Influence of Christianity and the General Culture on Jewish Views of Masturbation

I have referenced a few times the idea that at least some of the negative Halachic attitude towards masturbation was a result of Christian and general cultural influence. I argued in the last post in favor of taking the OMP approach toward masturbation instead of the SAP approach. It would be somewhat satisfying to blame all of this on "the other guys" and say that it wasn't the Jews' fault, but it was their fault i.e. the Christians.  As my grandfather of blessed memory used to say, tongue in cheek, "it doesn't matter what goes wrong, as long as you can blame it on somebody else."

I am sorry to say that in this case, we cannot blame it on the Christians.  At least not the development of the SAP which I described in detail before.  The SAP was heavily influenced by the Zohar.  The Zohar stands out as the most vehemently harsh condemnation of the practice of masturbation in all of human religious history.  It was the most comprehensive, zealous, and forceful religious work to take up the subject, and the earliest religious text to discuss it in such intense detail.

While there are references and condemnations of masturbation scattered here and there throughout the Christian writings starting from the second century on, it doesn't seem to have been a particularly big deal to Christians until the mid-18th century.  Some exceptions exist, such as Pope Leo II (b.1002- d.1054) who wrote harshly about it, but it never quite became a big deal for a long time. One of the most famous books to deal with this subject is Thomas W Laqueur (2003) Solitary Sex:A Cultural History of Masturbation. According to Laqeuer, "the ancient world cared little about the subject; it was a backwater of Jewish and Christian teaching about sexuality."  He claims that the big obsession with the topic really began with the publication of an anonymous tract called "Onania" in England somewhere around 1722.

There is a phenomenon that I seem to find often when reading secular scholars discuss "Jewish teachings".  It seems that they frequently assume that the Jews were more or less saying the same things that the Christian scholars were over the centuries. In modern parlance, this often presents itself as the "Judeo-Christian" tradition.  Unfortunately, all too often, these scholars are much more familiar with the Christian teachings than they are with Jewish teachings and traditions. They are frequently  unqualified to say what the "Judeo" part of Judeo-Christian" actually teaches.   I am not particularly proud of the Jewish contribution to this subject, but Laqueur, when he stated that masturbation was "in the backwater of Jewish teaching" had no idea or clue just how robust and influential the anti-masturbation teachings of the Zohar was about 600 years before 1722. He should've stuck to Christianity.

I am not the only one to point this out, as Shilo Pachter, in his doctoral dissertation that I have quoted many times, makes the same point regarding Laqeuer's assertion. The Jewish opposition to masturbation came out of the "backwater" as soon as the Zohar came to light. Long before 1722.

However, there is a period of time in which I do believe the influence of the Christian world and the academic world did have a strong influence on the Jewish world, and that, I believe, did start with the book that Laqueur just mentioned.

It seems to me that the widespread acceptance of the SAP and the stringent opinions regarding masturbation were helped along by the strong anti-masturbation rhetoric that took over the Christian, philosophical and scientific world starting in the early 1700s.  Starting in this time period, in both the protestant and the catholic world, Onanism became synonymous with masturbation and it became accepted as a terrible sin.  In the philosophical world, no less a personality than Immanuel Kant condemned the practice strongly. In the scientific world, it became accepted that masturbation was both a sign of a mental disorder and the cause of all sorts of physical maladies.  It wasn't until the mid-20th century that these ideas started to change, and masturbation began to be understood as a normal part of sexual development.

The strongest Halachic influence on contemporary post WW2 Orthodox Judaism, comes from the Hassidic traditions of eastern Europe and the non-Hassidic yeshiva world of Lithuania.  Both of these traditions began and were nurtured within a surrounding culture that thought that masturbation was a sign of mental illness, that is was medically unhealthy, and that it was an abomination and a perversion for which God gave the death penalty.  It is not surprising that the Halakhists and moral teachers of the era didn't pay much heed to the opinions of the Ri Hazaken and others and accepted the paradigm of the SA.

An indicator that this is the case, is that the opinions expressed by the proponents of the OMP did not disappear immediately when the Shulchan Aruch suppressed them. It took a while for the SAP to take hold. As we shall see, immediately after the publication of the SA many rabbinic authorities objected to the negation of the opinions of the Ri HaZaken, Tosafot Rid, and Rambam.

It makes sense that it wasn't easy for the SA to suppress the opposition by omitting the Ri HaZaken.  This opinion wasn't just a random outlier.  Many halachic authorities among the Rishonim (Halachic authorities from circa 1100 - 1550) and early Acharonim (halachic authorities from circa 1550 - 1800s) supported the opinion of the Ri HaZaken. Here are just a few: Rabbi Mordechai ben Hillel HaKohen (Germany, 1250-1298, known as "the Mordechai") in Massechet Niddah Hagahot Mordechai 247:744;  R Bezallel ben Avraham Ashkenazi (Israel, 1520-1592) in Shita Mekubeztet Nedarim 20b; R Asher ben Yechiel ("The Rosh" Germany then Spain, 1250-1327) Tosafot HaRosh Yevamot 34b; R Meir HaKohen of Rothenburg (Germany, late 13th century) in Hagahot Maimuniot Hilchot Isurei Biyah 21:9; R Isaiah DiTrani "the younger" (Italy late 13th - early 14th century) in Piskei Riaz Ketubot 5; R Solomon Luria (Poland 1510-1573 "The Maharshal") in Yam Shel Shlomo Yevamot 34b; R' Avraham Chaim Shur (Belz, Poland late 16th, early 17th century) in Torat Chaim Sanhedrin 54a.   All of the above and many more at least supported the opinion of the Ri Hazaken as a viable alternative to the stringent prohibition against "spilling seed".  

It is for this reason that the important commentary on the SA, the Beit Shmuel (late 17th century) immediately qualifies the statement of the SA that the sin is "the most severe in the Torah" by saying that the SA really didn't mean it.  (IMHO. the SA clearly did mean it, as he had learned from the Zohar how severe it is). 

Despite this solid and robust opposition to the SAP, in the centuries following the publication of the Shulchan Aruch, the SAP eventually did become the predominant paradigm. The OMP receded into the past almost as if it had never existed. As (at least Eastern European) European Jewry eventually developed into the Hassidic and "Lithuanian" branches preceding WW2, the SAP became firmly ensconced. I believe this was largely because the same thing was going on in the world "outside.  Why else would the Jewish world almost completely ignore one major tradition and exchange it for another? Clearly, the Christian, philosophical, and medical thinking of the time regarding the "horrors" of masturbation dominated Jewry in the same way that it dominated western thought in general.

So, in conclusion, I don't believe that we can blame "the others" for foisting this stringency upon Judaism.  We were there first :(    However, the fact that it became the predominant Halachic paradigm was almost certainly heavily influenced by outside factors.

The only silver lining I can think of, is that maybe the reverse can be true.  If the general society's dislike for masturbation helped push us toward a stringent Halachic attitude, maybe modern science's recognition that occasional masturbation is normal can push us back to the original Halachic paradigm which accepted indeed that this is true as well. Perhaps. Maybe. With God's help and with common sense and the strength of the Torah sources I have quoted in this series, maybe it can work.  Thanks for reading through my posts on this subject, I think I can move on now to other important subjects. Please let me know in the comments if you think I left something out.

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. 

Rav Yosef Karo Uses the Zohar to Eliminate the Opposition

In this post we will finally tie our two separate threads together, the mystical Kabbalistic thread and the Halachic thread.  Rabbi Yosef Karo (RYK), the most influential Halachic authority since the days of Maimonides, was the author of two major halachic works.  The Beit Yosef is written as a commentary on the Arba'ah Turim which we discussed in the previous post, and it is an encyclopedic review of all of the halachic opinions on the topics covered by the Tur. Based on his Beit Yosef, RYK then wrote the Shulchan Arukh (SA), where he summarizes his conclusions of law.  This has become one of the most important works in the history of the Halacha.

The Beit Yosef provides us the insight we need into how RYK came to the conclusions that he records in the SA.  I promised you in a previous post that I would show you how RYK brought the Zohar and Lurianic kabbalah into the Halachic world regarding the topic of masturbation.  So now is the time to fulfill my promise. 

In the Beit Yosef, on his commentary to the Tur Even Ha'ezer 23:4 the Beit Yosef adds to the Tur:

It is written in the Zohar that the severity of the prohibition against ejaculation for naught is more than all the other sins in the Torah, therefore one must be extremely careful regarding (the avoidance of) this (sin).

If you recall our previous post, the Tur cites the lenient opinion of the Ri HaZaken as a dissenting opinion, as he permits spilling seed in the context of an appropriate relationship.  RYK's comments on this are fascinating and revolutionary.  in the Beit Yosef (siman 25) he says:

It is very difficult to allow someone to spill his seed even if it is only occasional, and one who is careful regarding (matters of) his soul will stay far away from this and from similar acts... 

Then in his later work, Bedek HaBayit (ch. 25), RYK cracks down even harder and states regarding the Ri HaZaken:

had the Ri HaZaken seen what is written in the Zohar regarding the punishment for someone who needlessly spills seed, that it is more severe than any other sin in the Torah, he never would have written what he wrote...

Essentially, RYK is saying that the Tosafists and Halachic authorities who were not exposed to the Zohar, as they lived prior to the revelation or publication of the Zohar. The ramifications of this statement are astonishing.  RYK is suggesting that a Halachist would make a different Halachic decision because of the Zohar.  Somehow it even suggests that the pre-Zohar Halachists weren't quite as informed on these topics as the "post-Zohar" Halachists and thus their opinions are less legitimate.

RYK then codifies this in the SA, and completely omits the opinion of the Ri Hazaken and any of the other lenient opinions that we have cited in our blog up to this point.  It is worth reviewing the SA in Even Ha'Ezer chapter 23 in its entirety.  I will leave it to the reader to read it, as quoting the entire chapter would be lengthy, but I do want to point out a few very important details.

1. We mentioned in the last post that the Tur changed the Rambam's word "however" (Aval) to "and" and how this suggested that the Tur understood the Rambam's prohibition against "Ni'uf BeYad U'beregel" to be a prohibition against masturbation.  This was in contradiction to the Rambam's own explanation of the term in Pirush HaMishnayot.  This also indicated that the Tur understood the Rambam's objection against using withdrawal as being a sin of "spilling seed', which was not how the Rambam was understood prior to the Tur.  RYK takes this a step further and completely removes the word "and" as well.  What this does in effect is completely change our understanding of the Rambam.  Now it reads as follows:
   
   "[One may not do withdrawal, one may not marry a woman incapable of conceiving] those who engage in such practices and spill seed in vain (elu Shmena'afim beyad etc....) not only are they committing a terrible sin...
   
   What the SA is doing is presenting the Rambam as if the reason for the prohibition against marrying someone incapable of conceiving and for withdrawing and ejaculating extravaginally is due to the prohibition of spilling seed.  This is totally the opposite of the way the Rambam was previously understood. The "and" of the tur made it into a list of three things, while dropping the "and" turns it into an explanation of why the acts are prohibited.
   
   
2. The SA injects into his quote from the Rambam the term he used in the Beit Yosef, which comes directly from the Zohar, that "This sin is more severe than any other sin in the Torah".
   
   
3. The SA, unlike the Tur, completely omits the opinion of the Ri HaZaken.  He doesn't even bring it as a "Yesh Omrim" (There are some who say)
   
   
4.  The SA, unlike the Tur, omits the Rambam's explicit quotation from the Gemara that permits a husband and wife to engage in whatever sexual activity they so desire, including anal intercourse (Biah Shelo Kedarkah)

There are more things to point out, but the items I just mentioned are enough to establish how RYK has now taken the Zohar and placed it directly into the realm of Halacha, and he has explicitly prohibited things that were permitted by the Talmud itself and the Rambam (and others as we have written about extensively in previous posts).

Lest you think that the SA only wrote these Halachot to sound scary, but he didn't really prohibit actions explicitly permitted in the Talmud and the Rambam, here is a story from the Sefer Chareidim (Rabbi Eliezer ben Moshe Azikri 1533-1600) that recounts an actual case brought before the Beit din (rabbinical court) of RYK:

There was a case in Safed, in the year 5308 (1547), that in the presence of the great rabbis Our teacher and Rabbi Rav Yosef Karo, and our teacher our rabbi R' Isaac Massoud, and our teacher our Rabbi Avraham Shalom and my teacher the Rabbi, the pious R' Yosef Shaggis, and several other rabbis, that a woman came and stated that her husband had intercourse with her "shelo kedarka" (anal intercourse) and they excommunicated him, and criticized him and said that he was (worthy of) being burned, and in the end (his verdict was that) they banished him from the land of Israel...(End of chapter on Hotz'at Zerah in Sefer Chareidim)

This is remarkable, and it demonstrates just how far RYK took the Zohar into the realm of practical  Halacha.  An act explicitly permitted by the Talmud and the Rambam, was prohibited to the extent that RYK banished this man from Israel.

There is so much more to write. We can discuss the Lurianic kabbalah and how it expanded further on the ideas of the Zohar.  We can discuss the Hassidic movement, and how it expanded on the ideas of the Lurianic Kabbalists.  We can discuss the Halachic literature and how it accepted the established Halacha as codified by the SA.  We can discuss the Mussar literature, and how it was affected by the Kabbalah.  However, I am going to skip all of that. The reason is because I have sufficiently demonstrated how this all came to be.  How the "sin" of spilling seed became established as a Halacha, despite not being mentioned in the Torah or even the Talmud.

Instead, I will in my next post discuss a little bit about the influences of the Christian world and the scientific world on the Jewish attitudes towards masturbation.  Then I will talk about some of the many "side effects" of this Halachic reconceptualization of the SA such as its influence on modern laws of birth control, fertility treatments etc...  Then I hope to discuss what the world of sexuality according to the Torah would look like if we had taken a different path and accepted the Talmud, Maimonides, the Ri Hazaken, and the Tosafot Rid etc... as the law of the land instead of the path taken by the Zohar and the SA.  I think some of my conclusions will be surprising, and certainly something to think about.

The Tur Interprets the Rambam

In this post, we will go back to Halachic world, and see how the conception of the prohibition against masturbation evolved as it became codified into law.

Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (RJBA) (1269-1343) also known as the "Ba'al HaTurim" was famous for being the author of the "Arba'ah Turim" or "The Four Pillars".  This work was hugely influential in the future development of Jewish law.  The format of this work became the blueprint for all major Halachic works until modern times.  One of the most important aspects of the Arba'ah Turim was that it served as a bridge that unified the two primary schools of Halachic scholarship that were beginning to grow further and further apart, the Ashkenezic and the Sephardic scholars.  RJBA was born in Cologne in Germany, but moved with his famous father, the "Rosh",  to Castile in Spain, so he drew his scholarship from both worlds.  He was famous for his reliance on Maimonides, but also how he describes the opinions of the Tosafists when there were disagreements.

A quick review of the development of the Halacha so far is important in order to understand the significance of this post.  We described how the Rambam understood the Talmudic objections to masturbation. The Rambam had basically three problems with masturbation. 

1. Sexual activity done in a certain manner in order to maintain a sexual relationship and thus avoid his obligation to procreate, even in the context of marriage.  This only applied to someone who hadn't yet fulfilled his obligation to procreate
2. Sexual activity that is done intentionally as a method of sexual gratification outside the context of of marriage, this was called "Ni'uf Beyad U'veregel" or "sex with hands or feet (or other limbs)" This, according to the Rambam, is problematic because it leads to and occurs in an environment of immorality and promiscuity, and a general lack of holiness.  
3. The third is that the Rambam, in line with the medical thinking of his day, generally felt that too much sexual activity had health risks. This would apply even to too much intercourse with one's own spouse, even in a completely permissible way.

What was not prohibited by the Rambam was sexual activity, done in the context of marriage, that results in ejaculation outside the vagina or otherwise cannot result in pregnancy.  Similarly, what was not prohibited by the Rambam, was masturbation by a single man in a way that would not result in promiscuity or immorality.  (This does not mean that the Rambam approved of this behavior, as he disapproved strongly of deliberately stimulating oneself sexually, and recommended early marriage and involvement in holier pursuits to keep one's mind away from thoughts that could lead to sin. It just means that there is no specific prohibition of "spilling seed").   

This was also clearly the opinion of the Tosafot Rid and the Ri Hazaken, and the general Halachic understanding even during the beginning days of the Chasidei Ashkenaz such as Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid. 

We also described how a new trend in Halacha began with Rabbeinu Tam's interpretation of Rashi to mean that any act of spilling seed that was not in "the normal way of intercourse" was a violation of the command to procreate. This was the first mention of a specific prohibition of "spilling seed".  We pointed out how the Chasidei Ashkenaz emphasized the holiness of avoiding arousing oneself and masturbation in general.  We saw how Rabbeinu Yonah then stated that the act of spilling seed as described by RT incurred the death penalty, and finally, how the Semak then codified it as a halacha.

Now let's turn to RJBA, whom I shall refer to as "the Tur" (short for his work Arba'ah Turim").  The Tur, in his usual style, brings direct quotes from the Rambam in order to present the Rambam's opinions on a halachic matter, and then he brings the dissenting opinions from both the Ashkenazic and Sephardic scholars.  He also often writes his own conclusions after discussing the Rambam's opinions and others. When it comes to our topic, the way that the Tur presents the Rambam is very different from the way we analyzed the Rambam in our previous posts.

Shilo Pachter, in his doctoral dissertation that I have quoted earlier in this series of posts, describes how through numerous subtle changes, omissions, and changes of context, the Tur presents the Rambam in a completely different light. I don't mean to suggest that the Tur deliberately changed the Rambam, rather, the Tur was writing after about two hundred years of influence of a sea change in Halacha with regard to the attitude towards masturbation.  Therefore he understood the Rambam very differently than we did.

I am only going to mention some of the points that Pachter makes, but hopefully enough to show what effect these subtle changes in the Tur's presentation of the Rambam had on the subsequent development of Halacha.

1. The Tur places these Halachot in the laws of Pru U'rvu (procreation).  This immediately gives the impression that the laws of "spilling seed" are meant to address married couples as well as single men.  This differs from the Rambam's placement of these laws in the Sefer Kedushah together with other proscriptions designed to help prevent immorality and promiscuity
   
   
2. The Tur, when quoting this Rambam, makes a subtle but very important word switch.
   
   "It is prohibited to ejaculate semen for naught, therefore a person should not have intercourse and then withdraw to ejaculate, one should also not marry a woman too young to give birth to a child. However, those who have sexual relations with their hands and thus ejaculate (outside of a woman's body) not only are they committing a prohibited act, but one who does should be isolated (from the community) and regarding such people it is said (Isaiah 1:15) "Their hands are stained with blood" and it is as if he is guilty of murder.  (Rambam, Laws of Forbidden Relations 21:18)"
   
   The word "Aval" which I translated as "however", is changed by the Tur to a simple "vav" meaning "and".  Although this seems like a small change, it is actually extremely significant.  Until now, we have understood the Rambam as discussing two different categories, separated by the word "however".  The first two cases, withdrawal and marrying a woman incapable of pregnancy were issues because a person was not fulfilling the Mitzvah of P'ru U'rvu. However,  "Ni'f Beyad U'veregel" ("sexual relations with hands or feet") was a problem that was prohibited because it would lead to promiscuity.  (Recall that the Rambam explained in his Pirush Mishnayot that Ni'uf Beyad refers to sexual contact with others that does not involve vaginal intercourse.)  By changing "however" to "and" the Tur is suggesting that Ni'uf beyad U'veregel is actually referring to masturbation and applies to married couple as well as singles.  The Tur does not mention the Rambam in Pirush Mishnayot at all.
   
   
3. The Tur does not quote the Rambam who permitted marrying a woman incapable of conceiving for someone who has already fulfilled P'ru U'rvu. This was one of the primary lines of evidence with which the Rambam made clear his understanding of what the prohibition of Hotza'at Zera was all about. That a sexual relationship with a spouse, done in such a way as to avoid fulfilling his obligation to procreate, is what the Talmud was condemning, as it is indicative of a marriage for the purpose of sexual pleasure alone.  The Tur completely leaves out this Halacha of the Rambam.
    
4.  The Tur quotes the Rambam with the new additional phrase that was not included in the original manuscripts of the Rambam.  This phrase was appended at the end of the Halacha where the Rambam explicitly permits all sorts of sexual activity with one's spouse.  The phrase reads: "as long as one does not spill seed in vain".  We discussed this phrase before, but according to the original manuscripts, the primary purpose of that entire statement of the Rambam was in order to permit sexual activities with one's spouse that do not result in pregnancy, including anal intercourse, and other practices.  Inserting that phrase completely turns the Rambam upside down. 
   
   
5. The Tur prohibits even a married person from touching his penis, thus prohibiting what the Talmud and the Rambam explicitly permit.  All of this was because of his fear that even a married person might commit this sin.  

The sum total of all of this (and many more subtle changes that Pachter records)  is that the Tur presents the Rambam as if he held like Rabbeinu Tam.  That spilling seed is prohibited even for a married couple, and that there is a specific prohibition against spilling seed that has a Torah origin, like Rabbeinu Yonah.

The Tur however, was aware that the Ri HaZaken expressly permitted extra-vaginal ejaculation for married couples.  So he brings the Ri HaZaken as a dissenting opinion.  The end result of the Tur's presentation is that we have the force of the Rambam presented as if it stands in opposition to a lone dissenting opinion of the Ri Hazaken.  The Tur therefore is deciding in favor of the Rambam, essentially squelching all future debate on this issue.

While the Ri Hazaken in our original analysis was simply following the prevalent and generally understood approach to this topic in the Talmud and the Rambam, suddenly the Tur has turned him into an outlying lenient opinion without too many legs to stand on.

As we shall see in a moment, the Beit Yosef is going to take it a step further and use the Kabballah to eliminate the opinion of the Ri HaZaken completely, and establish the Tur's rendition of the Rambam as the law of the land..