- Sanctuary in Time
- Promptness, Focus, Confidentiality, Trust
- We are all someone’s rebbe (teacher) and someone’s talmid (student)
- Bring your whole, authentic self
- Dan L’Chaf Zechut
- Suspension of Disbelief / Productive Discomfort
- "Eilu v’eilu”
The sources below are almost exclusively written by men, for men, and are often about women and women's sexuality. Consider how this may color your understanding of the material.
Also, please note that the vast majority of the discussion which follows is presented from a hetero-normative lens. We will need to extrapolate, thinking creatively but also halachically, in order to apply this to same-sex attraction and LGBTQ+ individuals broadly. (i.e. The role of physical intimacy in relationships is not just relevant to straight people - it's relevant to all people).
1) What constitutes intimacy?
2) What is the role of sex and sexual pleasure in our relationships (with ourselves, with our partners, and with the Divine)?
3) When does sex remain strictly physical as an end unto itself, and under what circumstances can it rise to the level of the holy?
On a similar note, the Gemara relates that Rav Kahana entered and lay beneath Rav’s bed. He heard Rav chatting and laughing with his wife, and seeing to his needs, i.e., having relations with her. Rav Kahana said to Rav: The mouth of Abba, Rav, is like one whom has never eaten a cooked dish, i.e., his behavior was lustful. Rav said to him: Kahana, you are here? Leave, as this is an undesirable mode of behavior. Rav Kahana said to him: It is Torah, and I must learn.
1) What is the purpose/function of sex?
2) How do you perceive - or what are your assumptions regarding - the overall Jewish perspective on sex, sexuality, and/or sexual pleasure?
(יח) וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֔ים לֹא־ט֛וֹב הֱי֥וֹת הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְבַדּ֑וֹ אֶֽעֱשֶׂהּ־לּ֥וֹ עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃
(כד) עַל־כֵּן֙ יַֽעֲזָב־אִ֔ישׁ אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וְאֶת־אִמּ֑וֹ וְדָבַ֣ק בְּאִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וְהָי֖וּ לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד׃
(18) The LORD God said, “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for him.”
(24) Hence a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves [v'dabek] to his wife, so that they become one flesh.
If he marries another [i.e. takes a second wife], he must not withhold from this one [i.e. the first wife] her food [she'eira], her clothing [kesuta], or her conjugal rights [onatah].
אמר רבא האי תנא סבר מזונות מדאורייתא דתניא (שמות כא, י) שארה אלו מזונות וכן הוא אומר (מיכה ג, ג) ואשר אכלו שאר עמי כסותה כמשמעו עונתה זו עונה האמורה בתורה וכן הוא אומר (בראשית לא, נ) אם תענה את בנותי
רבי אלעזר אומר שארה זו עונה וכן הוא אומר (ויקרא יח, ו) איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה כסותה כמשמעו עונתה אלו מזונות וכן הוא אומר (דברים ח, ג) ויענך וירעיבך
רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר שארה כסותה לפום שארה תן כסותה שלא יתן לה לא של ילדה לזקינה ולא של זקינה לילדה כסותה ועונתה לפום עונתה תן כסותה שלא יתן חדשים בימות החמה ולא שחקים בימות הגשמים:
תני רב יוסף שארה זו קרוב בשר שלא ינהג בה מנהג פרסיים שמשמשין מטותיהן בלבושיהן מסייע ליה לרב הונא דאמר רב הונא האומר אי אפשי אלא אני בבגדי והיא בבגדה יוציא ונותן כתובה:
§ Rava said: This tanna, in the baraita cited below, maintains that the obligation of a husband to provide his wife’s sustenance applies by Torah law, as it is taught with regard to the verse pertaining to a husband’s obligations toward his wife: “If he takes another wife for himself, her food [she’era], her clothing [kesuta], and her conjugal rights [onata], he shall not diminish” (Exodus 21:10). “She’era”; this is sustenance, and it likewise states: “Who also eat the flesh [she’er] of my people” (Micah 3:3). “Kesuta” is understood in its literal sense as referring to clothing. “Onata”; this is her conjugal rights, which is stated in the Torah, and so it says: “If you shall afflict [te’aneh] my daughters” (Genesis 31:50), which indicates that a husband may not deprive his wife of her conjugal rights.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar says: “She’era”; this is her conjugal rights, and so it says: “None of you shall approach to any who is near [she’er] of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6), which demonstrates that the word she’er is used in the context of sexual relations. “Kesuta” is understood in its literal sense as referring to clothing. “Onata”; this is sustenance, and so it says: “And He afflicted you [vayanekha], and made you suffer hunger, and fed you with manna” (Deuteronomy 8:3).
Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says that she’era and kesuta should be interpreted as follows: In accordance with her flesh [she’era], i.e., her age, give her clothing [kesuta]. This means that he should not give the garments of a young girl to an elderly woman, nor those of an elderly woman to a young girl. Similarly, kesuta and onata are linked: In accordance with the time of year [onata], give her clothing [kesuta], meaning that he should not give new, heavy clothes in the summer, nor worn-out garments in the rainy season, i.e., the winter, when she requires heavier, warmer clothes. The entire phrase, therefore, refers only to a husband’s obligation to provide clothing for his wife.
Rav Yosef taught the following baraita: “She’era,” this is referring to closeness of flesh during intercourse, which teaches that he should not treat her in the manner of Persians, who have conjugal relations in their clothes. The Gemara comments: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: With regard to one who says: I do not want to have intercourse with my wife unless I am in my clothes and she is in her clothes, he must divorce his wife and give her the payment for her marriage contract. This is in keeping with the opinion of the tanna of the baraita that the Torah mandates the intimacy of flesh during sexual relations.
Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: A descendant of Noah who engages in intercourse with his wife in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, is liable for engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as it is stated: “And shall cleave to his wife” (Genesis 2:24), an expression that indicates natural intercourse, but not intercourse in an atypical manner.
שלא כדרכה - אין כאן דבק שמתוך שאינה נהנית בדבר אינה נדבקת עמו:
"Not in an atypical way" – there is not cleaving, for since she does not derive any pleasure from the act, she does not cleave unto him.
מנחת חינוך מצוה מו
ובביאה שלא כדרכה אם יצא ידי חובתו להנצל מלאו זה עיין טור אה”ע סי’ כ”ה
ונ”ל למ”ד דסובר עונה זה דרך ארץ ויליף מאם תענה את בנותי ועתוס’… ותירצו שזה הצער שלה דמונע לא יגרע א”כ בביאה שלא כדרכו דזה עינוי ערש”י חומש פ’ וישלח ויענה שלא כדרכה… א”כ בשלא כדרכה עובר על לאו זה.אך למאן דיליף שארה זו עונה א”כ אפשר דיוצא ג”כ בשלא כדרכהולרבי אליעזר בן יעקב לפי דברי התוס’ דהוא ק”ו דנשאת לו אדעתא דהכי נראה ג”כ דאינו יוצא בשלא כדרכה כי לא נשאת אדעתה דהכי
Minchat Chinukh, Mitzvah 46
(Joseph Babad, Ukraine, comp. 1860s)
[Question:] Regarding sex in an atypical way (i.e. anal sex), whether a person fulfills his obligation to not transgress this negative prohibition [against withhold his conjugal duties to his wife].
[Response:] And it seems to me that according to the opinion [Rava, in Talmud, Ketuvot 47b] that derives the mitzvah of marital sex from the word “onah,” linking it to the verse “if you afflict (te’aneh) my daughters,” – and see Tosafot… who explain that this is her suffering, when he withholds the sex that is due to her – thus, sex in the “atypical way” is considered a form of affliction to the woman – see Rashi on the verse va’yeaneha, “And he afflicted her” (Breishit 34:2), who explains that this means that he (Shechem) had sex with her (Dina) in an “unnatural way”… therefore if one had sex in this fashion (since it is painful to the woman), one transgresses this prohibition (against withholding sex from one’s wife, i.e., one has not fulfilled the mitzvah of onah).
However, according to the opinion [Rabbi Elazar, ibid.] that derives the obligation of marital sex from the word she’eira (meaning, “her flesh,” i.e., the closeness of flesh due to her), it is possible that one fulfills his obligation through sex in the “atypical way” (since their bodies are still joining in intercourse).
And according to Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov (who does not derive the mitzvah of onah directly from the verse) – according to how Tosafot explains this position, that the obligation is a logical one, for it was for this purpose (i.e. procreative sex) that they married – it would appear that a person also does not fulfill his obligation, for she did not marry him with this (type of sex) in mind.
שו”ת רדב”ז ד:קיח
דאין זה קיום עונה דאדרבה מצטערת היא יותר ואף על גב דהעראה כביאה לכל הדברים לקיום עונה לא מקריא ביאה.
Responsa of Radvaz, 4:118
David ben Solomon ibn Zimra (Spain, 1479 - 1573)
This (he’arah, penetration of only the crown of the penis) is not a fulfillment of onah. Quite the opposite – she suffers even more (from this uncompleted act than not having had sex at all). Although he’arah is considered to be an act of intercourse in all areas of halakha, regarding fulfilling the mitzvah of onah it is not considered as such (because the wife does not derive the pleasure of sex from the act).
אגרות משה אבה”ע ג:כח
וממילא לא שייך שיהיה בזה קיום מצות עונה ובפרט שנקרא בלשון עינוי אף דאיתא בקידושין דף כ”ב אר”א בר אדא דמן אחא מאן לימא לן דלאו הנאה אית להו לתרוייהו. מ”מ ודאי הוא רק הנאה מועטת אף אם אית לה הנאה… אבל ודאי העינוי יותר מההנאה, ואין שום ספק בזה דלא כדכתב בעזר מקודש שם שמסתפק בזה.
גם מש”כ אולי יוצא י”ח גם בהעראה ונשיקה, ברור שלא יצא דהא יש לה תאוה ביותר באמצע הביאה… הרי דקשה לפניה מאד לפסוק הביאה עד שהוא בדין אונס, שא”כ הצער גדול מאד כשפורש ממנה קודם גמר ביאה, וכן מצינו שהצער להאיש גדול מאד כשנשמטה ממנו קודם גמר ביאה בסוטה דף ט’, ואיך שייך שיוצא בזה דהא עדיף היה לה שלא היה נזדקק לה כלל מהפרישה באמצע וצ”ע, ולדינא לא יצא בהעראה ולא בשלא כדרכה.
Iggrot Moshe, EH 3:28
Moshe Feinstein (1895, Belarus - 1986, NYC)
It is not possible that there would be in this act (anal sex) a fulfillment of the mitzvah of onah. Although it is stated in Kiddushin (22b), “Says R. Achai bar Ada from Acha, “who is to say that they both don’t have pleasure from the act (of anal sex)?”, nevertheless, it is certainly only a small amount of pleasure [for the woman], even if she has some pleasure in the act… But it is without a doubt that the pain is greater than the pleasure, and there is no doubt in this matter (that the husband does not fulfill the mitzvah of onah), and not like the Ezer MiKodesh writes in this regard.
Also, what he writes, that it is possible that the husband fulfills his obligation even through he’arah and just a “kissing” (of the genitals) – it is clear that one does not fulfill his obligation, for she has increased desire in the middle of intercourse… Behold it is extremely difficult for her to stop in the middle of intercourse, so much so that [one Talmudic passage] considers her to be in the category of annus (compelled and unable to interrupt). It is thus clear that the pain is very great when he separates from her before he completes the act of intercourse (fully enters into her). We also find that the pain is very great for the man when he separates from her in the middle of intercourse – Sotah 9 – and how would it be possible that he would fulfill his obligation through this. For behold, it would have been better for her that he would not have had sex with her at all, rather than to separate in the middle, and this [the position of Ezer MiKodesh] requires investigation. As a matter of law, he does not fulfill his obligation through he’arah or through sex in an “unnatural manner”.
1) How do you understand the commandment of Onah (sexual pleasure)? How does this interface with She'era ("closeness of the flesh" / intimacy)?
2) To have "She'era", is it necessary for there to be an act of penetrative intercourse (i.e. for the two bodies to come together as "one flesh")? Does the manner of penetrative intercourse (i.e. vaginal or anal) matter? Or is the obligation defined fully by what gives the wife pleasure ("Onah")? What is the role of "atypical" (i.e. anal) and "secondary" sex acts (i.e. oral, manual, etc.)?
Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Ami says: The sex of a fetus is determined at the moment of conception. If the woman emits seed [i.e. orgasms] first, she gives birth to a male, and if the man emits seed first, she gives birth to a female, as it is stated: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male” (Leviticus 12:2).
The Sages taught: At first, people would say that if the woman emits seed first she gives birth to a male, and if the man emits seed first, she gives birth to a female...
...Rather, because they delay while in their wives’ abdomen, initially refraining from emitting semen so that their wives will emit seed first [i.e. they prioritize their wives achieving orgasm first], in order that their children will be male, the verse ascribes them credit as though they have many sons and sons’ sons. And this statement is the same as that which Rav Ketina said: I could have made all of my children males, by refraining from emitting seed until my wife emitted seed first. Rava says another method through which one can cause his children to be males: One who wishes to make all of his children males should engage in intercourse with his wife and repeat the act.
The Gemara cites another halakha derived from the verse mentioned in the previous discussion. Rami bar Ḥama said that Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a man to force his wife in the conjugal mitzva, i.e., sexual relations, as it is stated: “And he who hastens with his feet sins” (Proverbs 19:2). The term "his feet" is understood here as a euphemism for intercourse. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anyone who forces his wife to perform the conjugal mitzva will have unworthy children as a consequence. Rav Ika bar Ḥinnana said: What is the verse that alludes to this? “Also, that the soul without knowledge is not good” (Proverbs 19:2). If intercourse takes place without the woman’s knowledge, i.e., consent, the soul of the offspring will not be good. That was also taught in a baraita: “Also, without knowledge the soul is not good”; this is one who forces his wife to perform the conjugal mitzva.
“And he who hastens with his feet sins”; this is one who has intercourse with his wife and repeats the act in a manner that causes her pain or distress. The Gemara is surprised by this teaching: Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: One who wants all his children to be males should have intercourse with his wife and repeat the act? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: Here, where Rava issued this advice, he was referring to a husband who acts with his wife’s consent. There, the baraita that condemns this behavior is referring to one who proceeds without her consent.
1) How do you understand this focus on and prioritization of female pleasure? How does it make you feel?
2) How does this source speak to the power dynamic in a relationship, both in sexual terms but also more broadly?
(ה) כִּֽי־יִקַּ֥ח אִישׁ֙ אִשָּׁ֣ה חֲדָשָׁ֔ה לֹ֤א יֵצֵא֙ בַּצָּבָ֔א וְלֹא־יַעֲבֹ֥ר עָלָ֖יו לְכָל־דָּבָ֑ר נָקִ֞י יִהְיֶ֤ה לְבֵיתוֹ֙ שָׁנָ֣ה אֶחָ֔ת וְשִׂמַּ֖ח אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֥וֹ אֲשֶׁר־לָקָֽח׃ (ס)
(5) When a man has taken a bride, he shall not go out with the army or be assigned to it for any purpose; he shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household, to give happiness [v'simach] to the woman he has married.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is different about one who unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law, in that he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering? Is it that he performed a mitzva, i.e., the mitzva of levirate marriage? If so, then also in the case where he unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he performed a mitzva, for he occupied himself in the fulfillment of the mitzva of procreation. The Gemara answers that we are dealing here with a case where his wife is pregnant, such that intercourse cannot lead to procreation. The Gemara raises another question: Nevertheless, there is the mitzva of the enjoyment of conjugal rights [simchat onah]. One of a husband’s marital obligations is to engage in sexual intercourse with his wife at regular intervals (see Exodus 21:10), and this is considered a mitzva. The Gemara answers that we are talking about a case where it is not the time of her conjugal rights. The Gemara asks further: Even so, didn’t Rava say that a man is obligated to please [l'sameach] his wife through a mitzva? That is to say, he must engage in sexual intercourse with her when she so desires, even if it is not the time of her conjugal rights. The Gemara answers that we are dealing with a case where it was near her expected date of menstruation, when sexual relations are prohibited due to a concern that the woman may already be menstruating or that she may begin to menstruate during the sexual act.
אלו הן חפצי אשתו ר״א אומר יפתה אותה בשעת תשמיש רבי יהודה אומר ישמחנה בשעת תשמיש בדבר מצוה שנאמר (קהלת ח׳:ה׳) שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע.
These are the desires of his wife: R. Eliezer says he should speak seductively to her at the time of sex. R. Yehudah says he should make her happy [yisamchena] at the time of sex, [when he is engaged in fulfilling] the matter of the mitzvah, as it states, “One who observes the mitzvah will know no evil.”
1) What is so critical about ensuring there is simcha (joy) in intimacy?
2) Is this an independent variable or mitzvah, or is simcha simply a necessary component part of the larger mitzvah of "Onah"?
A Letter from the Steipler (Rav Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky, 1899, Ukraine -1985, Israel, written in 1973)
(Translated Rabbi Dov Linzer)
Marital obligation of sex…
2. The Obligation – all forms of contact (intimacy or “intimate contact”), touch, and kissing are included. The Hazon Ish allows a man to have sexual thoughts for his wife (when she is not a niddah) for the sake of becoming physically intimate with her, and a man must do all that his wife desires (in the name of the Hazon Ish). Thus, he should lie with his wife together naked with touching and kissing for approximately a quarter of an hour before intercourse – this is under normal circumstances. But if he is already sexually excited and concerned that he will ejaculate prematurely, God forbid, then he should speed up (the foreplay). And after intercourse, he should lie with his wife for a half-hour, because this will give her greater pleasure than the act itself…
[A] Onah is a Biblical mitzvah, no less than eating matzah, and one who does not fulfill it when his wife is pregnant (unless she has waived her right, a true remission with a full heart), then he is a complete sinner, for this sin is of those sins that are interpersonal, and thus even Yom Kippur and death do not atone for it. And he is like a thief and a bandit, because he steals from his wife what he is obligated to her. And this is (tantamount) to murdering his wife, for it is known that the primary longing of a woman in her world is that she has a husband who loves her, and when she sees that this is not so, then it is close to an endangerment of life, from the great pain and anguish that she has on account of her being bereaved like living widows….
[B] Regarding the act of sex itself of the mitzvah of Onah [a discussion can be found] in the Siddur of R. Yaakov Emden in the laws of Friday night, see there. And it is what is required according to law, because according to the Torah it is forbidden to have sex in a manner that the woman is not first appeased, and he is obligated to appease her through touching and kissing until she agrees to have sex, because without this it is like placing her before a lion, who tramples (his prey) and eats it, as is explained in Pesachim 49 (and it is a criminal sin to deprive from one’s wife what is her due, and even if he acts as he does with the intent of being righteous and ascetic, because he cannot be righteous at the expense of stealing from one’s wife, to steal from her and to make her like a captive slave woman). And when one has sex with his wife without her willingness, the (resultant) children are in the category of “those who sin and rebel [against Me]”, just as the children of one who was raped. Now, one who grabs his wife and had sex immediately without prior physical intimacy and then separates immediately, behold this husband thinks that he has “grabbed angels” for this (his ascetic behavior), but in actual truth he has not sacrificed any of his desire, and his lust has been totally satisfied, having received its full pleasure, but his wife has not derived any pleasure from this act - quite the contrary! She is in pain and embarrassed and in private she cries, and her tears do not return unanswered, for the (heavenly) Gate of Tears are never locked. And the Sages have said, at the end of [Talmudic tractate] HaZahav, that a man must be scrupulous regarding his wife’s honor, because her tears are near (to come), see there. And it is without a doubt that such behavior awakens the evil judgment against him, and he will not merit divine assistance not in spiritual matters and not in material matters, and what it appears to him that he has achieved great heights – that is false and empty imaginings, because the sins and the iniquities damage him and make him impure, and they do not go upwards. And what is stated in Shulkhan Arukh, 240:8 [to have sex in a state of trembling, to have body parts largely covered, to do it quickly ] – all of this can only be considered after the woman is appeased and desirous of this, because lacking that, it is forbidden to have sex with her without her agreement, as is stated in Shulkhan Arukh there...
[C] One who engages in physical intimacy and touching and the like for the sake of heaven, because he is compassionate and does not want her to be in pain and miserable, this does not bring him in any way to a weakening of his fear of heaven or to a descent into pleasures (hedonism). To the contrary! It brings him to holiness, and he fulfills a Biblical mitzvah of “You shall walk in His paths” – just as He is compassionate, you too must be compassionate. And in addition to this, in truth the touching and the kissing or other matters of physical intimacy is a portion and a branch of the mitzvah of onah, as is made clear in the Poskim [i.e. Halachic decisors], and in 184 in Yoreh Deah, regarding one who is leaving on a trip, see there.
[D] It is true that there are many Torah scholars who are God fearing who adopt certain ascetic practices in these matters, but all of this is only with the wife’s full agreement and with a remission with a full heart. And in most cases, this is after it has become clear to her that her husband loves her, and that it is only for the sake of heaven that he is conquering his desires, or when the woman is extreme in her righteousness and her true longing is that her husband sanctify himself with holiness, or when she married a known tzaddik whose name serves for her as a “covering of the eyes”, but God forbid for one to act in an ascetic manner when it pains his wife, who is dependent on him and who has not given a remission with a full heart on what is her due...
[E] Hazal [i.e. The Sages of the Talmud] have said in Yevamot 62b, “Our Sages taught: One who loves his wife as himself and honors him more than himself, regarding him the verse states: ‘And you shall know that your tent is in peace…’”. And it is clear that Hazal’s intent regarding love for one’s wife was not in reference to loving one’s wife with the love that is natural for women (emotional love), but rather it refers to the love of the type that friends have for one another, because she (your wife) is your companion, and the wife of his covenant, and they share matters in which they are jointly partners, and each one helps and is helped by the other. Additionally, they refer to the love that comes from gratitude, for the man should picture in his mind what it would be like if he were to never have found a wife, and he would be left lonesome, how much pain and suffering he would have, and because of his wife his life is in order. And the matter of gratitude is very great – there is no limit to its importance – and Hazal in Pirkei DiRebbe Eliezer, chapter 7, said that whoever denies gratitude owed his friend, in the end denies the goodness that God has done for him, see there where they are very stringent regarding this. In regards to such love the Sages have obligated the husband, and this love is not a form of lust at all, but rather one of the good attributes that we are obligated to follow. And with this in mind, when one attempts to make his wife happy at the time of sex, before it and after it, this is not unseemly, God forbid!, but rather a mitzvah, even were he not obligated in this, and certainly given that he is obligated to her in this regard according to law, as I have written above.
From the Steipler Rav, author of Khilot Yaakov
Tishrei 5734 (1973)
1) What are your top two or three take-aways from the Steipler Rav's letter?
2) What surprised you? Pleased you? Angered you? Confused you?
3) How do you understand the binding legal nature (i.e. "mitzvah"/obligation language) of some of this "sex advice"? How does it color the discourse?
Rabbi Yochanan Ben Dehavai said: The ministering angels told me four things:
1) Why are there lame people? Because they "overturn their tables"
2) Why are there mute people? Because they kiss "that place"
3) Why are there people who are both mute and deaf? Because they converse at the time of sex.
4) Why are there blind people? Because they gaze at "that place".
רבי יוחנן זו דברי יוחנן בן דהבאי אבל אמרו חכמים אין הלכה כיוחנן בן דהבאי אלא כל מה שאדם רוצה לעשות באשתו עושה משל לבשר הבא מבית הטבח רצה לאוכלו במלח אוכלו צלי אוכלו מבושל אוכלו שלוק אוכלו. וכן דג הבא מבית הצייד.
[Is it really true that conversing is forbidden during sex?]
Rabbi Yochanan said: That is the statement of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai [i.e. that talking during sex is forbidden]. However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yochanan ben Dehavai. Rather, whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may do. He may engage in sexual intercourse with her in any manner that he wishes, and need not concern himself with these restrictions.
As an allegory, it is like meat that comes from the butcher. If he wants to eat it with salt, he may eat it that way. If he wants to eat it roasted, he may eat it roasted. If he wants to eat it cooked, he may eat it cooked. If he wants to eat it boiled, he may eat it boiled. And likewise with regard to fish that come from the fisherman.
1) Why might Yochanan ben Dehavai [Nedarim 20a] have taken issue with the "inappropriate" activities he lists?
2) How do you understand Rabbi Yochanan's [Nedarim 20b] phrase "Whatever a man wishes to do with his wife, he may do." What are the implications of his statement?
3) Your thoughts on the meat analogy? Also, why throw fish in there?
The Gemara relates: A certain woman, who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to complain about her husband, said to him: My teacher, I set him a table and he turned it over [i.e. I prepared to make love with him in the "usual" manner, but he wanted to engage in anal intercourse].
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: My daughter, the Torah permitted him to engage in sexual intercourse with you even in an atypical manner, and what can I do for you if he does so?
Similarly, a certain woman who came before Rav said to him: My teacher, I set a table for him and he turned it over. He said to her: In what way is this case different from a fish [binnita] that one may eat any way he wishes?
1) What do you make of the woman whose "table was turned over"? How about Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's answer?
2) Do you perceive this as empowering or de-powering? Expansive or limiting? Where does it land in the ongoing "she'eira" / "onah" conversation?
3) Is Rav's answer similar or different to our previous source with Rabbi Yochanan and the eating meat analogy?
ט. אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מֻתֶּרֶת הִיא לוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ עוֹשֶׂה. בּוֹעֵל בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וּמְנַשֵּׁק בְּכָל אֵיבָר וְאֵיבָר שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. [וּבָא עָלֶיהָ כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ ] וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע לְבַטָּלָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שֶׁלֹּא יָקֵל אָדָם אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ לְכָךְ וְשֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת דֵּעוֹת. וְלֹא יָסוּר מִדֶּרֶךְ הָעוֹלָם וּמִנְהָגוֹ שֶׁאֵין דָּבָר זֶה אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לִפְרוֹת וְלִרְבּוֹת:
יב. וְכֵן אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁמֵּשׁ אָדָם מִטָּתוֹ וְלִבּוֹ מְחַשֵּׁב בְּאִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת. וְלֹא יִבְעל מִתּוֹךְ שִׁכְרוּת וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ מְרִיבָה וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שִׂנְאָה וְלֹא יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ עַל כָּרְחָהּ וְהִיא יְרֵאָה מִמֶּנּוּ. וְלֹא כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מְנֻדֶּה. וְלֹא יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ אַחַר שֶׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ. וְאִם עָשָׂה כֵּן הַבָּנִים אֵינָן הֲגוּנִים אֶלָּא מֵהֶן עַזֵּי פָּנִים וּמֵהֶן מוֹרְדִים וּפוֹשְׁעִים:
Rambam / Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimom) 1138 (Spain) - 1204 (Egypt)
9. A man's wife is permitted to him. Therefore a man may do whatever he desires with his wife. He may engage in relations whenever he desires, kiss any organ he desires, engage in vaginal or anal intercourse or engage in physical intimacy without relations, provided he does not release seed in vain. Nevertheless, it is pious conduct for a person not to act frivolously concerning such matters and to sanctify himself at the time of relations, as explained in Hilchot Deot. He should not depart from the ordinary pattern of the world. For this act was [given to us] solely for the sake of procreation.
12. Similarly, our Sages forbade a man to have marital relations with his wife while his heart is focused on another woman. He should not initiate sex while drunk, nor while quarreling, nor out of hatred. He should not have sex with her against her will [i.e. marital rape] or when she is afraid of him. Nor may they have sex while either of them are excommunicated, nor after he has decided to divorce her [but has not yet actually done so]. If he does any of those things, the children will not be of proper character. They will be those who are brazen, rebellious, and sinful.
(ב) ולא יקל ראשו עם אשתו ולא ינבל פיו בדברי הבאי אפי' בינו לבינה הרי הכתוב אומר מגיד לאדם מה שיחו אמרו חז"ל אפי' שיחה קלה שבין אדם לאשתו עתיד ליתן עליה את הדין ואל יספר עמה בשעת תשמיש ולא קודם לכן כדי שלא יתן דעתו באשה אחרת ואם ספר עמה ושמש מיד עליו נאמר מגיד לאדם מה שיחו אבל בענייני תשמיש יכול לספר עמה כדי להרבות תאותו או אם היה לו כעס עמה וצריך לרצותה שתתפייס יכול לספר עמה כדי לרצותה: הגה ויכול לעשות עם אשתו מה שירצה בועל בכל עת שירצה ומנשק בכל אבר שירצה ובא עליה בין כדרכה בין שלא כדרכה או דרך איברים ובלבד שלא יוציא זרע לבטלה (טור) ויש מקילין ואומרים שמותר שלא כדרכה אפי' אם הוציא זרע אם עושה באקראי ואינו רגיל בכך (גם זה טור בשם ר"י) ואע"פ שמותר בכל אלה כל המקדש עצמו במותר לו קדוש יאמרו לו (דברי הרב) ולא ירבה בתשמיש להיות מצוי אצלה תמיד שדבר זה פגום הוא מאד ומעשה בורות הוא אלא כל הממעט בתשמיש ה"ז משובח ובלבד שלא יבטל עונה אלא מדעת אשתו ואף כשישמש בשעת העונה לא יכוין להנאתו אלא כאדם הפורע חובו שהוא חייב בעונתה ולקיים מצות בוראו בפריה ורביה ושיהיו לו בנים עוסקים בתורה ומקיימי מצות בישראל ולא יבעול אלא מרצונה ואם אינה מרוצה יפייסנה עד שתתרצה ויהיה צנוע מאד בשעת תשמיש ולא ישמש בפני שום מין אדם אפילו קטן אא"כ הוא תינוק שאינו יודע לדבר:
Rabbi Yosef Karo
1488 (Toledo, Spain) - 1575 (Tsfat, Israel)
(2) And he should not speak with her during sex, and not beforehand, so that he will not think about another woman, and if he talks with her and has sex immediately afterwards, it is said about them, “He (God) declares to man what is his thought” (Amos 4:13). But they may speak about sexual matters, in order to increase his desire, or if there was anger between them, and he wants to convince her to reconcile, he may speak with her in order to increase her desire.
Gloss of the Rema [Rabbi Moses Isserles - 1530 - 1572, Poland]:
He may do with his wife whatever he wishes. He may have intercourse whenever he wishes, he may kiss any part of her body that he desires, he may have vaginal [typical] or anal [atypical] intercourse, or "by way of limbs" [i.e. oral or manual stimulation], so long as he does not "waste seed" (Tur). Some authorities are lenient and say that the non-typical ways are permitted even if he does spill seed, if it is occasional and he does not become accustomed to it (Tur). Even though all of this is permissible, anyone who wishes to sanctify himself [by abstaining] from the permitted is called holy (Divrei haRav).
[skip if needed]
He should not have frequent intercourse so that he is always with her, for this is extremely detrimental and it is the way of boors; it is meritorious to minimize intercourse, only keeping to the minimum required by marital obligations. Even when fulfilling marital obligations he should not focus on his pleasure, it should instead be as on paying back an obligation, for he is obligated in marital duties, and to fulfill the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying, and to have children who study Torah and perform mitzvot for the people of Israel. He may not have intercourse without her consent, and if she is not interested he should appease her until she is interested. He should be very private during intercourse, having no people of any kind around, even a child, unless it is a baby who cannot speak.
1) The Mishneh Torah (Rambam) and Shulchan Aruch (Yosef Karo and Rema) are compendiums of Jewish law. How are they understanding the discussions we've seen through the Talmudic sources above, and what are they prioritizing, permitting, and prohibiting?
2) What do you find most compelling, surprising, or interesting about their positions regarding the overall purpose of sex? Think about pleasure, "cleaving" to one's partner, utilitarianism, elevating the act, "wasting one's seed in vain", etc.
§ Rabbi Akiva taught: If, through a faithful marriage [i.e. their sexual relations are properly conducted] a man [ish] and woman [isha] merit, the Divine Presence rests between them.
The words ish and isha are almost identical; the difference between them is the middle letter yod in ish, and the final letter heh in isha. These two letters can be joined to form the name of God spelled yod, heh.
But if due to improper sexual relations they do not merit, the Divine Presence departs, leaving in each word only the letters alef and shin, which spell esh, fire. Therefore, fire consumes them.
(12th - 15th cent.)
“You shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy (Lev. 11:44). This teaches that one should sanctify oneself during intercourse. What is the relevance of sanctification here? Rabbi Judah ben Jacob said: It means that one should not act licentiously or obscenely, or with whorish intentions like animals, for this is how animals act.
Attributed to Moses ben Nachman, or Nachmanides (13th century)
Neither sexual organs nor sexual intercourse are obscene, for how could God create something that contains an obscenity? God created man and woman, and all their organs and functions, with nothing obscene in them. We believe that God created nothing containing either ugliness or obscenity...
...Know that the act of union is a holy and pure matter when carried out in the proper manner, at the proper time, and with the proper intentions. A person should not think there is anything degrading and unbecoming to the act of union, God forbid.
Rabbi Jacob Emden, 1697 - 1776 (Germany)
Sexual intercourse is an action that is important, good and valuable to the soul also, and there is no act of flesh and blood that compares with it – if it is done with pure intention and a pure, clean mind, then it is called holy.
(ל) ויביאה יצחק ותהי לו לאשה ויאהבה (בראשית כד, סז). ויש לדקדק מאי בא להשמיענו שיצחק אהב את רבקה. ונראה, כי יש שני אהבות מאיש לאשה, יש אדם שאוהב אשתו תאות גופניות שלו שעל ידי זה ממלא תאותו ונמצא זה אינו אוהב אשתו כלל רק אוהב את עצמו. ויש אדם שאוהב אשתו ואינו מחמת תאות גוף שימלא תאותו, רק מחמת שהיא כלי לקיים על ידה מצות הבורא יתברך שמו כמו שאדם אוהב שאר מצות וזה נקרא אוהב את אשתו. וזהו ויאהבה יצחק, שלא חשב כלל מחמת תאות הגוף שלו, רק כדי לקיים מצות הבורא יתברך שמו ויתעלה זכרו:
Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev, 1740 - 1810 (Poland/Ukraine)
(30) Genesis 24,67. “Yitzchok brought Rivkah into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he wed her and she became his wife and he loved her.” We need to examine what the Torah meant by Yitzchok loving Rivkah that is so extraordinary that it has to be spelled out here.
A husband can love his wife on two different levels. He may love her, i.e. be physically attracted to her as she enables him to satisfy his biological urges. If this is his “love,” it is not love at all, but is merely love of his self. There are husbands who do not love their wives because they are instruments of fulfilling their physical desires, but because their wives enable them to perform their Creator’s will better and more profoundly. This is the true meaning of “someone loving his wife.” The Torah testifies that Yitzchok’s love for Rivkah was of the latter category.
[There is] for the Jew an ideal of sexuality. While we know well that most human sexuality hardly approaches this exalted pictures, it does provide us with a point of view. It indicates strongly that we Jews should stand opposed to the current moves toward the "the demystificication" of sexuality, which seeks to define coupling as purely biological function. We are made most fully human by the fact that this act, shared by us with the animal kingdom, can be raised in our consciousness to the rung of the raza de-yihuda - the sublime mystery of union. Sexuality at its fullest is brimming with religious kavanah [intention]: this is a teaching we would be fools to ignore. If we cannot fulfill the ideal, we can begin to approach it.
1) How do each of these sources work to uphold the holiness of sexual union? Taken as a whole, what do they say about the Jewish sexual ethic vis. kedusha?
2) Would you characterize this as a "healthy" sexual ethic? Why or why not? Is it an ideal to which we aspire, or a requirement that must be met?
3) How do these sources comport with our conversation about pleasure and closeness? How do they square with your preconceptions going into this topic?
Instructions: Select one of the categories below (Frequency, Talking During Sex, Under What Circumstances is Sex Appropriate, Yetzer Hara) and examine the sources associated with that category in chevruta.
What additional color do these add to our larger picture of sex in Jewish thought and law?
Be prepared to share out with the whole group a brief summary and your take.
העונה האמורה בתורה הטיילין בכל יום הפועלים שתים בשבת החמרים אחת בשבת הגמלים אחת לשלשים יום הספנים אחת לששה חדשים דברי רבי אליעזר:
The times for conjugal duty prescribed in the Torah are: for men of independent means, every day; for laborers, twice a week; for donkey drivers, once a week; for camel drivers, once in thirty days; for sailors, once in six months.
(יד) תַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה מֵעֹנֶג שַׁבָּת הוּא. לְפִיכָךְ עוֹנַת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַבְּרִיאִים מְשַׁמְּשִׁין מִלֵּילֵי שַׁבָּת לְלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת.
Sexual relations are considered a dimension of Sabbath pleasure. Therefore Torah scholars fulfill their marital obligations once a week, on the Shabbat.
(1) Introduction:This mishnah teaches that a husband has an obligation to have sexual relations with his wife. How frequently he is obligated depends on his job. The idea that a husband has an obligation to periodically have relations with his wife is derived from Exodus 21:10 which states that if a man takes a second wife he cannot diminish from her three things: food, clothing or conjugal rights. With regard to our issue, if a man has two or more wives he must provide each one with their conjugal rights. You can imagine that this might have been one deterrent to the practice of polygyny [i.e the practice of men marrying more than one woman].
(2) A man forbade himself by vow from having intercourse with his wife: Beth Shammai says: two weeks; Beth Hillel says: one week. A man cannot make a vow to forbid upon his wife anything which he is mandated to give her by law. The man in this mishnah, perhaps in a fit of anger, forbade his wife from have sexual relations with him. This is not permitted and if he does not have his vow annulled (a process we will discuss in tractate Nedarim), he must divorce her and pay her the ketubah. However, he is not obligated to divorce her that very day; rather he is given a period to cool off and hopefully have his vow annulled. According to Beth Shammai he is given two weeks and according to Beth Hillel he is given only one week. After that length of time, he must divorce her and pay her the ketubah.
(3) Students may go away to study Torah, without the permission [of their wives for a period of] thirty days; workers for one week. Since a husband must have relations with his wife, he cannot be away from her for a long period of time. According to this section, a Torah scholar cannot leave his wife without her permission for longer than thirty days. A worker can be out of town for only one week. If either wish to remain away from their wives for a longer period of time, they must receive permission.
(4) The times for conjugal duty prescribed in the torah are: For independent men, every day; For workers, twice a week; For donkey-drivers, once a week; For camel-drivers, once in thirty days; For sailors, once in six months. These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. This section delineates how often in general a husband must be available to have relations with his wife. The frequency depends on his occupation. An independent man, meaning one who doesn’t work, must have relations with his wife every day. Note that this does not mean that he actually has to do so, but rather that if she so desires, he is obligated. He cannot claim that he is too busy to have sex with her. Workers must be available twice a week. The Talmud explains that this refers to workers who work in the city; those who work outside the city are obligated only once a week, as we learned in the previous clause. Donkey-drivers, who travel short distances must be available once a week. Camel-drivers who travel longer distances must be available once a month and finally, sailors who travel for long periods of time, need to return home once every six months. This all refers to situations where the wife has not given her husband permission. If she has given him permission, he may stay away longer. She might give him permission if, for instance, for the sake of supporting the family, the husband had to be away for a long period of time. However, it is her right to demand that he find work closer to home.
אמר רב אפילו שיחה יתירה שבין איש לאשתו מגידים לו לאדם בשעת מיתה איני והא רב כהנא הוה גני תותי פורייה דרב ושמעיה דסח וצחק ועשה צרכיו אמר דמי פומיה דרב כמאן דלא טעים ליה תבשילא אמר ליה כהנא פוק לאו אורח ארעא לא קשיא כאן דצריך לרצויה הא דלא צריך לרצויה
Rav said: Even frivolous speech that is between a man and his wife before engaging in relations is declared to a person at the time of death, and he will have to account for it. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Is it prohibited for a man to speak in this manner with his wife? Wasn’t Rav Kahana lying beneath Rav’s bed, and he heard Rav chatting and laughing with his wife, and performing his needs, i.e., having relations with her. Rav Kahana said out loud: The mouth of Rav is like one who has never eaten a cooked dish, i.e., his behavior is lustful. Rav said to him: Kahana, leave, as this is not proper conduct. This shows that Rav himself engaged in frivolous talk before relations. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where this type of speech is permitted, it is referring to a situation where he must appease his wife before relations, and therefore this speech is appropriate. However, this statement, that it is prohibited, is referring to a situation where he doesn’t need to appease her. In these circumstances, it is prohibited to engage in excessively lighthearted chatter with one’s wife.
And the Gemara raises a contradiction: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, was asked: For what reason are your children so beautiful? She said to them: My husband does not converse with me while engaging in sexual intercourse, neither at the beginning of the night nor at the end of the night, but rather at midnight. And when he converses with me while engaging in sexual intercourse, he reveals a handbreadth of my body and covers a handbreadth, and he covers himself up as though he were being coerced by a demon and is covering himself out of fear. And I said to my husband: What is the reason for this behavior? And he said to me: It is so that I will not set my eyes on another woman, i.e., think about another woman; if a man thinks about another woman during sexual intercourse with his wife, his children consequently come close to receiving a mamzer status, i.e., the nature of their souls is tantamount to that of a mamzer. Therefore I engage in sexual intercourse with you at an hour when there are no people in the street, and in this manner. In any event, it can be seen from her words that a Sage conversed with his wife while engaging in sexual intercourse with her. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This permission to converse with her is with regard to matters of sexual intercourse, whereas that restriction of conversation is with regard to other matters that are not related to sexual intercourse.
§ The verse states: “And that you not go about after your own heart” (Numbers 15:39). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that it is derived from here that a man should not drink from this cup while setting his eyes on another cup, i.e., one should not engage in sexual intercourse with one woman while thinking about another woman. Ravina said: This statement is not necessary with regard to an unrelated woman. Rather, it is necessary only to state that even with regard to his own two wives, he should not engage in sexual intercourse with one while thinking about the other. The verse states: “And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and those that transgress against Me” (Ezekiel 20:38).
Rabbi Levi said: These are children of those who have nine traits, who are defective from their conception and from whom rebels and transgressors emerge. The mnemonic for these nine traits is children of the acronym aleph, samekh, nun, tav, mem, shin, gimmel, ayin, ḥet. The children of nine traits are as follows:
Children of fear [eima], i.e., where the wife was afraid of her husband and engaged in sexual intercourse with him out of fear;
Children of a woman who was raped [anusa];
Children of a hated woman [senua], i.e., a woman who was hated by her husband;
Children of ostracism [niddui], i.e., one of the parents was ostracized by the court;
Children of substitution [temura], i.e., while engaging in intercourse with the woman, the man thought that she was another woman;
Children of strife [meriva], i.e., the parents engaged in intercourse while they were quarreling;
Children of drunkenness [shikhrut], i.e., the parents engaged in intercourse while they were drunk;
Children of a woman who was divorced in the heart [gerushat halev], i.e., the husband had already decided to divorce her when they engaged in intercourse;
Children of mixture [irbuveya], i.e., the man did not know with which woman he was engaging in intercourse;
Children of a shameless woman [ḥatzufa] who demands of her husband that he engage in intercourse with her.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani say that Rabbi Yonatan said: Any man whose wife demands of him that he engage in sexual intercourse with her will have children the likes of whom did not exist even in the generation of Moses our teacher?
[...Several Torah verses are now cited as evidence that a woman who demands from her husband that he engage in sexual intercourse with her has a positive effect on their children.]
The Gemara answers: That baraita is not referring to a woman who demands intercourse explicitly, but rather to one who entices her husband, so that he understands that she wants to engage in sexual intercourse with him. They consequently have excellent children.
Attributed to Moses ben Nachman, or Nachmanides
When you and your wife are engaged in sexual union do not behave lightheartedly and regard this act as vain, idle, improper. Therefore, first introduce her into the mood with gentle words that excite her emotion, appease her mind and delight her with joy. Thus you unite your mind and intention with hers. Say to her words which in part arouse in her passion, closeness, love, will, and erotic desire, and in part evoke in her reverence for God, piety and modesty...Never impose yourself upon her nor force her. For any sexual union without an abundance of passion, love and will, is without the Divine Presence. Do not quarrel with her nor act violently whenever coitus is involved. The Talmud says, "A lion ravishes and then eats and has no shame. So acts the brute: He hits and then cohabits and has no shame." Rather, court and attract her to you first with gracious and seductive, as well as refined and gentle words, so that both your intentions be for the sake of God...Do not hurry in arousing passion. Prolong till she is ready and in a passionate mood. Approach her lovingly and passionately, so that she reaches her orgasm first.
(נחמיה ט, ד) ויצעקו אל ה' אלהים בקול גדול מאי אמור אמר רב ואיתימא ר' יוחנן בייא בייא היינו האי דאחרביה למקדשא וקליה להיכליה וקטלינהו לכולהו צדיקי ואגלינהו לישראל מארעהון ועדיין מרקד בינן כלום יהבתיה לן אלא לקבולי ביה אגרא לא איהו בעינן ולא אגריה בעינן...
...אמר להו חזו דאי קטליתו ליה לההוא כליא עלמא חבשוהו תלתא יומי ובעו ביעתא בת יומא בכל ארץ ישראל ולא אשתכח אמרי היכי נעביד נקטליה כליא עלמא ניבעי רחמי אפלגא פלגא ברקיעא לא יהבי כחלינהו לעיניה ושבקוהו ואהני דלא מיגרי ביה לאיניש בקריבתה
The Gemara recounts the event described in the verses: The verse states: And they cried with a loud voice to the Lord their God (Nehemiah 9:4). What was said? Rav said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said: Woe, woe. It is this, i.e., the evil inclination for idol worship, that destroyed the Temple, and burned its Sanctuary, and murdered all the righteous ones, and caused the Jewish people to be exiled from their land. And it still dances among us, i.e., it still affects us. Didn’t You give it to us for solely for the purpose of our receiving reward for overcoming it. We do not want it, and we do not want its reward. We are prepared to forgo the potential rewards for overcoming the evil inclination as long as it departs from us...
...When they saw that the evil inclination for idol worship was delivered into their hands as they requested, the Sages said: Since it is an auspicious time, let us pray also concerning the evil inclination for sin in the area of sexual relationships. They prayed, and it was also delivered into their hands.
Zechariah the prophet said to them: See and understand that if you kill this evil inclination the world will be destroyed because as a result there will also no longer be any desire to procreate. They followed his warning, and instead of killing the evil inclination they imprisoned it for three days. At that time, people searched for a fresh egg throughout all of Eretz Yisrael and could not find one. Since the inclination to reproduce was quashed, the chickens stopped laying eggs. They said: What should we do? If we kill it, the world will be destroyed. If we pray for half, i.e., that only half its power be annulled, nothing will be achieved because Heaven does not grant half gifts, only whole gifts. What did they do? They gouged out its eyes, effectively limiting its power, and set it free. And this was effective to the extent that a person is no longer aroused to commit incest with his close relatives.
רַבִּי נַחְמָן בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן אָמַר, הִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד, זֶה יֵצֶר טוֹב. וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד, זֶה יֵצֶר רָע. וְכִי יֵצֶר הָרָע טוֹב מְאֹד, אֶתְמְהָא. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִלּוּלֵי יֵצֶר הָרָע לֹא בָּנָה אָדָם בַּיִת, וְלֹא נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא הוֹלִיד, וְלֹא נָשָׂא וְנָתַן. וְכֵן שְׁלֹמֹה אוֹמֵר (קהלת ד, ד): כִּי הִיא קִנְאַת אִישׁ מֵרֵעֵהוּ.
Rabbi Nahman said in Rabbi Samuel's name: Behold, it was good' refers to the yetzer tov [i.e. "good inclination"]; 'And behold, it was very good' refers to the yetzer ra [the "evil inclination". [It only says 'very good' after man was created with both the good and bad inclinations, in all other cases it only says 'and God saw that it was good']
Can then the yetzer ha'ra be very good? That would be extraordinary! But without the yetzer ha'ra, however, no man would build a house, take a wife and beget children; and thus said Solomon: 'Again, I considered all labour and all excelling in work, that it is a man's rivalry with his neighbour.' (Ecclesiastes 4:4).