Senior Zionist Orthodox Rabbi: It Is Forbidden To Rent Apartments To Lesbian Couples

Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, a senior Zionist Orthodox rabbinic leader who is also the state employed chief rabbi of Ramat Gan, issued a ruling earlier this week forbidding Jews to rent apartments to lesbians couples.

Chief Rabbi of Ramat Gan Yaakov Ariel

Senior Zionist Orthodox Rabbi: It Is Forbidden To Rent Apartments To Lesbian Couples
Shmarya Rosenberg • FailedMessiah.com

Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, a senior Zionist Orthodox rabbinic leader who is also the state employed chief rabbi of Ramat Gan, issued a ruling earlier this week forbidding Jews to rent apartments to lesbians couples, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Ariel issued his ruling on Monday on the ask the rabbi forum on Yeshiva.org.

On Monday, a person wrote on that forum that a young woman applied to rent his apartment and he realized she was lesbian and wanted to live there with her female partner.

“Is there a prohibition in Jewish law which would prevent me renting the apartment to her because of her relationship?” the man asked.

Ariel ruled that if both women want to rent the apartment together it would be forbidden. But if only one of them wants to rent the apartment it would be permitted – but it would be better not to rent the apartment to her if possible.

Havruta, which is a nonprofit organization made up of Orthodox gays, lesbians and transsexuals, condemned Ariel’s ruling, calling it homophobic.

“Homophobia, transphobia and hatred of the other truly endangers those whose sexual orientation or identification is different from what society expects. We call on anyone for whom the values of democracy, tolerance, and acceptance of the other are important to join us in our criticism of the rabbi, who speaks in the name of the official rabbinate of the State of Israel,” Havruta reportedly said in a statement.

Comments

[lea]

i find this paragraph funny: "Havruta, which is a nonprofit organization made up of Orthodox gays, lesbians and transsexuals, condemned Ariel’s ruling, calling it homophobic"

on the one hand they call themselves "orthodox", which would imply that they admit and openly accept that the Torah is from Hashem. in the same breath, they are calling people - who espouse ideas clearly written in the Torah - homophobic...
I guess there are contradictions in every aspect of life.

[lea]

theoretical question: (please note: I'm not making any comparisons between these varying scenarios, i just want to talk about situations where this type of question may arise)

in your opinion, if an orthodox Jew was approached and asked to rent his property to be used as a brothel, would it be halakhically appropriate/acceptable for him to rent it to them?

if a Buddhist wanted to rent the space to use it as a ashram. would it be halakhically appropriate/acceptable for him to rent it for this?

if your answer would be No. than, if a non Jew wants to rent an apartment from an orthodox Jew, does the Jew need to investigate and ascertain that this non-Jew does not worshiped avoda zara? if he/she will have licit or immoral relations in this apparent?

I would think, that there is a distinction where one is renting it out space spesificly for a clear non-kosher function (brothel, avoda zara etc) or where you are renting out space to an individual for 'kosher' use - i.e. to live there. normally, here is no reason to suspect anything wrong (not kosher). now if he/she chooses to do things in the privacy of his/her own home - that's not my issue or business. (even though i own the property).

[Shmarya]

'lea' –

As you well know, lesbianism is not mentioned in the Torah. It is not prohibited by the Torah.

Instead, there is an argument between rabbis about whether lesbianism is prohibited at all, if it is only prohibited rabbinically, or if it is prohibited under the Torah prohibition banning imitation of the practices of ancient Egypt.

But you're a troll and you are incredibly dishonest – and you're one step away from being banned.

[ah-pee-chorus]

lea-

Homosexuality isn't forbidden, gay anal sex is. But let's assume it is. So is violating shabbos. Should an ortho jew not be allowed to rent an apt. to shabbos violators? Or is the prohibition only applied to lesbians due to an irrational fear and hatred?

Regarding the brothel, what is the halachic problem? There were a number of amoraim n the gemara who bragged about going to brothels and finding prostitutes. If the women are single it would be OK.

[Sarek]

Sorry Lea, I had thought we were all created in God's image. My mistake.

[lea]

@Shmarya,
what are the rules for comments on this blog that I have violated?

If I have an opinion that is different than yours, that makes me a 'troll', and 'incredibly dishonest', being 'one step away from being banned'???

aren't you accusing this rabbi Ariel of being intolerant to people with views and morals that are different then that of his own?

[lea]

@ah-pee-chorus
I agree with you. my point would apply to any situation where the purpose of the rental was explicitly for a 'non kosher' use.

if it was for a Jew to open a store on shabbos, it would be the same. i think it would be the case in any situation where the express, explicit use of the space is for a clear non-kosher use.

by the way, I'm no expert in halakha. i was just bringing examples of things i think are forbidden by torah (either stated clearly in the torah or a rabbinik prohibition...

[raina]

THERE IS SOOO much antisemitism in the world that its MIND Boggling why smyrna is adding fuel to the fire..he is a self hating jew that wants to settle some score cause he was wronged once,,awww tooo bad!!! LASHON hara is what u are spreading and YOU will be in gehinom soon!!
give it up, jews are sooooo hated by the sicko UN, obame,europe,college campuses, except YU

[Shmarya]

+++"…what are the rules for comments on this blog that I have violated?

If I have an opinion that is different than yours, that makes me a 'troll', and 'incredibly dishonest', being 'one step away from being banned'???…"+++

'lea' –

Please.

Stop lying.

We can disagree about what to do about a particular fact, but to intentionally misrepresent that fact and to lie about what it is isn't allowed.

The fact is, lesbianism is not mentioned in the Torah. It is not prohibited by the Torah.

Instead, there is an argument between rabbis about whether lesbianism is prohibited at all, if it is only prohibited rabbinically, or if it is prohibited under the Torah prohibition banning imitation of the practices of ancient Egypt.

You know this to be true yet you lie about it.

And your lies stop now or I'll ban you.

[DK]

Shmarya, you are being to harsh on lea.

[David]

It would be OK to rent to a pedophile.

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

Lea, a landlord is bound by American (or Israeli) secular law.

If Torah law prohibits certain things that secular law finds acceptable, then Torah law is invalid.

You cannot discriminate. If you don't like secular law, then don't become a landlord.

If someone wants to rent your property for an expressly illegal purpose prohibited by secular law, such as a whorehouse (outside of certain parts of Nevada), that is prohibited.

You cannot deny a lesbian couple from renting your apartment, assuming they meet the financial requirements to pay rent. Your religion does not allow you to discriminate. Some states are trying to pass laws allowing such 'religious' discrimination; perhaps you should move to such a state.

[lea]

@ Shmarya :)
I’m not sure what you mean by “yet you lie about it”. It’s possible that since we use words differently, you may have not fully understood my intent.

I know that the Rambam in the laws of Isurey biah, chapter 21 halacha 8 states that lesbianism is prohibited (‘asur’)

The shulchan aruch (code of Jewish Law) even haezer 20,2 states the same.

When you hear an orthodox Jew say “the torah says….”, -- if it is stated in the chumash, shulchan aruch, it’s all the same. They are both called (in our lexicon) “the Torah”.

@WoolSilkCotton
You are right. US law is not the same as Torah law. I was talking about from the prospective of Torah law.

[ah-pee-chorus]

lea -

The whole 'non-kosher use' thing is a red herring.
We aren't talking about a lesbian brothel. It's 2 lesbians renting an apartment. As I wrote, when it comes to a shabbos violating straight couple, there would be no problem. But when it's lesbians, you paint it as though the entire purpose of the rental is for them to have sex and violate the torah.
They're renting to have a place to eat, sleep, read, shower and work. Will they have sex? Probably. Just like a non-religious renter will violate shabbos. ANd just like a non-relig. married couple wont be keeping taharas hamishpacha. These are all comparable. But only one was singled out as a problem. And that's because of homophobia.
The rabbi feels threatened and doesn't want lesbians living near him or enticing the frum girls.

[Allan]

@APC - Very well said.

I’d also like to direct people’s attention to lea’s reference to Maimonides' laws (Mishne Torah, Chapter 21, halacha 8) concerning lesbianism. There you’ll find that Rambam does far more than simply “disagree” with this activity. In his own words…

“It is, however, appropriate to give them stripes for rebellious conduct because they performed a transgression.”

“Stripes” is of course a polite term for the brutal punishment of whipping. In other words, the frummies don’t stop at denying lesbians apartments . If they could, they would be in favor of having them hauled before a Jewish court and whipped for their "rebellious conduct" - just as their hero Rambam wanted.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Allan- Thanks

I bet there was no shortage of volunteers to whip them and watch them getting whipped. And no viagra needed that night.

[Shmarya]

'lea' –

Stop your lies.

What I wrote about the issue is what the halakhic debate is.

That one rishon and one achron held one way and others held other ways means exactly what I said it means.

You know this but are far too dishonest to tell the truth.

[Shmarya]

APC –

Amazing how facts and logic make no impact on trolls like 'lea.'

You can refute every moronic thing 'she' says but it doesn't matter. All haredi trolls care about is trolling, not truth, not honesty, not fact.

[Shmarya]

+++"When you hear an orthodox Jew say “the torah says….”, -- if it is stated in the chumash, shulchan aruch, it’s all the same. They are both called (in our lexicon) “the Torah”. "+++

No, 'lea.' As you well know, Orthodox Jews who are honest distinguish between halakhot that are d'orita (from the Torah, halakhot that are d'rabbanan (from the rabbis), and things that are prohibited by custom only.

In fact, the two rabbinic sources you cited do that all the time.

You are a liar.

[Abracadabra]

APC - Very clear and well done.

[Hasid]

Shmarya can u please name one rishon or Acheron that says differently?

[Shmarya]

Are you really that stupid?

[Shmarya]

Oh, wait a minute. Of course you are. You're a Chabadnik.

[Rocky]

WSC: Unfortunately, it is permissible to discriminate against gays and lesbians in some states where Federal law is silent. Mississippi is the latest state to make it easier for God fearing Christians to turn away gay and lesbian customers. Read here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-16/can-small-businesses-start-a-gay-rights-movement-in-mississippi

It is too bad that the Haredi rabbis learned nothing from the history of the Third Reich. Before the Jews of Nazi occupied Europe were sent off in cattle cars for "resettlement", the Nazis had already done a trial run of sorts with German Jews by stripping them of their civil rights from 1933 to 1941. Example: Regulations put into effect Dec. 3-6, 1938: Jews are not allowed to own or to drive private cars, to enter theatres, cinemas, cabarets, public concerts, libraries, museums, public and private swimming pools and sports grounds etc. (from "Jews in Germany under Prussian Rule" museum catalog 1984.

[lea]

Wow, this is getting heated… :)

@ah-pee-chorus you make a good point. I don’t consider lesbians any less favorably than any other transgression of halakka. It is not different. Stealing, eating pork, violating Shabbat, eating on yom kippur, acting on gay impulses, infidelity, swindling, lashon hara, publicly shaming another and any other violation of halacha.

Additionally, I did not issue any rulings regarding lesbians. I was just attempting to argue the difference – in any situation of a violation of halaka – between a private individual renting it regular, and then something improper happens on the property, to if you rent it out with the understanding that it will clearly be rented for the purpose of doing an avaira. You bring up a good argument about someone not keeping Shabbat.

I don’t know what the halaka is, not regarding violation of Shabbat or lesbians. I was just trying to make an argument for the above-mentioned distinction .

@Shmarya
There is a difference if you want to have an academic discussion or a practical one. And here, the source of our disagreement may be the different ways we view tora and Jewish law.

To me, as (at least trying to be) an observant Jew, the last word on halaka (tora) is the shulchan aruch (code of Jewish law). No observant Jew (rabbi) will rule against the shulchan aruch even if he may find a single opinion in the Talmud (or midrash) that offers a different opinion then the shulchan aruch.

Also, of course some things are prohibited (or mandated) d'orita and others d'rabbanan. But when it comes to practice, an observant Jew is expected to obey by them equally. So in practical terms, there is no difference. (it makes a difference in extreme cases (eg. where one needs to violate Shabbat for a sic person ect.) but on a day to day basis, an observant Jew needs to try and observe all halachot – both d’oraita and d’ramanan.)

:) Am yisrael chai

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

++Rocky | May 16, 2014 at 10:01 AM++

Thanks Rocky. In fact, merchants who advertise in Mississippi that they will serve gay customers are now being attacked by Christian fundamentalist groups.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/mississippi-anti-gay-law_n_5211816.html

What the frumma always fail to realize is that civil rights laws that protect gays, blacks, women, hispanics, etc. also protect religious Jews, or become the basis of court rulings in favor of religious Jews who sue for being discriminated against.

The most important thing, front and center, in the frum mind is to hate gays and blacks. Nothing else matters to the frumma, even if laws protecting gays and blacks also protect frumma.

[lea]

@WoolSilkCotton

hate gays and blacks??? what are you talking about??

why should would a frum Jew hate a gay person? what is the difference - from the point of view of halakha - between acting on lesbian/gay urges, stealing, violating shabbat, eating on yom kipur, eating non-kosher, licit relations, being a swindler etc etc etc?

these are all actions are violations of halakha. the 'actions' are to be detested, but why hate the 'person'?

we all have weaknesses and shortcomings (each in a different areas and realms). we should dislike the shortcoming and try to stop it and improve - but never hate the person.

peace and love

[Shmarya]

'lea' –

You're lying and you're finished.

No rabbi will rule against the Sulkhan Arukh? Rabbis ruled against it all the time and still do, and anyone who has ever actually learned it can see that on almost every page.

To help your clearly diseased mind to process a bit better, the Talmud mentions lesbianism exactly two times and rules leniently both times.

The Ramabam wants to punish lesbians for rebellion against the orders of their husbands and rabbis.

In other words, he can't punish the act itself because the Talmud doesn't, so he punishes lesbians for failing to listen to the orders of their husbands who have told them not to have lesbian sex.

The mechaber of the Shulkhan Arukh is upholding that ruling.

The Rema does not.

In practice, there is no evidence any lesbians were ever flogged or otherwise punished by a beit din anywhere at any time.

Past that, the Talmud expressly says that a a lesbian woman can still marry a Kohen and can eat trumah – something that would not be allowed if lesbianism rose to the level of arayot under Torah law.

You are an idiotic, moronic haredi troll who intentionally misrepresents what halkaha says in order to upset people.

And now you're banned.

[dina]

OH NO! shmaryas gonna ban me because he wont report abuse in refuorm and secular progressive communities..the only vendetta is the orthodox,yep, no other communities, black, white, latino ever steal and lie, only orthodocx jews,,,this thought police will BAN me from his so called site because someone dares speak against him, is it George orwell time? no its inflame the fans andfires of ongoing anti Semitism, and u do it so well. oh no. ill be banned! im shaking in my bootas

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

All you frumma who complain you want Freedom of Speech, why not Freedom of Speech for this guy:

http://www.vosizneias.com/164790/2014/05/16/new-york-ny-nyc-cab-driver-suspended-30-days-for-wearing-nazi-armband-with-swastika/

[amhaaretz]

SR must have had a really bad day, or he is sexist as well as anti-frum. What an incredible over-reaction to Lea's posts. Ban me.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Shmarya-

Yes, if a rabbi said it , it will be defended at all costs including truth, actual halacha and human decency.

Abra-

thanks!

[m]

....forbidden to rent apt to lesbian couples ' ...., but having sex men with men is ok or men to molest male children is also ok .

what kind of toyre is that ?

[Robert J. Barron, Attorney-at-Law]

@Shmarya -----> "The fact is, lesbianism is not mentioned in the Torah. It is not prohibited by the Torah.

Instead, there is an argument between rabbis about whether lesbianism is prohibited at all, if it is only prohibited rabbinically, or if it is prohibited under the Torah prohibition banning imitation of the practices of ancient Egypt"

Okay, so....in the spirit of open inquiry, suppose lesbianism WAS prohibited in the Torah? Suppose homosexuality was prohibited in the Torah? Suppose one of the 613 laws (I think it's 613) said something to the effect of "If a man lies with a man, both shall be put to death"?

NEWSFLASH!

We are living in the year 2014...and as I have been saying for months now, these laws were written in and for a world that no longer exists; and will never exist again.

And while there might have been some great minds in those eras- be they Jewish/non-Jewish/Islamic/whatever....what we know about the world today are things that could never have even been imagined back then.

We now know, for example, that homosexuality and lesbianism is genetic; and very few people "choose" to be that way. (Well, anyone who believes in science knows that)

We now know that the Earth is 6 billion years old. We now know that a child who is born with Down's Syndrome is not "cursed by the Devil, or Amalek" or whatever; he has a genetic condition called Down's Syndrome.

So..is our next controversy who many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I'm staying tuned!

[sifter]

I did not sense that lea was being rude or trolling. I sensed her asking questions. I thought that banning her was an overreaction.
The Holy Book may also not come out and specifically prohibit other types of sexual behavior, but it is understood that is wrong, and prohibited. Unless there is some history there in other posts of Lea, all I can say is 'wow'.

[Robert J. Barron, Attorney-at-Law]

@Shmarya -----> The Ramabam wants to punish lesbians for rebellion against the orders of their husbands and rabbis.

In other words, he can't punish the act itself because the Talmud doesn't, so he punishes lesbians for failing to listen to the orders of their husbands who have told them not to have lesbian sex.

The mechaber of the Shulkhan Arukh is upholding that ruling.

The Rema does not.

Ummm...okay, well....let me offer THIS up:

1. If a Lesbian woman is actually married to a (straight/non-homosexual) male, then....she's probably not a lesbian. She's probably bisexual.

(Or, she could marry him to say, just to be a companion, or for financial security...who knows.)

But most lesbians will not marry men, because....a lesbian will not be attracted to a man- even if he's Tom Cruise or George Clooney, b/c a lesbian is not going to be attracted to man in a sexual way.

The same way that a homosexual man is not going to be attracted to Playboy magazine's Miss January...he simply is not able to be attracted to a woman.

Now....back in the 900's or so, I don't think we had the science of genetics.

Granted, I am a lawyer and not a scientist (my younger brother, the Doctor, he got the brains in the family) but it's my understanding that a man does not choose to be gay, nor does a woman choose to be a lesbian, nor does a straight person choose to be straight. It's a matter of genetics.

Now, I'm not sure what the Torah or the Talmud have to say about genetics...but if they don't say anything, but persist in analysis that say, might have been appropriate centuries ago, when we didn't have 1/100th of the scientific knowledge that we have now....can someone explain to me how the Torah and the Talmud are relevant in this particular matter?

[Shmarya]

sifter –

1. Yes, there are many other posts where 'lea' says things to prove her points she has to know are false.

2. This is halakha 101. If the Torah does not prohibit something it is not prohibited according to the Torah. If the gemara does not prohibit it as arayot, then it is not arayot. If it is simply immodest behavior at worst, it is no worse from a rabbi dressing in black and visiting a prostitute – something several Talmudic sages did with rabbinic approval. That's why the Ramabam punishes lesbians for REBELLIOUSNESS – i.e., not listening to the ORDERS of their husbands. He can't punish the lesbian act because the act is not forbidden. This is simple, basic halakha.

3. I saw elsewhere that you called this a hate site because you disagreed with what people, including me, wrote. You didn't bring any facts to back up your disagreement, you just disagreed and attacked me. The truth appears to be that you don't like the facts but can't refute them. So why not just close your eyes and try to wish them all away? That's essentially what you're doing anyway.

[amhaaretz]

Three different people posited that you overreacted to Lea's posts. "lying" really, you view her comments as attempts to incite? They were all posted politely, no attacks on you. Even if she were totally out in left field, your reaction is pathological, IMHO. I don't need to produce my psych degree and post it here. and it is irrelevant. Will you post this (fact of the matter is, I do not care, but you should give some serious thought to my comment, bein ko v'ko). IMHO
Doesn't matter if she is wrong. It also doesn't matter what she has posted in past on other subjects. The reader is reading this thread. SR, take some valium. Your fury is way over the top.
and to think that i donated to this site, albeit hardly ever comment. The crass way that you attack people that you don't like is a total turnoff. I don't even mind your being "anti-Dos". I am indifferent to that. You violate your own rules in your verbal attacks.
Your rules, your blog, and I am indifferent to being banned. It is highly unpleasant to read your attacks. They are unprovoked, even though you choose to view specific others as baiting you. I do not know anything re previous history btw you and Lea. That being said, this reaction is way over the top SR.
and now, if you post this you will shred me to pieces. that is fine.

[amhaaretz]

Sorry, have no idea why this printed multiple times. It was not my intent, to be sure. Don't know how to delete. Regrets for filling up cyberspace, but perhaps it was mystically inspired??? I jest.

[Shmarya]

Please.

She posted many times, always moving the goalposts, almost always posting falsehoods, and never having an honest answer for why she did so.

We can disagree about interpretation but the facts are the facts, and someone who distorts those facts and lies to gain an advantage and then who lies when caught doing so is likely to be banned.

As for you being an amhaaretz, that would appear to be clear.

[maxim]

One is entitled to their own opinion – not their own facts.

In halacha – Jewish law – it sates unequivocally that lesbianism is ASSUR (prohibited). The rama nor no other posek in the shulchan aruch argue. Now, this doesn’t disqualify her from marrying a kohen, eating teruma etc. But it is still ASSUR.

When it comes to bottom-line practice – for a person wishing to live in accordance with Jewish law – there is no difference if the prohibition of something is d’oraita or d’rabanan. They must all be followed. Jewish law contains both things that originate from the 5 books of mosses and those that were instituted by the rabbinic authorities. As far as Jewish law stands, they have (in most instances) the same force.

I challenge you to show me where in the shulchan aruch – the definitive bottom-line book on jewish law – accepted by all practicing Jews worldwide – where it states that lesbianism isn’t assur. Now when I say code of jewish law, it’s both rabbi joseph karo and rama

Here is a link to the relevant page in the shulchan aruch
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9727&st=&pgnum=140&hilite=

[maxim]

For the record: the shulchan aruch is equivalent to the constitution fo the USA or supreme court rulings. You cannot bring an opinion written by some law professor and use it to undercut the ruling of the supreme court. The ruling is final.

The shulcha aruch includes rabbi Joseph karo and the ramma. After something became settled law and codified in the shulchan aruch, no one will (can) challenge it. There are cases of disagreement between karo and rama. In this case, Ashkenazi jews (and many sefaradim (ben ish chai and others)) follow the ramma. Many sefardim (ovadia yosef etc) follow Joseph karo.

Where there is no disagreement between the two (the vast majority of laws), EVERYONE accepts and follows it.

[Shmarya]

I just saw these last two comments now.

The Shulkhan Arukh is NOT "equivalent to the constitution fo the USA or supreme court rulings."

If anything is equivalent to the Constitution it would be the Five Books of Moses.

Past that very evident fact, because some rabbis sa something should not be done because it is immodest does not make that act immodest or the people who do it immodest or sinners.

Proof of that with lesbianism is that the only punishment that can be given for it is given for REBELLIOUSNESS – not listening to her husband or the rabbis – NOT for the act itself.

But even more simply for you, if your rabbis issue a gezera (decree) against women wearing dusters (heavy haredi housecoats) in public and your wife does it anyway, if we were living in the time of the Rambam or Yosef Karo, the woman could be beaten by her husband and/or ordered by the beit din to be flogged.

But what sin has she committed? Are dusters prohibited by the Torah? Can they really be immodest when haredi women have been wearing these dusters in public for many generations already?

The answer is that her 'sin' is rebelliousness. The duster is not immodest per se.

The Torah does not prohibit lesbianism and there is no record of rabbis doing so until hundreds of years after the Second Temple was destroyed.

Why?

Because for almost all of Jewish history until then, women were essentially the property of their fathers or husbands and, except under the most enlightened foreign rule – Rome, for example – women needed a man to exist, and women had no choice about whether they would marry or not. Women were given in marriage by their fathers as young teens.

The vast majority of lesbianism likely took place between married women and, by and large, to the extent rabbis were aware of it they were willing to allow it to continue as long as it did not interfere with either woman's marriage.

But as women gained some independence and became less dependent on men, the threat of lesbianism to marriages would have grown. And we see that rabbis' objections to lesbianism became more strident the more independent women became.

As for your claim that there is no practical difference between a prohibition cited in the Torah and a rabbinic prohibition, your mistake is in your assumption that various rabbinic prohibitions were in fact universally accepted and accepted for the reasons you think.

I'll give you a simple example.

There is prohibition against wasting semen which is generally understood to prohibit all masturbation and all non-penis-inserted-in-vagina sex, and if you ask most hasidim, they tell you oral sex, etc., is forbidden – but it actually is not.

There are many Orthodox rabbis, including haredi rabbis, who permit oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation, etc., as long as some of the time, the couple has 'normal' penis-inserted-in-vagina sex.

But unless you have shimush from a real non-hasidic posek or asked a real non-hasidic posek these questions, you likely don't know the truth, and you think these things are universally prohibited – but they actually are not.

You need to be careful not to assign aveirot (sins) to people who are not really committing any.