Wednesday, October 7, 2020

Changing the Halachic Masturbation Paradigm

It should be obvious that the Shulchan Aruch is by far not the last word in the Halacha, and that things have continued to develop over the next 500 years.  On the other hand, this is a blog, and my purpose is to develop ideas, specifically ideas that relate to Jewish law as it intersects with topics of medical interest, and to attempt to develop these ideas in a rationalistic manner.  I think that what I have developed so far in all of the preceding posts, are two very different concepts regarding male masturbation and how this activity should be treated by a Jew who wishes to observe the Halacha. Our Halachic analysis so far is enough to make the basic point I have been trying to get to in this blog.

I have recently been introduced to the work of an amazing woman, Talli Rosenbaum, and her writings on this subject. The reason why her writings are so important is because she explores the negative potential effects that the misconception of the "sin" of "spilling seed" can have on sexual development and marital relationships.  Please check her website here for more resources, and I particularly recommend this podcast

The two different Halachic approaches that we have developed would have a significantly different impact on the sexual and psychological health of Orthodox Jewish society.  I will admit upfront that I am not a social scientist, nor am I a sex therapist.  I also don't have lots of data and studies to back up the assertions I am about to make.  I am a physician, and I do have Rabbinic ordination, and I do have significant familiarity with Orthodox sexual dysfunction from a clinical perspective and from my knowledge of the community. Those are both my credentials and my limitations.

The prevailing Halachic paradigm that dominates the general understanding of most Halacha observant Jewry is the one established by the Shulchan Aruch. We just finished describing how this developed in the preceding series of posts.  Allow me to summarize the basic tenets of this paradigm, which I will call the SAP (Shulchan Aruch Paradigm).

The SAP posits that any ejaculation outside of vaginal intercourse in the context of marriage is a sin.  The SAP holds that this was indeed the sin of Er and Onan which resulted in their deaths.  The SAP holds that this was the sin of the flood which resulted in the destruction of almost all life on the planet. The SAP holds that extra-vaginal ejaculation produces demons that taunt the individual into the next world. The SAP teaches that extra-vaginal ejaculation is akin to murder, and included in the Ten Commandments. The SAP does not permit any other form of sexual activity between husband and wife other than vaginal intercourse.

It would be impossible to overestimate the negative effects of these ideas on the sexual and psychological health of the Halacha-observant public. First let us focus on the single young man and what this can do to his psychological health. Imagine the guilt of a young man who masturbates occasionally.  If he is able to open a Shulchan Aruch and read, if he is yeshiva educated, the overwhelming guilt can be awful.  The normal experiences and desires of an adolescent male (or even mature adult male) have suddenly become the source of the "worst sin in the Torah".

Then try to imagine how many destructive paths this can take. The guilt can in some cases lead to a feeling of despair. "If I can't fight these urges, I am a failure at being an observant Jew, and why even bother?"  Such a person could be led into a very depressed rebellion against his heritage, a failure of a Jew. Alternatively, it could lead to open rebellion.  "The Torah must be nonsense if it prohibits normal and harmless natural behavior." "If I can violate the worst sin in the Torah and nothing happens, I an violate any Torah prohibition!"  "If the Torah prohibits this, than all of the Torah's laws could be nonsense too."  Among those young men who don't want to leave the Torah lifestyle, imagine the cognitive dissonance such a problem can cause? The shame, depression, confusion and despair can be overwhelming. I would like to suggest the following link for more detailed discussion of these issues. 

Now let's follow this young man forward in his life.  He is taught that he needs a spouse in order to prevent sin.  So that his natural urge to have sex and experience ejaculation can have a "permissible outlet".  Is he seeking marriage in order to have a fulfilling relationship with another human being? Regarding the important sexual aspect of this relationship, is there an understanding that her purpose is not just to help himself? Does he realize that she is an individual of equal importance who deserves to have a satisfying sexual relationship just as much as he does?  does he recognize that the Torah requires him to make her happy sexually, and that she is much much much more than just a "receptacle" so that his ejaculation is now deemed "kosher"?

What about the young woman?  Is she taught that she must be available for him just to save him from sin?  What does that mean for her own enjoyment? what if she is taught that she must even endure pain and discomfort in order to save him? Is she ever allowed to say , "no" or "not now"? Does she ever learn what a sexual relationship is supposed to be?  There is so much to write, so much to think about.  I refer you to Talli Rosenbaum's site for more discussion. In particular, please check this link. I can't do it justice, but I can highlight some of this in order to get you thinking. 

Now let us rewind a bit in Halachic time.  Let us go back to the days before the Zohar came onto the Halachic scene, to the days of what I am going to call the OMP (the Original Maimonidean Paradigm).

The OMP posits that one should not deliberately stoke his sexual desires because that can lead to immorality.  The OMP teaches that the sin of Er and Onan was that they deliberately engaged in a sexual relationship with the express purpose of avoiding procreation, Tamar was a sexual plaything to them, for enjoyment only.  This is why they were put to death by God.  The OMP teaches that as long as one is engaged in sexual activity in an appropriate relationship, there is no sin of "spilling seed", and any type of sexual activity is acceptable. The OMP also recommends early marriage, but not to prevent masturbation, rather it is to prevent the risk of promiscuity and other sexual sins.  The OMP explicitly uses the concurrent medical understanding to recommend only infrequent ejaculations.  The OMP explicitly also draws upon the contemporaneous medical ideas to recommend regular, just not excessive ejaculations to avoid what was believed to be the buildup of negative factors when one does not ejaculate often enough.  According to the OMP, there is no sin of masturbation for a single man, the only concern is the deliberate stoking of sexual desire for the reason stated above.

Just as it was impossible to overestimate the negative effects of the general acceptance of the SAP, it is equally impossible to overestimate the positive effects of adopting the OMP.

Here goes.  Our hypothetical young man understands that this is a natural process, and that occasional ejaculation is completely normal, even healthy.  He now understands that the problem is to engage in practices that lead to sexually unhealthy activities, not the "spilling of seed".  Such things would include turning to the all-too-available pornography, which can lead to unhealthy and dangerous ideas about sex. This would certainly be something to avoid. On the other hand, normal exposure to members of the female gender, that may occasionally lead to sexual thoughts, is completely normal as long as such social encounters will lead one day to a healthy, safe appropriate relationship.

When it comes to marriage, he may learn that any sexual practice is completely normal, and that he should do whatever he and his wife find to be satisfying and enjoyable.  He will also learn that a woman is to be respected as a partner, not a purely sexual being as Er and Onan treated Tamar. She is there for much more than just his sexual pleasure, she is there to build a life and family together with.  This includes the Mitzvah to procreate.

The young woman will not be there to "save him from sin".  If he needs "saving" and she is not in the mood, for whatever reason, he can either take a chill pill and be respectful or maybe engage with her in other activities that don't include unwanted penetration of her body, even if it means he will ejaculate extra-vaginally.

Furthermore, now that we know that there is nothing unhealthy about occasional masturbation, the Rambam's health related objections would no longer exist.  The Rambam himself, it is well known, omitted from his Halachic code the "prohibition" of eating fish and meat together.  This was because he understood that it was a health recommendation of the rabbis of the Talmud.  Since the Rambam no longer felt it was a heath problem, it is no longer the Halacha.  The Rambam, I  would argue, would likely be consistent and have a completely different approach, as the health understanding of masturbation has dramatically changed.

The suggestion that there are torturing demon tormentors created every time someone masturbates would've sounded both foolish, and worse, even blasphemous to the Rambam.  

Poof. We just solved a major dilemma.  Go back to the basics. Allow me to adjust a common Halachic phrase to our situation:

כדאי הם התלמוד בּבלי והרמבּ״ם והר״י הזקן והתוספות רי״ד לסמוך עליהם בּשעת הדחק  

The Babylonian Talmud, and Maimonides, and Rabbi Isaac the Elder, and Rabbi Isaiah Di Trani are adequate authorities for us to rely upon them in a time of need 

I think anyone who reads Talli Rosenbaum's material would agree that this is a "time of need".  If you disagree, fine, that is your right.  But for those who agree with me that this is a time of need, Let's build on the OMP, the Original Maimonidean Paradigm.  We can use the OMP as a basis to build a healthy sexuality among our youth, and our families and couples.  People should be taught to avoid sexual immorality, sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, and unhealthy sexual stress that builds up in dysfunctional families.  Instead we should teach what healthy sexuality looks like, and how to make that happen.

I would like to inject some Kabbalistic ideas into the OMP though.  However, it will have the opposite effect that the injection of the Zohar had on the development of the Shulchan Aruch Paradigm.  Maimonides had a philosophical aversion to sex in general.  He considered it a base activity, pretty much the lowest form of human behavior.  In this he followed the philosophy of his mentor Aristotle.  If you recall, we mentioned the Igerret HaKodesh in our past discussion of the Spanish kabbalists.  The IH responded to the Rambam that the sexual act is not base at all.  Rather it is a holy and beautiful act between two human beings, as long as there are proper intentions.  If we inject this idea into the development of the OMP, we will find that any act between two loving human beings, in the context of a committed and loving relationship founded upon proper ideas and principles, is a beautiful and holy thing. It is to be celebrated and encouraged, regardless of where the semen happens to spill.

I do want to write a little more in the next post or two about some of the reasons why the SAP became dominant.  I think we need to discuss the foreign influences, the influences of contemporaneous science etc before we leave this subject and move on.

I would also like to encourage people to comment and generate discussion.  Whether you love what I have written, hate it, or anywhere in between, I want to hear from you.  Generating discussion about these topics is one of my primary goals on this blog.  Also, please feel free to suggest new topics. I am always open to ideas. 

12 comments:

  1. Pornography is a much bigger problem imo and the science is quite clear on that. The amount of dopamine that pornography triggers is unnatural and unhealthy, not to mention the interpersonal effects it has on the person. I would much rather someone be committed to abstaining from pornography and masturbate on occasion, than someone attempt to abstain from masturbation entirely and believe they are akin to a murderer, creating demons, worthless, go otd etc.

    keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, this is my point exactly, and I am glad that you agree. we need to focus on what's important, and stop attempting to enforce unnatural prohibitions. There are so many real sexual issues to tackle, and pornography is a major part of the real problem, although obviously not everything. The way we treat masturbation has to change.

      Delete
  2. I don't have any specific discussion starters, just wanted to say that I really appreciate this series of posts. I think it's super important and a strong and thorough work.
    thanks so much!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am so happy that you are enjoying my blog. If there are topics you want me to talk about in the future please let me know

      Delete
  3. I urge you to present your thinking at the next Torah Umesorah convention.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmmmmmmmm. lemme think about that one, somehow, I think they don't have my correct address, as i haven't yet been invited.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You are presenting a false dichotomy. These are just the two most extreme conceptual positions we can imagine. There's no good reason to think Maimonidies doesn't formally prohibit (perhaps only rabbinically) all masturbation for personal edification outside of marriage categorically and there's also no reason to deny a conceptual position recognizing wasting seed per se while allowing a wider range of activities for a married couple. Where is the full spectrum of positions? Rationalist doesn't have to mean extreme. A rational read of Talmud's position is probably more middle ground than what you suggest. I'm not here to defend the extreme kabbalistic conception, but to call out the abuse of the rationlist name in the pursuit of radical leniency.

    (I also note the complete omission in your discussion of the biblical prohibitions of 'lo taturu' and 'vnishmarta mikol davar ra'. The idea that you could tell modern teenagers to masturbate as they desire and expect them to never violate lo taturu acharei einichem nor lo taturu acharei levavchem nor unnecessarily delay pru urvu nor get into other problematic situations is detached from any rational reality. Not to mention any discussion of the parameters of Akrai. You're missing so much substance it's hard to see these blog posts as anything but an attempt to be shocking.)

    Finally the issue of a man ignoring his wife's autonomous sexual life is just a red herring here. One can respect his wife's comfort and desires and still believe in a conception of wasting seed. And one can believe masturbation is totally permissible and still disrespect his wife's personal space. The solution here is teaching respect, not blaming the system.

    (I'm not just some hater; this is milchamtah shel torah. Chag Sameach!)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kodem Kol, thank you for your comment, I would never assume that you were "some hater" I appreciate very much your interest in the blog and your comments. This is how we grow and learn, by communicating and listening. Some housekeeping: It seems that you posted this comment to two different posts, so i chose to leave it on this post because it seemed more closely related to the content of this post, I am sorry for not posting it twice, I just thought that this made more sense.

    Regarding what you said about creating a false dichotomy. I agree completely that an issue as complex as this is much more than just A or B, there are many nuances that are different between the many poskim, and unfortunately it would be impossible in this blog to explain every possible nuance in which this posek differs from the other. However, the two different paradigms that I delineated are just that, two very different paradigms that represent two different approaches to the subject They do provide a framework within which to understand this topic in Halacha. This would be helpful for anyone delving into the more intense and complicated nuances of the different poskim. I deliberately chose the term "paradigm" defined by dictionary.com as follows:

    "a framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of a scientific community"

    Change the term "scientific" to "Halachic" and it will be iunderstood that clearly not every member of a certain scientific or halachic community has exactly the same views, but they do begin with certain basic assumptions as they analyze a given topic. In this case, I do believe this is a reasonably accurate description of the two groups, the SAP and the OMP. There are two a different sets of basic assumptions upon which these two groups analyze this topic.

    I also object to your characterisation that I am presenting rationalism as "extreme". I do not believe that I am being extreme at all. I purposefully left open a wide range of possibilities, and never gave specific guidance for a reason.

    Regarding the Lav of Lo Taturu etc... This is exactly the reason why the Rambam was so concerned about activities that lead to sexual immorality, promiscuity etc... I believe that I extensively covered this issue in many of my posts. I recommend that you look over my posts again on this topic. Sexual morality was the primary concern of the Rambam, and this was extensively covered in my blog.

    I certainly am not attemppting to shock anyone at all. I am sorry if it sounded that way, and this was far from my purpose. I have written much in my blog about the purpose of my blog, and shock is never going to be one of them. I truly value and appreciate conversation.

    I am also not sure what substance you are specifcally referring to that I am missing. However, to the extent possible, I chose the sources I believed necessary to establish the ideas that I wanted to convey. I was very clear at several points as to why I left out certain sources. It is not because they are not important sources, but rather because they were not necessary to make my point. On the other hand, I am very happy to have these discussions, as they may give you the opportunity to raise and discuss sources that you feel I should have included.

    Regarding the definition of Akrai - this was not defined by the poskim either, so I chose not to make up my own definition. I imagine that a definition I would come up with would be something based on the scientific difference between a dangerous habit and an occasional occurrence. I am not expert in psychology, so I will leave that to others to define. However, in most cases I think our intuition would find the difference between a habit and an occasional act to be obvious.

    Chag Sameakh to you as well!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Shouldn't possible ingestion of semen also be an halakhic concern when confronting the topic of derech eivarim?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must admit that I am not aware of any rabbinic Teshuvot that deal with the permissibility of ingesting semen. If you have seen any, I would be interested to see the sources.

      However, when it comes to two other liquids that emanate from the human body, Human milk and human blood, they are explicitly treated in Halacha. The Talmud in Kereitot 21a - 21b discusses both of these topics and declares that there is no Biblical prohibition against the ingestion of human blood or human milk. Nonetheless, regarding the consumption of human blood there is a rabbinic decree (See Shulchan Aruch YD 66:10). Regarding the consumption of human milk, there is no prohibition at all. However the authorities do prohibit an adult from suckling at a woman's breast for it is considered animalistic and inappropriate (See Rambam Mishna Torah Ma'achalot assurot 2:4).

      I would therefore assume that there is no prohibition against the ingestion of semen either, especially if it is an inadvertent result of a permitted sexual practice. Whether or not intentional ingestion could be compared to suckling milk is going into the land of conjecture. I would strongly suspect that the authorities would have a range of opinions on this matter which would likely reflect their general attitude towards sexual behaviors other than vaginal intercourse.

      Delete
  8. What do you think the Halacha should be on using condoms for birth control? The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that there shouldn't be any Halachic difference between different birth-control methods. Do I understand correctly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed you are correct. Please look back at my post https://rationalistmedicalhalacha.blogspot.com/2020/09/rabbeinu-tams-innovations.html In that post I mentioned Rabbeinu Tam. Most Halachic authorities today derive the "prohibition" of using a condom as a form of birth control from this Rabbeinu Tam. The idea is that just like according to Rabbeinu Tam a "mokh" is not "the normal way of intercourse" so too a condom would be prohibited. Read that post carefully and you will see that according to the poskim before this innovation, no such prohibition existed.

      Allow me the following very important caveat: This is true ONLY if the condom is used in an otherwise permitted halachic relationship between man and wife, and also ONLY if the intent is not to avoid the fullfillment of the mitzvah of procreation. So in cases of danger where pregnancy must be avoided, or where the couple has already fulfilled the mitzvah, or it is done occasionally without the intent to avoid performing the mutzvah, it should be permitted.

      I also wonder why the poiskim would even think that a condom is not the "normal way" of intercourse. To me, if the Rambam (before the insertion of the "mysterious phrase", and the other poskim I quoted held that anal intercourse and "derech eyvarim" (ejaculation while pressing against other parts of the body) are OK Halachically, then if anything using a condom is even more "normal" than the other activities.

      Delete