As a component of the [negative Mitzvah 126, the] prohibition against engaging in acts that can result in prohibited sex, the SMG includes a paragraph about the prohibition of masturbation. And yet, he calls this a ‘great prohibition’ and the person who does this is excommunicated, comparing the act to murder. Similarly, the Shulĉan Aruĉ devotes an entire chapter to this with the same comparisons. Also, there are Rishonim[i] who consider that this prohibition might be from the Torah[1].
And yet, the Rambam who also describes this act as a “most severe sin” and uses the same comparisons to murder etc. does not include this as part of a negative Mitzva in the Sefer Hamitzvos. Nor does the SMG. The SMG instead, incorporates this act into a single paragraph buried into the pages discussing the negative Mitzva prohibiting activities that could lead to forbidden sex.
Initially, I had intended to have this discussion included with the discussions on other prohibitions against various types of sexual acts like the SMG does, but I decided against it. Since there is no direct negative Mitzva against masturbation, its prohibition must come from other deleterious consequences, such as Tum’ah, bodily harm[2], theft of the life force given to the person, negligence in one’s requirement to satisfy one’s wife, and refusal to procreate. Therefore, its prohibition doesn’t rightfully belong with the prohibitions against various forbidden relationships.
SMG
The SMG [negative Mitzva 126] writes as follows:
Our sages have forbidden[ii] masturbation. Therefore, a person may not ‘plow within and plant without’[3]. And those who are ‘adulterous with their hand’ [masturbating] and they produce semen – it is not enough that this is a great prohibition, but the person who does this is excommunicated [נידוי]. And about such individuals, the verse[iii] states ידיכם דמים מלאו, as if they killed someone.[4] Similarly, it is forbidden for a person to arouse himself to an erection or bring himself to fantasize. [About this] In the Gemara[iv] Rabbi Pinĉas derived [these prohibitions] from the verse[v] ונשמרת מכל דבר רע. And this is an actual derived ruling[vi], not just an אסמכתא, as the Gemara there establishes this derivation in response to [the question of from where do we know] the admonishment against falsely accusing one’s wife of adultery [see positive Mitzva 55 and negative Mitzva 86], and thereafter the Gemara states, this verse is required, according to the other opinion, to be used by Rabbi Pinĉas etc. Rather, if thoughts [of a promiscuous nature] come upon him, he should remove them from his heart and switch the nonsense and thoughts of a self-destructive nature to words of Torah, which are[vii] אילת אוהבים [ζ] and יעלת חן.[5] Therefore, a man is prohibited from sleeping on his back, face-up, without turning a little onto his side so that he will not get an erection. Nor should he look at animals when they are engaging in sex as was taught in the Gemara[viii]. Animal breeders are permitted to insert [the penis of the mating animal into the female] like a makeup applicator[6] as was taught in the Gemara[ix], because as they are busy with their job, they will not think [inappropriate[7] thoughts]. A person who encounters a woman in the marketplace may not walk behind her[8]. Rather he should run ahead and pass on her side or in front of her as was taught in the Gemara[x]. A person should not pass by the opening to a house of harlotry without distancing himself at least four (4) Amos, as it says in the verse[xi] אל תקרב אל פתח ביתה, as was taught in the Gemara[xii]. A person who is not married may not touch his penis, lest he come to fantasize. One should not even place his hands under his belly. If he needs to urinate, he should not grasp the penis [η] so that he will not come to fantasize, but if he is married, that is permitted. Whether married or not, he should not touch his penis at all unless he needs to do so [as part of using the bathroom]. However, my [the SMG’s] teacher said, that the RITZ was in doubt as to whether a married man was permitted to grasp his penis to urinate, but was forbidden from rubbing it [while doing so] or was permitted to rub it [in order to assist with urination].
AMUDAY SHLOMO
The Amuday Shlomo comments on this as follows:
[ζ] This is why he quotes the phrase אילת אהבים as its womb is narrow, and it enjoys sex. Therefore, it is compared to the study of Torah, as its use[9] is very precious.
[η] See the Aroĉ on the word אמתו. [10]
RAMBAM
The Rambam[xiii] makes the following statement:
Semen is the strength of the body, its life, and the ‘light of the eyes’. The more sperm is expelled, the more the body ends, and the greater the damage to the body, and his life fades. As the Shlomo[11] stated in the verse[xiv] אל תתן לנשים חילך.
Anyone who is saturated in sex will have old age come upon him suddenly; his strength will weaken, his eyes dim, and a foul smell will come from his mouth and from his armpits, the hair of his beard, armpits and legs will multiply, his teeth will fall out, and he will suffer many other pains. Skilled doctors[12] have stated that ‘One in a thousand die from other illnesses and a thousand from excessive intercourse.’
Therefore, a person must be careful of this if he wants to live well. He should not engage in sex except when the body is healthy and particularly strong, [which time can be identified] when he has involuntary erections which last even when he makes an effort to think of something else. He will also experience a heaviness from the loins and below, the tendons of the testicles will seem to be stretched, and his body will feel warmer than normal. Such a person does need to engage in sex and doing so is medically advisable.
He should not engage in sex on a full or empty stomach but should wait until after the food has been mostly digested. He should ensure he does not need to use the bathroom beforehand, nor expect to need to immediately after. He should not engage in intercourse while standing or sitting[13], nor in the bathhouse[14], nor should he use the bathhouse before or after, nor on a day on which he gives blood, nor while traveling.
From the context of the details on the prohibition, from its inclusion in the other rules regarding health [the prior law talks about the rules on when to give blood], and from the lack of a statement by the Rambam that doing so is a biblical prohibition, it would seem clear that masturbation is not biblically forbidden in and of itself – any more than any other unhealthy practice. And yet, later on, in the section on forbidden relationships, the Rambam states[xv] as follows:
It is forbidden to ejaculate wastefully. Therefore, one should not engage in intercourse, and ejaculate outside [the vagina]. Nor should one marry a child who is not old enough to bear children. However, those who masturbate by hand, it is not enough that they perform a great sin, but that doing so places him in a state of excommunication – נידוי. And regarding such people, the verse states[xvi] ידיכם דמים מלאו – as if they committed murder.
As I noted previously, the Shulĉan Aruĉ[xvii] devotes an entire chapter on this prohibition and declares along similar lines that it to be the most severe sin of the entire Torah. And, unlike the Rambam, the Shulĉan Aruĉ derives the prohibition from the semen itself, that it may not be wasted [23:1 one should not marry an underage girl, as sex with her cannot produce offspring], and that doing so is akin to murder[15] [23:2 masturbation is like having blood on one’s hands] – without discussing any possible negative health effects.
And yet, the Shulĉan Aruĉ seems to contain a contradictory statement. On the one hand, the Halaĉa is [23:1] one may not marry a girl child since that will lead to an ejaculation which is unproductive, and additionally the Halaĉa is [23:5] a man may not have sex with a woman who has some sort of blockage in her womb which results in semen being unable to remain in the vagina. These Halaĉos indicate that proper sex, even with one’s wife, may not be engaged in unless the result can produce a child. But on the other hand, in the same paragraph [23:5] there is the statement that one may engage in sex with one’s wife who is barren – an איילונית.
Furthermore, I have never come across an opinion that states that once a married woman reaches the age of menopause, her husband is forbidden from engaging in sex with her! Such a thing would be astounding and cannot possibly be true.[16] Furthermore, when a woman is already pregnant, there is no prohibition of her husband having sex with her, in fact the Gemara notes[xviii], that during certain trimesters, doing so is good for the mother and the child.
Furthermore, it would seem this same contradiction is present in the Rambam. After the Rambam prohibits pornography and other methods by which one turns one’s mind to the issue of sex, which will result in masturbation, the Rambam adds:[xix]
And a person should not live without a wife, nor should he marry a barren woman or an older woman who is past menopause. A woman has the right not to marry ever, or to marry someone who cannot bear children. And a young man should not marry an older woman, nor an old man marry a young woman since that will lead to promiscuity.
So, one should not marry a barren woman or a woman past menopause, because such things lead to promiscuity, but don’t they also automatically mean that the ejaculation present in engaging in sex with them is automatically wasted. Why is there a concern of promiscuity as opposed to a concern about the prohibition against ejaculating semen wastefully.
This is not just theoretical conjecture, or fundamental rules in Halaĉa, these are the rulings that were handed down in a practical fashion, as we find with regard to the Maharshal who writes in a responsa to the [people in the] country of Poland regarding a woman whom the doctors diagnosed her with a condition that if she were to become pregnant, she would die. The question being whether she could have her husband use a מוך (some type of condom) – the conclusion being that it is forbidden to do so.
Notwithstanding that ruling, on his commentary in Yam Shel Shlomo, Maharshal is quoted[xx] in the first paragraph in the Shulĉan Aruĉ’s chapter mentioned above, where the Shulĉan Aruĉ writes that this sin is worse than all other sins, ‘if one must choose between that sin or another[17], it would be best to violate the sin of wasteful ejaculation since “הותר מכללו” … [and he continues] that since “והרי להעמיד תולדות הותר להוציא שכבת זרע, לכך מותר לו להוציא שכבת זרע עבור כך”’ Meaning that for the purpose of conceiving children, one is permitted to produce vast quantities of sperm which is ejaculated, most of it wastefully, for the sake of that single spermatozoa.
מנא הני מילי
From all this, it would seem that there are several sources driving the context of the rulings by the Rambam and Shulĉan Aruĉ etc.:
- There is the requirement of the Mitzva of procreating [positive Mitzva 49] – which can only[18] be performed by ejaculating naturally.
- There is the requirement [see positive Mitzva 79] to guard one’s health[19], as it says[xxi] ונשמרתם מאד לנפשתיכם.
- There are the prohibitions against engaging in activity that could lead to forbidden sex [see negative Mitzva 126].
- And of course, there are the prohibitions against murder [negative Mitzva 160] and the prohibition against wasteful destruction [negative Mitzva 229].
All of which can be the base Mitzva prohibiting male masturbation, and yet the rulings provided by the Rambam and Shulĉan Aruĉ seem to imply that this is a separate prohibition against wasteful ejaculation / masturbation.
Where then does this prohibition derive from?
Intent and Reality
Before discussing the potential source for this, there are two Halaĉic points which must be touched upon as being foundational to the discussion. They are:
- Intent is subject to reality
In Halaĉa, subjective intent cannot override physical reality. A person cannot wave a broom on Sukkos, claim they have the intent to fulfill the Mitzva of Lulav, and expect the action to hold spiritual weight. Halaĉa requires both the correct physical action and the proper intent.[20]
However, when dealing with sex vs masturbation, the prohibition hinges on a lack of “reality benefits.” When a husband engages in relations with his wife – even if she is pregnant, barren, or post-menopausal, the physical reality of fulfilling the marriage covenant is being performed. The act inherently fulfills objective Halaĉic benefits, such as the Mitzva[xxii] of עונה and שלום בית. Because the objective reality is beneficial, the proper act is protected from being classified as wasteful regardless of intent.
Conversely, when those “reality benefits” are completely absent, such as in solitary masturbation, the physical act is void of benefits. In that void, the purposelessness of the intent is the only thing that remains, and that negative intent is what crystallizes the action into a severe prohibition. It is categorized not as a unique sexual sin, but as a violation of broader mandates: the destruction of one’s health (Rambam), engaging in actions that lead to forbidden thoughts (SMG), and a fundamental purposelessness that imprisons the life force in the realm of evil (as noted in Tanya, Chapter 7).
הנסתרות לה’ אלקינו
- Heaven takes action when Human Courts cannot
The only example of masturbation in the Torah is the story of Ayr, Onan and Tamar – and thus this forms the natural go-to source for the prohibition.
Most commentators view the actions of Ayr and Onan, and the punishments visited upon them, as violations of Mitzvos given after Mt Sinai. Even if one were to make the claim that these two sons of Yehuda were as righteous as their ancestors – the forefathers – about whom the Midrash states that they kept the entire Torah before it was given, that stringency was only on the level of a custom. Thus, for various reasons, Yaakov was able to marry two sisters which is explicitly forbidden in the Torah. Furthermore, there is no indication that Ayr and Onan accepted upon themselves this stringency. Therefore, we must conclude their punishment was a related to the violation of the Noaĉide commandments. However, there is no Noaĉide prohibition against masturbation – what then were they guilty of.
In considering this, we have to note the foundational concept that in the case where a human court is incapable of ruling in a manner consistent with Halaĉa – it is in those circumstances that heaven steps in to mete out punishment. Otherwise, the purview of crime and punishment has been given to earthly courts to enact.
As we find with the Generation of the Flood, whom the Gemara[xxiii] notes was destroyed for the sin of theft. But the reason it was Heaven that acted, and not the earthly courts, was because they specifically stole items worth less than any coinage. Therefore, human courts were incapable[21] of prosecuting the theft.
With these points in mind, we can examine the tragic story of Tamar’s first marriages.
The Story of Tamar
There are two Gemaras which discuss the incident[xxiv] with Yehuda’s daughter-in-law / wife. These are the facts of the case:
Yehuda initially had three sons; Ayr, Onan and Shay’la. Ayr married Tamar. Ayr, the firstborn of Yehuda did [something] evil in the eyes of Hashem, and Hashem killed him. Following the procedure of Yibum (which was a prevalent practice at the time [and for thousands of years after in the east], in addition to the then-future positive Mitzva 51), Onan married Tamar. Onan knew that the child would not be considered his, so ושחת ארצה לבלתי נתן זרע לאחיו – he had sex with her but pulled out before ejaculation. Hashem killed him as well.
The Gemara[xxv] discusses what they did, and why they were killed and states:
Rava said to Rabbi Naĉman, Tamar conceived on her first act of intercourse [with Yehuda] (which calls into question the previous statement of the Gemara, which is not relevant to this discussion). Rav Naĉman answered, she broke her hymen with her finger – as Rabbi Yitzĉok stated, all those who break their hymen with their finger in the house of Rebbe were nicknamed Tamar – who herself broke her hymen. As for Ayr and Onan, they did not properly[22] engage in intercourse.
The Gemara queries from a Braissa which first quotes Rabbi Eliezer as saying, ‘for the first twenty-four months after a child is born, the husband should “plow inside and plant outside” [i.e. have sex, but do not ejaculate into the woman’s vagina] (this allows the existing child time to wean himself off of breast milk. Should his mother become pregnant during that time, it is possible the child could be endangered due to lack of milk)’ and then asks but doing so is the actions of Ayr and Onan! The Gemara answers, it is only partially like Ayr and Onan. They engaged in anal sex, but here Rabbi Eliezer is advising to engage in regular sex.
The Gemara then discusses the source for this and concludes that Ayr acted in this manner so as to not cause Tamar to become pregnant, which [in his opinion] would have made Tamar less beautiful. Onan did this because (as the Torah states) he did not want to have his children assigned to his brother.[23]
There are several points to ponder in this Gemara, besides Rabbi Eliezer’s statement:
- If Ayr and Onan both engaged in anal intercourse, the result of which was their death sentence – why would Yehuda fear that Tamar was the cause of their deaths and thus prevent Tamar from marrying his third son Shay’la. Why not simply instruct Shay’la to engage in sex in the normal manner.
- Why would engaging in anal sex result in a death sentence from heaven – especially if the problem is truly the result of ejaculating wastefully, then what difference does it make whether they engaged in anal sex or plowed inside and planted outside.
- Rashi on the verse[xxvi] ושחת ארצה quotes the statement of Rabbi Eliezer “plow inside and plant outside” instead of stating that Onan engaged in anal sex (as he does when discussing[xxvii] the depravities of the inhabitants of Ĉaran, where Rivka did not engage in any sex, regular or anal).
Most importantly, if this is a sin which results in the death penalty, why would it not be listed as one of the negative Mitzvas – and why does both the Rambam and the Shulĉan Aruĉ refrain from quoting the story and its consequences as part of the explanation for this prohibition.
The Alter Rebbe writes in Tanya[xxviii] that the life force in the semen which was produced through animalistic desires is not fully lost in the powers of evil, and it can be retrieved and elevated through proper recitation of the שמע at night (in addition to regular Teshuva). Accordingly, it is not fully forbidden as is the performance of a sin, which causes the life force to be captured and imprisoned in evil – which is incidentally where the term אסור and מותר comes from, which literally mean ‘incarcerated’ or ‘free’.
While this explains how it could be both forbidden, but not a negative Mitzva, it does not explain why Ayr and Onan were punished with death – and if they were punished with death, which actions were recorded in the Torah – why is it that this is not a source for a Mitzva against doing so. (One can argue technically that to constitute a Mitzva there needs to be a command instruction in the Torah – and while the Torah relates the punishment, there is no statement commanding against this action. But this in itself requires an explanation.) We are still left struggling to understand what the meaning of what exactly ‘wastefully’ is.
With regard to Ayr, his purpose in wasting his semen was to ensure Tamar would not become pregnant and [in his eyes] become less beautiful – that Hashem deemed wasteful. Onan’s purpose was to waste his semen to ensure that none of his children would be assigned to his brother – that Hashem deemed wasteful. But a new father who desires to have sex with his wife, without impregnating his wife can [according to Rabbi Eliezer – which was not disputed ad loc in the Gemara but was argued against by the sages elsewhere in the Gemara] plow inside and plant outside, and that is not deemed wasteful. Or is it not wasteful so long as sex only includes vaginal penetration and not anal penetration – and would that be the reason why one may have sex with his menopausal wife? But then, why would it be forbidden to marry a girl who has not gone through puberty yet? And if the only consideration is the location of penetration, why is it that Rabbi Yoĉanan derives the death penalty[24] for a wasteful emission as opposed to anal sex?
In reviewing this, I think it is important to understand the rest of the story with Tamar and Yehuda. When Shay’la grows up and Tamar sees that she is still not going to marry him, she desires to have children through Yehuda and accordingly to be a part of the Jewish people and determines to enact a plan to bring that about. She uses her finger to pierce her hymen and pretends to be a prostitute on a pathway where Yehuda was traveling. Yehuda turns to her (or as the Midrash notes, was pushed to her by angelic force) and arranged for a one-time liaison with her – leaving behind identifying items as collateral for the price he agreed to pay for being with her – assuming that she was a prostitute.
She of course had no interest in his money, and thus, after being with him, she leaves, and he is unable to pay the price or retrieve his collateral. After three months, when her pregnancy begins showing, rumors spread that Tamar has been with someone, and Yehuda convenes a court judging her liable for the death penalty by burning for having had sex with someone else while still engaged [as a שומרת יבם] to the youngest son Shayla.
Evidently, she did not utter a word in her defense, but when she saw she was going to be killed, she decided to desperately send the identifying items of collateral to Yehuda hoping he would own up and she would be spared. And that is what happened. Yehuda recognized the items, claimed the children as his, and Tamar was spared.
There are many points of this which are not understood at the surface:
- Assuming Tamar was in fact guilty of a death penalty sin by sleeping with someone else – why would she think she would be, and in fact was, spared that sentence because the person she slept with was Yehuda. Scoffers will of course jump to the conclusion of favoritism noting that since Yehuda was the judge, he only judged her guilty so long as it was not his own child. That of course is a ridiculous conclusion by not taking into account the tremendous righteousness of the people involved, especially considering that Yehuda was only one of the judges presiding, and presumably not the most important one, as it says previously וירד יהודה – that Yehuda’s stature was lessened to the lowest of the tribes because of his involvement with the sale of Yosef. Why then was Tamar spared when they found out that Yehuda was her paramour?
- One could try to claim that the rules of Yibum – which had not been given in the Torah at the time and were thus no more than societal conventions at the time – were different than the eventual Mitzva given to the Jewish people and that any family member could take the place of the deceased brother. That would explain why initially the court was willing to kill Tamar, but then when Yehuda admitted to being the father, she was spared since Yehuda had simply been performing the practice of Yibum, albeit unknowingly. But then we are left with a different question. Onan refused to perform that same Yibum as the children born of that union would be his brother’s. Why then is it that when Yehuda unwittingly performs Yibum, the children are identified throughout the Torah as his[25] as opposed to his son Ayr’s (or Onan’s) – in fact, the Torah consistently notes that Ayr and Onan died without progeny whenever the genealogy of Yehuda is discussed?
- If, on the other hand, the terms of Yibum at the time did not include the idea that Yehuda could take the place of his son, then in addition to leaving unexplained why Tamar was spared, we are left with a separate question of why Tamar went through with this plan in the first place. She knew that she was set aside for Shay’la, how could she go to be with Yehuda instead – no matter her desire to have Jewish children?
These questions and others like it can only be answered by taking the position that when Tamar was with both Ayr and Onan, they never consummated the marriage – presumably as the Gemara notes, because they engaged in anal sex. This can be seen from the fact that Tamar had to pierce her own hymen before sleeping with Yehuda. So, if she was never consummated as the wife of either of those children, she was free to marry anyone – including Yehuda.
As to why she had been sentenced to death by Yehuda’s court if she was free to marry anyone; until this story came out, no one knew why the children of Yehuda passed away. They assumed they had behaved properly and were killed for some other reason. Yehuda presumably suspected Tamar herself as being the cause of their death which is why he didn’t want her to marry Shay’la. And then when Tamar was discovered to be pregnant, they assumed she had violated her status as being set aside for Shay’la.
It was only when Tamar sent the identifying items to Yehuda, and Yehuda realized the lengths that she would go not to embarrass someone, that he realized she must have been protecting the family from the embarrassment of Ayr and Onan’s actions, and that she therefore had not been married ever before, not technically. She was thus judged to be innocent of any type of adultery, and in fact was Yehuda’s wife by means of having slept with him[26]. The children are thus legitimately Yehuda’s – and there is even a commentary on ולא יסף עוד that she remained married to Yehuda ever after.
Why then were Ayr and Onan killed?
We find a similar action just a couple of chapters beforehand with the kidnapping and rape of Dina by the people of Sh’ĉem. Shimon and Levi judged Sh’ĉem to be rapists deserving of the death penalty, and the people of the city to be in violation of the seventh commandment given to the children of Noaĉ – to establish courts of law, and to be a law-abiding people.[27]
When marrying Ayr, Tamar had not agreed to be a trophy wife whom Ayr could take his pleasure with using anal sex – and not mar her beauty. She only agreed to marry him to start and be part of a Jewish family. Accordingly, by Ayr engaging in sex in a way designed to prevent her from possibly becoming pregnant, anal sex, in addition to not consummating his marriage, he was acting against her will – in other words raping her – and thus deserving of death. The same applied to Onan.
And since the courts would have no way of acting on this, as Tamar would not speak ill of them, and no one was around to witness their anal rape of Tamar, therefore Heaven acted.
Thus, the story is one that establishes the intent of the action of sex as being important, and thus this carries over into Rabbi Yoĉanan’s statement that one who ejaculates לבטלה – i.e. for no purpose – is deserving of the death penalty. This does not constitute a contradiction to Rabbi Eliezer’s statement who allows one to “plow inside and plant outside” when the purpose is for the preservation of the existing child’s life and health – by ensuring that he can be weaned properly.
This also explains why the Alter Rebbe does not deem the action itself to be intrinsically completely אסור since it depends on the person’s intention, and the action itself is not automatically one that results in the life force being incarcerated permanently in the realm of evil.
This also explains why the Rambam states the prohibition in two separate places. With regard to prohibited sexual actions – one may not ejaculate לבטלה and therefore should not engage in actions that will cause him to do so. And also, he incorporates the prohibition against sexual discharge as a component of being healthy. Which means that when properly engaging in healthy sex, with one’s wife – even one who is menopausal or who cannot otherwise have children, with the intention of fulfilling his marital responsibilities – which is a Mitzva [see negative Mitzva 81], and with the intention of making another Jew happy [see positive Mitzva 9] then such action is not לבטלה, even if the semen itself does not produce anything. However, when marrying a person who cannot produce children, the lack of the family unit may cause one or the other spouse to seek fulfillment elsewhere, and this will lead to promiscuity – and is therefore prohibited by the SMG as an action that violates the negative Mitzva of engaging in activities that lead to forbidden sex.
Summary
To summarize[28], it is not the fact of whether the semen is wasted or not which is the prohibition, it is the act of engaging in purposeless sexual activity which is forbidden. Which purposelessness can only be determined by intent. The action is thus not a sin in and of itself, but something that requires an associated determination of improper intent. And where one feels bad about such actions taken during the day and uses that feeling to resolve to be better the next day, that action can be elevated to no longer be in the domain of evil.[29]
[1] Presumably based on Gem. Nida 13a who quotes Rabbi Yoĉanan who derives from the verse וימת גם אתו that anyone who ejaculates wastefully is liable for the [heavenly] death penalty.
[2] The Rambam includes this prohibition with the other requirements to maintain a healthy lifestyle in דעות 4:19. He does not include it with the other prohibited relationships or sexual acts, presumably as it in itself is not really a sexual act. The proof that seminal ejaculation is not inherently a sexual act is from the Zav [see positive Mitzva 240], who can have an involuntary discharge even without committing sex or masturbation.
[3] A euphemism for engaging in intercourse and ejaculating outside the vagina.
[4] The verse literally means ‘your hands are filled with blood’, which is a euphemism for murder, but it can also be construed literally for the semen on the hand of the masturbator.
[5] Rabbi Shmuel son of Naĉmani said, ‘why are the words of Torah compared to a deer; just like with a deer, its womb is narrow and is precious to its mate each time the engage in sex as much as the first time, so too those who learn Torah find it precious every hour they engage in study like the first hour they engage in study. And [why does the verse continue with] יעלת חן; because Torah bestows grace on those who study it. And [why does the verse continue with] דדיה ירוך בכל עת, why is Torah compared to a breast; because just like an infant who feels for the breast finds new milk in it, so too any time a person is proficient in Torah study he will find meaning in it. And [why does the verse continue with] באהבתה תשגה תמיד; that is like the son of P’das [Rabbi Eliezer] who would be found studying Torah in the lower market of Tzipori, while his outer jacket lay in the upper market [he was focused on his studies to the point that he wasn’t aware his jacket lay elsewhere].’ Rabbi Yitzĉok son of Elazar said, once someone tried to take it [the jacket] and found within it a poisonous snake [guarding against its theft].
[6] Meaning, they can assist with the insertion only.
[7] See ruling below according to Rav Yehuda that Jews are not suspected of bestiality.
[8] Counter to Western Culture norms in which ladies are always told to walk before the men allowing them to gaze lewdly at them.
[9] A play on words – the same word for sex, תשמיש, also means use.
[10] The SMG uses the word אמתו – his penis. However, it literally means his אַמָה, which is a unit of measurement, generally identified as an arm’s length. Obviously, that is inaccurate when describing the penis, and therefore, a different meaning must be implied. The word אַמָה also means a channel which is more in line with the purpose of the penis. Maharshal notes the use of this unusual term as well.
The Aroĉ discusses at length various sages who were noted for never touching their penises as well as various stories of when people were told to touch themselves to relieve themselves or to cleanse themselves. He resolves these by noting that the prohibition is subjective to the intentions and mindset of the person – if it causes one to experience sexual desire, doing so is only permitted when one has a Kosher outlet for such feelings. Otherwise, it is prohibited.
[11] Presumably the identity of the one who wrote the verse is important, as Shlomo had the greatest number of wives ever recorded [Melaĉim I 11:3] – seven hundred (700) wives and three hundred (300) concubines. He would definitely be in a position to understand the effect of ejaculation on a person, based on experience alone, even were he was not the smartest person to ever live.
I suppose the only other example would be Genghis Khan, who raped and seduced hundreds or thousands of women to the point where modern estimations identify about 0.5% of all males living as his descendants. Notwithstanding his sexual proclivity, he lived to be about sixty-five years old before dying of an accident or an illness.
[12] The National Library of Medicine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1781916/ published an article about why women live longer than men. They suggest changes in lifestyle but haven’t narrowed it down to a single underlying factor. Presumably, masturbation would be the likely culprit, although current western doctors do not recognize this to be true.
[13] Presumably as those positions require increased exertion to ensure one’s sexual partner is in proper position.
[14] As the steam and heat temporarily weakens the body.
[15] Unclear if the reason is because it prevents the child from being conceived, or because the sperm themselves [which have some sort of life] are being killed by being introduced into a hostile environment.
[16] Also, from a statistical point of view, assuming the sages have followed the dictum in the Gemara that a Talmid Ĉoĉom should engage in sex with his wife once a week, and assuming that a woman marries at twenty and experiences menopause at fifty, that would mean thirty years’ worth of more than fifty weeks a year in which only half of those weeks are forbidden due to being in a state of Nida – in other words, it can be expected that the wife of a Talmid Ĉoĉom engaging in sex more than seven hundred times during her fertile years. Even if they had ten children, that would mean barely more than one percent of the time having sex results in pregnancy. Would anyone think that the sages for the last thousands of years engaged in a sin ninety nine percent of the time – even if the sin was beyond human control?
[17] For example, if he was being forced to have sex with a married woman and instead masturbated so that he would not physically be able to do so.
[18] Or at least that was the case for most of history.
[19] Which, as a מליץ יושר only, one can extend in today’s day and age to at least absolve those who masturbate without malice, since modern medical advice is of the opinion that doing so is somewhat healthy.
[20] Volumes can be written about the above statement, arguing both for and against this concept or the nuances contained in the statement. It is not the place here to discuss this at length.
[21] I note that when it comes to Noaĉide laws, there is no minimum required to be guilty. The various measurements were given as a Halaĉa to Moshe from Sinai and are limited to the Jewish laws. We must say that the Gemara means the Noaĉide courts, in whatever form they operated in prior to the flood, had the authority to punish the thefts, since there is no minimum threshold, but they did not have the capability (or willingness) to do so. Doing so required the ability to prove the theft, and since it was di minimus, the courts had an excuse in claiming that there was no way to prove the theft had occurred. It is this kind of immorality that prompted Heaven to act.
[22] Normally, we would state this means they engaged in anal sex, but it is also possible this means they only partially inserted themselves, and upon feeling the barrier of the hymen, they did not penetrate further. The Gemara will quote a Braissa to refute this possibility.
As to why Tamar would do this – Tamar knew she might only have one chance with Yehuda. She therefore broke her hymen beforehand to increase her chances of becoming pregnant.
[23] Since the sages argue with Rabbi Eliezer in that the intentions of Ayr and Onan were not appropriate, accordingly, why do they disagree with his Halaĉic conclusion – that were the intent is for the health of the baby, one should be allowed to engage in coitus interruptus. Presumably, the answer is that the sages view the act itself as fundamentally wasteful and therefore, the intent cannot override the reality.
[24] It should be noted – Rabbi Yoĉanan is not stating that human courts should kill this person. Rather, that one who does so is subject to the heavenly punishment of מיתה בידי שמים.
[25] In Halaĉa, the children born of the Yibum relationship are legally considered the children of the deceased, irrespective of their biological relationship to the brother. And yet, not once is this relationship mentioned. Instead, the Torah consistently notes that they are not the children of Ayr and Onan, who died in Cana’an.
[26] The innovation of a woman being married by means of a document (the Kesuvah) or money is something introduced at Sinai. Prior to that, sex was the method by which people married. Therefore, Yaakov’s financial payment of seven years of labor did not make him married to Raĉel, as per his agreement with Lavan.
This Gem. Yevamos 53b notes that anal sex does consummate the Yibum marriage. However, not only is that a post-Sinai Halaĉa, but also, Ayr engaged in fraudulent coercive rape, violating Tamar and her intent, and therefore marriage never took place. Onan was not a Yavam taking his brother’s place, he was a copycat rapist.
[27] Incidentally, this is also why the people of Gaza have a heavenly death sentence pronounced on them. Either they themselves participated in a murder and rape spree, or they refuse to hold those who did accountable – and they continue to do so even to the day of this writing, the second of Shevat 5784, the twelfth of January 2024. By Torah law, which is G-d’s law, they need to be killed, either by the Israeli soldiers defending the land of Israel, or by G-d’s own hand – if human courts cannot uphold the law.
[28] See also discussion on positive Mitzva 48, where it is implied that one is obligated [in addition to the negative Mitzva 81 against withholding sex] to continue to have sex with one’s wife, even if one has already had children, and even if he or she can’t have any more.
[29] So long as one has not done so with the intent of אחטא ואשוב.
[i] See Tosefos Gem. Sanhedrin 59b and Ritva Gem. Nida 13a.
[ii] Gem. Nida 13a
[iii] Yeshayahu 1:15
[iv] Gem. Kesuvos 46a
[v] Devarim 23:10
[vi] See Tosefos שלא Gem. Avoda Zara 20b
[vii] Mishlei 5:19, See Gem. Eiruvin 54b, and Kesuvos 77b
[viii] Gem. Avoda Zara 20b
[ix] Gem. Bava Metzia 91a
[x] Gem. Eiruvin 18b
[xi] Mishley 5:8
[xii] Gem. Avoda Zara 17a
[xiii] דעות 4:19
[xiv] Mishley 31:3
[xv] איסורי ביאה 21:18
[xvi] Yeshayahu 1:15
[xvii] Shulĉan Aruĉ Even Ha’Ezer 23
[xviii] Gem. Nida 31a
[xix] איסורי ביאה 21:27
[xx] Yevamos 4:44 as well as Ĉoĉmas Shlomo Even HaEzer 23
[xxi] Devarim 4:15
[xxii] See Gem. Pesaĉim 72b and Rambam אישות 15:1 – which explicitly state that the Mitzva of עונה applies independent of the requirement to procreate.
[xxiii] Gem. Sanhedrin 108a
[xxiv] Beraishis 38
[xxv] Gem. Yevamos 34b
[xxvi] Beraishis 38:9
[xxvii] Beraishis 24:16
[xxviii] Likutei Amarim 7