Noach - Can Suicide be Justified?

This will be my first installment in my new weekly RMH Parsha series!  

I decided to temporarily venture away from the Kosher topic and to try this out.  I hope this new series will be informative and stimulate interesting discussion. I might miss a few weeks, but I will try to pick a "medical-Halachic" topic from the weekly parshah (Torah portion) and write about it.

This week I had a lot to choose from, but I will choose to discuss the topic of suicide in Halacha. In the Torah portion this week we read the story of Noah and the flood.  When Noah left the ark as the flood receded, God instructed him as follows:

But for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning: I will require it of every beast; of man, too, will I require a reckoning for human life, of every man for that of his fellow man! (Genesis 9:5)

The words "for your own lifeblood etc." have been interpreted by the Talmud as the Biblical origin of the prohibition against taking one's own life.

...as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And surely your blood of your souls will I require” (Genesis 9:5), and Rabbi Elazar says: From the hand of your souls, i.e., from yourself, will I require your blood, meaning one is liable even for taking his own life (Tractate Bava Kamma 91b)

This law was codified by Maimonides (Mishna Torah Laws of Murder 2:2) and in all subsequent Halachic codes.  Not much controversy there, and a standard accepted Halacha.  However, it is not so simple.  There have been many high-profile cases of suicides in the turbulent and difficult history of the Jewish people. I will list some of the more prominent instances and describe briefly the controversy surrounding each one.

Avoiding Certain Painful Death 

First, let us look at the suicides recorded in the Tanach.  We will begin with the tragic fate of King Saul, who was the first king of the united Kingdom of Israel, as he was surrounded by the Philistine enemy, and faced certain capture and likely taunting and torture. 

The Philistines attacked Israel, and the men of Israel fled before the Philistines and [many] fell on Mount Gilboa. The Philistines pursued Saul and his sons, and the Philistines struck down Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua, sons of Saul. The battle raged around Saul, and some of the archers hit him, and he was severely wounded by the archers. Saul said to his arms-bearer, “Draw your sword and run me through, so that the uncircumcised may not run me through and make sport of me.” But his arms-bearer, in his great awe, refused; whereupon Saul grasped the sword and fell upon it. When his arms-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. (Samuel I 31:2-5)

The reasoning for the suicide of Saul and his arms-bearer seems obvious.  He faced imminent capture by the Philistines, the enemy with whom he had fought countless wars throughout his reign. Once captured, it is not difficult to imagine what he would have been forced to endure at their hands. In addition, one can imagine the humiliation that this would have caused to the people of Israel when their King was treated this way.  In Jeremiah we find how the Chaldean enemy would desecrate the bones of the buried kings in order to humiliate the people of Judah at the time of the destruction of the first temple:

At that time—declares the LORD—the bones of the kings of Judah, of its officers, of the priests, of the prophets, and of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be taken out of their graves and exposed to the sun, the moon, and all the host of heaven which they loved and served and followed, to which they turned and bowed down. They shall not be gathered for reburial; they shall become dung upon the face of the earth (Jeremiah 8:1-2)

One can only imagine what the Philistines would have done to the King when captured alive.

The Rabbis (Genesis Rabbah 34:13) point out that the language "but...reckoning" (see full quote above Genesis 9:5) " infers that there are exceptions to this rule.  The example the rabbis give is the suicide of Saul (And Hananiah Mishael and Azariah which we will discuss later).  So apparently, in this instance the Rabbis approved of the suicide of Saul. We mentioned two potential rationales for his suicide, to avoid torture and death and to avoid national humiliation.  The Rabbis do not explain why they supported his decision, but it is reasonable to assume that it was because he was avoiding certain death at the hands of the enemy.  This is because Saul explicitly stated this reason.  This is indeed how it was understood by the later Halakhists, as it was codified in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 345.  

This then is the first understandable rationale for suicide, to avoid certain painful death.  Whether or not this can be extended to the avoidance of certain painful death at the hands of a different type of "enemy", such as a terminal illness is a very interesting question. However, it is beyond the scope of this post.

Suicide to Save Others

The next famous suicide recorder in Tanach is that of the mighty Samson:

As their spirits rose, they said, “Call Samson here and let him dance for us.” Samson was fetched from the prison, and he danced for them. Then they put him between the pillars. And Samson said to the boy who was leading him by the hand, “Let go of me and let me feel the pillars that the temple rests upon, that I may lean on them.” Now the temple was full of men and women; all the lords of the Philistines were there, and there were some three thousand men and women on the roof watching Samson dance. Then Samson called to the LORD, “O Lord GOD! Please remember me, and give me strength just this once, O God, to take revenge of the Philistines, if only for one of my two eyes.” He embraced the two middle pillars that the temple rested upon, one with his right arm and one with his left, and leaned against them; Samson cried, “Let me die with the Philistines!” and he pulled with all his might. The temple came crashing down on the lords and on all the people in it. Those who were slain by him as he died outnumbered those who had been slain by him when he lived. (Judges 16:25-30)

Samson's suicide was intentional, but nonetheless it is almost universally considered heroic.  There are multiple reasons why this is likely true. One is because as a high-profile prisoner his own ultimate death at the hands of the Philistines was almost certain, similar to the case of Saul.  However, there is more to it than that.  By killing the Philistines, he was killing an implacable foe of the people of Israel.  They were actively engaged in fighting a war. By his suicide, he was saving the people of Israel. We now have another suicide that was justified on a different basis. A soldier in wartime committing suicide in order to save his people.  

This can have ramifications on the battlefield of course, the story of the hero from the Lebanon war Roi Klein immediately comes to mind.  He jumped upon a live grenade in battle thus saving his fellow soldiers' lives.  Another hero is the soldier Uri Ilan, who committed suicide in 1954 as a captive in a Syrian prison.  He felt that he would succumb to the torture of his captors and give away secrets, so he hung himself, scribbling a note later found in his cell that stated, "I have not given away information, I killed myself".

Here we see a picture of Rabbi Shlomo Goren the military chief Rabbi standing on the left, saluting the grave of Uri Ilan.  Partly in response to this event, Rabbi Goren wrote a responsa permitting suicide for Israeli soldiers in terrible predicaments such as this.  He based his decision on the precedent of Samson.   Many questions can be raised about this idea though.  Does this apply only to soldiers? Is sacrificing yourself for others always considered appropriate?  This is no simple matter of course, and again beyond the scope of this post.

Martyrdom

There are many instances in which people gave their lives in order to sanctify God's name.  There is a difference however, between people who actually ended their own lives, versus allowed themselves to be killed under these tragic circumstances.  My focus in this post is on the permissibility of taking one's own life.  However, I must mention that there is a very fine line between these two types of scenarios.  The most famous perhaps, is the story of Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah, as recorded in the Book of Daniel chapter 3.  They gave themselves up for death in a furnace, rather than commit idolatry.  However, they did not kill themselves.  I will focus now on whether or not one may take their own lives, if the alternative is to be forced into idolatry or other terrible fate.

Suicide To Avoid Torture and Suffering

The Talmud in Gittin 57b relates the following tragic story, which occurred during the aftermath of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem:

There was an incident involving four hundred boys and girls who were taken as captives for the purpose of prostitution. These children sensed on their own what they were expected to do, and they said: If we commit suicide and drown in the sea, will we come to eternal life in the World-to-Come? The oldest child among them expounded the verse: “The Lord said, I will bring back from Bashan, I will bring them back from the depths of the sea” (Psalms 68:23).“I will bring back from Bashan,”I.e...., from between the teeth [bein shen] of the lion, and “I will bring them back from the depths of the sea” is referring to those who drown in the sea for the sake of Heaven. When the girls heard this, they all leapt and fell into the sea. The boys then drew an a fortiori inference with regard to themselves and said: If these girls, for whom sexual intercourse with men is their natural way, act in such a manner, then we, for whom sexual intercourse with men is not our natural way, should all the more so conduct ourselves likewise. They too leapt into the sea. Concerning them and others like them the verse states: “As For Your sake we are killed all the day long; we are reckoned as sheep for the slaughter” (Psalms 44:23).

These children are being praised for their actions, but was it the right thing to do? according to Tosafot, it seems that they were allowed to commit suicide because they were afraid the horrific torture and suffering that would be subjected to as Roman sex slaves. Under such circumstances one may take one's own life.  It is debated though, as some commentaries understand that it was only permissible for these children because they knew that not only would they have to endure sexual enslavement, they would also be forcibly converted to idolatry (see Petach Eynayim for example).  However, there is no mention of this in the Talmud or the Tosafot.  So, the simple understanding of this story is that to avoid torture, one may take their own life.  How and when this idea can or should be applied, is a complicated topic indeed.

Suicide to avoid enslavement or capture

Perhaps the most famous mass suicide in Jewish history was the suicide of the close to one thousand defenders of the last remaining Jewish fortress of Masada during the revolt against the Roman conquerors.  This was recorded by Josephus, and there is some controversy regarding the historical veracity of his account.  Nonetheless, this event has become an important part of the Jewish historical consciousness.   As the Romans were about to breach the walls of the fortress, which would've meant the certain enslavement of the Jewish defenders, their leader Elazar gave the following speech:

"Since we, long ago, my generous friends, resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than to God himself, who alone is the true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice. And let us not at this time bring a reproach upon ourselves for self-contradiction, while we formerly would not undergo slavery, though it were then without danger, but must now, together with slavery, choose such punishments also as are intolerable; I mean this, upon the supposition that the Romans once reduce us under their power while we are alive. We were the very first that revolted from them, and we are the last that fight against them; and I cannot but esteem it as a favor that God hath granted us, that it is still in our power to die bravely, and in a state of freedom, which hath not been the case of others, who were conquered unexpectedly. It is very plain that we shall be taken within a day's time; but it is still an eligible thing to die after a glorious manner .... this was  the effect of God's anger against us for our manifold sins, which we have been guilty of in a most insolent and extravagant manner with regard to our own countrymen; the punishments of which let us not receive from the Romans, but from God himself, as executed by our own hands; for these will be more moderate than the other. Let our wives die before they are abused, and our children before they have tasted of slavery; and after we have slain them, let us bestow that glorious benefit upon one another mutually, and preserve ourselves in freedom, as an excellent funeral monument for us. But first let us destroy our money and the fortress by fire; for I am well assured that this will be a great grief to the Romans, that they shall not be able to seize upon our bodies, and shall fall of our wealth also; and let us spare nothing but our provisions; for they will be a testimonial when we are dead that we were not subdued for want of necessaries, but that, according to our original resolution, we have preferred death before slavery." Josephus Flavius, The Wars of the Jews, VII 8.6

The speech was much longer, but from the excerpts I just quoted it seems evident that the primary motivation of the mass suicide was to avoid slavery and humiliation at the hands of the Romans. However, they were also concerned about rape, torture, and more.  Most of us were raised to think of the people of Masada as heroes, but did they do the right thing?  

In support of the Masada defenders, many would cite the precedents above that support the option of suicide in face of certain death or intolerable suffering (see here for an example of this defense).  Others might claim that the Romans would've forced them to give up their religion, but this argument doesn't show up in Elazar's speech at all, nor does it seem like an accurate fear historically.  

Famously, Rabbi Moshe Zvi Neria presented an impassioned argument against what the Masada defenders did.  He felt that by using the arguments presented in Elazar's speech, every Jew should kill themselves rather that submit to foreign rule.  There would be no Jews alive today if we followed that path.  He argued that they should've fought to the extent that they could, and when defeated, even when forced to be subjugated to the Romans, at least some would've survived.

Suicide to prevent Forced Conversion 

During the middle ages, especially during the persecution of Jews that occurred during the time of the crusades, there were several episodes where Jewish communities chose mass suicide rather than surrender to the Christian mobs that attacked them.  In many of these cases, they could've saved their lives by converting to Christianity. 

In some cases, the choice of suicide was probably more to save themselves from certain torture and death at the hands of the mob.  One of the most famous mass suicides was the one that occurred in that occured in York England in 1190. The entire Jewish community barricaded themselves within the royal castle to protect themselves from an angry Christian mob.  Although they were threatened with forced baptism or death, most historians agree that the "forced baptism" that the Jews would've suffered was actually death by an angry mob.  The Jews chose mass suicide rather than forced baptism. However, the few who chose not to commit suicide were killed anyway when the mob broke through the barricade.  

However, many cases were not so clear, and many times throughout France and Germany (especially in the Rhineland massacres of 1096 - described graphically in the Tisha B’Av Liturgy Kinah 25)  there were cases where suicide was chosen when a forced baptism might have saved their lives. Many Jews did save themselves that way, though most historians agree that of the people who did submit to forced baptism, the majority of them returned to Judaism. On the other hand, many of those who gave themselves up for forced baptism, ended up getting killed anyway. While we clearly must admire and commemorate their dedication and devotion, we are still allowed to question if indeed their choice was correct. There are no easy answers, we cannot be judges of what people do in such terrible times.

Killing Children to Keep Them from being Forcibly Converted

This topic is very difficult and painful to discuss, but we do know that in some cases, when confronted with the choice of having their children torn away from them and raised as Christian, while they themselves were slaughtered, chose to kill their children and themselves rather than submit to such horror.  In a comment on the verse that started our discussion, Genesis 9:5, the Da'at Zekeinim strongly condemned this practice.  He unequivocally believed that the children should be saved no matter what.  In fact, as we know from the much later horrific persecution of the Holocaust, many children were saved specifically by giving them to Christian families or the church itself.  It seems like people understood that the chance of life for these children was paramount.

Suicide as a response to utter despair

Writing these words is awful, but the Rabbis have always understood that when one commits suicide in a situation of utter despair, that we should not judge such a person unfavorably. The examples of concentration camp inmates who fell against the electrified fence immediately comes to mind.  The most famous example in the Talmud (Gittin 57a) is that of the woman whose seven sons were executed in front of her for refusing to submit to forced idol worship.  She went up to the roof and jumped to her death after this unimaginably horrific event.  The Talmud treats her favorably, and even records a comforting heavenly voice that called out to her when she met her death.  While the Talmud is not condoning or advising what to do in such cases, clearly the Rabbis understood the circumstances.

Suicide in Face of Terminal Illness or Assisted Suicide

I am only mentioning this because I don't want to be criticized for neglecting to discuss this important subject.  There is a lot of literature on this subject, and I need to save it for another post, or maybe even another series of posts.  Please forgive me for punting it to a future date. God-willing, I will get there. 

I hope you learned something from this post, and I will do my best to continue this series on each weekly portion.  I am open to suggestions if any of you have topics you would like me to explore, whether in the comments (preferred), or by email.  Shabbat Shalom

Keeping Kosher and COVID19

It would be scandalous to write a blog about medical Halacha during the coronavirus pandemic and not have anything to say about COVID19.  I have been trying to think of something to write that would add  something useful to the conversation, an angle that hasn't already been covered. 

Early on in this pandemic, an interesting discussion came to my attention regarding the origins of the coronavirus. It is assumed that this virus evolved in a species of bat that is indigenous to China. Partly because of the human consumption of bats in China, it was able to make an interspecies jump and infect humans. The "atalef" (Hebrew for "bat") is listed as one of the non kosher birds that is prohibited by the Torah for human consumption. If the kosher laws were kept, would we have had to suffer this terrible deadly pandemic? This discussion in the media (see here for example) renewed my interest in a topic of much deeper importance, which I hope to address in this new series in my blog.

As observant Jews, we must "keep kosher".  The laws of kosher include thousands of laws and customs with many varied origins.  Why do we need to observe these dietary rules? As we have seen in this blog before there are two very different schools of thought in Judaism which can both complement and clash with each other. These are the mystical and the rationalist schools.

The mystical stream tends to explain these religious rules by ascribing spiritual and unseen forces that make one action kosher and the other action not kosher.  This stream of thought is more likely to explain the reasons for the kosher laws by saying that we do it because God said so. The rationalist school is more likely to search for practical and physically meaningful lessons in the rules of kosher.  Surely God told us to keep these laws, but He wanted us to do it for a reason that we can and should understand.

I believe strongly that the recent sea change in Orthodoxy which has deeply emphasized the mystical way of thinking has done terrible damage to the purpose of keeping kosher.  I think we have lost our way because we have forgotten the point of keeping kosher.  While clearly the mystical ideas are important and have their place in our religion, the bottom line has been all but forgotten.

Rather than engage in polemics and arguments, I think we need need to get back to basics. In my usual style, I will begin by discussing the biblical origins of the laws of kosher.  Then we will analyze the Talmudic and rabbinic discussions and how they developed into what we call kosher today.  This will take a long series of posts. Then we can look back and see how different the world would be if only we remembered the rationalistic basis of what God really wants from us.

I was taught by the many great rabbis from whom I have learned over the years, that we never should be content learning a topic the same way we have studied it over the years.  We must always review a verse or a talmudic statement as if we are studying it for the first time. So even if you think you already know everything you need to know about kosher, I hope you can find something useful in going through this process together.  Only this way can we grow and change. I know that I once thought I knew everything too.

Kosher Species

Let's start with Leviticus chapter 11 which discusses the species of animals that are permitted to eat, and those that are prohibited.  For the majority of the discussion, the Torah lays out the rules, split hooves and chewing their cud for animals, fins and scales for fish, forbidden insects, forbidden birds.  Although the Torah repeats several times that these non kosher animals should be considered disgusting to you ("sheketz") the Torah is not clear about the reasoning behind it.  However, in verses 44 and 45, the Torah states emphatically why we should only consume the kosher animals:

(44) For I the LORD am your God: you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not make yourselves unclean through any swarming thing that moves upon the earth.  (45) For I the LORD am He who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God: you shall be holy, for I am holy. 

So the reason why are commanded to eat only kosher species is to "sanctify ourselves and be holy". Although this may sound like it is only referring to insects, the following verses make it clear that this holiness is achieved by avoiding all non kosher categories of animals, as the verses continue:

(46) These are the instructions concerning animals, birds, all living creatures that move in water, and all creatures that swarm on earth, (47) for distinguishing between the unclean and the clean, between the living things that may be eaten and the living things that may not be eaten.  

So God does tell us very clearly the reason why we must keep kosher. We need to be "holy".  In Deuteronomy 14, the Torah again mentions the kosher species, and again it is in the context of "holiness", though this time said a little differently.

"(2) for you are a holy people to the LORD your God: the LORD your God chose you from among all other peoples on earth to be His treasured people. (3) You shall not eat anything abhorrent. (4)These are the animals that you may eat..."

Again, the Torah lists the species of animals that one may or may not eat. Again, the Torah makes it very clear that the reason for the kosher rules is because of "holiness".  So the Torah does clearly tell us the reason for the prohibitions against eating certain species. Holiness.  But we will have to define what this is. I am going to save that for a future post.  

 Proper Slaughter  

The next important kosher rule is related not to the species of animal in question, but to the method of slaughter.  Kosher slaughter is called "shechita" and is a method of slaughter described by the rabbis of the Talmud as a method which was taught by God to Moses and passed down through oral tradition.  The origin of this tradition is recorded in the Torah itself:

"If the place where the LORD has chosen to establish His name is too far from you, you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that the LORD gives you, as I have instructed you; and you may eat to your heart’s content in your settlements (Deutoronomy 12:21)"

So God tells us that He has instructed us how to slaughter an animal, and our tradition tells us what God's instructions were. We must use a sharp and smooth knife, and in one quick motion, we must sever the carotid arteries and trachea, quick and straightforward, with minimal pain and suffering.  However here the Torah does not explain the reasoning behind this commandment.  One does get the sense from the verse though, that God does not want us to randomly kill and slaughter animals for our own benefit.  If we need to do it, it is permitted, but it has to be done in a proper way.  As God has taught us.

 Blood

The next important rule of kosher eating is the prohibition against eating blood.  In this case the Torah does clearly explain the reasoning behind the prohibition:

(23) But make sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh. (24) You must not partake of it; you must pour it out on the ground like water: (25) you must not partake of it, in order that it may go well with you and with your descendants to come, for you will be doing what is right in the sight of the LORD.

Once you have chosen the proper kosher species of animal, and it is slaughtered properly, God still has more to ask of you.  You must remove the blood, because the blood is the "life" of the animal.  The Torah again states clearly the reasoning behind the prohibition against consuming blood.  The blood represents that this was once a living being, and by removing it we remember that we are consuming something that was once alive.  The specifics of how the blood is removed we learn from our tradition.

"Torn" Animals (Tereifah)

We are far from finished. We learned that animals must be properly slaughtered, but what about animals that have died through other natural means, not at the hands of human beings? The Torah teaches us about this as well:

"You shall be holy people to Me: you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs.(Exodus 23:30)"

Our tradition teaches us that animals "torn by beasts" includes all sick and injured animals that either have died of their injuries, or will inevitably die of their injuries or illnesses in the near future.  This is the origin of the rule that animals are not kosher to eat unless they are healthy and died only as a result of kosher slaughter.  An animal that died from some other cause, or would soon have died of some other cause is not considered fit for human consumption. This is why animals must be checked for injuries or diseases that could have potentially caused their demise in order for them to be rendered "kosher". Most importantly for our discussion, the Torah was again very clear about the reason for this prohibition. We are a "holy" people, and this practice is consistent with "holiness".

An Animal that Died Naturally (Nevelah)

Since we must properly slaughter an animal in order to eat it, we are prohibited from eating an animal that has died on its own, without proper slaughter.  However, if we own such an animal, the Torah directs us regarding what to do with it:

(21) You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner for you are a holy people to the LORD your God.

Again, the Torah emphasizes the concept of holiness. This could mean one of two things from the context of the verse.  It could mean that we are prohibited from eating the animal because of holiness, or it could mean that we should give it to our neighbors due to holiness. The concept of holiness with regard to an animal that died without proper slaughter is repeated in the Torah in Exodus 22:30:

You shall be holy people to Me: you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs. 

Here again the concept of holiness is mentioned, and it could again mean two things.  You should be holy by not consuming meat that wasn't properly slaughtered, but you should also be holy by putting the meat to good use by giving it to animals to eat. I believe that the Torah is emphasizing both.  That although we must be holy by properly slaughtering animals that we eat, we should also be holy by making sure to properly use the meat of animals that we cannot consume by giving it to others.  These both constitute "holiness".  Like I said before, we will get back to this concept in detail later in the series.  

Gid HaNasheh (Displaced Nerve)

Even after we make sure that an animal is the right species, and it is healthy, and it is slaughtered in the appropriate way, and the blood is removed, there are still parts of the animal that are prohibited to eat.  These parts must be removed prior to consumption of the animal. Two primary categories of animal parts that may not be consumed are the "Gid Hanasheh" and the "Chelev". The Gid Hanasheh is the "displaced nerve" and its' origins are from this verse in Genesis 32:

(25) Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. (26) When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he wrenched Jacob’s hip at its socket, so that the socket of his hip was strained as he wrestled with him. ... (32) The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping on his hip. (33) That is why the children of Israel to this day do not eat the thigh muscle that is on the socket of the hip, since Jacob’s hip socket was wrenched at the thigh muscle.

Here the Torah is very explicit about the reason for this prohibition.  Out of respect for our patriarch, we have a custom to avoid this part of the animal.  This event with Jacob was the event that led to our people receiving our name Israel.  This name signified that our mission in this world is above that of the mission of the angels.  As its stated:

(23) Said he, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with beings divine and human, and have prevailed.”

It is important that we are reminded of this concept as we eat an animal that was once a living creature.  Even Jacob, whose mission is higher than that of the angels, is susceptible to becoming haughty. By being afflicted with a very human ailment, Jacob was reminded that although his mission was above that of the angels, he must always remain humble.  By reminding ourselves when we are eating an animal that we are also physical beings, susceptible to pain and injury, we keep ourselves humble as well, as we learned from our forefather Jacob.

Chelev (fats)

The second forbidden part of the animal is Chelev - the forbidden fats, the Torah is much less explicit regarding the reasoning behind this prohibition (Leviticus 7):

(23) Speak to the Israelite people thus: You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep or goat. (24) Fat from animals that died or were torn by beasts may be put to any use, but you must not eat it. (25) If anyone eats the fat of animals from which offerings by fire may be made to the LORD, the person who eats it shall be cut off from his kin.

Rabbinic tradition teaches us exactly which "fats" are considered prohibited to consume. However, here the Torah does not seem to mention the reasoning at all.  However, the Torah did leave some important hints in the context of these words.  These verses are juxtaposed in the middle of a discussion of the portions of sacrificial animals that are given to the priests or burnt upon the altar etc... This hints to us that the removal of certain portions of the animal may be to teach us that we should take part of the animal and give it away to others.  This is why the Torah tells us specifically that we can (and should) give these parts away for another constructive purpose, such as to feed our carniverous animals (cats or dogs for example) but not eat it ourselves.

Ever min Hachai (Flesh from a live animal)

Another prohibition is to remove a piece of a live animal to consume, known as "Ever Min Hachai".  In Genesis 9, God tells Noah:

(3) Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green grasses, I give you all these. (4) You must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it.

Once again,  the context gives us some important clues.  These verses are juxtaposed between the declaration that gives man responsibility for the well being of the creatures of the earth, as the entire world will be under the rule of human beings.  This verse is stated in such a way as to hint that although human beings have the power to kill and consume animals, there are limits to what they should do.  Respect for life in general is thus implied as the reasoning for this prohibition. We can kill for our needs, but we must also respect.  The following verse then continues to discuss respect for human life, continuing on the same theme. 

Basar B'Chalav (meat and milk)

Last but not least, there is the prohibition of eating milk and meat together.  This is definitely the most unusual in terms of how it is presented in the Torah.  In three seperate locations, Exodus 23:19, 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21, the Torah curiously states, seemingly out of context, the phrase:

You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

Tradition teaches us that this is referring to all milk and all meat, not just a kid in its' mother's milk.  The Torah does not state a reason here.  However, it is certainly quite clear from he way it is presented that the Torah was concerned about a demonstration of particular cruelty.  To cook a kid in its mother's milk would demonstrate a significant and horrifying lack of compassion. One gets the feeling that the Torah is trying to remind us that the relationship between an animal mother an its' offspring is something we should admire and respect.  Their love is real and meaningful, and although we may be permitted to eat these animals, we need to respect their lives and emotions as well.  

I have just presented the prohibitions and restrictions that pertain to the consumption of animals.  As I always do in this blog, I begin with a discussion of the Biblical origins, and discuss what we can learn from the verses of the Torah directly.  I will then begin to analyze the Talmudic understandings of the Torah, as these laws began to become codified and eventually develop into what we now know as the laws of kashrut.

What have we learned from the Torah so far? That there are many purposes to the laws of Kashrut, among them are:

1. To help us live as a holy people, Kashrut brings us to "holiness" (we will define this in future posts) (Kosher species)
2. You can't just slaughter an animal in any way you want, it needs to be done in the way God instructed (shechita)
3. Even when you eat meat, you have to recognize that there was once life here, which is why we cannot eat blood, which represents the "life" of the animal (Blood)
4. We must not eat animals that were unhealthy and were destined to die ("torn" animals)
5. When we do eat animals, we need to take some of the portions of the animal and give it away for some other use, in this way others benefit, not just our selfish selves (chelev)
6. When we eat animals, we also respect and remind ourselves of our own fragility and humility (Gid Haanasheh)
7. We must always give away a portion of what we eat to benefit others (Chelev)
8. We should not waste the animals that are not fit for Kosher consumption but we should give them to our gentile neighbors or to our animals for food (Nevelah)
9. We must respect the lives of the animals over which we have so much power and responsibility (Ever min Hachai)
10. We must respect the relationships and bonds between animals and their young and respect their emotions (Basar BeChalav)

What we have written so far was directly derived from the verses of the Torah, without too much interpretation on my part.  The Torah itself was quite clear.  We have a long way to go with this topic, but I think you can already get a sense of how important the laws of Kosher are, and how meaningful they can be when one pays attention to their purpose.  In the next post, I plan on discussing the kosher laws that pertain to fruits and vegetables.  We will then continue our analysis by discussing  the Talmud and beyond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing the Halachic Masturbation Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rav Yosef Karo Uses the Zohar to Eliminate the Opposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tur Interprets the Rambam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Zohar and Lurianic Kabbalah

The influence of the Zohar on the future attitude of Jewish religious thinking regarding masturbation would be impossible to overstate.  I struggled for a while trying to decide how to present this material in a blog post, as the Zohar devotes an immense amount of attention to this subject.  I decided to give brief summaries of the basic concepts found in the Zohar, and I quoted the sources for those who want to do more research on their own.  To translate and quote each idea would make this a very long post indeed.

The Zohar's teachings on the subject of spilling seed is to be understood as a direct result of how the Zohar understands procreation in general.  Most importantly, it is based on the way the Kabbalists explained the origins of semen, and the process of bringing a new soul from the spiritual world into the physical world. I recommend that you review my summary of the Sefer HaBahir in the last post.  Everything else flows from there.  

No Seed is ever a "Waste"

Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the approach of the Zohar is the Zohar's rejection of the idea that masturbation is prohibited because of "wasting seed". The Zohar attaches such an intense importance to the act of procreation, that it would be impossible to assume that when one ejaculates that nothing important is going on. since the seed is endowed with a soul, it can't be that it is just being wasted.  Instead, the Zohar introduces an entirely different concept. When one ejaculates in the context of normal vaginal intercourse with his spouse, the soul that his seed is endowed with is holy, and implants in his wife to develop into a holy child.  However, the Zohar teaches, that when one masturbates, or has any other sort of prohibited sexual intercourse, the "soul" endowed in his semen is an evil spirit.  Although these evil spirits may not be visible to the naked eye, they indeed are created and they accompany this person throughout his life and indeed even after his death.   This has many important ramifications that we shall discuss.

The Evil Spirits Haunt Their "Creator" 

The Zohar describes in several places the punishments in store for one who ejaculates in any context other than "normal" intercourse with his spouse (see Zohar 2:263b for example)  These evil angels have become his tormentors, and they will haunt him forever. So the act of ejaculation always creates a spiritual being, it just depends on the individual if that will be a holy being or an evil one.  

Note how different this is from the term Rashi used in the "Rashi on the Rif" that we quoted earlier.  There he wrote that "wasting seed" that could have potentially been a child is destructive because it is "wasted." This sounds like a potential human being has been lost, but nothing else was created in its' stead.  However, the Zohar is more concerned about the actual evil creations that the spilled seed is responsible for creating.

Masturbation Becomes One of the Arayot

Another result of the Zohar's conception of ejaculation, is the reclassification of masturbation in the category of one of the forbidden sexual relationships.  The Zohar spiritualizes the act of illicitly ejaculating semen that is not in the context of "normal" procreative intercourse with a spouse.  Since all such acts create evil spirits and demons, they are all similar sins.  For example, in Zohar 2:264a it is lumped together with bestiality, forbidden relationships, and more.

No Path for Repentance

In several locations, the Zohar makes an extraordinary and frightening claim, and unlike all other sins, masturbation is unique in that the perpetrator is denied the ability to repent.  This conclusion follows from the Zohar's understanding of this act.  Since each "seed" is a potential holy child, when has has the wrong intentions and spills the seed, that child is therefore "killed" and in its' stead an evil angel is born.  How could there ever be penance for such an act? In the Zohar 1:219b it is explicitly stated that for this sin alone, there is no repentance available.  Indeed, the violator is even worse than one who murders another person, for which there may be repentance available.  As he is killing his own children!  The Zohar uses this identical language in Zohar 2:3b to describe an abortion, indicated that the Zohar equated the two.  Interestingly, this is the only reference in the entire Zohar to abortions.  (See my previous posts regarding the comparison between "wasting seed" and abortions.)

If this idea sounds remarkable to you, let me emphasize that the Zohar asserts this claim in several places, including at length in Zohar 1:61b-62a.  However, in Zohar 2:214b, the Zohar seems to state that repentance is possible, though there the reference is to the sin of "Pegam HaBrit" (which we first saw introduced by Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla) which includes sexual sins other than masturbation as well.  Regardless, the fact remains that in several places the Zohar stated unequivocally that Teshuva - repentance is impossible.

Hotza'at Zera Becomes More Inclusive

Just as the idea of Pegam HaBrit found its' way into the Zohar, so did the idea expressed in the Igeret haKodesh that Hotza'at Zera Le'Vatalah could refer to any type of intercourse that isn't proper, even if it is normal vaginal intercourse. (see Zohar 3:90a).  If the intentions aren't proper, or the relationship is inappropriate, evil spirits are created instead of a child, and one is guilty of spilling seed.

Creating Holy Angels 

This idea of the Zohar does explain one conundrum that was a problem when we explained Rabbeinu Tam earlier on.  If "wasting seed" is a problem because a potential child is being "destroyed, then how can any intercourse be permitted when a child cannot result?  How could one have sexual relations with one's spouse if she is pregnant or postmenopausal for example? If you recall, Rabbeinu Tam explained this by differentiating between "normal intercourse" and "not normal intercourse", but this still left us wondering why that would be. 

However, the Zohar has a convenient explanation for this.  Just as when one "spills seed" he creates spiritual demons that he cannot see, so to when one has appropriate "normal" intercourse with one's spouse, they create holy angels that cannot be seen.  So any intercourse that is appropriate is never a "waste".  (See Zohar 3:167b - 168a).

There are many other ideas expressed by the Zohar on this topic, but I think we should move on to the next major step in the history of the influence of Kabbalah on the laws of spilling seed.  That step is the established of the next great Kabbalistic movement, that of Lurianic Kabbalah in Safed.  

The Mystics of Safed and the Canonization of the Zohar

Tragically, not long after the publication of the Zohar, the Jewish world was crushed by the horrific tragedy of the Spanish inquisition and the expulsion from Spain. Of the Spanish Jewish refugees, some eventually made their way to Safed in the Galilee region of Israel. Along with the refugees also went the wisdom of the Spanish kabbalists, especially the book of the Zohar. In Safed the school that became known as the Lurianic school was to become the dominant force in Jewish mysticism until the Hassidic movement in Eastern Europe in the 18th century.  Among the key figures in this school were none other than Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz (1500-1576, the author of the famous Lecha Dodi sung in synagogues on Friday night),  Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (1522-1570, the teacher of Rabbi Isaac Luria and considered the founder of the Lurianic school), Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534-1572, also known as the Arizal, perhaps the most famous of the Safed Kabbalists and after whom the Lurianic school was named), and  Rabbi Chaim Vital (1542-1620, the Arizal's most important disciple, and the one who recorded in writing the teachings of the Safed school).

It is not necessary for us to delve deeply at this time into the philosophy and teachings of the Lurianic school.  Regarding the issue of masturbation specifically the Lurianic school continued to develop the same basic themes that we mentioned in our discussion of the Zohar.  However, what the Lurianic school did accomplish was that the Zohar became established in the Jewish canon of standard rabbinic texts. The scholars of Safed were responsible for making the Zohar accepted almost universally in the rabbinic world as a work with origins as ancient as the Mishna and Talmud, rather than a product of medieval Spain.

Among all of the famous scholars of this period in Safed, the most important figure for the purposes of our investigation, is Rabbi Yosef Karo (RYK) (1488-1575), the author of the Beit Yosef and Shulchan Arukh. These Halachic works, perhaps with the exception of Maimonides Mishnah Torah, had more influence on the development of Halacha than any other work in Jewish history.  Rabbi Yosef Karo was also a Kabbalist of note, and absorbed the Lurianic system of Kabballah directly from its' masters in Safed.  

RYK brought the Zohar to bear directly on his Halachic treatment of the topic of spilling seed.  However, before we see how, we will need to leave the Kabbalistic universe and go back to the parallel Halachic universe that we left behind a few posts ago.  We have to follow the Halacha through the Rosh, the Tur and then we will see how the Beit Yosef took the Halachic world of the Tur, and the Kabbalistic world of the Zohar and brought them together.