The Transition to one of the Ten Commandments - Rabbeinu Yona of Gerondi, the Semak, and more

The influence of the Chasidei Ashkenaz was not limited to French and German Jewry.  Their Sephardic brethren to the South were in close contact, and students would travel in both directions from Spain to France and Germany to study under the great masters of each of these schools.  The most famous, and arguably the most important Spanish scholar to attend a yeshiva among the Tosafists in France was Rabbi Jonah ben Abraham of Gerona (1200-1263), also known as "Rabbeinu Yonah" (RY).  RY, became a bridge between the more mystical, and less "rationalistic" thinkers of the Tosafists, and the more "rationalistic" and worldly Spanish scholars.  This impact was going to be profound and extremely important in understanding how Halacha in general developed over time. This impact was obviously much broader than just on the issue of masturbation, but we can almost use this topic as a case study for the development of Halacha in general.

In his early life as a young yeshiva student, the young RY was a member of one of the greatest rabbinic families in the history of Jewish Spain. His first cousin was none other than Nachmanides, Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, also known as "the Ramban", perhaps the greatest Spanish Rabbi of all time (Nachmanides' mother was the sister of Rabbi Abraham - Rabbi Jonah's father).  The young Jonah went to study in France at the Yeshiva of Evreux in Normandy, France.  The leaders of the yeshiva in Evreux were the two brothers Rabbi Samuel ben Shneur and Rabbi Moses ben Shneur of Evreux.  Both were well known Tosafists, and both were heavily influenced by the dominant social and religious force in Ashkenazic Jewry at the time, the movement of the Chasidei Ashkenaz.  It was here that Rabbeinu Yonah absorbed the spirit of the "Ashkenazim".  He later went south, closer to his native Spain, and studied under another Tosafist, Solomon ben Abraham of Montpellier, also known as "Rabbi Shlomo min Ha'har " (Rabbi Solomon "from the mountain"). The geography is very important here, because Montpellier is in southern France, much closer to Spain than Evreux, and was a point of frequent contact between the Tosafists and their Spanish brethren.  

The clash over the works of Maimonides is of course the most famous result, and one of the most catastrophic events in the history of Jewish scholarship in the middle ages.  RY's life and legacy is almost defined by this event.  Imbued with the mystical and more literalistic teachings of the Tosafists, it is not hard to understand how Rabbeinu Yonah initially reacted to the much more rationalistic and philosophical ideas of Maimonides.  This dispute spilled into the public arena, and tragically led to the involvement of the French Catholic authorities.  The French Church was quite happy to join in the condemnation of the philosophical works of Maimonides, considered to be the greatest Jewish scholar of the middle ages, perhaps the greatest of all time.  Largely due to the instigation of RY, the French authorities publicly burned the works of Maimonides in Paris in 1233.

The Jewish public was horrified by this defilement of one of the greatest Jewish leaders of all time.  Their anger was directed against RY for instigating this horrific desecration.  To his credit, RY took responsibility for the desecration, and he stood up publicly in front of the Synagogue in Montpellier and expressed remorse over his terrible mistake.  He spent the rest of his life studying and teaching the works of Maimonides and devoted himself to teaching repentance and fighting for social justice. He promised to travel to Israel to the grave of Maimonides to beg his forgiveness, but unfortunately died along the way.

Although he did not make it to Maimonides' grave, he did leave behind a great legacy for us all.  He taught us that even after doing a terrible deed, one can devote himself to good.  He left behind perhaps the most famous work in the Jewish literature on the subject of repentance, "Sha'arei Teshuvah", "the Gates of Repentance". His teachings on social justice have had a lasting impact.

In his work, Sha'arei Teshuva, he lists the sins for which one incurs the penalty of "Mitah Ba'Yedey Shamayim" or "death by heavenly decree" (MBS).  RY divides MBS into two categories, those sins that incur MBS which are listed as such by Chazal, and those which are not listed by Chazal but can be derived from other sources.  Among the sins which he derives from other sources, he lists masturbation as follows:

.... One who has sexual relations with a child, and one who has sex with his hand or foot (presumably by sexual contact with another but not actual intercourse), and our rabbis of Blessed memory stated that his punishment is like the punishment of the generation of the flood because they ruined their normal way (and had sex with children and sexual encounters with others by using their hands etc..) and similarly someone who does the actions of Er and Onan, where they withdraw and ejaculate in order to destroy the seed incurs the death penalty, as it states, "and it was bad in the eyes of God that which he did (Onan) and he killed him as well" and this refers also to those that emit semen for naught ...(Sha'arei Teshuva 3:112)

It is important to note that RY has divided this sin into two categories, the first is referring to sexual abuse of children, and promiscuous sex with others that involves ejaculation through using "hands and feet" or any sort of sexual activity other than vaginal intercourse.  This was how he understood the sin of the words "Hishchitu Darkam" or they "ruined their normal way" of the generation of the flood.  The second category was the emission of semen for naught, in which he included withdrawal prior to ejaculation, and anyone who "spills seed".  In the Sefer Hayirah, RY makes it clear that he understands that there is a separate sin of spilling seed even in the context of an appropriate relationship:

...(when one is having relations with his wife) he should not intend to do the act just for his pleasure (but rather with the intent of fulfilling the mitzvah) and he should be as cautious as he possibly can be not to emit his semen for naught... (Sefer hayirah p50)

We can derive several innovations from RY, which further advanced the prohibition of "spilling seed" in these very significant ways:

1. RY has now officially declared that there is a separate sin of "spilling seed" that is not related to the immorality issue or the issue of not fulfilling the mitzvah of procreation. In this he follows that lead of Rabbeinu Tam (RT), but takes it further than RT, as in the following item #2
2. Unlike RT who assumed that the sin of spilling seed was related to the mitzvah of procreation, RY now has stated that it has its' origins in the sin of Er and Onan.
3. Now that spilling seed is related to Er and Onan, he incurs the punishment of MBS, the heavenly death penalty.  RY is the first to directly relate the death penalty to spilling seed.
4. RY therefore also concludes that this sin of spilling seed applies even in a normal marital relationship

It is truly astonishing how an activity that was completely permitted by the Rambam, Tosafot Rid, Ri Hazaken, has now been declared an actual Torah prohibition with the death penalty.

The final step in the evolution of the prohition was to use the term first found in Rashi, "Hashchata" and to translate the two places in Genesis where this term is used as a reference to the sin of spilling seed. Those two places are:

When God saw how corrupt the earth was, for all flesh had corrupted its ways on earth (Genesis 6:12)

But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his, wasted to the ground whenever he joined with his brother’s wife, so as not to provide offspring for his brother. (Genesis 38:9)

Until now the term Hashchata when used in reference to the flood, was understood to mean a general immorality or "corruption".  The term as used in the story of Onan, clearly referred to the withdrawal method, and the problem was understood as a rejection of the purpose of a relationship, to procreate. Onan had made it into a purely sexual relationship, and he refused to have children with her.  However, now the term "Hashchata" means "spilling seed".  

The logical next step is to assume that even the generation of the flood was killed because of masturbation.  RY's first cousin, Nachmanides (Ramban) does exactly that in his commentary to the Talmudic passage in Yevamot, where Rabbeinu Tam first raised the idea that "spilling seed" in and of itself was a sin.  Ramban disagrees with RT's assertion that the source of the sin is from the mitzvah of procreation, from which he derived that only men are prohibited from destroying seed and not women. Rather, Ramban says that the prohibition derives from the generation of the flood, which included the entire generation, men and women.

The first strictly Halachic work that finally codified this new understanding was the "Sefer Mitzvot Katan, known as the "Semak" by R' Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil (d.1280). He writes:

One may not destroy seed, as it says "One may not commit adultery - one should not give pleasure to the nose, like those who emit seed with their hands and feet, and regarding this the Rabbis taught, One may not commit adultery - this is a warning to someone who helps others commit adultery. and when one destroys seed, he is (violating) something for which he incurs the death penalty, as it says (by Onan) and God killed him as well... (Sefer Mitzvot Katan, Lo Ta'aseh 292)

The Semak is the final step in the process that begun with Rashi using the term "hashchata", destroying seed.  The main points we learn from the Semak's few words are as follows:

1. The sin referred to in the Gemara Nidah of Hotza'at Zera Le'Vatalah is synonymous with Hashchatat Zera - "destroying seed"
2. The origin is in two Rabbinic interpretations of one of the ten commandments, "Lo Tinaf" Thou shalt not commit adultery
3. Spilling seed and the death penalty has now been codified in a halachic work.

I cannot complete this post without commenting on the two sources that the Semak used to relate wasting seed to the commandment of adultery go without comment.

His first was from Pesikta Rabbati 24.  The Pesikta there presents a play on the words "Lo Tinaf" and derives from there the lesson, "Lo Teheneh L'af” which I translated as "don’t give pleasure to the nose". I know this sounds strange to those not familiar with rabbinic exegesis. What they meant to say was that "the nose" is a reference to God's anger.  The context of the Pesikta there to learn a lesson from the commandment not to do things that will make God angry.  Based on the context, it would mean not to engage in things which may not exactly be adultery but can lead to an atmosphere that would make God upset, presumably because it could lead to adultery occurring.  The Semak is deriving from here that wasting seed is a sin.

The second was from the Talmud Shevuot 47b.  Here again the Talmud was using classic Rabbinic exegesis to derive a lesson: 

Shimon ben Tarfon said, There is a warning (in the Torah) against one being an accomplice to an adulterer, as its states, Lo Tonaf (which can also be read as) Lo Tannif (one should not help others commit these sins) 

Neither of these quotes say anything about spilling or wasting seed, neither are even Halachic statements, and both are simply warning against being involved in creating a promiscuous and immoral environment.  But after the Semak, they have become new source texts in the Torah itself. Now masturbation has made it into the ten commandments!

We have thus seen how spilling seed has entered the world of the Halacha. In our next post, I will take a break from the Halachic process, and look a bit at how the mystical world of the Kabbalah influenced the development, and also take a look at the Christian influence, and the influence of the world of secular medical knowledge as well.  We will eventually get back to the Halachic process and trace the sin as it gets pushed forward into the major codifiers, the Tur, Shulchan Arukh, and beyond..

Tides of change - Piety, Mysticism, and Foreign Influences

Now we have seen how a few words in Rashi introduced a new concept of "destroying seed".  However, some Tosafists did not allow these new words to change what they understood was accepted Halacha, while Rabbeinu Tam took this new concept and made it into a new Halachic principle. However, it takes much more than that to create an entirely new structure of Halachic law regarding a topic this complicated and important.  So now we are going to track how this happened.

We should begin with the "Chassidei Ashkenaz “or the "German Pietists". The Chasidei Ashkenaz were part of an ascetic movement that was prominent in Germany during the 12th and 13th century.  The movement was concurrent with the time of the Tosafists, and many of the leaders of the Tosafists were both Talmudic/Halachic scholars and also involved in this movement.  

While this is clearly not the place for a complete history of the Chasidei Ashkenaz movement, we should mention a little bit about their beliefs and way of life. They were an ascetic movement, believing in living a life of holiness, and many of their practices were dedicated to this ideal. In many cases, the ideals they lived by were not Halachic requirements, though they were meant to elevate the spiritual level of the individual and the community. They were heavily influenced as well by early Kabbalah, even prior to the publication of the Zohar.  One quite common theme in their writings and lifestyle was the prescription of and practice of various forms of penitence.  Frequent fasting, deprivation of various pleasures, immersing in icy waters, and similar practices, are common prescriptions for those who felt they had not lived up to their ideals.

In general, the line between Halachic requirements and holy spiritual practices was understood, but the lines were often blurred.  It was in this milieu that the issue of masturbation and "spilling seed" began to cross the line between being a holy practice to being a Halachic sin.  Remember, that this was exactly the time period when Rabbeinu Tam and the other Tosafists were engaged in their disagreement over their interpretation of Rashi.

The most important source of information we have regarding the practices and beliefs of the Chasidei Ashkenaz is the book Sefer Hachasidim, by Rabbi Judah ben Samuel of Regensburg (1150-1217) also known as Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid.  From an interesting exchange between a concerned lay member of the Chasidei ashkenaz community and Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid, we can learn a lot about the subject of our concern. It confirms what we have written already that it was well understood that there was no specific prohibition against "spilling seed" during this time period, but it was considered a holy practice and that it was looked down upon by the community:

"It happened that someone asked (the writer) a question: Someone whose desires gets the better of him and he is afraid that he may (succumb to his urges) and sin by having sexual relations with a married woman or with his wife when she is menstruating or any other sexually prohibited woman, is it allowed for him to masturbate in order (to quell his urges so that he) does not sin? He (the writer) answered that he may at that time (when his urges are strong) masturbate, so that he can do the act of removing semen and therefore not sin with the (prohibited) woman. but he does require penance either by immersing in icy water during the wintertime, or to fast for 40 days during the summer (Sefer Hasidim, Wistinetsky edition s. 50, p44)"

We learn from his words several important points:

1.     We see that clearly there is no sin of "destroying seed" It is important to note that he does not use the term that Rashi used "hashchatah" from which Rabbeinu Tam inferred that the destruction of the seed itself is a prohibition.  Rather he used the term of the Talmud, "Hotza'ah" which means the act of emitting the seed.  Clearly, if that were a sin in and of itself, he could never have permitted it just because someone had an overwhelming urge. Obviously, the dominant Halachic view was that of the Rambam, Tosafot Rid, Ri Hazaken etc..., who all held that there was no such thing as a prohibition against "wasting" or "destroying" semen.

2.     It is also interesting that the practice of abstaining from masturbation was considered by the population to be something to strive for, in the pursuit of holiness.  This would be consistent with the ideals of the Chasidei Ashkenaz movement, and certainly has a basis in the Talmud and Rambam and more.

3.     The penitence prescribed is typical of this movement, and obviously is not something that gained general acceptance in mainstream Judaism.

The big question, which we cannot infer directly from the words of Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid, is how far does this permission to masturbate extend?  One can certainly argue that if one is overwhelmed with desire that is very bothersome to him, maybe even causing him significant distress, that masturbating might be permitted as well.  However, since Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid only says this when confronted with the alternative of a very grave sin such as actual adultery or forbidden sexual liaisons, I cannot legitimately draw this inference from his words.

Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid’s main disciple was another major figure in the Chasidei Ashkenaz movement.  Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda of Worms (1176-1238), also known as the "Ba'al HaRokeach" after his primary work, the Sefer HaRokeach.  He discusses the practice of masturbation many times, and not surprisingly he strongly disapproves of the practice.  Most of his writings on the topic concentrate on how to do penance when one has engaged in masturbation.  However, it is clear from his writings that he did not consider a Halachic prohibition, but rather a bad practice that leads one in the direction of sexual immorality.  He viewed it of utmost importance to avoid sexual thoughts in order to live a holy lifestyle. 

In the following passage, it is clear that he understood the avoidance of the "spilling of seed" to be a holy and important practice, but not a Halachic law. He is discussing the penance advised for someone who has violated the sin of forbidden sexual intercourse.  In his usual way, he divides the penance into several categories.  One of the categories is "Teshuvat HaGeder" which are boundaries that the penitent should place upon himself in order to avoid stumbling again.  These are listed, by definition, as things which technically are not prohibited by the Halacha but should be enacted as safeguards to help a person who has sinned sexually prevent himself from falling into the trap again.

"For Repentance with safeguards (for one who has sinned sexually and desires to repent): He should safeguard himself by not looking at women or their jewelry whether or not they are wearing them, and he should not observe places where women are playing or gathering, and he should not listen to songs (that make one aroused) and he should not smell their perfumes ... (skipping here some similar ideas) ... and he should not lie down, even with his wife when she is pure (not menstruating) in the gardens or the fields, and he should not (engage in) intercourse whence he withdraws and ejaculates externally, and he should have no business with women at all and he should not engage in frivolity (in general)."

From his words it is clear that he lumps sexual activities with one's spouse where one does not ejaculate vaginally together with practices with which there is certainly no Halachic prohibitions at all!  Even lying with one's own wife, when she is not a niddah, in a field is prohibited in the same sentence.  Clearly there is no Halachic authority in the universe that would claim that there is some prohibition against having a picnic with one's own wife and lying next to her!  Obviously, this is typical though of the practices advocated by the Chasidei Ashkenaz.  On the same level, the Rokeach is recommending avoiding this sexual practice even though it is not technically a prohibition at all.

I have seen online quoted in the name of the Rokeach, Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda of Worms, that in his commentary on the Torah, Genesis 2:25, that he even more explicitly states that any sexual activity in a relationship between husband and wife is Halachically permissible.  I have not been able to find this in print, but would appreciate it if someone could send me the quote.  Assuming he indeed does say this, it would further verify what we have just stated.

However, while the Chasidei Ashkenaz did not cross the line by taking their ascetic practices and turning them into law, their tremendous opposition to the practice of masturbation did have lasting effects very soon after. Due largely to their influence, "destroying seed" was about to become a Halachic prohibition. That is where we will pick up in our next post.

Rabbeinu Tam's Innovations

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

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

He continues:

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

Rabbeinu Tam has now introduced several completely new concepts.

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

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

The Normal way of Intercourse

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

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

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

Wasting Seed = Violating Mitzvah of Procreation

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

Men Only

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

The Other Ba'alei Tosafot Take on Rabbeinu Tam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.