A New Idea Arrives Upon the Halachic Scene

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.

Rambam's Opinion and the Mysterious New Phrase

 I have already described the opinion of the Rambam in this post here.  However, that was several years ago, and I need to do a better job. The big surprise of this post is at the end, so it will be a reward for those who are patient enough to read the whole post! Warning: you will not understand the surprise if you skip to the end without reading the lead-up. 

Understanding the Rambam properly is a crucial step before we begin to describe the opinions of the standard Rishonim (The Rabbinic literature from roughly the 11th century through the 16th century), as the Rambam is vastly different from what we find in the other Rishonim.

The Rambam's opinion on this matter can best be understood by dividing his ideas regarding masturbation into three categories.  1) Health reasons, 2) ejaculation to avoid fulfilling the obligation of having children, 3) deliberate stimulation of sexual desire in inappropriate contexts, which often includes masturbation can lead to sexual immorality.

Health Concerns

The Rambam states as follows:

"Semen is the vigor of the body, its very life, and the light of the eyes, and it’s too frequent emission sets decay in the body, wastes its strength, and ends life itself, which is as Solomon in his wisdom said: "Give not unto women thy vigor" (Prov. 31.3). Whosoever indulges in sensuality ages before his time, his strength fails him, his eyes become dim, a foul odor issues from his mouth and from underneath his arms, the hair of his head, eye-brows, and eye-lids fall out; the hair of his beard, under his arms and his feet grow heavier, his teeth fall out, and many more ailments besides these come upon him. Doctors of medicine said: "One in a thousand die of other diseases, and the rest of the thousand from overindulgence of sex. Therefore, must man be careful in this matter, if he desires to lead a good life. He should not yield to an urge save if his body be in good health and exceedingly vigorous, with involuntary erection despite diversion, and a pressure on the genitocrural arteries accompanied by warm wave over his body, when there is a hygienic need of relief. But he should not still an urge when sated and not when hungry, but after the food in his bowels be digested. Care should be taken, before and after, whether there is a need of elimination. Neither standing nor sitting; neither in the bath-house nor on the day of bathing; neither on the day of blood-letting nor on the day of departing for or returning from a journey; neither preceding nor following all these.(Rambam, Mishna Torah Hilchot De'ot 4:19)"

In this passage the Rambam is quoting from his medical knowledge.  This was the accepted view of the time amongst the medical world, mostly influenced by Plato, Aristotle, Galen and others.  That excessive ejaculation deprived the body of its strength and caused illness, but that holding on to too much semen without ejaculation was unhealthy as well.  The relationship between eyesight and the "male seed" was also widespread in the ancient world.  So, one reason to avoid masturbation was health related, which according to Maimonides, is therefore also a binding religious precept.  Therefore it is included in his book of Halacha, the Mishna Torah.

Interestingly, the Rambam's concern for health may also sometimes require that one ejaculate. As he states:

"Likewise, in sexual relation there shall be no intercourse save when it is of benefit to health, or to sustain species. One should, therefore, not yield to every urge, save when knowing that emission of semen is a helpful means medically or to sustain species. (Rambam, Mishna Torah Hilchot De'ot 3:2)"

In the Rambam's medical writings he describes how semen retained for too long can be dangerous, and sometimes must be ejaculated for health reasons, in this he echoes the words of Galen and others.

Avoiding Procreation

The second reason why the Rambam holds that masturbation is problematic is when it is done for the purpose of preventing the fulfillment of the obligation of having children.  The origin of this is obviously the story of Onan in the Torah.  See our discussion here regarding the details of the Biblical account.

When the Rambam introduces the prohibition of masturbation itself, it is in this context of sexual relations when done as part of a person’s intent to avoid having children to fulfill the Mitzvah of P'ru U'rvu (building a family).  This is clearly because the Biblical origin of the idea is from the story of Onan, as we described in our previous post on this topic.  Here is how the Rambam himself introduces the topic:

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)

Similarly, the Rambam states in his discussion of the laws of marriage and the mitzvah of raising a family:

A man should not marry a woman (known to be) infertile, or postmenopausal, or an aylonit (a woman who due to an endocrine disorder does not ever develop feminine characteristics) or a woman too young to carry a child unless he has already fulfilled the mitzvah of having children or if he has another wife from whom he will fulfill this mitzvah (Rambam, Mishna Torah, Laws of Marriage 15:7)

When the Rambam writes, "having sexual relations with their hands" he is translating the term in the gemara "Niuf Beyad U'beregel" that is used by the Talmud.  While others understood this to be masturbation, the Rambam did not, he understood that this meant sexual practices that caused ejaculation by contact with other body parts like the hands and legs of another person.  This would be another sexual practice that the Rambam would disapprove of when done in the context of trying to prevent pregnancy, when someone has not yet fulfilled the mitzvah of having children.  The Rambam states this definition clearly when listing prohibited sexual acts:

One who has sexual intercourse with one of the prohibited relations, or embraces her, or even touches a part of her body in order to derive pleasure, regardless of which part of her body, such as when (people rub each other) with their hands or legs, and this is the type of abomination that the Sages call those who commit adultery with their hand or foot (Mna'afin beyad U'beregel) (Rambam Pirush Hamishnayot, Sanhedrin 7:4) 

I quoted these three passages in succession so that you can fully understand Maimonides reasoning.  The progression of his reasoning is as follows: 

1. The origin of the prohibition is the Biblical story of Onan
2. In this story, the prohibition was because Onan engaged in sexual activity with his wife by ejaculating after withdrawal and thus refused to fulfill the mitzvah of having children
3. Therefore, any type of intercourse, including marrying a woman too young to have children, which is meant to allow for sex while avoiding one's obligation to procreate is forbidden.
4. this includes sexual practices such as mutual masturbation and causing ejaculation with your hand, when done to prevent the fulfillment of the mitzvah of procreation, is akin to murder
5. It should be obvious that the comparison to murder is because the person is guilty of not populating the world as God intended.
6. however, if one has already had children, this prohibition does not apply

Leading to Sexual Immorality

Item number 6 in the previous list leads us to the third reason that Maimonides has a problem with the practice.  Maimonides is concerned that when one intentionally arouses oneself and thus brings himself to eventually satisfy his sexual urges and he ejaculates not in the context of having sex.  In the Rambam's discussions of these topics, masturbation is almost always discussed in the context of other sins which are not necessarily prohibitions but are very much discouraged by the Rambam due to concern for general immorality and where these practices may ultimately lead.  After discussing the laws mentioned above, the Rambam takes the opportunity to spend the remainder of the chapter to explain this idea.

He goes on to discuss not engaging in practices that are meant to arouse oneself, but rather one should spend his time with holier pursuits.  He discusses needless flirting with the opposite sex, watching women when they are engaged in private activities, even observing women's clothing in such a way that it arouses oneself.  He discusses not following women around the market or hanging out near places of ill repute. Maimonides then describes that for someone single and not in a proper relationship, these activities can lead to illicit behavior.  I am not quoting this directly because it is long, but you can read it yourself in Rambam Mishna Torah Laws of Forbidden Relations 21:19 - 32).  In this respect, Maimonides groups masturbation along with the activities that one engages in that can lead him down a bad path.  Instead he recommends that we spend our time in appropriate activities.

Nowhere in any of the writings of the Rambam do we ever find a reference to "wasting seed" as if there is an inherent problem with ejaculating outside the body of a woman in and of itself. It is always a problem only because it is either part of a practice that can lead one astray, or because one is not in a healthy and proper sexual relationship so that he could go down a bad path, or because he is deliberately not fulfilling the mitzvah of procreation.

This leads to one last fascinating statement of the Rambam.  That is that when one IS in a healthy appropriate relationship, and one has fulfilled the mitzvah of having children, he states as follows:

"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)"

If you have been following me until now, you would see clearly that the Rambam almost certainly wrote this specifically to permit any activity including not only anal intercourse, but even using other limbs, even if such practices result in ejaculation outside of a woman's body!  This is what the Rambam prohibited when done for the purpose of avoiding the mitzvah of procreation, or in a context outside of marriage when it leads to promiscuity.  But in the context pf marriage it is completely permissible!

For the first 150 years or so, this is exactly how every single manuscript of the Mishna Torah read.  However, suddenly, at some point during the 13th century, a phrase was appended at the end of the paragraph I just quoted which reads as follows:

.... he may have sex by using the (normal) limbs of the body or even not the (normal) limbs as long as he does not spill seed for naught!

Perhaps the two most authoritative versions of Mishna Torah available today, The Frankel edition of the Rambam, and R' Kapach's edition BOTH point out that this phrase was a later addition.  This phrase turns the Rambam completely upside down, and makes itself contradictory.  It also has been used by Halachic texts from the 13th century onward to lend support to the MUCH later idea that the prohibition of masturbation was a problem of "spilling seed" and "wasting seed".  The later authorities almost all pointed to this Maimonidean text that was never really written by Maimonides, and in fact was contrary to what he was trying to teach.

Even if this text was authentic, which it is almost certainly not, the only way to understand it would be to say that the Rambam meant "as long as he doesn't spill seed for naught ... as Onan did, to avoid pregnancy when one is still obligated to have children."  But if you do not like my potential explanation, it does not matter, because we don’t need to explain the intent of this passage as Maimonides did not write it.

So why did this text land in the middle of the Rambam? While I cannot answer that for sure, it certainly is not coincidental that the entire tide of halachic discourse on this subject changed dramatically during the years after the Rambam.  In my next post, I will start with the opinions of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam and continue from there. After that I plan on taking you through the very heavy influence of the Kabballah on this issue, and the influence of the science of the day, and of Christianity.

The Real Reason the Talmud "Prohibits" Masturbation

I would like to continue where I left off in our discussion of masturbation several years ago.  So many people have written to me over the last few years in appreciation of my blog and asking me when I would start writing again. It was this overwhelming and very flattering response to my blog that now has led me to continuing this endeavor.  So much has happened in the world since 2017, and the need for sensible Halachic discussions of medical subjects has only grown more and more intense.  I hope to do my small part in bringing the ideas of Rationalist Halachah into a broader audience.  Comments and suggestions for future topics are very much welcomed, and the real purpose of this blog is to stimulate intelligent discussion.  I want to learn, much more than I want to teach.

In my last post, I demonstrated that the "sin" of HZLV has nothing to do with murder.  I ended with the question of why the rabbis of the Talmud compared it to murder and I promised to answer that in future posts.  More importantly, I must describe exactly what the "sin" is and what the "prohibition" is and its true origins.  Since it is clear that nowhere in the Torah (see this post here) is there written a clear prohibition of masturbation, the origins of the sin must therefore be defined.

In order to do this, an analysis of the Talmudic sources is necessary.  Please go back and review my previous post regarding the gemara in Nidda 13a-b.  I believe that we can begin to understand what the gemara in Niddah was prohibiting, if we go back to the meaning of the words, "Hotza'at Zera Le'Vatalah".The term is usually translated as "Emitting Seed for naught".  It is important to note that the only place in Talmudic and Mishnaic literature where this term appears is in the gemara in Niddah which we just mentioned. In the medieval halachic literature, this term became understood to mean that "wasting" semen is a sin, meaning any emission of semen for purposes other than procreation, and thus akin somehow to murder.  We have already mentioned numerous examples in this blog that prove that the talmud clearly did not understand the term in this manner. I mentioned three such proofs in this post here, Those proofs were a) the Talmud's explicit permission allowing for anal intercourse with one's spouse, b) The allowance of the Talmud for ejaculation as part of an exam to determine one's medical status c) The talmud's understanding that unintentional seminal emissions could be a positive thing.  I will add a few more proofs here, as I believe they are important for the readers of this blog to keep in mind.  

1. That the Talmud, according to almost all commentaries and poskim don't consider the abortion of a fetus to be murder.  While it is under most circumstances prohibited by Jewish law, with very few exceptions, it is accepted that the origins of the prohibition are not from the laws against murder.  We dealt with this subject at length back in my series on abortion here. I recommend that you read the entire series if this topic interests you.  If abortion is not akin to murder, than it would be absurd to the extreme to consider masturbation akin to murder.
2. In Yevamot 34a (and other places) the Talmud asserts that a bride never becomes pregnant from the first intercourse.  Leaving aside the questionable scientific correctness of that statement, it was the belief of the Rabbis that this is the case.  Clearly, they were not concerned about "wasting seed" when a new husband has intercourse with his spouse for the first time.
3. In Yevamot 34b, the gemara brings a beraita from Niddah in which Rabbi Eliezer recommends that for the 24 months after a woman has a child (during which she would be breastfeeding the child) that one should practice what is now called the "withdrawal method"(to have intercourse and withdraw and ejaculate externally).  Rabbi Eliezer was concerned that should she get pregnant during this period, she would not be able to nurse her child and carry the pregnancy at the same time.  Note that this is the same Rabbi Eliezer who said in Niddah: "anyone who holds his penis and urinates, it is considered as though he is bringing a flood to the world. ... It is preferable that people cast aspersions about his children that they are mamzerim, and he should not render himself wicked even one moment before the Omnipresent."  Clearly, even the most stringent of the rabbinic opinions quoted by the gemara did not believe that the prohibition had anything to do with "wasting seed".  
4. Yevamot 12b (and other places) allows normal intercourse and the use of contraception with a spouse for whom it is dangerous to get pregnant
5. normal sexual intercourse with one's spouse who can not have children is permitted
6. normal sexual intercourse with a woman who is post menopausal is permitted 

Once we have established that the "prohibition" has nothing to do with "wasting seed", we can now understand the true meaning of the gemara and why the act of masturbation was considered sinful. The gemara started off with the prohibition of needlessly touching one's genitals.  The gemara discussed with disdain the practice of purposefully arousing oneself.   The gemara stated clearly that these prohibitions did not apply to touching one's genitals when there was no concern for self arousal, and it also clearly stated that self arousal was not a problem when it is in the context of marriage, when there would be no sin involved in the fulfillment of sexual pleasure with his spouse. It is thus a no-brainer to understand that the issue here is not one of "wasting seed", but rather the rabbis are teaching us that arousing oneself in a context which can lead to improper sexual behavior is wrong.

The term "Le'Vatalah" does not mean wasting in the sense that there is a concern that semen is spilled that will not result in pregnancy.  Rather it means that the person engaging deliberately in this behavior is taking his normal sexual sexual drives, which can and should be used in the proper context of a healthy sexual relationship, and he is wasting it for purposes that can lead him astray.  Eventually this can lead to terrible things if one makes a habit out of satisfying his sexual urges in unhealthy ways.

The various statements then follow logically.  The Talmud goes on to compare masturbation to the three cardinal sins, idol worship, murder, and adultery.  While this sounds quite severe, no reasonable person would imagine that this is meant to be taken literally.  The talmud makes so many such statements, for example:

1. Bava Metziah 58b: the tanna taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood. 
2. Sotah 46b: Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Whoever does not accompany a guest as he leaves one's home or will not allow himself to be accompanied is like a spiller of blood
3. Shabbat 105b: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Ḥilfa bar Agra, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: One who rends his garments in his anger, or who breaks his vessels in his anger, or who scatters his money in his anger, should be like an idol worshipper in your eyes, as that is the craft of the evil inclination. Today it tells him do this, and tomorrow it tells him do that, until eventually, when he no longer controls himself, it tells him worship idols and he goes and worships idols.

The list of such statements can go on forever, so I just brought some famous examples of similar statements.  The third quote, from Shabbat 105b though, I do believe is especially relevant for our discussion.  Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri is teaching us a very similar lesson to the one being taught in Niddah regarding deliberate masturbation in a context that can lead one down a destructive path.  Just as breaking vessels in anger is not technically speaking a prohibition in and of itself (though it may be considered a violation of Bal tashchit - deliberate waste) such behavior, if it becomes habitual, can lead one down a destructive path.  Similarly, masturbation, when done in an inappropriate context, can lead one down a dangerous path.

I will go out on a limb here and state as follows.  The proper expression of sexuality in the viewpoint of the rabbis is within the context of marriage (or at least, within the context of an adult, consenting, committed relationship if one allows for certain historic and legal circumstances, see Zvi Zohar here).  This is why the rabbis encouraged marriage at a young age, so that the often promiscuous sexual behavior that is likely to occur when youths remain unwed would not lead them down a destructive path.  I am not currently recommending that our youth get married at an inappropriately young age in order to avoid this problem.  However, it is extremely common for a healthy young man to have a normal sexual urge, and due to this stimulation to masturbate.  If a young man with a normal and healthy sexual drive is taught what safe, healthy, appropriate sexual interactions are supposed to be, then there is no reason that this act should lead in any inappropriate direction. In fact, when properly directed, it will hopefully give him an opportunity to consider what a healthy sexual relationship is.  One day, he will find the right partner and engage in what is supposed to be one of the most rewarding aspects of a proper adult relationship.

Instead, too often, what we teach this young man is guilt and shame. No attempt is made to teach him that sexual urges are a normal part of being human.  No attempt is made to teach him that seeking healthy fulfillment of these urges is not only acceptable but encouraged by God.  Does this make him more likely to take the wrong path and seek fulfillment of sexual desires inappropriately?  Will this lead him to be more likely to commit actual sins?

Modern science does not view masturbation as a sin or a problem at all.  It is considered normal healthy behavior.  Therefore, if a young Orthodox man was feeling guilty about masturbating and he went to speak with a secular trained therapist, he or she would tell him that this is normal and not to worry about it.  He can then be taught about normal sexual behavior and thus deal with his guilt. If instead he is taught that what he has done is terrible sin akin to murder, he will then be stuck in a terrible spiral of feelings of shame, self hatred, weakness and maybe even anger. I could not find data to support the idea that these feelings can certainly lead to acting out, leaving the path of Torah, promiscuity  or worse.  But there certainly is a lot of anectodal evidence that supports this.

One such story I advise that you read is to be found here.  In this case, the guilt regarding masturbation did lead to acting out of anger and poor social behavior.  Fortunately, this young man was able to get appropriate help.  What struck me the most, was how after appropriate treaching, he learned to respect women appropriately.  This article here can also lead you to more information on this subject. I also recommend checking out this blog post which can lead you to more information as well.

This is supposed to be a halachic blog though, not a social commentary on Orthodoxy, so in my next post I want to get back on track.  Now that we have dealt with this topic in the rabbinic period, we will move on to the period of the Rishonim.

Am I Really Guilty of Murder?

Please accept my apologies for the long breaks I sometimes need to take between posts.  Pesach, life's necessities, work, and more just get in the way sometimes :-(.  Furthermore, people are constantly sending me new reading material, and of course I have to read it all before I continue to write this blog.  This time I was sidetracked by several books and articles, but most notably by Yaakov Shapiro's book "Halachic Positions" which is plain and simply a spectacular book.  I could not continue to write this blog until I finished it completely. Hence, the long absence, but here I am now, so let's move forward again.

Now that we've analyzed the sugyah in Niddah, it would be appropriate to review the other places in Chazal that discuss issues related to the prohibition of "spilling seed." Specifically, I am going to try to redefine for you what it was that Chazal prohibited, and what the meaning and definitions are of the terms used by Chazal to describe what they believed one may not do.

It is abundantly clear from Chazal, that the prohibition is absolutely not that one may not "spill seed" in a way that cannot potentially lead to pregnancy.  Whatever the nature of the prohibition is, it must be defined differently, and we will be working in future posts to define what is meant by "Hotza'at Zerah L'Vatalah".   In this post I will bring numerous examples throughout the Rabbinic literature that clearly demonstrate that "wasting seed" i.e. ejaculating in a manner that cannot potentially lead to pregnancy, is NOT the true nature of the prohibition.

From here on, I will use the acronym HZLV to refer to the sin that Chazal prohibited.  The reason I will do this, is because I believe that translating it as "wasting" or "spilling" seed causes a huge misunderstanding and is not an accurate translation at all.

Allow me to explain why this is so important.  There is a huge amount of literature that describes the "sin" of masturbation as one of wasting potential life.  We already saw how the Zohar and Chazal compared this sin to murder, and the explanation that many sources have given is because the semen contains the "seed" from which life is born.  Thus, by wasting it, one is "killing" the potential offspring.  As you can imagine, this can be a source of immense consternation to a young Yeshiva bochur who occasionally masturbates due to the normal sexual arousal that happens to a healthy young man from time to time. People like Yosef Mizrachi use this idea to promote guilt, shame, and dangerous misconceptions in videos such as this one on YouTube.

In fact, Chazal could not possibly have believed that HZLV is prohibited because one is killing potential lives.  The comparison to murder has to mean something else entirely.  That is because there many places where Chazal permit or even recommend ejaculation which cannot lead to pregnancy for various purposes.

Just a few examples,

1. "Biah Shelo Kedarkah" which the overwhelming majority of commentaries understand refers to anal intercourse.  See Nedarim 20a - 20b where it is expressly permitted.
2. "Letzorech Bedikah" refers to intentionally causing ejaculation in order to examine if a man falls under the Halachic category of a "K'rut Shafchah"  , see Yevamot 76a where it is expressly permitted
3. Unintentional seminal emission as a positive thing.  See Yoma 88a where it is described as a positive sign if someone has an emission on Yom Kippur.  Although it is clearly referring to an unintentional act, it is inconceivable that Chazal would describe "murder" in such a positive way if indeed "spilling seed" was akin to murder in the way it is often (mis)understood.

There are other examples from the Aggadic literature that also clearly demonstrate that Chazal did not consider any ejaculation that cannot result in pregnancy to be akin to murder in the way it is understood  by many. I will choose not to mention them for the sake of brevity, but if there are enough requests I would be happy to bring more examples. 

If the reason HZLV was prohibited is because one is "killing" potential human beings, I don't believe that anyone can reasonably explain why the above examples were expressly permitted by Chazal. Clearly, something else is involved here.

(Now, I am fully aware that many poskim and commentators over the centuries have taken the approach that HZLV is prohibited and is compared to murder because potential life is being wasted. See Maharal Be'er HaGolah p213-214 for one of many many examples.  I plan on dealing with this at great length in a future post.  Right now, I would like to first be allowed to make the point that this is clearly not exactly what Chazal had in mind, and I will come back to the obvious objections to my claim later, BL'N.)

So far, I have given enough evidence to prove that when Chazal state that HZLV is akin to murder, and they compare those who commit "ni'uf beyad ub'regel" , that they do not mean that it is murder because one is spilling potential life.  So what did they mean? Why did they compare it to murder?  We will investigate that in my next post.

Let's Get Back to Halachic Basics - The Discussion of Wasting Seed and the Halachic Process

Every time I tackle a topic, I always have to find a balance between being both comprehensive, and staying relevant and readable.  Needless to say, there is so much related material that I have to make serious decisions about how to approach each step of this analysis.  The biggest one of course is the one I am about to make, that is the Talmud itself on the subject of Hotza'at Zera Le'Vatalah.  This is going to form the basis of our Halachic analysis, as the Talmud is of course the basis of Halachah.  Everything we say from this point on will somehow have to relate back to the Talmudic discussions which we are about to analyze here.  

I also will have to go out on a dangerous limb and make the following statement of policy.  This statement was reiterated numerous times before on this blog, most especially during my discussion of the treatment of Gentiles on Shabbat.

My statement is as follows.  I am fully aware that often times my analysis will not reflect the analysis and understanding that was made by the majority of commentators and Halachic Decisors over the centuries.  I therefore declare openly that if a reader of this blog will criticize my analysis on the basis of  "most poskim hold ...etc..." then your criticism is valid, and you should probably go to another blog.

On the other hand, if you are interested in a reading of a particular sugyah (topic) that is BOTH halachically valid AND consistent with rationalist principles, then please go ahead and read further here.  That is my goal.  I am trying to look at this sugyah and understand it in a rationalistic AND halachically valid way.  So I will often have to choose and find halachically valid but sometimes minority opinions that will help us understand the sugyah.  It is well known,  and there is significant precedent for deciding halacha according to minority opinions when the need to do so is extenuating. I will freely admit that I believe that these are extenuating circumstances that require us to find a Halachic path that is both halachically acceptable AND Rationalist.

If you want to know what the principles of Rationalist Medical Halacha are, please refer back to the first post of this blog, where I laid out the five principles of RMH.

Now, let us begin.  The most important reference to the issue of masturbation in the Gemara is in Massechet Niddah 13a-13b.

The text is too long to quote here, so I very strongly recommend that you go get yourself a gemara, and learn the sugyah yourself before you read any further.  If you are finished reading, or if you are such a BAKI B'Shas that you already know the daf by heart, or if you are willing to trust my admittedly very rushed and inadequate summary, go ahead and read further.

Here is my summary of the sugyah.

First, the mishna states that a man who "checks himself" too often should "have his hand cut off" (obviously not literally .. but that it is a bad habit).  The gemara then explains that since a man is "sensitive" he shouldn't check because it may lead to arousal.  The gemara then explains that under certain circumstances it would be OK, like to use a cloth or other item to check himself or clean himself.

The second part of the sugyah records a discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and the Chachamim.  Rabbi Eliezer stated that anyone who holds his male organ is bringing a "mabul" to the world.  The assumption is that it will lead to spilling seed and this was one of the sins of the generation of the flood. The chachamim were concerned that someone really should hold his penis while urinating because if he didn't his urine would spray wildly and people would think he was a "K'Rut Shafcha" meaning that his urethra was damaged and therefore they would suspect that his children were not really his own, as a Krut Shafcha cannot father children.  Rabbi Eliezer felt that it would be better to cast aspersions on his children then to do such a terrible sin as to potentially cause himself to have an erection which may lead to committing the sin of spilling seed.

The gemara goes on to qualify this prohibition of Rabbi Eliezer by bringing some examples where holding oneself would be permitted.  These examples would be cases where one is near his teacher, standing in a high place where he needs to maintain his balance, or a person who has sufficient fear of heaven that he doesn't need to be worried about stimulating himself.  The gemara also states that it does not refer to a married man, because even if he did become stimulated, he has permissible ways to relieve his sexual urges, and only refers to holding oneself at the tip of the penis but not the shaft.

The gemara brings several statements about the extreme severity of this sin, comparing it to the "big sins of idolatry and  murder and states that one who commits this sin deserves the death penalty.

The last segment of the gemara (mostly on 13b) continues to bring more related admonishments, criticizing one who intentionally arouses oneself to the point of getting an erection, and it describes how the Yetzer Harah works, first he gets you to arouse yourself, and then eventually he gets you to commit more egregious sins.  The gemara continues to criticize those people who "Commit adultery with hands and feet" and those people who "play with children".

This gemara is the most explicit and most important source for the idea that spilling seed is a sin and a severe one at that.  So please learn through it carefully on your own.

On page 82 of the thesis of Shilo Pachter, that I have mentioned several times, he begins a lengthy analysis of the opinion of the Rambam and how the Rambam interprets this Gemara.  One of our readers has brought to my attention that though I have been referring to Shilo as a "she" that was because I do not know him personally and the only other "Shilo" that I know is a woman.  Shilo is actually a man, so I apologize for this mistake.  Thank God, I live in a time when I have read enough extremely erudite and insightful Halachic analyses written by women that I could easily make the mistake of assuming that the writer of this incredible thesis could have been a woman as well as a man.  Blessed are we who have arrived at this point in history.

Without quoting all of the lengthy passages of the Rambam (I will gladly provide anyone who asks with the full thesis of Shilo Pachter, just send me an email and I will send it to you), I will summarize the approach of the Rambam.  The Rambam includes the laws of "spilling seed" among the laws meant to keep one away from from committing the worse sins of actual adultry and forbidden sexual relationships.  According to the Rambam, there are two problems with "spilling seed".  One problem is that it may be a method of preventing one from fulfilling the mitzvah of procreation.  This was the sin of Er and Onan, who purposely spilled seed in order to prevent their wife from conceiving a child. The second is that by arousing oneself to the point of masturbation, one brings himself closer to committing the deed of actual forbidden relationships.  When one is married and when it does not interfere with the mitzvah of procreation, there would then be no prohibition against types of sexual activities that do not lead to conception.

The scary pronouncements regarding the sin of spilling seed, are therefore, according to the Rambam, meant to keep us away from unholy activities that potentially lead one to much worse transgressions. They are intended to keep us holy and involved in holier pursuits.  When one looks at the gemara in this way, it all makes a lot of sense.

1. Not to hold oneself in a way that may arouse you, unless circumstances are such that it is unlikely to lead to arousal
2. Not to intentionally arouse oneself sexually
3. Not to intentionally think about sexually arousing thoughts 
4. Not to commit adultery "with the hand"
5. not to "play" with children in a sexually arousing way

One who does these things brings him closer to the edge of the prohibited  sexual acts, and creates an environment that can lead toward sin. This explains why this was relevant to the generation of the flood.  It was not the "spilling seed" per say that was the problem, but the unholy environment that was created by their attitude that led to a generation full of immoral behavior.

Most interesting is the interpretation of the Rambam of "committing adultery with the hand and foot".  It has become almost a basic assumption that this refers to masturbation.  This seems to be how most poskim understand this gemara.  By masturbation I mean a person stimulating himself with his own hands in order to reach orgasm and ejaculation.  This however was not at all what how the Rambam understood it.  

The words of the Rambam Pirush HaMishnayot Sanhedrin 7:4 (my translation)

"One who has intercourse with any of the prohibited relations" ..... or if he caresses or touches one of her limbs in order to derive pleasure, regardless of which part of her body he touches for example he rubs himself against her arm or leg. this type of abomination is what the Chachamim referred to as "committing adultery with the hand or foot" 

This is quite different from the "conventional" understanding of "Ni'uf Be'yad" which was so highly condemned by Chazal.  It is very different from what the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh condemned in the quote we brought in the last post.  But it also is so much more accurate of a translation of the language!.  Ni'uf everywhere else has other people involved.  The way the Rambam understood the gemara makes so much sense!  The gemara begins with admonitions not to touch oneself in a way that might cause arousal (even under circumstances that he has no intention of arousing himself as he is only holding himself to urinate), then continues with admonitions not to think arousing thoughts, then continues with admonitions not to intentionally cause oneself to have an erection, then continues to warn that touching a woman (obviously not referring to his spouse!) in a way that causes arousal or even ejaculation is a terrible sin that will often lead to actual intercourse, then continues to warn against touching children in a way that leads to arousal (God forbid).

So we now have a completely different understanding of the sugyah.  The prohibition of "spilling seed" is not an issur in and of itself.  Rather it is a safeguard against getting involved in sins of much worse consequence.  The severe pronouncements about the severity of the sin are meant to scare us away from activities that may lead us down a bad path.  They are not meant literally to say that one who masturbates is actually akin to murder.  There are myriads of examples where Chazal used similar terms to refer to sins as being vastly more horrible then they actually are, and conversely, relatively minor mitzvot that are given way more importance in order to impress upon us how special they are.

How would the Rambam advise a young man who was stimulated sexually by something that he saw, something that he read, something that he dreamt about etc., and then he had an erection and masturbated?  Obviously, I have no right whatsoever to speak on behalf of the Rambam.  However, I would assume that he would advise him to do as the Rambam himself states in Issurei Biah 22:21.  Try to focus your thoughts on holier matters.  Do not ever intentionally arouse yourself. He would then tell him to find a wife so that he can satisfy his sexual urges in a permissible way.  He would certainly not tell him that he is liable for death as a murderer for spilling his seed.

There is so much more to be said of course. However, I am not going to pretend that I have explained the sugyah according to every Rishon and Acharon.  I am only telling you how the Rambam understood the sugyah, and the most readable and rationalistic way of understanding the Gemara.

In my next post, I plan on analyzing several other sugyot in the Talmud that demonstrate that "spilling seed" in and of itself is not a sin, as long as it is not done intentionally to arouse oneself sexually in such a way that may lead to sin.  In other words, not being done in a way that the Rambam would strongly disapprove of.

"Tum'ah Ve'Taharah" Ritual Uncleanliness and Spilling Seed

Before I begin the topic of today's post, I would like to add a source to illustrate the point I was trying to make in the last post.  If you recall, I developed the idea that the Zohar, and it's interpretation of the Parsha of Onan, became highly influential in how we view the sin of Onan.  This is turn influenced our interpretation of halacha to the extent that the sin of masturbation has become identified with the sin of Onan.  This is true, even though it is quite clear that the sin of Onan was clearly not that he masturbated and spilled seed, but rather that he refused to carry on the name of his brother.

The best example of this is the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch.  The Kitzur was one of the most influential works of Halchah of the 19th and 20th century, and acted (and still does) as a practical halcahic guide for generations of Halacha-abiding Jews for generations.  Here are his words (my translation) 150:1

"It is prohibited to waste seed. This sin is more severe than any other sin in the Torah. These (or this refers to:) are those people who commit adultery with their hands and spill their seed for naught. Not only is this a severe prohibition, but the one who does this is excommunicated, and regarding these people it is said "Your hands are filled with blood" and it is as if he is guilty of murder. See what Rashi writes about this is Parshat Veyeshev regarding the story of Er and Onan who died due to this sin. Sometimes, do to this sin, one's children may die when they are young, or they will be ill, or a person will sufffer from poverty."

There is SO much that can be said about this quote, but the points I would like to make are the following.  A practical Halachic work of incredible influence has just taken the theme of our last post full circle.  The sin of both Er and Onan was spilling seed (specifically by masturbation) .  It is akin to murder. One suffers horribly from it. He even interprets Rashi this way, although that is far from clear - as we saw in our last post.  The ultimate source for everything in the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh and the interpretation of the parsha is completely and totally taken from the Zohar.  This clearly and undeniably demonstrates the point I was trying to make.

Now I would like to move on to an area of influence that we are not used to talking about when discussing practical halacha in modern times.  The laws of Tu'mah ve'tahara, or ritual uncleanliness.  Ritual uncleanliness is a concept that was at one time in our history highly influential in the day to day practice of traditional Jews.  Especially during the time of the Bayit Sheni, it was the reason our ancestors, the forebears of what eventually became Halachic Judaism, were called "perushim" or Pharisees in the secular literature.  However, we no longer adhere to these rules, for reasons which are beyond the scope of this blog.  However, there are a few areas where the influence of the laws of Tu'mah ve'tahara are still felt in our days, and our current topic is one of them.

 In Vayikra 15 we have the following three verses (cut and paste from JPS 1917 edition):

"16 And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the evening. 17 And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the flow of seed, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. 18 The woman also with whom a man shall lie carnally, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening."

The meaning of uncleanliness is a topic which is beyond the scope of this blog, but there are several observations that are very relevant to our discussion here.  First of all, this verse is clearly referring to "seed" that has been ejaculated in any way, both through normal marital intercourse, and through masturbation. Indeed, this "uncleanliness" even extends to the woman who has seed inside her vagina due to normal intercourse.  It is therefore clear that this seed makes one "unclean" even after doing what is traditionally considered a great Mitzvah, an obligation upon every man to procreate and engage in normal sexual activity to enhance his relationship and to satisfy his and his spouses normal sexual needs.  This is similar in many ways to the "uncleanliness" that comes upon a person after engaging in one of the greatest and most holy deeds that one can possibly do, that of taking care of a human body after death.

Why it is that a great mitzvah can bring one to "uncleanliness" is beyond the scope of this article, but it has been the topic of many a sermon over the years.  For our purposes here, as a blog dedicated to Halachic Rationalism, I just want to point out that ritual "uncleanliness" and whether an act is prohibited halachically have very little correlation to each other.  Nonetheless, for whatever reason, in the area of spilling seed, the topic of uncleanliness has had significant influence in making the act of masterbation quite "taboo".

The uncleanliness that the Torah refers to prohibits a Kohen from performing the Avodah, and indeed anyone from entering the Har Habayit.  It prohibits a person from coming into contact with holy items related to service in the Beit HaMikdash.  None of this has relevence in our time, and does not relate to what a person is allowed to do or prohibited from doing.  However, it is well known that Ezra HaSofer decreed that one who is Tameh from spilling seed cannot read from the Torah (Berachot perek 3). It is also well known that this Takanah did not stand and is no longer relevent today (Talmud Berachot 22a, Rambam Hilchot K'riat Shemah 4:8).

None the less, it has become the practice of many Jews, mostly Chassidic Jews, to go to the mikvah every day in order to fulfill the Takanah of Ezra.  It would be difficult to overstate the impact of this custom of going to the mikvah on the overall idea of the prohibition and "uncleanliness" associated with the "emission of seed".  In the mind of most people, one is not only washing away ritual uncleanliness, but one is washing away sin.  This is true despite the fact that the "uncleanliness" is sometimes a result of one of the greatest Mitzvot, and therefore is not at all related to sin and prohibition.

The sifrei Chassidut, and the works of the Mekubalim of Tzefat, often intertwine the issues of tum'ah with the sin of  wasting seed.  At the same time, the special holiness of the marital act is considered something which brings purity and holiness to the world.  One would get the impression from reading these works, that Tum'ah only comes from the "wasting" of seed, and not from normal marital intercourse.  This point was made by Shilo Pachter in the thesis I mentioned in the last post.  He brings the extremely influential source the "Igerret HaKodesh" which served as the basis for almost all Kabbalistic discussions of sexual intinacy that succeeded that work (origin is in the 13th or 14th century and variously attributed to several different Kabbalists).

The point that I would like to make is as follows.  The emphasis of today's Chassidim on takanat Ezra is one of the very few modern remnants of the practice of Tum'ah ve'tahara.  If you combine this with the association of tum'ah as coming from sin that was emphasized by the kabbalists, one gets a sin that carries a huge amount of "metaphysical weight". In the non-rationalistic world of right wing Orthodoxy today, this makes this quite a scary sin!

None of this of course, has any real Halachic weight.  Tum'ah, we have shown quite clearly is not a result of doing prohibited acts. The practice of mikvah in modern times for takanat Ezra, is not Halachically required, and even if it is recommended for some spiritual reason, certainly has nothing to do with the sin of spilling seed (as it would apply to one who engaged in normal marital intercourse as well).

In the next post I hope to begin the Halachic discussion of the origin of this sin as interpreted by the Halchic sources.  This will obviously take a while, so I hope you are ready for a nice ride.

Biblical Sources and the Story of Onan

It is always a challenge to figure out where to start when discussing a topic as vast as masturbation in Halachah, so the best approach is to start with the first major verses of the Torah that are relevant to the topic, the story of Onan in the Torah.  This is the first, and most explicit mention of the "destruction of seed" in the Torah, and any search for a biblical source for this prohibition has to start here.

I have found over the years that it is useful to divide any study of a parsha in the Torah into two distinct categories.  There is what I will call "parshanut"  and what I will call "halachic".  I know that many traditional sources like to discuss "pardes"  which divides the meaning of each pasuk into four categories Pshat - the simple meaning, "Remez" - the meanings that are only hinted at but not explicit, "derush" - usually moral messages one can derive from the verse, and "sod" - usually referring to hidden kabbalistic meanings.  However, I find that it is more useful to lump all of those four categories into one and call it "parshanut".  

Parshanut in my scheme refers to the entire body of literature that studies and explains the pasuk.  This encompasses a huge range of styles, traditions, and methods.  The range includes all the way from Lurianic Kabbalah to Rationalistic Rishonim to scientific and historical scholarship.

Halachic refers specifically to how a pasuk is used to derive practical Halachah.  This generally follows the familiar accepted pattern from the Talmudic interpretations to the rishonim, Rambam, acharonim, Tur, Shulchan  Aruch, poskim, she'elot v'teshuvot etc...

I am going to start with an analysis of the "parsha" of Onan from a parshanut perspective.  Obviously, it would be impossible to do a comprehensive treatment of this (or any) parsha in the Torah on this blog in a post like this.  However, I do hope to give a general taste of how this parsha has been and can be interpreted and explained from several major vantage points.  I will start of course, with basic p'shat.  By "p'shat" one means a simple reading of the text, according to the principle "ein mikrah yotzey midey peshuto".

The best treatment I have ever seen of this parsha from a "p'shat" perspective is found in the doctoral thesis of Shilo Pachter entitled "Shemirat HaBrit" and submitted December 2006.  I don't have an online link to this paper, which is recommended reading for anyone who wants to research this topic, but I can send a copy of her paper to anyone interested by email, so feel free to request it.

To summarize her approach, a reading of the parsha makes it clear that the Torah is trying to emphasize the importance of the continuation and perpetuation of the family's lineage.  The sin of Onan was clearly, according to the pasuk, due to the fact that he did not want to contribute to the perpetuation of his deceased brother's name.  He therefore "spilled his seed" instead of allowing Tamar to become pregnant.  The rest of the parsha continues with this theme, and demonstrates how God's plan to bring forth the future Kings of Israel, and indeed the Moshiach himself, continued through Yehuda and Tamar.  The sin of Onan then, according to p'shat, was that he did not want to do his part in the continuation of his family's name and mission.

Next I would like to mention the Kabbalistic approach to this parsha,  In this analysis, I do believe that this approach is particularly important.  That is because I believe that the influence of Kabbalah upon the development of the halachic approach to masturbation has been very influential.  As we continue to delve into this subject, I hope to demonstrate this.

The Kabbalistic approach obviously has gone through many iterations over the years, Lurianic Kabbalah, Hassidic approaches (both Chabad and "non-Chabad"), and other schools of Kabbalah.  However, they all begin with the foundation text of the Kabbalah, the Zohar.  So I will bring here my own translation of the Zohar's words on this parsha. By no means do I pretend to think that this constitutes anything close to a full analysis of the parsha of Onan in Kabbalistic sources.  However, I do believe that it will be exceedingly clear from the "get-go" how the Zohar, and almost all Kabbalistic works that follow on its heels, view the meaning of the sin of Onan. Here is my translation:

"Genesis 38:10 "and it was evil in the eyes of God, that which he (Onan) had done, and God killed him as well" ... and come and see, among all of the sins that one can contaminate himself with in this world, this sin is the one with which a person can contaminate himself the most, both in this world, and in the next world. One who spills his seed for waste,  and draws out his seed with his hand or leg and contaminates himself with it. as it states (Tehillim 5:5) "For you are not a God that desires wickedness, and evil does not reside with You" Therefore, such a person will never merit to see the "Atik Yomin" (the presence of God that the righteous will see in the next world), As it is written here "Evil does not reside with You" and it also states here that (Genesis 38:7) "and Er the first born of Yehuda was Evil in the eyes of God (here the Zohar is making the assumption that the sin of Er was the same as the sin of his younger brother Onan - which the Torah does not explicitly state, but the Zohar - and the Talmud as well as we shall see - make this assumption - RMH).  Regarding this it is also written, (Yeshayahu 1:15)  "Your hands are filled with blood"

The Zohar is making several assumptions and assertions that are by no means reflected in the text of the Torah, but it forms the basis of all subsequent Kabbalistically influenced understandings of this parsha.  The Zohar assumes that:

1. The sin of Onan is the sin of "wasting seed" (as opposed to the sin of not wanting to perpetuate the family name or some other explanation)
2. The sin of the older brother Er (which is not specified in the Torah) is also the sin of masturbation

The Zohar also makes the following assertions:

1. The reason for the sin of masturbation is that it is akin to murder
2. One who is guilty of masturbation has no portion in the World to Come

Needless to say, these assumptions and assertions are quite powerful. For those schools of Judaism that have been heavily influenced by the Zohar, which in many ways includes most of mainstream Halachic Judaism today, this has had a very strong influence on how masturbation is viewed and how the story of Onan is interpreted.

I would like to go back to the subject of P'shat now, but take it a little deeper.  While the Pachter thesis I mentioned takes the approach of an analysis of the text itself, obviously there is a vast and rich heritage of commentators who explain the text according to its simple meaning.  I think it is obvious to anyone who studies the Torah with the traditional commentators that each commentary has an approach that is variously influenced by many factors including, the Talmud. Midrash, Halacha, Various philosophical schools, Kabbalisitic, and other historical factors.  

Most well known and most influential of course is Rashi, who consistently uses the Talmud, Midrash, and Halacha in his explanations of P'shat.  Therefore, in the minds of most of the readers of this blog, Rashi's interpretation of this Parsha remains the most prominent explanation of the lessons of the story of Onan.

To summarize Rashi, the sin of Er was that he did not want his wife's beauty to be tarnished by pregnancy, and he therefore spilled his seed instead of engaging in natural intercourse.  Rashi's source is the Talmud in Yevamot, and we will delve into that later in the blog extensively. This is a classic example of how Rashi uses a Talmudic interpretation for the explanation of the simple meaning of a verse.  Rashi, in his usual fashion, uses the Talmud to explain the plain meaning of the pasuk, even though the pasuk does not explicitly say anything about Tamar's beauty or about Er spilling his seed.

Many other well known commentators follow Rashi's lead when they explain the sin of Er, including the Rashbam and others.  However, notably, the Ramban explicitly points out that the Torah does not specify the sin of Er, thus leaving it open for interpretation. Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and many others focus on the sin of Onan as the desire not to perpetuate his brother's family name, which adheres much closer to the simple meaning of the text. They choose not to discuss the sin of masturbation at all when explaining this parsha, as it is not necessary for the understanding of the text.  The Ramban does go into depth explaining the mystical significnace of the mitzvah of Yibum in perpetuating the brother's family name.  Although he veers deeply into a mystical topic, he still stays within the plain meaning of the text that does indeed mention that Onan sinned in that he did not want to fulfill that commandment.

To summarize, in this post I tried to demonstrate several approaches to the reading of the story of Onan.  I demonstrated that a simple reading of the Torah says nothing about the sin of spilling seed, but that various traditions have superimposed the sin of spilling seed onto the Parsha in order to explain the narrative.  Rashi used the Talmud and Halachic process to explain the story, and the Zohar used its understanding of the sin of spilling seed in order to explain the Parsha. Ramban and Ibn Ezra used the simple meaning of the text and did not use either Talmudic or Medrashic sources in order to understand the text.

I do ask you to be patient as we move through this topic.  There are many other proposed sources for this prohibition which we will encounter as we go through the Halachic analysis, and a halachic anlysis of this parsha is forthcoming.  For those who are familiar with my style, you already know that I will try to leave no stone unturned, but it takes time.  I do sincerely welcome comments, criticisms, etc, as I find them to be a huge source of information, opposing thoughts, and opinions.  What you tell me does influence my thinking greatly as I try to always keep an open mind.

In the next post I plan on discussing the issues of Tum'ah v'tahara - ritual impurity, and its influence on the prohibition of masturbation.