4

This article seems to claim that for single men masturbation isn't forbidden. It is a little bit over my head, especially since most of the modern day literature (albeit based largely on the Zohar and Kabbalah) seems to hold the "destruction of seed" as a horrible crime against G-d (lengthening the exile etc.).

Is there any basis for this claim (i.e has it been dealt with in other sources)?

(note: at the bottom of the article in the comments section, I've noticed there are several upset posters that accuse the author of the article of causing the masses to sin, so it sounds like there is some sort of issue with the author's logic)

(note: this is not asking about the history of masturbation being forbidden, but who falls under the prohibition)

Community
  • 1
Fei23
  • 1,757
  • 8
  • 14
  • 2
    There is some basis and it's outlined in that article. Are you looking for a summary? You probably figured out that the idea is it's not a waste since it wouldn't have been used any other way. You probably also figured out that most (if not virtually all) don't hold of that logic. What else do you want? – Double AA Aug 09 '17 at 12:39
  • @DoubleAA I'm mostly looking for some sort of treatment of the subject (i.e your last question). It seems like it isn't the simple reading of the laws (as "most don't hold of that logic"), and was wondering if this interpretation has been dealt with at all. – Fei23 Aug 09 '17 at 13:07
  • 1
    What does "dealt with" mean? It is dealt with in the article you linked to. – Double AA Aug 09 '17 at 13:09
  • 2
    @DoubleAA I think he means do others deal with the topic as expressed in that article such as explaining why they do not agree (or even if some do agree). – sabbahillel Aug 09 '17 at 13:33
  • @DoubleAA "@sabahillel" is correct, additionally any sort of summary/personal treatment of the article would also be welcomed (i.e my concluding question) – Fei23 Aug 09 '17 at 13:40
  • 1
    @Fei23 As doubleAA noted, you need to clarify more clearly how the article isnt enough. Doesnt the article indicate it isnt unanimous? Are you only looking for sources from a particular period? – mevaqesh Oct 30 '17 at 02:19
  • @mevaqesh it just seems to be quite a rare opinion, mostly looking for a specific disproof or support – Fei23 Oct 30 '17 at 02:35
  • 2
    Many of his proofs hinge the assumption that if a non-procreative act is permissible with one's wife, then it is permissible without one's wife. This is a huge leap, that he does not spend any time defending. In reality, given that we are most probably dealing with a rabbininc injunction, the definition will be whatever Hazal thought it was. Maybe they felt that sometimes engaging in non-procreative sexual acts with one's wife is part of a healthy sexual relationship, whereas they thought that masturbation in general is forbidden. AFAICT he does not consider this simple possibility. – mevaqesh Nov 02 '17 at 13:51
  • Many of his proofs hinge on sources that connect the masturbation prohibition with a lack of appropriate reproduction. This too is specious. There is a difference between the concept of a mitsva (be it biblical or rabbinic) and its parameter. Also known as mitsvot vs. taamei hamitsvot. The general concept masturbation may be a lack of reproduction, but that doesnt mean that construing a case in which the act is in a different context would be any different. – mevaqesh Nov 02 '17 at 13:54
  • 1
    Given the above the vast majority of his sources disappear. Additionally, he claims that very few connect the prohibition to lead oneself to nocturnal emissions to the prohibition to masturbate. While few writers (that he quotes; I assume one could find more) state it explicitly, that is a silly standard. After all, most of the sources he marshals in his favour arent explicit! Considering that Hazal universally banned activities that could lead to emissions, and numerous sources quote these and none of them indicate that they only apply to the married, it is abindantly clear that Hazal [cont.] – mevaqesh Nov 02 '17 at 13:58
  • 1
    universally disapproved of the practice of deliberately wasting seed. Whether they made it a formal rabbinic prohibition, understood it to be a biblical prohibition, or just plain very bad but not technically forbidden, is not wholly significant to the practical question of whether one may do something. The above simple points eliminate the majority of his sources, and suggest that a very large body of literature disagrees with him. Furthermore, the silence of Rishonim and gedolei Aharinim is discussing permissibility of different activities outside a marital relationship, speaks volumes – mevaqesh Nov 02 '17 at 14:02

3 Answers3

3

First to explain its structure, it first says that his initial answer to the unmarried person who found himself unable to control his urges was that he was "forced" and that the situation is one where he may die if he doesn't do it (!) and thus not liable. I'm leaving that aside because the principle is true, the application is off but that is less black and white. Either way one is not "forced" if he just says I'm allowed to do it, so there is little point in dwelling on that. And there is no tradition that failure to have marital relations is potentially deadly, nor do doctors agree. As far as I can tell he just makes that up claiming it is comparable to other cases.

He attributes the position that it isn't an issue for an unmarried person to waste seed to the העזר מקדוש which is a commentary to shulchan aruch by the same author as the אשל אברהם (as this author himself writes). He derives this from the idea that the העזר מקודש holds the prohibition is rabbinic and the permission for interactions with one's wife that may lead to wasted seed. Given how off this Teshuva is I'm not spending the time to verify that this claim is correct (this is a known opinion that is usually attributed to the Drisha and not regarded as the Halacha - you can see Bnei Banim among other places that mention it - I'm just not going to see if the העזר מקודש contradicts it elsewhere and thus can't be said to agree with it), but his derivation is certainly not correct.

The אשל אברהם (the same person) to S.A. O.C. 3:14 s.q. 1 says on what the S.A. says that an unmarried person may not touch the Glans when urinating because of the concern of wasting seed, there he specifically speaks to the fact that an unmarried person is stricter than a married one and is strict in the prohibition of rubbing or holding for a married person, in the notion of "even a married person" where a married person might have reasons to be lenient. He doesn't come along and argue that there is no problem here because there is no prohibition or anything like that. This is the quote of the אשל אברהם:

נשוי ובסעיף י״ז[ט"ז] ז״ל לא הותר לנשוי לאחוז באמה אלא להשתין אבל להתחכך לא מעתה אין הכרע אי מותר לנשוי להתחכך למטה מעטרה או לוקא להשתין מותר ועיין ב״י מ״ש בשם סמ״ג שהביא ספיקא של מהרי״ל ז״ל בזה לענין אחיזה באמה ע״ש ובת׳ שב יעקב סי׳ ל׳ האריך למעניתו ופסק לאף לנשוי לא שרי להתחכך ט אם מעטרה ולמטה ע״י כתונת לוקא ולפניו אפי׳ בכה״ג אסור:

The rest of this is of similar quality, including the tenuous claim that marital relationship with a woman past child bearing years is the equivalent of wasting seed (see here). He doesn't even consider a different possibility and rejects it. He asserts these derivations as "obvious".

If someone wanted to spend more time on this I'm sure it could be more thoroughly refuted, but I think this gets the point across.

Yishai
  • 31,937
  • 1
  • 62
  • 130
  • 1
    He addresses (or at least tries to address) the issue of OC 3 later on the page. If you haven't read the Ezer Mikodesh inside then I'm not sure you're qualified to answer this. In any event if the prohibition is lowered to a Derabanan (which is especially cogent if the events are beAkrai) that can have significant applications in terms of what sorts of Onesim would override it, even if the author, perhaps for rhetorical effect, argues solely in the most extreme direction – Double AA Aug 10 '17 at 23:46
  • 1
    In any event, a full accounting here of the merits of that article is clearly forbidden by both the letter and spirit of Chagigah 2:1 as well as being a violation of Mi Yodeya's modesty policy. ישמע חכם ויוסף לקח ודי למבין – Double AA Aug 11 '17 at 00:29
  • 2
    @doubleaa, I don't see that he mentions the אשל אברהם's comments, and anyway what he says is the issue is not what the sif explicitly says the issue is. I agree about the full treatment, I just felt that it was worse if this question was left unanswered, considering the Yetzer HaRa for motivated reasoning on this subject. – Yishai Aug 11 '17 at 01:56
1

An extensive rebuttal of the permissibility of single men to masturbate is presented by Rav Yehoshua Shapira here.

He basically goes through the Ezer Mekudash's commentary on Even HaEzer 23,25 and 76 precisely describing why (in his estimations) that even according to the Ezer Mekdash (whom the author of the linked article primarily depends on) holds that there is still an issur d'Rabbanan for masturbation/wasting seed.

Fei23
  • 1,757
  • 8
  • 14
-1

I don't understand how it is possible for it to be forbidden derabanan. Since it's not yecholin lekayymo. (See Bava Basra end of 60b starting from Tanya Amar R' Yishmoel.) It also seems similarly rediculous to say that it's assur deoraysa. (See Rashi beginning of Parshas Ki Seitzie.) Face reality. And if it is forbidden, then yichud with yourself should be forbidden. Especially if it is deorayso. Although that would be not yecholin lekayymo.

I wonder if it's possible that the whole prohibition is only on doing it publicly, similarly to Tznius.

I also wonder if it's possible that many of the sefarim are exaggerating. And maybe it is not even an actual prohibition. [For example] the Mishnah in the beginning of the second perek of Nidah is very hard to imagine that it means literally that people's hands should be chopped off.

Kehas Makovsky
  • 191
  • 5
  • 1
    Why isn't it yecholin lekaymo? – Double AA Dec 20 '23 at 11:44
  • @DoubleAA It just seems to be the fact. I don't understand your question. And if not getting married is not yecholin, certainly this. – Kehas Makovsky Dec 20 '23 at 12:06
  • 1
    Why isn't getting married yecholin? – Double AA Dec 20 '23 at 12:15
  • @DoubleAA I said NOT getting married is NOT yecholin. See the Gemara in Bava Basra. – Kehas Makovsky Dec 20 '23 at 12:18
  • 1
    Well then this is yecholin too. Just get married. You can't decide to get married at 30 and claim that that's too long to wait for this. Get married at 14. If anything that's the exact purpose of this rabbinic prohibition. – Double AA Dec 20 '23 at 12:40
  • @DoubleAA Bar mitzvah is 13 lol. Face reality. This sounds rediculous. And it is definitely not the accepted halachah, that guys need to get married at 13. And many people have a hard time finding a shidduch. – Kehas Makovsky Dec 20 '23 at 12:48
  • 1
    It may sound ridiculous now but was it ridiculous back when? You can argue we should annul a rule that is hard to keep anymore, but you can't wonder why it was established – Double AA Dec 20 '23 at 12:56
  • 1
    The gemara says everyone fails at lashon hara. Should we also wonder why rabbinic forms of that exist? – Double AA Dec 20 '23 at 12:59
  • @DoubleAA It seems rediculous to say that it was ever not rediculous. Especially when they were even tempted by their relatives. But in case you are right, I already annulled this for whatever my annulment is worth lol. – Kehas Makovsky Dec 20 '23 at 13:09
  • @DoubleAA Yes, that is a good question from Lashon hara. But maybe there is a difference between not caring enough or not realizing, and not being able to control. And questions are not answers. – Kehas Makovsky Dec 20 '23 at 13:23
  • @RabbiKaii please explain your question. Especially what you mean by 'it'. – Kehas Makovsky Jan 04 '24 at 11:33
  • @KehasMakovsky you are claiming that if masturbation were forbidden, then yichud would also include being totally alone. What's your proof of that? – Rabbi Kaii Jan 04 '24 at 11:35
  • Because if masturbating is forbidden, then just like two people are not allowed to seclude since they have nobody to be embarrassed from, you have the the same problem [times a million] when you are alone. You need to delete your first comment in order to respectably ask this question. But I understand – Kehas Makovsky Jan 04 '24 at 11:58
  • @KehasMakovsky I deleted it, I'm sorry for coming across as disrespectful. May I advise deleting "face reality" – Rabbi Kaii Jan 04 '24 at 17:29
  • @RabbiKaii there is a difference between respectful and respectable. – Kehas Makovsky Jan 04 '24 at 22:24
  • @KehasMakovsky duly noted – Rabbi Kaii Jan 04 '24 at 23:28