Dear Enigma,







In answer to your question we must note two important things about Chazal’s approach to sexuality in general and to pedophilia (sexual attraction to minors of either sex) in particular:



1. Chazal were (as determiners of Halacha) looking at the Divine will and not man’s. Obedience to the text (the silent letters) was more important to them than harm done to some specific individual.



2. Chazal ignored (due to a lack of knowledge or a lack of desire to consider) the psychological and emotional aspects which stem from sexual activity. Their view of sex was as a purely legalistic act of acquisition, and the laws against certain forms of sexual relations are purely theological.







First we will bring the Halacha which treats pedophilia lightly:



According to Halacha, sexual relations have taken place when the participants are a male over the age of nine and a female above the age of three. Below these ages what has happened is not considered sexual intercourse (in neither the sense of acquisition nor the sense of forbidden sexual relations).



It is written in the Mishnah: “A girl of three years and a day is sanctified (as a woman is acquired) through intercourse…if one of those forbidden to have relations with her according to the Torah does have relations with her, he is killed because of her, and she is exempt. If she is less than that (less than three years and a day), it is as one who sticks a finger into an eye” (Niddah 5:4). The sages of the Talmud explain the Mishnah’s simile “as one who sticks a finger into an eye”: Just as an eye, if poked by a finger, gives off a tear and then once again gives off tears, so is it when a man puts his penis in a girl younger than three, her hymen tears and then heals over. This is why it is not called intercourse in matters of prohibition or of acquisition (Niddah 45a).



Thus did Maimonides rule (Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 1:13-14): One who has sexual relations with a girl younger than three is exempt from punishment, even if he did so with his own daughter, and one who has sexual relations with a boy of under nine is exempt from punishment, even if she did so with her own son, and homosexual relationships with a minor boy under the age of nine is exempt from the punishment written in the Torah: “If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death — their bloodguilt is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).







From what we have brought above, you can learn that Chazal and the religious arbiters treated sexual relations with a minor as a meaningless act. They completely ignore the psychological and emotional impact upon a boy or a girl who have undergone an irreversible trauma which can warp their entire lives. Their only concern, the target of all their sophistry and discussions, was the legal/Halachic aspect. They treated intercourse as an act of acquisition and spill a great deal of ink and intellectual energy on embarrassing and shameful questions like whether an act is considered sexual intercourse if only the corona of the penis penetrates, or if there is any contact between the corona of the penis and the female genitals (what is called by Chazal “a kiss”), or is full penetration of the entire sexual organ required (Yevamot 55b)? There are many more such nonsensical questions.



To more precisely show Chazal’s emotional insensitivity, I will cite another Talmudic discussion which deals with sexual intercourse with a minor girl. Since they hold that a girl under the age of three is not “worth” intercourse, that one who has sex with a girl under the age of three is not punished, they wonder whether if one has sex with a girl under the age of three and her hymen is torn, does it heal, or was it never torn in the first place? The Halachic implications of the doubt is relevant in the case of a girl who again has sex after the age of three, and bleeds. Is this hymeneal blood or menstrual blood? Thus do Chazal sail away on virtual analysis which has nothing to do with a woman’s physical reality, while ignoring humanity.







Another thing to note is that the word “pedophilia” comes from the Greek (paed=child, philos=love) while there is no Hebrew word for sexual contact between an adult and a child. Halachic language completely ignored the existence of pedophilia. On the other hand, medicine treats pedophilia as a disorder caused by psychological and social issues, one which testifies to problems in sexual development. Treatment of this phenomenon is both medical and behavioral.







From all that has been said above, there is no doubt that were a comprehensive, in-depth anthropological study done within the contemporary Charedi community, we would find a high percentage of those who act upon their sexual attraction to little children, either because of Halacha’s turning a blind eye or because the act of pedophilia is treated lightly. In other words, the Orthodox community sees sexual activity between adults as more serious than having sex with a child.







Sincerely,







Daat Emet



