Rabbeinu Tam's Innovations

In our last post, we have established a new idea, introduced by the words of Rashi, that the sin of masturbation is one of “wasting seed” that could have been used to produce a child.  Rashi’s grandson, Rabbeinu Tam, as quoted in Tosfot Ketubot 39a then asks the following question:

"This does not seem (correct) to Rabbeinu Tam, as a young woman or an aylonit (women incapable of conceiving) one is allowed to have intercourse with them and it is not considered wasting seed, as long as it is done in the normal way of intercourse."

He continues:

"Prior to intercourse, one is certainly not allowed to use a Mokh (a contraceptive sponge of some sort) as it is not in the normal way of intercourse, and it would be (similar to) spilling semen on wood or stones, just the same as upon a Mokh, but after intercourse it would be permitted, as it is in the normal way of intercourse, similar to having intercourse with a young woman or an aylonit. And the woman who places the mokh inside after intercourse is not prohibited from destroying seed, since she is not obligated in the commandment to procreate…"

Rabbeinu Tam has now introduced several completely new concepts.

1. Once the idea of “destroying seed” was established by Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam was forced by his understanding of Rashi’s words to answer a new contradiction.  How is it that one is allowed to have sexual relations with a woman who cannot conceive?  (Recall, that according to the Rambam, and all who preceded him, this is not a problem at all, because they never heard of this prohibition of “wasting seed”, as we extensively explained in our previous posts) So Rabbeinu Tam came up with a new concept to explain this contradiction.  That any ejaculation that occurs “in the normal way of intercourse” is considered OK even if it can’t result in pregnancy.  However, any ejaculation that cannot result in pregnancy that does not occur in the “normal way of intercourse” would be prohibited.
2. Rabbeinu Tam introduces the concept that there is a prohibition of wasting seed, and he traces its origin to the mitzvah of procreation.  Somehow, the mitzvah to procreate also entails a prohibition to “destroy seed”
3. Since the prohibition is related to the mitzvah of procreation, Rabbeinu Tam therefore can differentiate between men and women.  A man cannot “destroy seed” while a woman can.

Let us analyze these ideas of Rabbeinu Tam a little further, because they have pretty much become the basis of so much Halachah in the realm of reproductive Halachic discussions for the next 800 years or so.

The Normal way of Intercourse

This new concept, as you can easily imagine, opens up a gigantic can of worms. Let me remind you of how easy Halachic life was in the pre-Rabbeinu Tam days.  As we saw in the Rambam, as long as you don’t ignore your obligation to procreate, and as long as you are in an appropriate sexual relationship, there are no more regulations regarding “spilling seed".  I quoted this before, and I will quote it again:

 "A person’s spouse is permitted to him, therefore any (sexual) activity that he desires to engage in with her, he may engage in it. He may have sexual relations with her at any time he desires, and he may kiss her on any part of her body that he desires, he may have sex with her in the normal way (vaginal) or not in the normal way (anal), he may have sex by using the (normal) limbs of the body or even not the (normal) limbs (Rambam, Mishna Torah, Laws of Forbidden Relations 21:9)"

However, now we suddenly have something new. If one engages in any form of extra-vaginal sex and ejaculates during sexual activities with his wife, he has now violated this new law.  In fact, this even governs what contraceptive devices he can use.  While according to pre-Rabbeinu Tam poskim, the use of barrier contraception was considered fine in cases where pregnancy was unhealthy for the woman, suddenly the use of barrier contraception is now prohibited during intercourse.  The Halachic ramifications of this idea are immense.  This law went from one that encourages procreation and sexual morality, to one that regulates what type of sex is OK between a husband and wife.  It is nothing short of astounding. 

Wasting Seed = Violating Mitzvah of Procreation

This idea is just about as revolutionary as the first.  In all other Halachic discussion in pre-Rabbeinu Tam days, it was well understood that engaging in sexual activities that are designed to avoid fulfilling the commandment to procreate were discouraged, and compared even to murder.  However, it was also understood that as long as one does not ignore his obligation to populate the Earth, sexual activities in appropriate relationships were perfectly fine.  That is because no one ever heard of this prohibition of “wasting seed”.  But now, Rabbeinu Tam tells us that the Torah’s command to procreate includes a prohibition of wasting seed.  Exactly how one derives this from the verses in the Torah is unclear, but this is what he says.  Now this “prohibition is elevated to a “D’Oraytah” a prohibition with an origin in the Torah.

Men Only

The third logical outcome of Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion, is that this prohibition of wasting seed only applies to men, who are commanded to procreate, and not to women who are not considered obligated to procreate.  (The origins of this differentiation between the genders is beyond the scope of this blog post). If that is the case, we left with a strange dichotomy between the two individuals involved in this heterosexual encounter between a woman and her spouse.  She is not prohibited from any act, even “wasting” his seed, but he cannot do anything other than sex that concludes with intra-vaginal ejaculation.

The Other Ba'alei Tosafot Take on Rabbeinu Tam

One of the primary problems with Rabbeinu Tam's approach, is that it raises so many contradictions and difficulties with other passages in the Talmud.  After all, when the Rambam permitted anal intercourse and all sorts of sexual practices (in an appropriate relationship) including using all parts of the body for pleasure, he was quoting the Talmud itself! So how do we understand this?

These questions were of course raised by several Ba'alei Tosafot who followed after Rabbeinu Tam (Talmudists, mostly from France and Germany, during the period starting from around the time of Rabbeinu Tam himself in the mid-12th century for approximately the next 200 hundred years until the early 14th century.  These Talmudists all contributed to the "tosafot" which are composed as additions to the back and forth arguments in the text of the Talmud itself).  The two most famous to deal with this issue are Rabbi Issac ben Samuel of Dampierre, France (1115-1184) also known as the "Ri Hazaken" and Rabbi Isaiah di Trani of Venice Italy (1180-1250) also known as the "Tosafot Rid".

Both of these Ba'alei Tosafot had a problem.  They at first understood the words of Rashi the same way that Rabbeinu Tam did, which is that there is an inherent problem with "wasting seed".  However, they needed to reconcile this with the fact that in so many instances, the Talmud explicitly allows ejaculation when pregnancy is not going to result.  Bottom line, they could not accept Rabbeinu Tam's interpretation.  What they did essentially, was explain Rashi the way I did in the last post.  That wasting semen is only an issue when one does it regularly in an attempt to avoid fulfilling the mitzvah of procreation. However, when it is done in the usual course of normal permissible sexual activity, there is no prohibition against "wasting seed". In their words:

... Furthermore, Rabbi Isaac (R' Isaac ben Samuel of Dampierre) says, it is not considered an act of Er and Onan unless a person intends to waste seed and does so consistently (which one might do if his intention was that his spouse should not conceive and thus him not fulfill his obligation to procreate) However if as a random matter of course, when a person may desire to engage in atypical intercourse with his wife in a different way (e.g. anal intercourse) it would then be permitted, as the Talmud teaches (Nedarim 20b) Whatever a man desires to do (sexually) together with his wife he may do ... (Tosafot Yevamot 34b) 

Here, Rabbi Isaac is explicitly permitting masturbation and other sexual practices and sees no problem with "spilling seed" unless it is done on a regular basis with the intent of not fulfilling one's obligations of procreation.   As long as it is done in the context of an acceptable sexual relationship and it is not habitual. Rabbi Isaiah di Trani says it more clearly (discussing the Talmudic ruling allowing one to prevent pregnancy by the withdrawal method - ejaculating externally - in cases where pregnancy can be harmful to the woman):

"...and if you ask, how could it be that the Rabbis permitted to ejaculate semen and do exactly the actions of Er and Onan (as described in the bible they did the "withdrawal method").  The answer: What are the actions of Er and Onan that the Torah prohibited? Anyone whose intention is that his wife does not get pregnant in order that her beauty not be diminished, and he does not desire to fulfill his obligation to procreate with her. But if his intent is that she should not be brought into (a situation of) danger it is permitted. and so to if his intention is (simply to) fulfill the desires of his heart and his intention is not to prevent pregnancy it is also permitted ... someone whose intent is to fulfill his sexual desires is not transgressing (the sin of Onan) because whatever a person wants to do (together with) his wife he may do, and it is not considered "destroying seed" for (if it was considered destroying seed) one could never have sexual intercourse with a younger woman or an aylonit, or an infertile woman" (Tosfat Rid, Yevamot 12a) 

Here Rabbi Isaiah di Trani again explicitly permits masturbation and spilling seed, as long as it in the context of a permitted relationship.  He is clearly rejecting the possibility that Rashi meant that wasting seed in and of itself is some sort of prohibition. This is of course consistent with tyhe simple meaning of all of the Talmudic passages we have studied so far.

So again, these two great scholars, even after Rashi's comments, still understood the Halachah to be exactly the way we described the Rambam, before of course the sneaky phrase crept into the text of the Rambam sometime in the 13th century - which we discussed here. Despite their attempts though, Rabbeinu Tam's words were going to have more influence on the future development of Halacha.  In the next post I will start tracking how this happened.