Is There ‘Wasting’ Seed in Marital Intimacy?

Guilt-Free Marital Intimacy: Spilling Seed Is Permitted Sometimes!

I recently took a survey of many young couples my age in an effort to determine what exactly we had all been taught in our Chosson and Kallah classes. Were our lessons similar? Did they differ in any extreme way? I discovered something disturbing- namely, that nearly everyone was totally ignorant of two very important sources. To be completely blunt and very honest, I am going to discuss intimacy and sexuality here. If this troubles you, please don’t read further.

The first source that people had not been taught is the Ri to Yevamos 34b.

The gemara is discussing various sexual practices and focuses specifically on Er andOnan and the fact that apparently they engaged in unnatural intercourse (shelok’darkah). A question is raised by Tosfos: What of the gemara in Nedarim 20b? There it says:

R. Johanan said: The above is the view of R. Johanan b. Dahabai; but our Sages said: The halachah is not as R. Johanan b. Dahabai, but a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife [at intercourse]: A parable; Meat which comes from the abattoir, may be eaten salted, roasted, cooked or seethed; so with fish from the fishmonger.4 Amemar said: Who are the ‘Ministering Angels’? The Rabbis. For should you maintain it literally, why did R.Johanan say that the halachah is not as R. Johanan b. Dahabai, seeing that the angels know more about the formation of the fetus than we? And why are they designated ‘Ministering Angels’? — Because they are as distinguished as they.5

A woman once came before Rabbi and said, ‘Rabbi! I set a table before my husband, but he overturned it.’ Rabbi replied: ‘My daughter! the Torah hath permitted thee to him — what then can I do for thee?’

The same way that a man may eat meat in whichever manner he pleases- whether it be salted, roasted, cooked or seered– so too may a man do with his wife whatever he pleases (as long as it is mutual and consensual). The question Tosfos raises is that there seems to be a contradiction- in Nedarim we say that a man can do whatever he wishes, yet here in Yevamos we are taking issue with Er and Onan and the fact that they engaged in “unnatural intercourse.”

The answer is that in fact we are not taking issue with the fact that Er and Onan engaged in unnatural intercourse. Wherefore were these two brothers punished? The explanation we can offer is because A) one brother practiced this spilling of seed as coitus interruptusin order to ensure that his wife would never become pregnant, and this form of birth control is forbidden B) the wife of one’s brother is generally forbidden to a man and the only case in which he may take her is if he plans to build up his brother’s family through her= Yibum; the fact that this brother was spilling his seed showed he had no interest in actually fulfilling the mitzvah of Yibum and thus was guilty of one of the forbidden relations.

This means that shelo k’darkah (insofar as it may mean coitus interruptus) is forbidden when it is used as a method of birth control. However, as the Ri explicitly states, “if a man’s desire is for his wife in this particular way (shelo k’darkah inasmuch as it means spilling seed) and he only does this sometimes, but not every time (i.e. not as a method of birth control, for instance) then it is permitted.”

But what’s more, this issue is raised by none other than the great Gadol R’ MosheFeinstein himself.

This appears in Even Ha’Ezer Samach–Gimmel.

R’ Moshe explains that when it speaks of “motzi zera l’vatalah” – wasting seed, this is referring to a true waste of seed where there is absolutely no need for that seed to have been spilled. However, it is permitted to spill seed outside of the woman for the fulfillment of the mitzvah of Onah and in order to cause his wife to be joyous/ fulfilled (because then it’s not l’vatalah, but rather for a purpose)! Because when it comes to the matter of relations between a man and his wife, the Torah permitted a man to do that which his heart desires which is shelo k’darkah because he considers it his need and it is not considered l’vatalah and in fact it is completely permitted. The reason it is only permitted sometimes (and not always), is because it will not always be a need or desire as oftentimes he will be satisfied from the k’darkah intimacy.

R’ Feinstein goes on to quote the Ri and cites both of his provisions. The Ri offers two different opinions, one more stringent and one less so. 1) That he who deliberately intends to spill seed – it is assur (but if he comes to spill seed and had not intended it, that is fine) 2) If he commonly spills seed outside of the woman/ this is a regular thing for him to do, it is also assur because one does not crave this regularly. R’ Feinstein follows the second approach of the Ri and explains that if someone sometimes desires to do this, it ismuttar even if he does not have in mind that it should be for the sake of the mitzvah but rather only because it is a need between himself and his wife. That’s pretty radical!

Now, why am I telling you this? Because Heshy’s chosson teacher (if you want to learn with our teachers/ get their info, email me), who showed him these sources, explained that there are many couples who harbor desires to act with one another in a loving way that might also arouse the man to a point where he does not spill seed within the woman, but rather outside of her, and they believe they are bad people because of this. Alternatively, there are those who simply do as they wish and believe that they are breaking Torah law and halakha and thus struggle with a lot of guilt because they were never taught accurately.

What it comes down to is: Be intimate with your wife and make her happy and glad, and should you wish to sometimes (derech akrai) engage in behavior that is shelo k’darkahand which includes spilling seed outside of her rather than within her, that is perfectlymuttar and fine. Just beware because if you do this every time or regularly it becomes a problem.

ADDENDUM: I thought this was obvious, but in case it wasn’t: what I am presenting here are merely sources. Obviously you should ask your own rabbi, posek or halakhic decisor before following them, which is true of all my posts. Rock on.

From Curious Jew, here.

Agudas Yisrael on Child Sex Abuse – The Record

Agudah on Pedophilia: Too Little, Too Late!

I am a non-partisan critic of Jewish organizations. I will go after any group that enables child abuse. In my last post I revealed Satmar’s sad history in the case of Yisroel Moshe (Israel) Weingarten.  Today I want to talk about Agudath Israel of America. They think of themselves as the voice of torah-true Jewry. Yet they are guilty of collusion with the ongoing epidemic of sexual abuse of children by frum Jews. They can hurl thunderbolts to confront a modern orthodox rabbi who ordains one woman. They can mobilize their masses for rachmonis on Martin Grossman, a vicious Jewish murderer. But suddenly they loose their oomph and speak bikol dmamah dakah when it comes to child molesting (unless of course the offender is a goy).

After being confronted by protesters two years ago at their convention they made noises about their willingness to confront the issue. A year ago, their lay leader, Rabbi Dovid Zweibel, Esq. used their convention to speak with passion about their dawning realization about the problem and their commitment to find a way to respond.  This year they unveiled their response. It took the form of high profile speech by the head of their Moetzes, the Novominsker Rebbe (Rabbi Yaakov Perlow). At their annual convention over Thanksgiving weekend, Rabbi Perlow devoted over 12 minutes to the issue. Below are his words, followed by my reactions.

Continue reading…

From Frum Follies, here.

Ouch! – Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky on Learning Scripture

… It is normal that a person has a preference for one specific type of learning and wants to spend the majority of his time on that area, such as Gemara. However, if he does not devote any time to halacho, for example, then he will not be able to observe the mitzvos properly. Similarly, my Rebbe notes that a person may learn Chumash when he is a young child and never again give it any significant time beyond speeding through Shtayim Mikra v’echad targum. The consequence of this is that a ben Torah who learns Gemara in great depth may have little more than a child’s understanding of the maasim in Chumash! Rav Kamenetsy was once in a forum encouraging avreichim to spend some time teaching unaffiliated Jews. To one avreich who was concerned about the bitul Torah involved in teaching, he answered, “And if you have to learn a little Chumash and Nachi it won’t be such a terrible thing.”

Excerpted from here.

Mohammedan Influence Upon Popular Jewish Books

The Chovos Halevavos famously writes, Yichud Hama’seh chapter 5:

ואמרו על חסיד, שפגע אנשים שבים ממלחמת אויבים, ושללו שלל אחר מלחמה חזקה, אמר להם: שבתם מן המלחמה הקטנה שוללים שלל, התעתדו למלחמה הגדולה. אמרו לו: ומה היא המלחמה הגדולה? אמר להם: מלחמת היצר וחייליו.

But this story was first told of Mohammed. He is the “Chassid” referred to above. The warriors he met were his own. “Jihad” is the word for “war”, both lesser and greater. For a full discussion see this.

Nor is this the only example of Rabbi Bachye borrowing from their material. Know the one about the carcass’ white teeth? See Otzar Hachochma Forums here on that. Others were similarly influenced, including Rabbi Avraham ben Harambam, who incorporated silly Sufism in his syncretistic “Hamaspik Le’ovdei Hashem”. For a too-wide overview, see this.

There are a whole host of lessons to be learned here. The easiest to ignore is this: the brand of of “piety” sought by the author of “Chovos Halevavos” is not a Jewish one. This is blatantly obvious from the author’s introduction as well.

I hope to elaborate at some future date.

Israeli Spooks Spying on the Slaves

ACRI to court: Make PM’s Office reveal information on Shin Bet wiretaps

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel on Monday filed a petition to the Jerusalem District Court, in its capacity as an administrative court, to compel the Prime Minister’s Office to reveal the number of warrants issued by the prime minister to execute Shin Bet wiretaps over the past five years.

The information would be “including the number of people – and the number of the Israeli citizens and residents – covered by such warrants.”

The petition, filed under the Freedom of Information Law, sought to obtain the “guidelines that guide the prime minister in exercising this authority.” ACRI said that “security wiretaps,” used by Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), as opposed to criminal wiretaps used by police, are carried out under special more secretive procedures and said they are not subject to judicial review.
According to ACRI, Shin Bet requests authority for a wiretap from the prime minister, “who must report only to the attorney-general and a combined committee of the Constitution, Law and Justice and Foreign Affairs and Defense Committees, whose hearings are held behind closed doors.”

ACRI said it filed the petition after the PMO refused to provide it with information about the wiretapping in response to a freedom of information request.

The petition claimed that the PMO has “not given proper weight to the public’s right to information,” which ACRI said was a right “directly connected to the freedom of expression.”

In the response by the PMO to the ACRI request, it said that divulging the requested information would endanger state security and classified material.

The PMO further indicated that the safeguards of obligating the prime minister to report to the attorney-general and the special Knesset Committee were appropriate safeguards on abuse of Shin Bet wiretapping.

Also, the PMO said the fact that law stipulates that the Knesset committee meet in closed-door sessions shows the Knesset’s intent to keep the process secret to prevent exposure of classified information.

ACRI attorney Lila Margalit stated, “The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that wiretapping constitutes a serious invasion of privacy. It is deeply unsettling for the person being listened to, limiting his free will and impinging on his basic right to privacy.”

She added, “It is intolerable for such sensitive power to be exercised without the public having the minimum tools needed to discuss the fundamental questions that surround it.”

From Jpost, here.