DANIEL SCHIFF

Although the position of these three groups demonstrates that penalties for adultery are not unheard of within progressive halakhic structures, the question nevertheless remains whether they go far enough. For though the paramour prohibition might well be a significant factor when the adulterer and the paramour really want to be together, it is not unusual for the adulterous party to have no interest in marrying the paramour—particularly if the paramour is a prostitute—and for the prohibition, therefore, to be inoperative as a discouragement to adultery. In such circumstances none of the traditional sanctions against adultery could be said to have sufficient impact on a progressive Jew to act as a meaningful barrier to adultery.

But if the traditional sanctions carry little contemporary weight, are there modern penalties that might prove to be more potent tools? Post-Enlightenment progressive Jewish communities are characterized by voluntary affiliation and therefore are unaccustomed to applying sanctions that are of real moment. None­theless, at least three measures have been employed in different circumstances to send a strong message of disapproval of certain actions. Barring an individual from congregational membership is probably the strongest available penalty. On the basis of the notion that it is counterproductive to distance the sinner from feshuvah resources, however, this punishment would probably be seen as an inappropriate penalty for the adulterer, who is arguably more in need of the synagogue’s guidance toward teshuvah than many others.

Two other possible sanctions exist, though, either of which could more suitably be applied in the case of the adulterer. The first proposes making the adulterous individual ineligible for synagogue

103