On the prohibition of ejaculating for no reason

שו”ת › Category: Halacha › On the prohibition of ejaculating for no reason

asked 9 years ago

peace

I have questions regarding the prohibition of huzal (if the rabbi wishes to address them). I prefer to ask via email rather than through the Responsorial Psalm website because they said, “There is no demand for adultery in the third person.”

I will begin with what the Maharal wrote about the prohibition. So that I do not sin by presenting his words in a way that is not intended, I am copying them (by skipping).

The Book of the Exile, Chapter 9

For there is no doubt that he who destroys the seed, he destroys existence, which was worthy of coming from the seed as an offspring… The whole point is that he who kills a person would not thereby overcome the beginning of existence, but would overcome the continuation of existence, and not the beginning of existence. But he who destroys his seed is therefore called destruction, because all destruction is the beginning of existence, and this is what brings a flood into the world, which was not only to uproot existence, so that no existence would be found, and no existence would be present in the flood, and this is the son.

It seems from his words that he came to explain the words of the Zohar, which wrote that the Moz’al is worse than a murderer.

However, his main argument is, if I understood correctly, that the substance of the matter is that from the seed it was appropriate for a living person to be created, and the Creator uprooted this possibility and did not allow this creation to be created.

In my humble opinion, I fail to understand this explanation. After all, the Hozl does not harm a person’s ability to procreate, and in general, this particular seed, which has now come out of the void, never existed, and there was no possibility that an embryo would be created from it. After all, it was created at the moment, when its excretor is about to destroy it, and what does the Maharal want?

thanks

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

I don’t think the seed is being formed now. It’s there, and it’s just coming out now. But as for the matter itself, I don’t understand all these explanations either. After all, when a man serves with his wife most of the time (a mitzvah of sacrifice), he does not fertilize eggs and is therefore a “murderer.” —————————————————————————————— Asks: thanks. Indeed. That’s also why the Zohar’s intention is not clear to me. What the Hebrews likened him to a bloodsucker does not mean that by losing his semen he is considered a soul-slayer, but just as they likened someone who does not engage in sexual intercourse to a bloodsucker, even when they said this about the unfortunate, it seems that they meant someone who finds it a substitute for normal sexual intercourse. What is interesting is that there are those who have tried to force a bridge and find a match between the Babylonian and the Zohar (mainly in the context of the Babylonian allegedly permitting entry outside its proper context), and they are the Haredim and the Shelah who copied his words, and to Anad (and this is also the opinion of the Ar) they have raised clay in their hands. PS: I happened to see that according to the Kabbalists, when a man lawfully comes upon his wife, a holy soul is created, and when a person is circumcised, a soul is given over to the Sata. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Well, bye. —————————————————————————————— Asks: If I may continue… The Torah says: Genesis Chapter 16 (6) And Judah took a wife for his firstborn, whose name was Tamar: (7) And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord slew him: (8) And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and sleep with her, and raise up seed unto thy brother: (9) And Onan knew that the seed would not be with him, and that if he went in to his brother’s wife and defiled the ground, he would give seed to his brother. (10) And what he did was evil in the sight of the Lord; and he slew him also: The evil of the years is simple, and according to the words of Chazal, obvious and visible. In fact, there are two evils: A. Canceling a marriage vow with one’s hands for unjustified reasons (Er, lest she become pregnant and deny her beauty. Onan, lest he give seed to his brother). on. The Gn says that they came to Tamar contrary to her custom. Elsewhere, the Gn says that such a coming is torture for a woman. We know how much Tamar desired to bear children from the house of Judah. If so, she certainly did not consent to it. This means that they raped and tortured her. And this is an open and well-known evil. Why then does the Zohar (and this is also the meaning of the verse in the 13th chapter) understand that the greatest evil in the act of being awake and masturbating is the loss of semen? An act that does not cause harm to anyone, is not explained anywhere in the Torah as having any problem at all, and from this interpretation there is seemingly no reason to understand it this way? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I already joined your puzzlement. But from these verses it is not entirely necessary otherwise. Onan’s calling to the ground for not giving seed to his brother, this is a description of his motivation. But the question of what was wrong with what he did is a different question. Maybe it is wrong because he called his seed to the ground. In Halacha, my student, Rabbi Yitzhak Rons, has already written an article in Tzohar: Educational and Halachaic Dealing with the Prohibition of Hozl , in Tzohar 21. —————————————————————————————— Asks: Nothing is proven from the verses. My question is why, when they can be interpreted in a simple and equal way for everyone, like the two options I wrote, they are interpreted in a new and strange way. Thank you very much for the article. I fear that Rabbi Rons is completely exaggerating and is completely wrong when he writes that there is no prohibition for a single person (the words of the sacred auxiliary also seem puzzling. I did not see them in the text, only in the article). There are two prohibitions. One is what the Sages forbade as a barrier to the act of being awake and masturbating. This prohibition exists only between a man and his wife. The second is what they forbade and emphasized on ‘do not commit adultery.’ This prohibition is between a person and himself, and it does not matter whether he is married or single. Rabbi Yehoshua Shapira, in the article cited, attacked Rabbi Rons, but I fear that he too was not spared from a few mistakes. For the sake of argument, the prohibition of khozal (either of the two I mentioned) is from the rabbis, and is no more severe than the prohibition of eating chicken in milk. Rabbi Shapira writes that there is no disagreement between the Shas and the Zohar on this matter. According to the NLD, not only is there a disagreement, but it is a fundamental disagreement that is not found anywhere else among the Tannaim or Amoraim. It is a disagreement that is more reminiscent of a disagreement between Judaism and Christianity or something of the sort. It follows that if we accept the Babylonian, there is no room to accept the words of the Zohar on this matter. (It is difficult for me to write the last line, as I know that the great men of Israel, under whose feet I am dust, from the House of Joseph onwards, wrote to Hadith differently, and yet in my humble opinion I believe this is the truth.) —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: The question is not a question for the judge. Your assumption is that the simple way is according to your method. But the Zohar assumes that the simplicity is that there is a prohibition in this (I don’t think it is an unreasonable explanation to see this as an ugly and problematic act), and therefore he chooses this option. I no longer remember his article, but I don’t think his conclusion is that there is no prohibition for a single person. On the contrary, as far as I remember, he precisely writes that it is a prohibition of the Durbanan, and comes out against his mystification. But I didn’t see his words now. Your words regarding the Shas and Zohar controversy are also completely exaggerated. What did you see here as so dramatic? And is this prohibition the entire Kahat? Is there a disagreement between them about some prohibition, and that is it. And are there no such disagreements? Is there no disagreement about sending the nest between the Kabbalists and Shas Dylan (whether to send when you don’t want the chicks or the eggs)? And there too, in my opinion, the method of the hidden is against the simplicity of things. What is the difference between this and that? Indeed, it seems that the words of the Zohar contradict simplicity and Babylonianism, and regarding the ruling of the halakhah, do as you understand. There are no rules in this. Although the Maga in the Tefillin wrote that the halakhah is revealed against the hidden, he wrote this as a revealed man. The Kabbalists, of course, do not think so. As for the great men of Israel, I don’t know who is the dirt under whom and why, but everyone is supposed to decide according to their own understanding. As is known, there are two types of visionaries: those who do according to all the instructions of the visionary in his books and by word of mouth, and those who do what they think as he did what he thought. As is known, the last word is the main thing. Do you have any objection to me posting the correspondence on the website (without your details, of course)? I believe that there is a public interest in this and a benefit to many, and I think there is no barrier to adultery in this. —————————————————————————————— Asks: I really should explain myself more. The Zohar (Bereishit Rit:) writes about this sin, that all sinners ascend (probably from Hell) and the unfortunate does not ascend, and if you ask what about other wicked people who murdered people (why do they ascend and the unfortunate does not ascend), it must be said that they killed other people, while the unfortunate actually killed his own sons. The Zohar also writes that you have no sin in this world for which repentance is not beneficial, except for this sin. The Zohar’s words make it clear that he did not see this as an ‘ugly and problematic act’ but rather as a super-duper murder. If the legislature set a penalty of one life sentence for a simple murder, the wretched man deserves at least two life sentences, if not the death penalty. What also emerges from the Zohar is that it does not matter at all in what manner and under what circumstances the semen was ejaculated. Murder is murder in any case. That is, the terrible and terrible prohibition is the loss of the semen, and not the act of ejaculating. And for this reason, the Kabbalists wrote that even someone who saw a scythe in his sleep, without any intention on his part, is also in a rather sad state and is required to repent and make amends. In the G.M., this is categorically not the case at all. A casual intercourse is permitted (Vows 20: Sanhedrin 10: whereas according to the Zohar it is punishable by death). For the purpose of testing the kashrut of a person, a person is permitted to perform a ritual bath (Yevamot 13:1). Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who said that one who holds his penis and urinates is as if he had brought a flood into the world (Nedda 13:1), permits the husband of a nursing woman, who is in danger of her baby miscarrying, to douche from the inside and to douche from the outside for 24 months (Yevamot 34:1,2). [By the way, this is proof that the reason for the prohibition of holding the vagina is not because of fear of sperm coming out, but because of fear of reflection]. So according to the Babylonian, there is nothing wrong with losing semen. The problem is the manner in which the semen is released. That is, either in a manner similar to the act of being awake and masturbating, or in a manner defined as adultery (and both are rabbinical). This is not at all similar to the question of whether there is an interest on one’s part in sending the nest even when it is not needed for the chicks. This is a debate like any other debate, but when a person has done a certain act and the rabbinical view of him is as one who has committed a transgression and must repent, while according to the Zohar he is a wicked, evil, murderous, accursed being for whom there is no cure, and his view of him is worse than an actual murderer – according to the Law, these two opinions cannot coexist in one Beit Midrash. Regarding Rabbi Rons’ article, he writes at the end of page 188: “And it becomes equally clear that the prohibition does not apply to a free person.” Regarding the publication of the things on the site, I feel a little uncomfortable with the idea that my words will be published, lest someone might accuse them of relaxing the prohibition or belittling the Zohar. Although in fact the lightest and most serious thing said in this context is what I quoted from Rabbi Rons (and in order to publish his article you do not need my consent… although perhaps it is truly appropriate to do him a favor and not publish his words [it is advisable to ask him whether he still believes this today]), therefore, regarding the correspondence, do as you understand. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Well, I don’t see it that way. In my opinion, it is a dispute like any other dispute, even if it is more extreme. There are other acts that one rabbi prohibits and the other from the Tah (although see the issue of the city of gold in P. Thulin, where there is no dispute from end to end, and I have already written about it elsewhere). And even regarding the charges of death and bastards, yes (the trouble of the daughter). Furthermore, I assume (I haven’t checked) that you will find more such harsh expressions in the Zohar regarding other offenses (what would you say about what the HaChah brings regarding slander that is not atoned for?). The Zohar is a type of midrash and one must be careful to take it literally. And after all, the Rishonim even commented on the Talmud Didan, that when it uses “deserves death,” sometimes it is a rabbinical prohibition that came to express its severity. In conclusion, this is indeed a different view, but I am not at all alarmed by the fact that it is found in the same bimdat as Shas Didan. Just as the Ezer Mekodesh is found in Hada Mekhta with the Shulchan Aruch, who is so strict about this (and Rones has already commented on this). Excuse me, but you really took Rabbi Rons’ words out of context. After all, he only discusses the Ezer Mekodesh method there and immediately comments that it is inconsistent with the Shulchan Aruch. This is indeed the conclusion from the Ezer Mekodesh. What is the problem with that? —————————————————————————————— Asks: This is not similar to the dispute over whether a particular prohibition is from the rabbis or from the Torah, or even whether a Torah law requires death in the Jewish law. The attitude of the Zohar and the Kabbalists towards this sin exceeds all the proportions stated in the Torah. The Zohar screams and says that he is worse than a murderer! He does not ascend from Gehenna, while a murderer does, and no repentance is of any use to him (completely against the faith of Israel!). And the reader stands and is astonished, from the roots of his hair to the nails of his feet, why??? Why should he be put to death, what did he do?? Is this a dispute like any other dispute? Although the Gamma (Nida 13) said that the death penalty is mandatory in the Bible, we have the tools to understand that this is a legend and not a law (and this is due to the fact that it is not written anywhere in the Torah that it is mandatory). If someone has difficulty understanding this, they can use the fact that the Rambam (Isob 21:18), who tried to discourage in his writing about the prohibition of the death penalty, did not mention the mandatory death penalty. Where does the KH write that the Rabbi does not atone? Why would it be worse than any other sin between a person and his fellow man, that one must please his fellow man and make repentance? Perhaps he writes that he is used to speaking to the Rabbi, and his answer is difficult, since he does not remember all those whose forgiveness one must ask. Rons does not immediately comment that this does not align with the Shulchan Arba but with the words of the Talmud, and then he explains, according to the Amak, that since the Haderag the law has changed. Ultimately, he lets the reader understand that there is no prohibition on being single. [It is true that I have not seen the Amak in person, but I find it very difficult to believe that he would say such a thing. Moreover, according to the Anad, this is a complete mistake. The prohibition of being single has nothing to do with the obligation of a husband]. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I still don’t see the big problem. As for slander, here is a source from the Rambam: “The Sages said: Three offenses are expiated from a person in this world and he has no share in the world to come: idolatry, open fornication, bloodshed, and slander against all of them. And the Sages said: Anyone who speaks slander is essentially an infidel… And the Sages said: Three slanders kill: the one who speaks it, the one who receives it, and the one who speaks it against him.” (Deut 7:3) So if contempt is like murder, then for you, contempt is worse than that. Even the Zohar cannot require death, since in Halacha there is no source for requiring death. Go, your view of the Talmud is also correct for the Zohar. Well, I think the matter is understood. All the best.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

דוב replied 8 years ago

Thank you very much for this important and wonderful discussion
And many thanks to “Shaul”

מאיר מוראדי replied 6 years ago

Meir Moradi
9:37 (9 hours ago)
I read His Honor's reply regarding the issue of sperm being wasted, how great a sin it is. I would like to know what the correction for this is. Is it enough to confess and repent, or is there a longer process?

מיכי Staff replied 6 years ago

If you have read, you have probably seen that there is a dispute regarding the severity of the prohibition (from the prohibition of the rabbis to the prohibition of the rabbis). The answer to this, like any other prohibition: confession, abandonment of the sin, repentance, and acceptance for the future. The other differences in atonement listed in Tractate Yoma are not our concern (but rather decisions of the Almighty).

סוקרטס replied 5 years ago

In the Maharal's words, I wanted to make a comment.
There are two ways to look at all non-adultery in general, but the Torah gave us a way that it seemed to her that she should behave: always relationships with a mother are not valuable because that is not how a person is, it would have seemed disgusting to her.
The Maharal, on the other hand, says that marriages with relatives are best because it is easiest for a person to love his relatives, but the Torah prohibited incest (except for a relative) so that people would mix and the world would not be confused.
In this approach, of the Maharal, in prohibiting incest the Torah does not come to say how intimate relationships should be (for ordinary people, it is understood that intimacy with a relative is a defect in intimacy) but rather on the fact that people will not be absorbed in themselves but will take care of each other. And this will happen by marrying together.
If so, it is easy to take the prohibition of the zel, which originates, at least in some places, full of adultery, to be a place of repulsive behavior, not sacred in a person's intimacy.
Rather, it seems that the problem with this is more in the mitzvah of procreation and reproduction (where, by the way, many commentators mention the prohibition of the zel, in addition to the er and onan, where the whole problem is that he did not establish seed for his brother) of the existence of the world, etc. And the Maharl, as usual, brings this in a Kabbalistic interpretation.
However, there is a bit of a problem if it is used in a mukh, and since the prohibition applies only to the act of the zel, then this mukh is used as a kind of solution to do, in that there is no action of the husband here that he can be accused of, so to speak.

יוסף replied 5 years ago

Hello. Why can't it be explained in a simple way that the entire intention of the Zohar is for a married man whose wife is ready and interested in pregnancy and is prevented from it by corrupting the semen, who commits an act of shame and masturbation, which caused sorrow to the woman and the semen would have been nullified, when, the semen had potential and therefore was killed immediately, after all, someone who is not married or a woman who cannot now because she is breastfeeding, then it is no longer semen for nullification and it does not grieve the woman. In this simplicity, the Gemara and the Zohar work out perfectly and in truth, being single or married during the niddah does not belong to nullification

מיכי replied 5 years ago

And not in the Nidah marker, but simply when he is not used with his wife. Therefore, it is precisely unlikely that this should have been noted. In my opinion, the verses do not mean that either.

הפוסק האחרון replied 5 years ago

The Rambam writes

It is forbidden to bring forth a seedbed for idleness. For your sake, a man shall not be a ram from within and a sow from without. And he shall not marry a little one who has not seen a child. But those who commit adultery with their hands and with a bed of seed are not enough for them to be forbidden a great sin, but rather the one who does this in exile will sit, and concerning them it is said (Isaiah 15): ‘Your hands are full of blood’ and they are like the murderer of a soul:

Therefore it is forbidden for a person to harden his soul to know or bring himself to contemplation. But if he comes to him with reflection, he will turn his heart from the things of the house (and its corruption) to the things of the Torah. She is (Proverbs 19) a ‘loved doe and a graceful ewe’. For example, it is forbidden for a person to sleep on his back and with his face upward until he has turned a little so that he does not come near the kishui:

The Maggid Mishnah
It is forbidden to take out etc.’. Banda Part Kol Hid (page 103) and we have already mentioned above: And he shall not bear a small thing, etc. There they said that those who bear small things hinder the Messiah: But those who commit adultery, etc. There Rabbi Elazar said, "Why is it written, 'Your hands are full of blood,' those who commit adultery by the hand of my servant Rabbi Yishmael, 'You shall not commit adultery, there shall be no adultery among you, whether by hand or by foot.'" [And above Itamar] Rav said, "He who makes it difficult for himself to know, he shall be in the ablution, etc. Rabbi Ami said, "Anyone who brings himself to contemplation, blessed be He, is not admitted into the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He." And from the words of our Rabbi, it appears that what they said, he shall be in the ablution, that the Sages excommunicated anyone who does so, and this is what was written in the ablution sitting. But the Ramban, may God bless him, wrote in the Tosafot that he is not excommunicated by himself in the excommunication of our rabbis, but rather that a court of law decrees his excommunication until he is excommunicated, and evidence for this is the statement of the scholars: "Whoever calls his fellow slave a slave, he will be excommunicated, and they say, 'He has gone up in the sanctification,' saying to him, 'You are my slave, are you not from among us?' Even if it is because of me, he will be excommunicated, but not from among us until we have excommunicated him." Thus did our Rabbi Yaakov, may God bless him, interpret this, and so did the Rashbala, may God bless him, on his behalf: