Now that we have established the
opinion of the Rambam, it is time to track how a completely new understanding
of the "prohibition" of masturbation came upon the Halachic scene,
and pretty much replaced the traditional understanding of the Torah and Talmud
up until somewhere in the middle of the 13th century. However, before I
begin this discussion, I believe it is important to explain that the Rambam's
understanding was by no means limited to the Rambam. It was the
widespread understanding in the Rabbinic world.
For example, the Semag (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol - early 13th century)
that early Ashkenazic Halachic work written by R' Moshe of Coucy in France,
demonstrates that the understanding of the Rambam was widespread. The
Semag lists masturbation during his discussion of practices that could lead one
into a life of sexual immorality. In general, the rabbis of this time
both in Ashkenazic countries such as France, and in Sephardic countries such as
Spain advised that one should avoid practices that lead one to live a life in
pursuit of sexual pleasure. Among the prohibitions listed together with
masturbation are things like flirting, gazing upon women, touching,
etc... Other early Halachic works such as Sefer Ha'eshkol (R' Abraham ben
Isaac of Narbonne - 12th century) also condemned the practice because they felt
that one who deliberately engages in such practices could lead to sexual
immorality. This was the general understanding, and it was generally
accepted.
The reason why all of this is important, is that there is no
inherent prohibition of "wasting seed". If that is the case, then
when an ordinary young man is aroused, which is completely normal and common,
and he deals with this arousal by masturbating, no terrible sin has
occurred. When a loving couple engages in sexual activity, and a man
ejaculates, no terrible sin has occurred either. In fact, the couple has
only engaged in a loving activity which is to be expected of a healthy
couple. The problem is only when one engages in a lifestyle that seeks
sexual stimulation, and when one spends his time pursuing such matters.
In such instances, engaging in masturbation while pursuing immorality is the
issue these rabbis were discussing.
It is also important to point out that the views of these Rabbis
and of the Talmud itself were stated in a world in which attitudes toward what
constitutes sexual immorality were very different from what we find
today. the topic of exactly how to apply these ideas in modern times will
have to wait until we complete our halachic discussion.
The New Concept - "destroying seed"
One of the most famous Talmudic and halachic scholars of all time,
is Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak, known as Rashi. He was famous for many things,
but on a literary level, he is well known for his brevity and his ability to
convey big ideas in just a few words. so many times, extremely difficult
Talmudic concepts are explained by Rashi in a short simple sentence fragment
that somehow manages to illuminate everything. Occasionally though, his brevity
also leaves a lot of room for further interpretation. Hence, numerous
books have been written and Talmudic discourses expound for thousands of pages
just what did Rashi mean when he said this or that.
There are two statements of Rashi that completely changed the
Halachic understanding of masturbation for the remainder of Halachic history. I
will state that frankly I am not completely sure if that was his intention, but
so it was. In Rashi's commentary to R' Yitzchak Alfasi's (known as
"the Rif") halachic work in Shabbat chap 14, 108b Rashi makes one of
his short statements of explanation. The Rif himself quotes the Gemara in
Niddah that we have been discussing this whole time, which he almost certainly
understood the same way that the Rambam understood. The Rif mentions the
comparison to murder, which almost everyone until the time of Rashi understood
to mean two things, that 1) not engaging in having children was similar to
murder and 2) it was meant to sound scary. However, Rashi comments as follows:
"They (those who engage in masturbation) are destroying ("mashchitim") seed that could become children"
The second comment of Rashi is in Ketubot 39a. There the
Talmud is discussing the permissibility to use a form of contraception called a
"Mokh", which is some sort of sponge placed in the vagina during
intercourse as a barrier. The Gemara permits its use when pregnancy can be a
health concern for the woman in question. The simple understanding is
that may have sexual relations with his wife even though they will not be
fulfilling the mitzvah of procreation. Rashi there states:
"They are permitted to use a "mokh" and they are not (considered to be) like they are destroying seed"
The simple understanding of Rashi, IMHO, is that he is also
referring to the concern that one is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of
procreation. When he uses the term "destroying seed" he gives
it away when he states, "that could become children". In other
words, he is stating the same understanding as everyone else. The reason
he chooses the term "haschata" (destruction) is because in the story
of Onan in the Torah this term is used as well. The
"destruction" there has been understood to mean that by not
"building" the world (i.e. having children) one is passively engaged
in "destruction." The reason why it is difficult to imagine
that Rashi meant the destruction of the seed itself, is because there are so
many examples that we have discussed in which sexual activity and ejaculation
is permitted even though pregnancy is impossible.
However, this is not how Rashi has been interpreted by most
Halachic authorities ever since. They understood that Rashi is trying to teach
us that there is some prohibition literally in "wasting seed'. This
is revolutionary. Especially since it is nowhere to be found in the Torah
or Talmud that "wasting seed" i.e. ejaculating semen outside of a
woman's body is some sort of problem. So, a brand-new sin has arrived on the
Halachic scene.
Rashi's grandson, Rabbeinu Tam, was the next step in the development of this new concept. We will analyze his opinion in our next post and discuss the termendous influence of Rabbeinu Tam on the future development of the Halachic process regarding masturbation.
What a remarkable series of posts!
ReplyDeleteRe: this line:
<
As far as I know, Rashi did not write a commentary to Rif. (I'm not even sure he knew of the Rif.) Rather, as far as I know, somebody collected comments made by Rashi on the Talmud and applied them to Rif. And "Rashi on the Rif" doesn't always match Rashi's commentary on the daf, whether because of a different version of Rashi or for some other reason.
Uzi Weingarten
I did manage to speak with some notable scholars, and it seems that the redactors of the Vilna Shas were working with some manuscripts that had various versions of Rashi and that they did collect the Rashi commentary and set it up on the page with the Rif. It is not clear exactly how accurate the version of Rashi that appears with the Rif is. Nonetheless, the Talmudic commentaries commonly quote this Rashi as "Rashi on the Rif". In this particular instance, the "Rashi on the Rif" introduced the concept of "destroying seed" being murder because of thenpotential of the semen to create life. This is significant, so it would be nice to know for sure who actually wrote that! But the concept of "destroying seed itself was introduced by the traditional "Rashi on the Gemara" which I think everyone agrees is authentic. Thank you so much for bringing this point to the public's attention.
ReplyDelete