Is there such a thing as committing adultery in your heart? TB Kidushin 50

Back in 1976 Jimmy Carter in a Playboy magazine interview admitted that he had “looked upon a lot of women with lust” “ continued “I've committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something God recognizes I will do -- and I have done it -- and God forgives me for it.” (https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/national/the-time-jimmy-carter-was-interviewed-playboy-about-lust/1nDH1lhbMuOjqx7NRkQLpI/ 

Would Judaism ever consider looking upon women with lust adultery? Based on today’s daf TB Kidushin 50 the answer would be absolutely no. Yesterday’s daf concluded with “Rava said: … that is an unspoken matter that remained in the heart, and unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters-דְבָרִים שֶׁבַּלֵּב אֵינָם דְּבָרִים.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf brings five different sources for Rava’s statement, but rejects them all for one reason or another. Only the sixth source is accepted as the source of this principle. To appreciate the Gemara we have to refresh your memory that back on TB Kidushin 42b we learned “אֵין שָׁלִיחַ לִדְבַר עֲבֵירָה.-there is no agency for transgression” with three exceptions. Misappropriation of Temple property (Me’ila) is one of them

“Rather, Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin says: There was an incident of this kind in Rav Ḥisda’s study hall, and Rav Ḥisda brought the case to Rav Huna’s study hall, and they resolved it from this mishna (Me’ila 21a): In the case of one who says to his agent: Bring me such and such an item from the window ledge or from the box [hadeluskema], forgetting that the item in question was consecrated property and any use of it would constitute misuse of consecrated property, and the agent brought it to him, then although at that point the owner said: My intention was that you bring the item only from this other place, once he brought the item to him from that place that he had mentioned, once the agent uses it the owner is liable for having misused consecrated property. But why should he be responsible; but he said: My intention was for the other place, so the agent did not fulfill his mission. Rather, is it not because we say that unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters?

“The Gemara rejects this: But perhaps it is different there, since it is suspected that he is coming to exempt himself from bringing an offering for his misuse by claiming that he intended a different item. Since there is cause to question the truth of his statement that he had intended that the agent bring the item from the other place, his claim is not accepted. This cannot serve as a proof that in general, unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant.

 

“The Gemara responds: If all he wanted to do was exempt himself from the obligation to bring an offering, he could have said that the misuse was intentional, as one who misuses consecrated property intentionally is not obligated to bring an offering. Therefore, there is no cause to question the truth of his statement that he had intended that the agent bring the item from the other place. The Gemara counters: It is not common for a person to place himself in the category of a wicked person by claiming to have committed a transgression intentionally. Therefore, once again, there is cause to question the truth of his statement that he had intended that the agent bring the item from the other place.

 

“The Gemara continues to ask: To exempt himself from the obligation to bring an offering, he could have said: After the agent left I remembered that it was consecrated property. Such a claim would also have rendered him exempt, as we learned in that same mishna (Me’ila 21a): If one sent an agent to bring a particular item, and the owner remembered that it was consecrated and the agent did not remember but proceeded to fulfill his agency, it is the agent who has misused consecrated property and is liable to bring an offering, not the one who designated him, since the latter remembered and canceled the agency. There is no cause to question the truth of his statement that he had intended that the agent bring the item from the other place. Therefore, the fact that this statement is not accepted can serve as a proof that in general, unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Jewish guilt is the stuff of the whole genre of Jewish jokes. In reality we feel no guiltier that any group of people on the face of the earth. There are some behaviors like adultery which we should feel guilty if we do them. However, just thinking about adultery is not sinful until you act upon your thoughts.