publicly.’
Here R. II’ai is more concerned about this scholar being publicly observed on the way to commit the forbidden act than by the act itself. The unchaste sexual tryst is immoral. Ifit is done in public, however, people may be misled to believe that if this great scholar commits this act, it must be permitted. This would be hilul hashem, the profanation of the Divine Name.
Rashi raises a rhetorical question: whether this man, who cannot control his sexual impulse, should be allowed“to do whatever he desires,” i.e., sin. He answers his own query with the quotation of Judah HaNasi in the name of Rav Hai Gaon:“He may commit the deed that he desires. This means that now that he has donned black clothing, etc., I can guarantee that from this day and henceforth, he will have no desire to commit this sin.”©
The drab black clothes are a sign of mourning and warning that, through this sin, he may blacken and tarnish his eternal soul, created in the image of God . This shocking fear of the loss of the Divine Image within him restrains his sexual urge.
2) In contrast, many rabbis concluded that“There is no guardian against sexual misconduct(Ein apotropos al ha-arayot.)”’ No outside force can prevent improper sexual behavior: Neither one’s parents, spouse, teacher, nor society can guarantee or impose appropriate sexual behavior of a person or impose it upon him, if the individual does not fully accept responsibility for his actions.
4) The ultimate resolution of this issue is in the Teachings of the Sages:“Who is powerful? One who conquers(kovesh) his/or her own sexual urge.”® The responsibility for controlling one’s sexual behavior rests squarely on the shoulders of the individual. We should note that this urge cannot be merely subdued, repressed, or suppressed. One must conquer the evil impulse after a difficult struggle and battle, just as one conquers in a war.:
5) We may contrast this conquest of one’s sexual urge with the first commandment given to a human couple:“Be fruitful and