If masturbation is, as stated in the Shulchan Oruch (Even HaEzer 23:1), "the worst sin in the Torah", then why is it not listed in any of the various lists of 613 Mitzvos and why is there no verse in the Torah that mentions it directly ("Do not masturbate")?
-
4It's polemic. – Double AA May 02 '12 at 03:40
-
Why the negative vote? – Baruch May 02 '12 at 03:46
-
@DoubleAA Please explain what you mean by "It's polemic" – Baruch May 02 '12 at 03:47
-
2@DoubleAA, did the rabbis also explain why something really really really bad was not stated clearly in the Torah? – Baruch May 02 '12 at 03:53
-
3Baruch, welcome to Judaism.SE, and thanks very much for bringing your question here! Please consider registering your account, which will give you access to more of the site's features. – Isaac Moses May 02 '12 at 03:56
-
(Allow me to throw in that you could argue it's a bittul aseh of peru urvu.) @Baruch You mean how do Chazal know which things are bad if they aren't already mitzvot? I assume it's the same way they know which things are good (eg. candlelighting, hallel, purim) which aren't already mitzvot. A sense of Halachik intuition and mesorah. – Double AA May 02 '12 at 04:00
-
1But I don't want to get all tied up here in the comments. I'm sure someone soon will come along with a well done answer. – Double AA May 02 '12 at 04:01
-
See Rambam , maybe you will get a better understanding http://www.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?mfid=45026&rid=4517 – sam May 02 '12 at 04:20
-
2@sam What is your point in the Rambam? – Double AA May 02 '12 at 14:09
-
I think, first of all, it is because we don't have a clear understanding of what a Mitzvah is. We don't have a tradition on counting the exact 613 M so anybody can count it according to his imagination. – Al Berko Aug 25 '18 at 19:26
5 Answers
The Semak, in his list of the 613 Commandments, counts male masturbation as a Biblical prohibition in Negative Command #292.
- 98,894
- 6
- 250
- 713
Chazal would emphasize through exaggeration (דברו חכמים לשון הבאי). (Tamid 29a) One of the examples given there is that the Mishna says that they let the animal for the tamid sacrifice drink from a gold cup (so that it would be hydrated and the carcass would be easier to manipulate). In reality, Rava argues, a copper cup was used and the Mishna was merely expressing the service in terms of magnificence. Another example of Chazal using לשון הבאי can be found in the Teshuvos HaGeonim (Musafia, 26).
Chazal would frequently employ a similar device when denouncing certain bad behavior, for example:
ארבעה דברים שהן נפרעין מן האדם בעולם הזה והקרן קיימת לו לעולם הבא ואלו הן ע"ז גילוי עריות ש"ד ולשון הרע כנגד כולן (Yeushalmi, Peah 4a)
and
אמר רבי יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחי נוח לו לאדם שיפיל עצמו לתוך כבשן האש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים (Sotah 10b)
The following Rambam (Commentary to Sanhedrin 7:4) might be interpreted as saying that similar exhortations found in tractate Niddah (13a,b) can be similarly understood:
וכבר הזהירו חכמים מאד על ההרהור והרחיקו מגורמיו, והאריכו לירא ולהפחיד מקשה עצמו לדעת, ומוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה, וביארו שכל זה אסור, אבל לא חייבו מלקות בשום דבר מסוג זה.
Likewise, the Beis Shmuel (Even HaEzer, 23:1) is of the opinion that statement of the Shulchan Aruch cited above in the original post is not meant literally.
Some opinions hold that this is a Biblical prohibition, though there is disagreement as to the primary Biblical source of the prohibition (possible candidates include bal tashchis, v'nishmarta mikol davar ra, and others). (For example: Based on the severity of Talmudic and rabbinic statements on this topic, as well as on the Biblical source discussed by Tosafos [Avoda Zara 20b], Rabbi Moshe Feinstein holds that it must be an outright Biblical prohibition). The Tzitz Eliezer cites other opinions that variously maintain that the prohibition either is or may be Rabbinic with Biblical allusions (asmachta b'alma).
- 16,984
- 1
- 45
- 85
-
Pri Megadim (OC 3) concludes that we hold it is a Biblical prohibition. See also Nida (13a), Ramban (ibid 13b), and Tosfos in Sanhedrin (59b). – Barry May 03 '12 at 17:32
-
@Barry, the Pri Megadim concludes that the Taz holds that it is Biblical; that would explain why the Taz holds safeik l'chumra in the case given there. In support of this, the Pri Megadim cites the Bach, who explicitly takes that position and writes that it is an issur d'oraysa derived from v'nishmarta. The Pri Megadim himself, however, holds that the prohibition derived from this verse (hirhur) is Rabbinic [and presumably that the verse is an asmachta b'alma] (ibid., OC, P'sicha Kolleles 5:34). It is possible that he also holds that שכבת זרע לבטלה is a Rabbinic prohibition. – Fred May 06 '12 at 23:47
-
Regarding the Pri Megadim's position mentioned in the second half of my previous comment, I should add that he presents this idea as a "yeish lomar," so one might infer that he does not definitively dismiss the Biblical status of the prohibition. – Fred Sep 16 '12 at 23:52
-
One thing to point out is that there isn't any punishment associated with it. I mean, Rambam says that a person who takes charity to learn Torah looses their Olam HaBa, but this horrible sin which is compared to murder has no punishment at all? – alice fine Aug 17 '14 at 18:59
-
@alicefine, it is Chayav Misa BiYdai Shamayim - a death penalty in the hands of Heaven i.e. a capital offense with the punishment carried out by G-d. Kind of a step below Kares. Even without that, it has been pointed out in Rishonim (in general, not in this context AFAIK) that some sins are so bad they can't get a punishment - because the punishment creates forgiveness, but when the sin is too great, forgiveness is not an option. – Yishai Aug 21 '14 at 22:07
-
2@Yishai The literal interpretation of that gemara (א"ר יוחנן כל המוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה חייב מיתה) is not the only one. The gemara may have used "death penalty" non-literally to express the severity of the sin (along the lines of this answer). – Fred Aug 22 '14 at 03:00
-
1@Yishai What is your source? In MT there is no punishment at all associated with it. – Robert S. Barnes Aug 22 '14 at 12:46
-
@RobertS.Barnes, Fred provided the source (Nidda 13a). Regardless of various interpretations, it refutes a blanket statement that "there isn't any punishment associated with it" and (the second point that I made) that a lack of explicit punishment shows a lack of severity in the sin. – Yishai Aug 22 '14 at 13:37
-
@RobertS.Barnes, BTW, in MT the punishment is Nidduy (that is what Beis Din imposes, regardless of the heavenly punishment). – Yishai Aug 22 '14 at 13:42
-
@RobertS.Barnes, This Radbaz on the relevant Rambam might interest you. – Yishai Aug 22 '14 at 13:58
-
@Yishai I saw Fred's ref, and I agree with him that the death penalty mentioned there is hyperbole - if there was really a death penalty associated with this then there would be a specific one, such as strangulation or stoning and Rambam would bring it down just like he does for all the arayot. Nidduy is at the discretion of a beit din and is not a particulary harsh punishment. In addition, it seems like Rambam may be a da'at yachid on nidduy applying here as this particular issue ( bad pun intended ) doesn't appear in this list of things for which nidduy is applicable: – Robert S. Barnes Aug 22 '14 at 15:44
-
@Yishai http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%93%D7%95%D7%99_%28%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94%29 – Robert S. Barnes Aug 22 '14 at 15:45
-
@Yishai Thanks for the Radbaz, I'll take a look when I get the chance - is that your source for Mitah B'Ydai Shamaim? – Robert S. Barnes Aug 22 '14 at 15:46
-
@RobertS.Barnes, read the Radbaz. Not at all Daas Yochid. The Radbaz discusses the nature of the Nidduy and other opinions about it. It is debated whether or not the Rambam means that this Niduy is at the descretion of Beis Din or just automatic. Some say the Chayav Misa (and it means from heaven, no stoning or strangulation involved) is hyperbole. Nice and all, but it doesn't justify a blanket statement of "no punishment". Given the harshness and extreme distancing in that Gemara, I'll stand by the second half of my statement - the lack of punishment may come from how incorrigible it is. – Yishai Aug 22 '14 at 15:52
-
@Yishai Regarding the Nidduy, it doesn't seem reasonably that it could be automatic - even if it's obligatory, i.e. not at the discretion of the B"D, unless the person gets up and goes to the B"D and says, "hey guys, guess what I've been doing" I don't see how this punishment will ever be carried out practically. Regarding the hyperbole I might say it's in direct proportion to the desire to commit the act, and the lack of any serious, practical punishment, I might say it's from a desire not to put a stumbling block in front of people. The desire is so strong, and the act so common... – Robert S. Barnes Aug 24 '14 at 06:03
-
... that to impose a really serious punishment could have the opposite of the desired effect. I've read many cases where people have left observance because of this issue after being imbued with the harsher kabalistic take on this. Wouldn't it be better to leave the hyperbole on the side and simply explain practically why the act is bad for their spiritual development and then council them on how to overcome it? – Robert S. Barnes Aug 24 '14 at 06:07
Your first question, "why is it not one of the 613 mitzvos", assumes that all important commandments are part of the 613. This is not the case. The Behag, for example, does not list belief in God as one of the 613, and Ramban explains because this is a foundational commandment, therefore it is not listed. Similarly, the obligation to develop one's character is a foundational commandment, and therefore is not included (per R. Chaim Vital). There are other commandments which are not listed in the 613 for different reasons.
Additionally, according to Rabbi Jacob Tam, this prohibition is included in the mitzva of procreation, thus it is part of the 613. And Smag counts it as an explicit commandment in his list, as other responders have noted.
Your second question, "why is there not an explicit verse", again is based on the premise that all important commandments are explicitly stated. Again, this is not so. There are indisputably important commandments which are not explicit, for example the annulment of vows, the sacrifice offering of a convert, the prohibition of bypassing one mitzva for another, seclusion with a forbidden woman, and many others.
- 6,891
- 27
- 37
-
1Re first paragraph: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/13872/is-belief-in-a-g-d-a-commandment – jake May 03 '12 at 17:33
I will stick to the Kra. I think it mentioned implicitly in the Torah:
Last Shabbat we read in the beginning of Parashat Kedoshim:
דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם - קדשים תהיו כי קדוש אני ד' אלקיכם
("Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them: Ye shall be holy; for I HaShem your G-d am holy").
Rashi Mefaresh this as:
הוו פרושים מן העריות ומן העבירה, שכל מקום שאתה מוצא גדר ערוה אתה מוצא קדושה
That is to one can reach Kedusha by refraining himself from the Arayot. Clearly, if a man MeKadesh himself by refraining from excessive intercourse habits he should Kadesh himself by refraining from masturbation.
That being said, we are shown how the Torah relates to masturbation in general: BeReshit 38, 9:
וידע אונן כי לא לו יהיה הזרע והיה אם בא אל אשת אחיו ושחת ארצה לבלתי נתן זרע לאחיו. וירע בעיני ד' אשר עשה וימת גם אותו
("And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of HaShem; and He slew him also.").
- 413
- 3
- 6
-
3
-
I don't say it answers, but I wanted to give a perspective and bring quotations and that is hard to do in a comment. Sorry about that... I am new to this site. – smichak May 02 '12 at 06:06
-
6Forgive my boldness, since I'm not Jewish, but isn't Onan's true sin the fact that he refused to give his seed to his brother? By not completing the act with his brother's widow, he was not allowing his late brother to have an heir (which would've cut into his own share of his inheritance) and isn't that the sin and not necessarily coitus interruptus or masturbation? – DataGirl May 02 '12 at 17:27
-
2@DataGirl - excellent question. I suspect there is a tradition saying that Onan's sin was specifically "spilling his seed," but I agree with you that the plain meaning of the text is that he refused to fulfill his Leverite obligation. – Shemmy May 02 '12 at 20:20
-
@Shemmy, thank you for your comment. Perhaps, this isn't the place for the conversation, but I wonder the same thing. I can see that masturbation could be interperted as a sin, if we are to be fruitful and multiply; however, I've never understood how Onan's act came to mean that masturbation is a sin. Onan's refusing to fulfill his Leverite obligation is where Christian ministers point to explain that masturbation is a sin. This has always confused me. – DataGirl May 02 '12 at 21:35
-
5@DataGirl: the Talmud (Yevamos 34b) points out that the Torah's phrasing indicates that Er and Onan were both guilty of the same offense. Since in Er's case there was no levirate obligation that he was evading, then that leaves "wasting his seed" as the only possible sin. – Alex May 02 '12 at 22:21
-
2Also (addressed to @Shemmy too): if Onan's sin was just that he didn't want to fulfill his levirate obligation, then the Torah needn't spell out the details - it would be enough to say that "he refused to provide an heir for his brother." That it also adds how exactly he did this - "when he was intimate... he wasted his seed" implies that this was sinful in itself. – Alex May 02 '12 at 22:22
-
3
-
1@Alex Not necessarily - Er's wasting of seed seems to indicate that his sin was one of be'ilas z'nus. Onan, by deliberately subverting his levirate obligation, was also committing an act of be'ilas z'nus which, since it was with his brother's widow and wasn't a fulfillment of his levirate obligations, would make it (at least in the spirit of) an adulterous relation. – Isaac Kotlicky May 16 '16 at 18:42
Arizal in his Sefer on Chumash Shaar Hapesukim understands the verse "ke ger yehiyeh zaraacha", as saying that the reason for exile of the children of Abraham is because of wasted zera. It also does say that God killed the children of Yehudah because they wasted on the ground. Also says that the Generation of the flood were destroyed because they wasted their seed on the ground
- 131
- 7