אמר 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
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is the statement of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan 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.
ההיא דאתאי לקמיה דרבי אמרה לו רבי ערכתי לו שולחן והפכו אמר לה בתי תורה התירתך ואני מה אעשה ליך ההיא דאתאי לקמיה דרב אמרה לו רבי ערכתי לו שולחן והפכו אמר מאי שנא מן ביניתא
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, using a euphemism to say that she lay before him during intimacy, and he turned it over. 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?
בני אימה בני אנוסה בני שנואה בני נידוי בני תמורה בני מריבה בני שכרות בני גרושת הלב בני ערבוביא בני חצופה
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.
איני והאמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן כל אדם שאשתו תובעתו הויין לו בנים שאפילו בדורו של משה רבינו לא היו כמותם שנאמר הבו לכם אנשים חכמים ונבונים וכתיב ואקח את ראשי שבטיכם ולא כתיב נבונים
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? As it is stated: “Get you wise men, and understanding, and well known from each one of your tribes, and I will make them head over you” (Deuteronomy 1:13); and it is written subsequently: “So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and well known” (Deuteronomy 1:15). And it does not say that they were understanding. Evidently, even Moses could not find understanding men in his generation.
רב כהנא על גנא תותיה פורייה דרב שמעיה דשח ושחק ועשה צרכיו אמר ליה דמי פומיה דאבא כדלא שריף תבשילא א"ל כהנא הכא את פוק דלאו אורח ארעא אמר לו תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך
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.
-Iggeret ha-Kodesh, 13 C.
תני רב יוסףשארה זו קרוב בשר שלא ינהג בה מנהג פרסיים שמשמשין מטותיהן בלבושיהןמסייע ליה לרב הונא דאמר רב הונאהאומר אי אפשי אלא אני בבגדי והיא בבגדה יוציא ונותן כתובה:
Rav Yosef taughtThere must be close bodily contact during sex, unlike the custom of the Persians who preform their marital duties in clothes.This supports the ruling of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna said:A husband who says, "I will not perform [my marital duties] unless I wear my clothes and she wears hers, must [divorce her] and giver her the ketubah [settlement].
רב כהנא על גנא תותיה פורייה דרבשמעיה דשח ושחק ועשה צרכיו אמר ליהדמי פומיה דאבא כדלא שריף תבשילאא"לכהנא הכא אתפוק דלאו אורח ארעאאמר לותורה היא וללמוד אני צריך
Rab Kahana went and hid himself under Rab's bed and heard him converse [with his wife] and laugh and have intercourse. Rab Kahana said to him, "Abba's mouth is like that of one who has never sipped a dish." Rab exclaimed,"Kahana, art thou here? Go out ; for it is not proper!" He replied, "It is a matter of Torah and I wished to learn."
- Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Chapter 33
אמר רבי יוחנןאבר קטן יש לו לאדם מרעיבו שבע משביעו רעב שנאמר (הושע יג, ו)
R. Yohanan said:There is a small organ in man. When he starves it, it is satisfied, when he satisfies it, it is starving, as it is said, “When they were starved they became full…” (Hosea 13:6).
(ה) אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵשׁ בְּאִשָּׁה כְּלָל בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בֵּין מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. בְּאֵי זֶה שִׁמּוּשׁ אָמְרוּ רְחִיצַת פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וְהַצָּעַת מִטָּה לְפָנָיו וּמְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס. שֶׁאֵין עוֹשָׂה לְאִישׁ דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא אִשְׁתּוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְאֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹם אִשָּׁה כְּלָל וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ:
(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:
(5) It is forbidden for a man to have any woman- whether a minor or an adult, whether a servant or a freed woman- perform personal tasks for him, lest he come to lewd thoughts. Which tasks are referred to? Washing his face, his hands, or his feet, spreading his bed in his presence, and pouring him a cup. For these tasks are performed for a man only by his wife. [A man] should not send greetings to a woman at all, not even via a messenger.
(9) “Since a man’s wife is permitted to him, he may act with her in any manner whatsoever. He may have intercourse with her whenever he so desires and kiss any organ of her body he wishes, and he may have intercourse with her naturally or unnaturally, provided that he does not expend semen to no purpose. Nevertheless, it is an attribute of piety that a man should not act in this matter with levity and that he should sanctify himself at the time of intercourse.”
(12) Similarly, the sages forbade a man to have marital relations while thinking of another woman. Nor may he initiate sex while drunk, nor out of spite or hatred, nor may he rape her or initiate sex while she is afraid. Nor may they have sex while either of them are excommunicated nor after he has decided to divorce her. If [the husband] does any of those things, the children will not be proper [citizens] but brazen, rebellious [people] and criminals.
(ה) אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵשׁ בְּאִשָּׁה כְּלָל בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בֵּין מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. בְּאֵי זֶה שִׁמּוּשׁ אָמְרוּ רְחִיצַת פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וְהַצָּעַת מִטָּה לְפָנָיו וּמְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס. שֶׁאֵין עוֹשָׂה לְאִישׁ דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא אִשְׁתּוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְאֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹם אִשָּׁה כְּלָל וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ:
(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:
(5) It is forbidden for a man to have any woman- whether a minor or an adult, whether a servant or a freed woman- perform personal tasks for him, lest he come to lewd thoughts. Which tasks are referred to? Washing his face, his hands, or his feet, spreading his bed in his presence, and pouring him a cup. For these tasks are performed for a man only by his wife. [A man] should not send greetings to a woman at all, not even via a messenger.
(9) “Since a man’s wife is permitted to him, he may act with her in any manner whatsoever. He may have intercourse with her whenever he so desires and kiss any organ of her body he wishes, and he may have intercourse with her naturally or unnaturally, provided that he does not expend semen to no purpose. Nevertheless, it is an attribute of piety that a man should not act in this matter with levity and that he should sanctify himself at the time of intercourse.”
(12) Similarly, the sages forbade a man to have marital relations while thinking of another woman. Nor may he initiate sex while drunk, nor out of spite or hatred, nor may he rape her or initiate sex while she is afraid. Nor may they have sex while either of them are excommunicated nor after he has decided to divorce her. If [the husband] does any of those things, the children will not be proper [citizens] but brazen, rebellious [people] and criminals.
(ה) אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵשׁ בְּאִשָּׁה כְּלָל בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בֵּין מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. בְּאֵי זֶה שִׁמּוּשׁ אָמְרוּ רְחִיצַת פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וְהַצָּעַת מִטָּה לְפָנָיו וּמְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס. שֶׁאֵין עוֹשָׂה לְאִישׁ דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא אִשְׁתּוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְאֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹם אִשָּׁה כְּלָל וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ:
(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:
(5) It is forbidden for a man to have any woman- whether a minor or an adult, whether a servant or a freed woman- perform personal tasks for him, lest he come to lewd thoughts. Which tasks are referred to? Washing his face, his hands, or his feet, spreading his bed in his presence, and pouring him a cup. For these tasks are performed for a man only by his wife. [A man] should not send greetings to a woman at all, not even via a messenger.
(9) “Since a man’s wife is permitted to him, he may act with her in any manner whatsoever. He may have intercourse with her whenever he so desires and kiss any organ of her body he wishes, and he may have intercourse with her naturally or unnaturally, provided that he does not expend semen to no purpose. Nevertheless, it is an attribute of piety that a man should not act in this matter with levity and that he should sanctify himself at the time of intercourse.”
(12) Similarly, the sages forbade a man to have marital relations while thinking of another woman. Nor may he initiate sex while drunk, nor out of spite or hatred, nor may he rape her or initiate sex while she is afraid. Nor may they have sex while either of them are excommunicated nor after he has decided to divorce her. If [the husband] does any of those things, the children will not be proper [citizens] but brazen, rebellious [people] and criminals.
תני רב יוסףשארה זו קרוב בשר שלא ינהג בה מנהג פרסיים שמשמשין מטותיהן בלבושיהןמסייע ליה לרב הונא דאמר רב הונאהאומר אי אפשי אלא אני בבגדי והיא בבגדה יוציא ונותן כתובה:
Rav Yosef taughtThere must be close bodily contact during sex, unlike the custom of the Persians who preform their marital duties in clothes.This supports the ruling of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna said:A husband who says, "I will not perform [my marital duties] unless I wear my clothes and she wears hers, must [divorce her] and giver her the ketubah [settlement].
(ז) רבי נחמן בר שמואל בר נחמן בשם רב שמואל בר נחמן אמר: הנה טוב מאד, זה יצר טוב. והנה טוב מאד, זה יצר רע. וכי יצר הרע טוב מאד אתמהא?! אלא שאלולי יצר הרע, לא בנה אדם בית, ולא נשא אשה, ולא הוליד, ולא נשא ונתן.
...Rabbi Nachman the son of Shmuel the son of Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel son of Nachman said, "Behold it is good" -- this is the Good Inclination. "Andbehold it is good" -- this is the Evil Inclination. How could the Evil Inclination be called good? If it were not for the Evil Inclination a person would not build a house, not marry, not have children, not create business...
רב כהנא על גנא תותיה פורייה דרבשמעיה דשח ושחק ועשה צרכיו אמר ליהדמי פומיה דאבא כדלא שריף תבשילאא"לכהנא הכא אתפוק דלאו אורח ארעאאמר לותורה היא וללמוד אני צריך
...Rav Kahana hid himself under Rav's bed and heard him talk and laugh and do his [sexual] needs. He said,The mouth of Rav is like that of one who has not tasted a cooked dish [and is overcome by desire for it]. He said to him,Kahane, get out! He replied, It is Torah, and I must learn!
What is our attitude towards sex that doesn't lead to children?
גַם יִתְרוֹ הָיָה גֵּר, וְהַגֵּרִים בָּאִים מִקְּדֻשַּׁת הַזִּוּוּג שֶׁל הַצַּדִּיקִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (בראשית יב): וְאֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן, וְאִיתָא (בזוהר שלח לך דף קסח): שֶׁאַבְרָהָם וְשָׂרָה בְּעֵת שֶׁהָיוּ עֲקָרִים הוֹלִידוּ מִזִּוּוּגָם נַפְשׁוֹת הַגֵּרִים . וְעַל־כֵּן יִתְרוֹ שֶׁהָיָה גֵּר, שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִקְּדֻשַּׁת הַזִּוּוּג שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים, עַל־כֵּן הוּא יוֹדֵעַ גֹּדֶל יְקָר קְדֻשַּׁת הַצַּדִּיקִים, שֶׁלְּגֹדֶל קְדֻשָּׁתָם נַעֲשֶׂה מִזִּוּוּגָם נַפְשׁוֹת הַגֵּרִים, מִכָּל־שֶׁכֵּן קְדֻשַּׁת פְּרִישׁוּתָם, וְעַל־כֵּן הוּא יוֹדֵעַ, שֶׁלְּגֹדֶל קְדֻשַּׁת וּפְרִישׁוּת מֹשֶׁה הוּא יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹת בָּעָם, וְעַל־יְדֵי רְאִיָּתוֹ לְבַד יִתֵּן לָהֶם הַגְּדֻלָּה כַּנַּ"ל.
Moreover, Yitro was a convert. Converts come from the sanctified marital relations of the tzaddikim, as it is written (Genesis 12:5), “and the souls which they made in Charan.” And it is brought (Zohar III, 168a) : During the time that Avraham and Sarah were barren, their marital relations bore the souls of converts. Therefore, Yitro, who was a convert and so came from the sanctity of the marital relations of tzaddikim, knew the great value of their holiness—that by virtue of their great holiness their marital relations produce the souls of converts, [and] all the more so the holiness of their abstinence. He therefore knew that by virtue of Moshe’s great holiness and abstinence he was able to gaze at the people and, through his gazing alone, give them the greatness, as mentioned above.
למה למימר לדג הבא מבית הציד. מקמאי אמרו ליה לבשר הבא מבית הטבח אמר להו מה לבשר רצה בחלב אין אוכלו. הדר אמרו ליה לדג הבא מבית הציד:
Why does it have to teach “like a fish that comes from the fishmonger”? Initially they gave him the metaphor of meat from a butcher’s, he responded to them, “But when it comes to meat, a person may not eat it with milk!” They then said to him, “It is like fish that come from a fishmonger.”
הראב"ד בעלי הנפש, שארי קדושה, חלק א
והפיכת השולחן עצמו שהתירו, אומר אני דוקא בשאינה כפויה עליה והיא מתרצית עמו לדעתה על ידי ריצוי…
ויש מי שאומר שמי שהופך שולחנו כיון שהיא רוצה בתשמיש אע”פ שהיא מוכרחת בהפיכת השולחן מותר, משא”כ בבועל ושונה שלא מדעתה שכל הבעילה על כרחה היא ואסור מפני שהוא בעילת זנות. והראיה על זה כי האשה שבאה לפני רבי ואותה שבאה לפני רב, פשוטו של דבר דומה שלא היו הן רוצות ואעפ”כ התירו להן. ואני אומר שאין ראיה מזה, שאפשר שנתרצו להן על ידי ריצוי אלא שבאו לדרוש אם היה איסור בדבר אם לאו.
וכלשון הראשון נ”ל דאסור לעשות בה שום דבר שלא מדעתה עד שיפייסנה ותתרצה
Ra’avad, Ba’alei Hanefesh, Gate of Holiness – selection 1
And the “overturning of the table” that they allowed, I say that this is only when he is not compelling her and she does this willingly, having been persuaded by him to agree to do so.
There is an opinion that it is permissible for one to “overturn the table” when she agrees to have sex, even if she is compelled in the matter of “overturning the table,” which would not be the case where one has intercourse with her once and again, and the second time is against her will, for in that latter case the entire act of intercourse is against her will and it is forbidden because it is a sex act of fornication. The proof adduced for this opinion is the [case of the] woman who came before Rebbe and the one who came before Rav. According to the simple reading of those stories it appears that they did not want [to do those acts] and nevertheless he permitted it to them. But I say that this is not a proof, because it is possible that they agreed [to assent to their husband’s wishes] by words of persuasion, and they were coming to the rabbi [not because this was forced on them, but to] ask if it was a forbidden matter or not.
And the first opinion [that it is forbidden if the wife does not consent to the specific act] appears to me to be correct, that is forbidden to engage in any sexual act with her against her will, and one must always first persuade her and gain her approval.
אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מֻתֶּרֶת הִיא לוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ עוֹשֶׂה. בּוֹעֵל בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וּמְנַשֵּׁק בְּכָל אֵיבָר וְאֵיבָר שֶׁיִּרְצֶה... 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:
A man’s wife is permitted to him, therefore whatever a man wants to do with his wife he may do, he can have sex whenever he wants, and kiss any part of her body that he wants…
Nevertheless, it is an act of piety that a person should not act in a frivolous manner and that he should sanctify himself at the time of sex, as we have explained in the laws of Character Traits (chapter 5), and he should not stray from the way of the world and its customs, for this matter (sex) is only in order to procreate.
אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מֻתֶּרֶת הִיא לוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ עוֹשֶׂה. בּוֹעֵל בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וּמְנַשֵּׁק בְּכָל אֵיבָר וְאֵיבָר שֶׁיִּרְצֶה... 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:
A man’s wife is permitted to him, therefore whatever a man wants to do with his wife he may do, he can have sex whenever he wants, and kiss any part of her body that he wants…
Nevertheless, it is an act of piety that a person should not act in a frivolous manner and that he should sanctify himself at the time of sex, as we have explained in the laws of Character Traits (chapter 5), and he should not stray from the way of the world and its customs, for this matter (sex) is only in order to procreate.
ולא ידבר בשעת תשמיש ולא יסתכל באותו מקום ולא ינשק באותו מקום: ולא ישמש שלא כדרכה. וכל זה למדת חסידות פן יבואו הבנים לידי מום: אבל לא לשורת הדין:
And he should not speak to her at the time of sex, and he should not look “in that place” and he should not kiss “that place” and he should not have sex with her in the non-normal manner. All of this is in regards to pious character traits, lest the children become blemished, but it is not a matter of strict law.
הראב"ד בעלי הנפש, שארי קדושה, חלק ב
ומה שאמר (שם) רבי יוחנן אין הלכה כר’ יוחנן בן דהבאי אלא כל מה שאדם רוצה לעשות באשתו עושה… נ”ל שאינו אלא על הפיכת השולחן בלבד כדאיתא בשמעתא… אבל על האחרות אע”פ שאינו נדון עליהם דין חמור מ”מ איסור יש בהן…
Raavad, Ba’alei Hanefesh, Gate of Holiness – selection 2
Now, regarding what Rabbe Yochanan said: “The halakhah is not like Rav Yochanan ben Dahavai, but rather whatever a man wants to do to his wife, he may do”…. it seems to me that this only refers to the “overturning of the table” alone, as is reported in the stories there,,, but regarding the other acts, even though one is not given the strict punishment for engaging in them [that the children turn out deaf, mute, and blind] nevertheless, there is still a prohibition regarding them…
We can certainly identify with Ra’avad’s underlying concerns here – one partner should not objectify the other one or use him or her just to satisfy their own desires. It would seem, however, that these concerns would only be relevant to a case where the wife was not desirous of the husband doing this act, and perhaps Ra’avad understood that to be the default case. If, in contrast, the wife wants her husband to be doing this, and especially when this act involves not just looking, but also kissing, such that it contributes to the wife’s sexual pleasure, there would not seem to be any place for these concerns.
Ra’avad also states that a looking at his wife’s vagina is immodest and acting in a shameless way, but he does not explicate why this is so, and it is hard to understand this contention given that we are talking about sex between husband and wife, which includes looking at one another naked, and deriving pleasure from doing so. What is clear is that Ra’avad felt that the act was improper and problematic, although it is questionable whether this assessment should be binding for those who do not share his assumptions.
When it comes to a husband kissing his wife’s vagina (oral sex), Ra’avad adds yet another problem. The Talmud states that the prohibition of bal tishaktzu (do not make yourself abominable), forbids a person to eat disgusting things or to even place disgusting things in one’s mouth. Taking for granted that a woman’s vagina is a “disgusting thing” for a man, Ra’avad states that for a man to give oral sex to his wife would be a violation of this prohibition of bal tishaktzu.
[As we will discuss later, poskim dispute this assertion of Ra’avad, either by fully rejecting his assumption, or by demonstrating that the prohibition of bal tishaktzu is defined not objectively but by the person’s subjective experience: what he does or does not find disgusting {sources 20 and 21}. If a man wants to do this and does not find it disgusting, then it is clear that there would be no problem of bal tishaktzu.]
הראב"ד בעלי הנפש, שארי קדושה, חלק ג
כיון שעשה כן סמוך לתשמיש בזה את עצמו ונהג בה מנהג הפקר. וכ”ש אם מסתכלים שם שלא בשעת תשמיש שהוא מנהג הפקר והוא משסה היצר בעצמו כאשר פרשנו בשער הפרישה…
וכן המסתכל באותו מקום עובר על והצנע לכת עם אלהיך (מיכה ו, ח), ומעביר את הבושה מעל פניו, וכתיב (שמות כ, כ) בעבור תהיה יראתו על פניכם זו הבושה, לבלתי תחטאו שכל המתבייש אינו חוטא.
וכ”ש הנושק שיש בו כל אלה. ועוד שעוברין משום בל תשקצו את נפשותיכם כאשר אמרו רבותנו ז”ל (מכות טז ב) האי מאן דשתי מיא בקרנא דאומנא עבר משום בל תשקצו. ורב כהנא דהוה מעבר שושיבה על פומיה ואמר ליה רב שקליה דלא לימרו מיכל קא אכיל וקא עבר משום בל תשקצו (שבת צ ב), וכ”ש הך.
Raavad, Ba’alei Hanefesh, Gate of Holiness – selection 3
But since he acts this way (looking at her vagina) before sex, he has degraded himself and has acted towards her as if she were “free for the taking .” And certainly [this is a problem] if he looks there not at the time of sex, that this is treating her as if she were worthless, and he incites himself with lust, as we have explained in the Gate of Separation…
And similarly, regarding looking “at that place,” he transgresses “And you shall walk modestly with your God” (Micah 6:8), and he removes shame from his face, and it says: “So that His fear should be upon your face” (Exodus 20:20) – this is shame, “So that you shall not sin” – for whoever is embarrassed will not sin (Nedarim 20a).
And how much more so is this true regarding one who kisses [“that place”] that has all these [problems], and in addition he transgresses, “You shall not make your souls (nefesh) detestable” as our Sages have said: “One who drinks from the horn of the blood-letter transgresses ‘You shall not act to make your souls detestable” (Makkot 15b). And Rav Kahanah who was passing a [kosher] locust before his mouth and Rav said to him: ‘Remove it, so that people should not say that you are eating it and transgressing ‘You shall not make your souls detestable” (Shabbat 90b), and certainly [such would apply] in this case.
For Rambam, such an attitude did not impact on his rulings regarding what sexual acts are permitted between husband and wife. Things may have been different for Ra’avad. Given what he writes in the following passage, it is perhaps not surprising that he pushed back and limited Rabbi Yochanan’s permissive statement, particularly if he saw these acts are primarily about the man’s (and not the woman’s) desire for different types of sexual pleasure, having nothing to do with procreation or the like.
הראב"ד בעלי הנפש, שארי קדושה, חלק ד
הארבע כוונות אשר המעשה ההוא נכון עליהם.
הראשונה לשם פריה ורביה והיא הנכונה שבכולם…
והשנית לתקון הולד… וגם זו הכוונה נמשכת בכונת פריה ורביה.
והשלישית אף על פי שאין בה לא זה ולא זה אלא שהיא משתוקקת אליו… גם על זו יש קבול שכר והיא היא מצות העונה שאמרה התורה, דמיון שארה וכסותה לא יגרע שהם צרכי האשה והנאותיה.
והרביעית שהוא מתכוין לגדור את עצמו בה כדי שלא יתאוה לעבירה…
ואם לא נתכוון כי אם למלאות תאותו מן הנאות העולם הנה הוא בדרך הסתת היצר ורחוק מן השכר וקרוב להפסד…
ואחרי שראינו כל אלה שהאדם חייב לעשות חפצי אשתו ולשמחה במצוה זו בכל עת שהיא צריכה לה, על כן הזהירוהו שתהא שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת פן תסיתנו לעבור על המדה ותמשכהו אחריה אל הבלי העולם ויאבד בעבורה.
Ra’avad, Ba’alei Hanefesh, Gate of Holiness – selection 4
The four intentions (or “motivations”) which are proper for that act (of marital sex) [are as follows]:
The first is for the sake of procreation, and this is the most proper of all the intentions…
The second is for the well-being of the fetus [when the wife is pregnant]… and this intention is connected to the intention for procreation.
The third is even in a case when neither of the above two apply, but merely that the wife is longing for her husband… even in this case there is reward in the act (i.e., it is a religiously positive act), and this is the Biblical mitzvah of onah. It is comparable to the mitzvah “thou shall not withhold her food and clothing,” for these are the things that the wife needs and which give her pleasure.
The fourth is if he is intending to protect himself so that his sexual desire does not lead him to sin (so he gives licit outlet to this desire through sex with his wife)…
But if his only intent is to satisfy his sexual desire with this-worldly pleasures, then he is following his evil inclination. Such an the act is distant from any reward and close to being a loss (i.e., a religiously negative act)…
After we have seen all of these sources, that a man must do the desire of his wife and make her happy with this mitzvah whenever she desires it, therefore our Sages warned us that the left hand should push away and the right hand draw near, lest his desire should entice him to do more than the appropriate amount, and he will be drawn after it towards the emptiness of the world, and he will be destroyed as a result of it.
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)
Rem"a: 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 stimulate himself with other parts of her body, so long as he does not ejaculate outside the vagina (Tur). Some authorities are lenient and say that he may even ejaculate during anal intercourse, if it is occasional and not his habit (Tur). Even though all of this is permissible, anyone who wishes to sanctify himself [by abstaining] from the permitted is called holy.
This argument is quite weak. Rema is explicit that all is permitted, and he even states that the man may kiss “any part of the body he wishes,” which given the Talmudic discussion obviously refers to the vagina. As to what to do with his silence in OH, it is possible that he did not feel the need to comment there, given that EH, and not OH, is the prime locus of halakhic discussions of marital sex. This approach is taken by, among others, Rav Yehudah Herzl Henkin and Rav Elyashiv Knohl {sources 13 and 14}. Rav Knohl argues further that perhaps even Rav Yosef Karo did not intend to forbid such practices as a matter of halakhah {source 14}.
ומנשק בכל אבר. ל"ד כל אבר דהא באותו מקום אסור כמ"ש בש"ס וכ"כ הראב"ד והטור:
He may kiss any part of the body he wishes’ – this does not mean literally every part of the body, for it is forbidden to kiss “that place,” as the Talmud states, and this is also the position of Ra’avad and Tur.
בני בנים ד:טז
והנה בבית יוסף באבן העזר שם דייק ברמב”ם כנ”ל אבל באורח חיים שם סעיף ד’ העתיק את דברי הראב”ד שאסור להסתכל באותו מקום וכל שכן לנשק, אך לא הזכיר חבל הראשונים הנ”ל.
והרמ”א לא הגיה באורח חיים שם אבל נראה שסמך על מה שכתב באבן העזר סימן כ”ה סעיף ב’ שיכול לעשות באשתו מה שירצה וכו’ ומנשק בכל אבר שירצה עכ”ל כדעת החולקים על הראב”ד, וכן הבין הגר”א בדעת הרמ”א ושלא כבית שמואל שם . אכן הגר”א עצמו פסק כראב”ד וכן סתמו האחרונים, אבל כשיש עוד צדדים להקל או במקום מנהג פשוט לסמוך על הרמב”ם וספר האשכול והסמ”ק ור”א מן ההר והארחות חיים.
Bnei Banim 4:16, no. 3 (Rav Yehudah Herzl Henkin, Jerusalem, 1945-)
In the Beit Yosef in Even Ha’Ezer there [siman 25] he writes in accordance with Rambam [without restrictions on looking and kissing ‘that place’], but in Orah Hayim, there [siman 240], seif 4, he copies the words of Ra’avad that it is forbidden to gaze at “that place,” and certainly to kiss it. but he does not mention the long list of Rishonim [who are lenient] cited above.
Now Rema does not comment in Orah Hayim, there, but it appears that he relied on what he wrote in Even Ha’Ezer, 25:2, “That a man can do with his wife what he wants, etc., and kiss any part of her body that he desire,” in accordance with those who argue on Ra’avad. Gra (the Vilna Gaon) understood similarly regarding the opinion of the Rema [that he argues on Ra’avad], not like the Beit Shmuel there. However, Gra himself ruled like Ra’avad, and so is the standard assumption of the Ahronim, but when there are other arguments to be lenient, or in a place where a practice is already in place, it is straightforward to rely on Rambam, and the Eshkol and the Semak and Rav Avraham min HaHar and the Orhat Hayim
עת דודים
בשולחן ערוך אבן העזר ס’ כ”ה סע’ ב’ מצטט הרמ”א את דברי הרמב”ם – שהכל מותר, ובסוף מסיים “ואף על פי שמותר בכל אלה כל המקדש עצמו במותר לו, ‘קדוש’ יאמר לו.” לעומת זאת, באורח חיים פסק השולחן ערוך כראב”ד שאסור להסתכל ולנשק שם, והרמ”א לא מגיב על דברי השולחן ערוך שם כלל.
נראה שצריך לפרש זאת כך: באורח חיים השולחן ערוך כותב את מידות החסידות, כפי שנראה שם גם מסעיפים אחרים, ועל כן הרמ”א לא נחלק עליו שם. לעומת זה, באבן העזר עוסק השולחן ערוך בעיקר בשורת הדין. על כן, לא ציין איסור זה, והרמ”א ראה לנכון לציין את דעתו של הרמב”ם שהיא שורת הדין לדעתו, אלא שהוא מציין שכל המקדש עצמו במותר לו קדוש יאמר לו.
Et Dodim, (Rav Elyashiv Knohl, Rav Kibbutz Kfar Etzion, 1948-), p. 40, note 52
In Shulhan Arukh, Even Ha’Ezer, 25:2, Rema cites the words of Rambam – that everything is permitted, and in the end he concludes, “And although a person is permitted in all these matters, whoever sanctifies himself in that which is permitted to him, ‘holy’ it will be said of him.” In contrast, in Orah Hayim, Shulhan Arukh rules like Ra’avad that it is forbidden to gaze and to kiss there, and Rema does not react to the words of the Shulhan Arukh there at all.
It appears that we must explain it thus: In Orah Hayim, the Shulhan Arukh is writing the way of saintly behavior, as can be seen there from the other seifim as well, and therefore Rema did not dispute the matter with him there. In contrast, in Even HaEzer, the Shulhan Arukh is primarily dealing with what is actual halakhah. Therefore he did not cite this prohibition, and Rema there saw fit to cite position of Rambam, which is the actual halakhah in his opinion, but he also cites that anyone who sanctifies himself in that which is permitted to him, ‘holy’ it will be said of him.
Rav Shmuel Kedar, as well as other poskim, pushes this point further and states that truest form of “sanctity” in the sexual act is not one of restraint and asceticism, but rather ensuring that both partners fully consent to the act and that the act is pleasurable for both of them {source 15}. In other words, true kedushah is achieved by not using the other person merely to satisfy your own needs, but by connecting to the other person, and being attentive to their needs as well. This is fully in keeping with the sexual ethos articulated by Ra’avad, above {source 9}.
קדושת אהל ד.גז
ואילו הרמ”א נקט שעיקר הדין כהרמב”ם והוסיף שכל המקדש עצמו במותר לו קדוש יאמרו לו. ונראה שקדושה זו עניינה היסודי: רצון שניהן ושמחתם…
Kedushat Ohel (Rav Shmuel Kedar, Jerusalem, 1953-2006), p. 37
Rema rules that as a matter of law the ruling is in accordance with Rambam, and he adds that ‘whoever sanctifies himself in that which is permitted to him, ‘holy’ shall be said of him.” Now it appears that the core principle of this sanctity to which he refers is: the desire of the two of them and their pleasure…
אסור להסתכל באותו מקום שכל המסתכל שם אין לו בושת פנים ועובר על והצנע לכת...ועוד דקא מגרי יצר הרע בנפשי' וכל שכן הנושק שם שעובר על כל אלה ועוד שעובר על בל תשקצו את נפשותיכם:
It is forbidden for a man to look in “that place” for whoever looks in “that place” has no shame, and he transgresses “You shall walk modestly”…and additionally he incites the evil inclination on himself, and all the more so one who kisses there transgresses all of these and also transgresses: “You shall not make your souls detestable.”
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
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.
Other poskim, including Rav Knohl and Rav Kedar, disagree {sources 18 and 19}. They choose to read OH through the lens of EH, and argue that Shulhan’s Arukh silence should be read as tacit permission and that his rulings in EH are more authoritative in regards to questions about marital sex, since the primary locus for this discussion is EH and not OH. For them, Shulhan Arukh’s ruling in OH is just laying out a religious ideal, and that he does not mean to issue an actual halakhic ruling.
עת דודים ד.מ
נראה שצריך לפרש זאת כך: באורח חיים השולחן ערוך כותב את מידות החסידות, כפי שנראה שם גם מסעיפים אחרים… לעומת זה, באבן העזר עוסק השולחן ערוך בעיקר בשורת הדין. על כן, לא ציין איסור זה…
למעשה, מצטטים האחרונים את דברי השולחן ערוך באורח חיים ואוסרים את שני הדברים הללו – ההסתכלות והנישוק באותו מקום.
Et Dodim, p. 40, note 52
It appears that we must explain it thus: In Orah Hayim, the Shulhan Arukh is writing the way of saintly behavior, as can be seen there from the other seifim as well, and therefore Rema did not dispute the matter with him there. In contrast, in Even Ha’Ezer, the Shulhan Arukh is primarily dealing with what is actual halakhah. Therefore he did not cite this prohibition…
In practice, the Ahronim quote the words of Shulhan Arukh in Orah Hayim and forbid both matters – gazing and kissing in that place.
תורת אמת, אבן העזר כה
וגם מ”ש הרב ז”ל עובר משום בל תשקצו הוא תמוה דבל תשקצו הוא באוכל דבר מאוס אבל בנשיקה וחיבה בעלמא מה שיקוץ בזה ודבר שנאהב לכל העולם
Responsa Torat Emet (Rav Raphael Berdugo, 1747-1821, Morocco), EH 25
Also regarding what the master (Ra’avad) wrote that a person transgresses bal tishaktzu, this is an astounding claim! For bal tishaktzu applies to a person eating a repulsive thing, but when it comes to kissing and mere acts of affection, what type of repulsion is there? It is in fact something that the entire world enjoys.
כל שכן שאם חפצים בזה נראה שאין כאן בל תשקצו כי איסור זה תלוי בכל אחד ואחד, כמבואר בפרי חדש (יו”ד ס’ פ”ד סק”ג)
Responsa Asher Hanan (Rav Hanan Aflelo, contemporary Sephardi posek, Ba Yam, Israel), vol. 6-7:68
Certainly if they both desire this it would seem that there is no concern of bal tishaktzu, because this prohibition is dependent on the individual (what he or she finds disgusting), as is explained in Pri Hadash (YD, 84:3).
(ב) קדש - בא על פנויות בלא כתובה וקדושין, ולא מיוחדת לו כפילגשים.
(2) קדש, a male sleeping promiscuously with women without bothering to marry them. Since the women in question do not sleep with him exclusively they are not even concubines.
במראת הצבאת. בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל הָיוּ בְיָדָן מַרְאוֹת שֶׁרוֹאוֹת בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵן מִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת, וְאַף אוֹתָן לֹא עִכְּבוּ מִלְּהָבִיא לְנִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, וְהָיָה מוֹאֵס מֹשֶׁה בָּהֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲשׂוּיִם לְיֵצֶר הָרָע, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּבָּ"ה קַבֵּל, כִּי אֵלּוּ חֲבִיבִין עָלַי מִן הַכֹּל, שֶׁעַל יְדֵיהֶם הֶעֱמִידוּ הַנָּשִׁים צְבָאוֹת רַבּוֹת בְּמִצְרַיִם; כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בַעְלֵיהֶם יְגֵעִים בַּעֲבוֹדַת פֶּרֶךְ, הָיוּ הוֹלְכוֹת וּמוֹלִיכוֹת לָהֶם מַאֲכָל וּמִשְׁתֶּה, וּמַאֲכִילוֹת אוֹתָם וְנוֹטְלוֹת הַמַּרְאוֹת, וְכָל אַחַת רוֹאָה עַצְמָהּ עִם בַּעְלָהּ בַּמַּרְאָה, וּמְשַׁדַּלְתּוֹ בִדְבָרִים, לוֹמַר אֲנִי נָאָה מִמְּךָ, וּמִתּוֹךְ כָּךְ מְבִיאוֹת לְבַעְלֵיהֶן לִידֵי תַאֲוָה וְנִזְקָקוֹת לָהֶם וּמִתְעַבְּרוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת שָׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר תַּחַת הַתַּפּוּחַ עוֹרַרְתִּיךָ (שיר השירים ח'), וְזֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמַרְאֹת הַצּוֹבְאוֹת. וְנַעֲשָׂה הַכִּיּוֹר מֵהֶם, שֶׁהוּא לָשׂוּם שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ – לְהַשְׁקוֹת מִמַּיִם שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ לְמִי שֶׁקִּנֵּא לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה; וְתֵדַע לְךָ שֶׁהֵן מַרְאוֹת מַמָּשׁ, שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר וּנְחֹשֶׁת הַתְּנוּפָה שִׁבְעִים כִּכָּר וְגוֹ', וַיַּעַשׂ בָּהּ וְגוֹמֵר, וְכִיּוֹר וְכַנּוֹ לֹא הֻזְכְּרוּ שָׁם, לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה נְחֹשֶׁת שֶׁל כִּיּוֹר מִנְּחֹשֶׁת הַתְּנוּפָה, כָּךְ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא, וְכֵן תִּרְגֵּם אֻנְקְלוֹס בְּמֶחְזְיָת נְשַׁיָא וְהוּא תַרְגּוּם שֶׁל מַרְאוֹת, מירוריי"ש בְּלַעַז. וְכֵן מָצִינוּ וְהַגִּלְיוֹנִים (ישעיה ג') – מְתַרְגְּמִינָן מֶחְזְיָתָא:
במראת הצבאת OF THE MIRRORS OF THE WOMEN CROWDING — The Israelitish women possessed mirrors of copper into which they used to look when they adorned themselves. Even these did they not hesitate to bring as a contribution towards the Tabernacle. Now Moses was about to reject them since they were made to pander to their vanity, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Accept them; these are dearer to Me than all the other contributions, because through them the women reared those huge hosts in Egypt!” For when their husbands were tired through the crushing labour they used to bring them food and drink and induced them to eat. Then they would take the mirrors, and each gazed at herself in her mirror together with her husband, saying endearingly to him, “See, I am handsomer than you!” Thus they awakened their husbands’ affection and subsequently became the mothers of many children, at it is said, (Song 8:5) “I awakened thy love under the apple-tree”, (referring to the fields where the men worked). This is what it refers to when it states, מראות הצבאת “the mirrors of the women who reared the hosts (צבאות)” (Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 9). And it was for this reason that the laver was made of them (the mirrors) — because it served the purpose of promoting peace between man and wife viz., by giving of its waters to be drunk by a woman whose husband had shown himself jealous of her and who nevertheless had associated with another (cf. Numbers ch. V) thus affording her an opportunity to prove her innocence (cf. Sotah 15b). You may know that the מראות mentioned in the text were really mirrors (and that the word does not mean visions, or appearance, etc.), for it is said, (v. 29) “And the copper of the wave-offering was seventy talents etc. … and therewith he made [the sockets etc.]” — the laver, however, and its base are not mentioned there amongst the articles made from that copper; hence you may learn that the copper of which the laver was made was not a part of the copper of the weave-offering, which is the only copper mentioned as having been contributed by the people. Thus did R. Tanchuma 2:11:9 explain the term מראת הצבאת. And so does Onkelos also render it: במחזית נשיא, and this first word is the Targum translation of מראות, in the sense of mireors in old French, for we find that for the word (Isaiah 3:23) “And the גליונים”, which are mirrors, we have in the Targum the same word מחזיתא.
ר' יהושע אומר רוצה אשה בקב ותפלות מט' קבין ופרישות הוא היה אומר חסיד שוטה ורשע ערום ואשה פרושה ומכות פרושין הרי אלו מבלי עולם
Rabbi Yehoshua says: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and a sexual relationship [tiflut] rather than to receive nine kav of food and abstinence. He would say: A foolish man of piety, and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman [perusha], and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world.
רַב כָּהֲנָא הֲוָה פָּסֵיק סִידְרָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב. כִּי מְטָא לְהַאי קְרָא, נְגֵיד וְאִתְּנַח. אֲמַר, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּטֵל לֵיהּ חֶמְדֵּיהּ דְּרַב. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הוּא אָמַר וַיֶּהִי״ — זוֹ אִשָּׁה. ״הוּא צִוָּה וַיַּעֲמוֹד״ — אֵלּוּ בָּנִים. תָּנָא: אִשָּׁה חֵמֶת מָלֵא צוֹאָה, וּפִיהָ מָלֵא דָּם — וְהַכֹּל רָצִין אַחֲרֶיהָ.
The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana was reading biblical verses before Rav. When he got to this verse, Rav sighed. Rav Kahana said: We can derive from this that Rav’s desire has ceased. Rav Kahana also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For He spoke and it was, He commanded and it stood” (Psalms 33:9)? He understands this to mean that God created man with desires that push him to do things he would not do if he acted purely on the judgment of his intellect, and Rav Kahana therefore interprets the verse in the following manner: “For He spoke and it was”; this is a woman that a man marries. “He commanded and it stood”; these are the children who one works hard to raise. A tannataught in a baraita: A woman is essentially a flask full of feces, a reference to the digestive system, and her mouth is full of blood, a euphemistic reference to menstruation, yet men are not deterred and they all run after her with desire.
במראת הצבאת. בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל הָיוּ בְיָדָן מַרְאוֹת שֶׁרוֹאוֹת בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵן מִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת, וְאַף אוֹתָן לֹא עִכְּבוּ מִלְּהָבִיא לְנִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, וְהָיָה מוֹאֵס מֹשֶׁה בָּהֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲשׂוּיִם לְיֵצֶר הָרָע, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּבָּ"ה קַבֵּל, כִּי אֵלּוּ חֲבִיבִין עָלַי מִן הַכֹּל, שֶׁעַל יְדֵיהֶם הֶעֱמִידוּ הַנָּשִׁים צְבָאוֹת רַבּוֹת בְּמִצְרַיִם; כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בַעְלֵיהֶם יְגֵעִים בַּעֲבוֹדַת פֶּרֶךְ, הָיוּ הוֹלְכוֹת וּמוֹלִיכוֹת לָהֶם מַאֲכָל וּמִשְׁתֶּה, וּמַאֲכִילוֹת אוֹתָם וְנוֹטְלוֹת הַמַּרְאוֹת, וְכָל אַחַת רוֹאָה עַצְמָהּ עִם בַּעְלָהּ בַּמַּרְאָה, וּמְשַׁדַּלְתּוֹ בִדְבָרִים, לוֹמַר אֲנִי נָאָה מִמְּךָ, וּמִתּוֹךְ כָּךְ מְבִיאוֹת לְבַעְלֵיהֶן לִידֵי תַאֲוָה וְנִזְקָקוֹת לָהֶם וּמִתְעַבְּרוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת שָׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר תַּחַת הַתַּפּוּחַ עוֹרַרְתִּיךָ (שיר השירים ח'), וְזֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמַרְאֹת הַצּוֹבְאוֹת. וְנַעֲשָׂה הַכִּיּוֹר מֵהֶם, שֶׁהוּא לָשׂוּם שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ – לְהַשְׁקוֹת מִמַּיִם שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ לְמִי שֶׁקִּנֵּא לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה; וְתֵדַע לְךָ שֶׁהֵן מַרְאוֹת מַמָּשׁ, שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר וּנְחֹשֶׁת הַתְּנוּפָה שִׁבְעִים כִּכָּר וְגוֹ', וַיַּעַשׂ בָּהּ וְגוֹמֵר, וְכִיּוֹר וְכַנּוֹ לֹא הֻזְכְּרוּ שָׁם, לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה נְחֹשֶׁת שֶׁל כִּיּוֹר מִנְּחֹשֶׁת הַתְּנוּפָה, כָּךְ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא, וְכֵן תִּרְגֵּם אֻנְקְלוֹס בְּמֶחְזְיָת נְשַׁיָא וְהוּא תַרְגּוּם שֶׁל מַרְאוֹת, מירוריי"ש בְּלַעַז. וְכֵן מָצִינוּ וְהַגִּלְיוֹנִים (ישעיה ג') – מְתַרְגְּמִינָן מֶחְזְיָתָא:
במראת הצבאת OF THE MIRRORS OF THE WOMEN CROWDING — The Israelitish women possessed mirrors of copper into which they used to look when they adorned themselves. Even these did they not hesitate to bring as a contribution towards the Tabernacle. Now Moses was about to reject them since they were made to pander to their vanity, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Accept them; these are dearer to Me than all the other contributions, because through them the women reared those huge hosts in Egypt!” For when their husbands were tired through the crushing labour they used to bring them food and drink and induced them to eat. Then they would take the mirrors, and each gazed at herself in her mirror together with her husband, saying endearingly to him, “See, I am handsomer than you!” Thus they awakened their husbands’ affection and subsequently became the mothers of many children, at it is said, (Song 8:5) “I awakened thy love under the apple-tree”, (referring to the fields where the men worked). This is what it refers to when it states, מראות הצבאת “the mirrors of the women who reared the hosts (צבאות)” (Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 9). And it was for this reason that the laver was made of them (the mirrors) — because it served the purpose of promoting peace between man and wife viz., by giving of its waters to be drunk by a woman whose husband had shown himself jealous of her and who nevertheless had associated with another (cf. Numbers ch. V) thus affording her an opportunity to prove her innocence (cf. Sotah 15b). You may know that the מראות mentioned in the text were really mirrors (and that the word does not mean visions, or appearance, etc.), for it is said, (v. 29) “And the copper of the wave-offering was seventy talents etc. … and therewith he made [the sockets etc.]” — the laver, however, and its base are not mentioned there amongst the articles made from that copper; hence you may learn that the copper of which the laver was made was not a part of the copper of the weave-offering, which is the only copper mentioned as having been contributed by the people. Thus did R. Tanchuma 2:11:9 explain the term מראת הצבאת. And so does Onkelos also render it: במחזית נשיא, and this first word is the Targum translation of מראות, in the sense of mireors in old French, for we find that for the word (Isaiah 3:23) “And the גליונים”, which are mirrors, we have in the Targum the same word מחזיתא.
רַב כָּהֲנָא הֲוָה פָּסֵיק סִידְרָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב. כִּי מְטָא לְהַאי קְרָא, נְגֵיד וְאִתְּנַח. אֲמַר, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּטֵל לֵיהּ חֶמְדֵּיהּ דְּרַב. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הוּא אָמַר וַיֶּהִי״ — זוֹ אִשָּׁה. ״הוּא צִוָּה וַיַּעֲמוֹד״ — אֵלּוּ בָּנִים. תָּנָא: אִשָּׁה חֵמֶת מָלֵא צוֹאָה, וּפִיהָ מָלֵא דָּם — וְהַכֹּל רָצִין אַחֲרֶיהָ.
The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana was reading biblical verses before Rav. When he got to this verse, Rav sighed. Rav Kahana said: We can derive from this that Rav’s desire has ceased. Rav Kahana also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For He spoke and it was, He commanded and it stood” (Psalms 33:9)? He understands this to mean that God created man with desires that push him to do things he would not do if he acted purely on the judgment of his intellect, and Rav Kahana therefore interprets the verse in the following manner: “For He spoke and it was”; this is a woman that a man marries. “He commanded and it stood”; these are the children who one works hard to raise. A tannataught in a baraita: A woman is essentially a flask full of feces, a reference to the digestive system, and her mouth is full of blood, a euphemistic reference to menstruation, yet men are not deterred and they all run after her with desire.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא הִקְבַּלְנוּ פָּנֶיךָ בָּרֶגֶל, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִקְבִּילוּ אֲבוֹתַי לַאֲבוֹתֶיךָ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סְלָעִים נַעֲשׂוּ גְּבוֹהִים, קְרוֹבִים נַעֲשׂוּ רְחוֹקִים, מִשְׁתַּיִם נַעֲשׂוּ שָׁלֹשׁ, מֵשִׂים שָׁלוֹם בַּבַּיִת בָּטַל.
The Gemara again addresses old age: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta: For what reason did we not greet you during the Festival the way that my fathers greeted your fathers? This was a polite way of asking Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta why he had not come to visit Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. He said to him: Because I have grown old, and the rocks on the road have become tall, and destinations that are near have become far away, and my two feet have been made into three with the addition of a cane, and that which brings peace to the house, namely, the sexual drive which motivates a couple to make peace, is no more.
ר' יהושע אומר רוצה אשה בקב ותפלות מט' קבין ופרישות הוא היה אומר חסיד שוטה ורשע ערום ואשה פרושה ומכות פרושין הרי אלו מבלי עולם
Rabbi Yehoshua says: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and a sexual relationship [tiflut] rather than to receive nine kav of food and abstinence. He would say: A foolish man of piety, and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman [perusha], and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: הָרוֹאֶה קֶרִי בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — יִדְאַג כׇּל הַשָּׁנָה כּוּלָּהּ, וְאִם עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה — מוּבְטָח לוֹ שֶׁהוּא בֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תֵּדַע, שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ רָעֵב וְהוּא שָׂבֵעַ. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: מַפֵּישׁ חַיֵּי סָגֵי וּמַסְגֵּי.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: One who sees an emission of semen on Yom Kippur should worry the whole year that perhaps he was given a sign that he and his fast were rejected. But if he survives the year, he can be assured that his good deeds protected him and ensured for him a share in the World-to-Come. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Know that it is so, as the whole world is hungry due to refraining from conjugal relations, and he is satiated since he emitted semen and his lust was subdued. Since the issue was involuntary and not intentional, it is a sign that he has merited divine compassion. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: Seeing semen on Yom Kippur is a sign that one will live a long life, grow, and raise others. An allusion to that is the verse: “That he might see his seed and prolong his days” (Isaiah 53:10).
On the other hand, sex drive as the root of evil?
וַֽיְהִי֙ כִּֽי־הֵחֵ֣ל הָֽאָדָ֔ם לָרֹ֖ב עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וּבָנ֖וֹת יֻלְּד֥וּ לָהֶֽם׃ וַיִּרְא֤וּ בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֥י טֹבֹ֖ת הֵ֑נָּה וַיִּקְח֤וּ לָהֶם֙ נָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּחָֽרוּ׃ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָ֗ה לֹֽא־יָד֨וֹן רוּחִ֤י בָֽאָדָם֙ לְעֹלָ֔ם בְּשַׁגַּ֖ם ה֣וּא בָשָׂ֑ר וְהָי֣וּ יָמָ֔יו מֵאָ֥ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֖ים שָׁנָֽה׃ הַנְּפִלִ֞ים הָי֣וּ בָאָ֘רֶץ֮ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵם֒ וְגַ֣ם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ בְּנֵ֤י הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם וְיָלְד֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם הֵ֧מָּה הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מֵעוֹלָ֖ם אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַשֵּֽׁם׃ {פ}
וַיַּ֣רְא יְהֹוָ֔ה כִּ֥י רַבָּ֛ה רָעַ֥ת הָאָדָ֖ם בָּאָ֑רֶץ וְכׇל־יֵ֙צֶר֙ מַחְשְׁבֹ֣ת לִבּ֔וֹ רַ֥ק רַ֖ע כׇּל־הַיּֽוֹם׃
When humankind began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, the [males among the] divine beings saw how pleasing the human women were and took wives from among those who delighted them.— יהוה said, “My breath shall not abide in humankind forever, since it too is flesh; let the days allowed them be one hundred and twenty years.”— It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth—when divine beings cohabited with the human women, who bore them offspring. Such were the heroes of old, the men of renown. יהוה saw how great was human wickedness on earth—how every plan devised by the human mind was nothing but evil all the time.
Stam 'yetzer' in chazal is sex-drive.
But the word 'yetzer' is used coloquially as ~desire. Yetzer hatov, or yetzer ha'raah.
It even says that yetzer (and tinok, and isha) needs to be yemin docheh and smol mekarev, or the other way? i don't remember...
But that says chazal's aproach to sexually.
ps For some reason chazal intuitively know that you should be docheh? why?
וַתִּפָּקַ֙חְנָה֙ עֵינֵ֣י שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם וַיֵּ֣דְע֔וּ כִּ֥י עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם הֵ֑ם וַֽיִּתְפְּרוּ֙ עֲלֵ֣ה תְאֵנָ֔ה וַיַּעֲשׂ֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם חֲגֹרֹֽת׃
Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths.
hmm. So until then there was no sex drive?
(I'm assuming that the embarasment of nakedness == sexual drive. At least I think that's how chazal interpret it? (Once she is bosheh la'amod l'fanav aruma, only then is it asur to yashen imah bmita, i think?)
וַיֵּ֨דַע אָדָ֥ם עוֹד֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֔ן וַתִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ שֵׁ֑ת כִּ֣י שָֽׁת־לִ֤י אֱלֹהִים֙ זֶ֣רַע אַחֵ֔ר תַּ֣חַת הֶ֔בֶל כִּ֥י הֲרָג֖וֹ קָֽיִן׃
Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, meaning, “God has provided me with another offspring in place of Abel,” for Cain had killed him.
זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בְּרָאָ֑ם וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָ֗ם וַיִּקְרָ֤א אֶת־שְׁמָם֙ אָדָ֔ם בְּי֖וֹם הִבָּֽרְאָֽם׃
male and female were they created. And when they were created, [God] blessed them and called them Humankind. —