What's the difference between wasting seed and having marital relations without the possibility of conception?

Question

It is widely known that wasting seed is one of the big sins a person can commit.

However, it seems that having relations when conception is not possible--such as during menopause or during pregnancy--is perfectly fine and is even sometimes recommended.

What exactly is the difference and why is the latter permitted?

Is it such a big sin? It's not generally considered one the Torah commandments, and there is no punishment associated with it, not even rebelling against a rabbinic decree. — alice fine, Aug 21 '14 at 19:33
@alicefine, see the bottom of https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/sex.html#6 — Ani Yodea, Aug 21 '14 at 19:38
Somewhat related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/30048/5 — Seth J, Aug 21 '14 at 19:52
@AniYodeya Your link doesn't address any of Alice's points (or represent the full spectrum of Halachik opinions (that's not a complaint against it for after all it's not meant to be a thorough Halachik resource)). — Double AA, Aug 21 '14 at 20:04
Which mitzva is the most important to keep at a given moment for a given person, that only Hashem knows - that's common sense. Rabbis build 'fence around the Torah', as commanded. Probably having intercourse in a prohibited relationship (goy - jew, adultery, etc.) is even worse, and often 'impure thoughts' lead to it, so rabbis are strict to prohibit making the first step. Just an opinion. — MichaelS, Aug 21 '14 at 21:48

score 6 · Accepted Answer · edited Jun 25 '18 at 08:52

Wasted means for no Halachicly recognized purpose, not necessarily done for some reason other than the purpose of conception. Regular relations with ones wife is an obligation, and thus serves a purpose, as does having children.

There is also some discussion of the specific method having to be כדרך הארץ - the natural way of marital relations. This impacts some discussions around birth control as well, so it isn't enough that it just be for the purpose, the method by which that purpose is accomplished is also relevant.

Sources. (שו”ע אבה”ע סי’ כג סעי’ א’: “אסור להוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה ועון זה חמור מכל עבירות שבתורה”. רמ”א שם סעי’ ה’: “אבל מותר לשמש עם קטנה ואיילונית, הואיל ומשמש כדרך הארץ (תוספות ומרדכי פ”ק דיבמות ונ”י פרק הבא על יבמתו)”.‏

ראה שו”ת אגרות משה אבה”ע ח”א סי’ סג ענף ג’: “אבל לפ”ז ניחא דכיון דפירוש לבטלה הוא לבטלה ממש שאין בה שום צורך ומטעם זה מותר לצורך מצות עונה ושמחת אשתו”. ראה עוד שם)‏

It seems like the base assumption is that a man can have relations with his wife in any manner he chooses - including the "irregular way" - http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/5121.htm#10 — Robert S. Barnes, Aug 22 '14 at 12:32

score 2 · Answer 2 · answered Aug 21 '14 at 21:16

2

Reb Moshe Feinstein in his tshuvos about i.v.f. separates the issue of niuf byad and hotzaas zera. And whereas hotzaas zera is allowed for a productive purpose such as having a child, niyuf biyad is never allowed. So cohabiting in a normal fashion, but collecting the sperm in order to impregnate his wife with it is allowed. Masturbating into a cup for the same purpose is not allowed.

answered Aug 21 '14 at 21:16

user6591

33,638
2
39
81

This is (kind of) a source for the distinction mentioned in the question, but not an explanation for that distinction. The latter is what the question sought. – msh210 Aug 22 '14 at 00:32
@msh210 Thats a bizarre comment. He asked for a distinction between two acts, I explained the twofold issue involved and why one act is problematic as apposed to the other. – user6591 Aug 22 '14 at 04:21
@user6591, please provide translations of your Hebrew terms in parentheses. – Ani Yodea Aug 22 '14 at 13:42
@user6591 "why one act is problematic as apposed [sic] to the other" Where did you explain that? – Double AA Oct 15 '14 at 06:41
@Double AA separates the issue of niuf byad and hotzaas zera. And whereas hotzaas zera is allowed for a productive purpose such as having a child, niyuf biyad is never allowed. – user6591 Oct 15 '14 at 11:16
@user6591 Right. And why is "hotzaas zera...allowed for a productive purpose such as having a child, [but] niyuf biyad is never allowed"? You still didn't explain why. You just repeated what the OP said: there are two categories, one of which is permitted for certain reasons. No explanation though has been given for the distinction. – Double AA Oct 19 '14 at 20:20
@Double AA The OP did not separate the two cases of seminal emission but rather grouped them together and wanted to know the halachic difference. I explained that there are two separate lavim that we are dealing with. That being so they each have different laws. Just like stealing and killing have separate laws as pertains to say saving your own life, and so too with so many lavim having different dinim, so too with these two separate lavim. Perhaps the confusion is stemming from me refering to niuf as an act and not a lav which is what I meant to convey, but I think the answer is valid. – user6591 Oct 19 '14 at 22:24
2

@user6591 He asked why masturbation and sex with an infertile woman are different Halachically. You said: "they have these formal names and they do indeed have the difference you describe". That doesn't explain anything. Telling me that stealing and killing are different doesn't explain why they are different. – Double AA Oct 19 '14 at 22:26
@Double AA Imagine this someone says I know it is assur to cut off someones head and I know it is assur to take his wallet without his knowledge. So why is it that when a person is about to die of starvation he is allowed to take the other person's wallet, but not chop his head off and eat it? What would you tell him? – user6591 Oct 19 '14 at 22:55
@Double AA answer is because they are two different lavim and don't mix up an apple with an orange. – user6591 Oct 19 '14 at 22:58
@user6591 That murder is an exception to the general rules of pikuach nefesh BECAUSE the gemara in X gives the logic of Y to EXPLAIN why it is different. I would not just say "they are different" with no explanation, certainly not when he sought an explanation. – Double AA Oct 20 '14 at 00:07
@Double AA had he identified the two acts as being separate than I would agree with you. As it is, I think the 'why' is addressed by separating the acts. – user6591 Oct 20 '14 at 00:17

Al Berko · Answer 3 · 2018-06-25T10:24:29.280

I'd just add a Drush explanation in the דרך העבודה approach:

Explanation 1:

Wasting means there is no reception כלי. A woman is a כלי as the Gemmorah says עשאה כלי. In any way of copulation (vag' and non-vag') the woman is considered a כלי and therefore allowed (see Gemmorah in "חתיכה שהביא מהשוק").

When there's no כלי - the זרע goes to חיצונים and therefore prohibited.

Explanation 2:

יחוד has two purposes - 1: procreation (פרו ורבו) and 2: יחוד by itself (the FUN). There are different כוונות of יחוד for Shabbos and weekdays.

That's the Gemmorah in Kesubos 59b: "אין אשה אלא לבנים" - procreation, "אין אשה אלא ליופי" - יחוד itself.

THe Poskim focused only on procreation, saying that even while pregnant the fetus benefits etc. But the truth is those relations are not only permitted but obligatory as procreational while focusing on the יחוד of the couple itself.

What's the difference between wasting seed and having marital relations without the possibility of conception?

3 Answers3

Linked