, the practice no longer remains in our city . . .” R. Yosef Caro's rejection of the custom is all the more striking since he was also a Kabbalist who greatly respected R. Isaac Luria!

[4] The custom of spitting three times when mentioning something good about a person was believed to chase away the Evil Eye.  The practice actually goes back to ancient Greece, where the Greeks use to spit three times in the fold of their garments to avoid the Evil Eye. In ancient Rome, spitting on one’s children was believed to magically ward off the influence of the Evil Eye. Since the earliest stages of human history, spitting was believed to contain magical powers—capable of creating life itself (see my blog articles on spitting in rabbimichaelsamuel.com) 

[5] The 3rd century Palestinian Sage, Rav Sheshet is purported have to cast his eyes upon a Sadducee, transforming him into a “heap of bones” (BT Berachoth 58; cf. BT Shabbat 34a; Bava Bathra 75a; Sanhedrin 100a). 

[6] See Maimonides comments in his Mishnaic Introduction to Helek in Sanhedrin. 

[7]1 Maccabees 4:56-58.