Ejaculation by his wife.

Why is ejaculation considered void? Is it not possible to regard this as ejaculation before the time that is during intercourse, since the Bible certainly would not consider it void, because it is part of the marital relationship, and therefore it is like marital relationships? Or I will ask it another way, what is the difference between this and ejaculation that is not in accordance with the way that is permitted according to the Torah when it is not frequent?

Before the time is rape during normal intercourse. In the case of a woman, this is intercourse from a halakhic perspective, and ejaculating during intercourse is not considered null and void. It is forbidden to ejaculate outside of intercourse.

Does Shana bring a path of organs that is permitted even in the Shazel edition? And see in a whole book dedicated to these areas and sparked much discussion, see page 11. Half of the rabbis there are anonymous… but the one who is For example, the following guidance is given in the book Hasidim: “Although they said that a snake serves as a face to face, and so do fish and man, since the Divine Presence spoke to them, yet Rav said: What is the difference between this and Binita, and also: He wanted to eat boiled meat, he wanted to eat roasted meat, everything is a person’s permission. Only on the night of baptism is it not possible unless he is above and she is below, because there is no pleasure for a woman unless she is below.” But on other nights he should do as he pleases so that he does not think about other women and only that the wife’s will be done, for it is written that even without his wife’s knowledge, a soul comes to her, only the child is not good. All these things are according to his wife’s will and according to his will if he finds a good woman who is according to his will in those things and he produces a will from “God has pleased your deeds.” Elsewhere, the author of the Sefer Hasidim states that a man should “abstain from all the pleasures that come from a woman, except for his wife.”
The words of the author of the Sefer Harokach in this context are even more emphatic: “And a man should abstain from everything that the body enjoys from women, from seeing her, from touching her, and from sitting with them, and from seeing her lovely clothes, and from hearing the sound of her voice in her melody, and from talking to her, whether she is a married woman or a single woman, except for his wife, he should rejoice in her when she is pure with all his heart’s desire.” Therefore, he should be quick and careful not to think about women’s thoughts, but rather, he should rejoice in the wife of his bosom and express his love for her whenever he desires, because she protects him from sin. Therefore, for every desire he desires for her, to love and honor her, then he will find his heart’s desire and merit in this and the next.”

For Gil, the Rabbi divided between a bea (where it is permissible to take out a shezl) and a place where a bea is not taken out (where it is forbidden to take out a shezl).
For the Rabbi, the question is what is the distinction, what is the reason that when there is a "bea" it is permissible to take out a shezl while other things with one's wife it is forbidden to take out a shezl? I am more inclined to the view that it is always permissible (as long as and not frequently (each one has their own definition)) to take out a shezl with one's wife (of course, as long as and it is out of some kind of marital relationship, not just at lunch), and the main prohibition on taking out a shezl is stated not during marital relations.
And this is because I find one explanation for the prohibition of the shal”l (I am not referring to the Zohar, whoever wants to uphold the words of the Zohar and be accepted will vouch for it, I am talking about the normal rule), and it is – sexual relations other than with his wife which are forbidden.
So I would be happy to hear the Rabbi's opinion, for which there is a distinction precisely if he comes during the act of intercourse (which is permitted) and simply sexual relations between a man and his wife who does not come during intercourse.

Ejaculation always involves the emission of semen, and therefore, whenever a man performs ejaculation on his wife (which is a mandatory obligation), the emission of semen is permitted. But the emission of semen without ejaculation is not rape, since here the emission is not required by the act of ejaculation, but the semen simply comes out. Why should I allow it?!
The question of why ejaculating through organs is ejaculation and the question of what is meant by ejaculating through organs are not simple questions. But assuming that it is ejaculation – in my opinion, this is the halakha.
I did not understand the distinction between frequent and infrequent. Either it is permitted or it is not.

“The conclusion of the verse’ in vows according to Rabbi Yochanan, that whatever a man wants to do to his wife, he does, and in any case, turning over a table, which according to most of the Rishonim is a sexual intercourse that is not in accordance with her manner, is permissible. And we also learned in Sanhedrin Noah, 2: “Rabbi Elazar said, Rabbi Hanina said: A son of Noah who came to his wife in accordance with her manner – is liable, as it is said (Genesis 2:24): And he committed – and not in accordance with her manner. Rava said: Who has taken from the hand of the Israelites that I do not make him liable, and a foreigner that I do not make him liable?!”, then in Israel, sexual intercourse that is not in accordance with her manner is permissible.

Tirzhu Tos’ Sanhedrin Noah, 2:1: “And it should be said that it is not a prisoner, but one who does so frequently, so that she does not go astray and denies her beauty, but if most of her uses it according to her manner, but by chance he desires her not according to her manner – Shari.” And so the majority of the Rishonim, who brings her not according to her manner for his pleasure by chance, is permitted, and so the appendix 7 (Yevamot 12:2, 15); the appendix 7 (Kontra HaRayot for Sanhedrin Noah, 1); the appendix 7 (Yevamot 34:2); Ra'sh (Yevamot 3:9, according to the version of the B'ach, letter 6, and Beit Yosef, 25; and so explicitly in his Tosafot to Nedirim 20:2); Rabbanu Yerucham (Toldot O'ach 23:1); Mordechai Shavuot (Halakhid, 1991); Hagahot Maimonides (Isa. 22:2, letter 4); Agudah (Sanhedrin 7:5; and Yevamot 3:33, he gave both excuses); Ritva in his main excuse (cited in Shtamk Nedarim 20:2); Rabbanu Yonah (Sanhedrin Noach, 2; this is also how he understood it in his opinion in Rakhi O'ach Ram, 5). Quote from the Extensions to the Halacha.
So the prohibition against ejaculating frequently is because he does not perform the puer or is not interested, in an infrequent manner, he performs the puer or at least tries to perform it. This is towards the division between frequent and infrequent.
The prohibition for a single man to do this without marital relations is because he supposedly creates a connection with another woman (who caused him to think and for which he is ejaculating) or also to do it just like that, but not with his wife.
In short, I will permit it, because the entire prohibition is stated not with his wife, and it is null and void.
That is, there is a general prohibition against ejaculating as explained in Nidah 13. And the main problem is that it does not come during marital relations (I understand that you define that the main problem with this is that it does not come during intercourse, but neither of us has a source to define the place of the prohibition (not during intercourse or not in casual marital relations) but it is more clear to me as I defined it, because I see no point in prohibiting it as you say, what is the problem? They maintain marital relations, each couple is required to have different marital relations and it is clear that whoever wants to do it with his wife does it (I am aware that there are Rishonim who interpreted that all this is during the time when he does not produce sperm, but I brought the problem of Rishonim who did not p’ this and act like them, so as it seems to me in the halakhic literature if a couple asks if it is permissible not according to her way from behind, they will allow him)).
And there is a prohibition to live without fulfilling the commandment of pur”r.
When a man spends time with his wife, he does not violate the first prohibition, and when he does not do so systematically, and also bears children, he does not nullify the marriage, and therefore the marriage must be permitted.

The consideration that he will not deny her beauty does not belong here. He can come to her without having sex. This has nothing to do with ejaculating without ejaculation at all.
The prohibition of being single simply is not because of contemplating another woman, but rather it is a self-prohibition. Some saw it as an accessory to Yahuwah. All that was permitted was only during ejaculation because it is part of ejaculation. But I see no logic in permitting it simply by ejaculating without ejaculation.
On the sidelines, I also do not understand what pleasure a woman gets from it. It is pleasure for a man to ejaculate without ejaculation (and perhaps the woman does not want ejaculation. But I do not see how she wants the semen to come out of her husband for her own pleasure).
As for doing it infrequently, this is said about ejaculation that is not her custom. And the limit is to observe the mitzvot of Purim and Shabbat. This has nothing to do with frequency or infrequency. As long as one ejaculates in her custom around the time of ovulation, he can do everything at other times, even with great frequency, as long as it is a permissible act.

A. During the Talmud, without drinking a cup of intoxicants or taking a drug, he cannot come to her without violating her.
B. Regarding her pleasure - joy of doing as he pleases. He does not contradict that she has pleasure.
C. Some interpreted it according to frequency and not in relation to the time of ovulation. Nafka was more commonly used in the past for fish, if her husband was a sailor and his frequency was one season for six months.

It's a little hard to understand the matter. After all, if a man ejaculates outside of the woman, is it considered an invalid ejaculate? Isn't it obvious?!
Or when the woman wants and with her consent to ejaculate in her body but not in her genitals, is it permissible?

Already answered above.

Someone who doesn't have sperm, why should he masturbate for pleasure?

I don't understand. Doesn't he ejaculate at all? So there's no problem with semen being wasted, but there are forbidden thoughts.

The fact that the Jewish law prohibits ejaculation in a vagina is not a law but a legend. No one dies. Although the Rogzober wants to learn from this that even a Gentile is forbidden to ejaculate, because of murder, his words are a Midrash of surprise.

Simply put, there is no difference between ejaculation that is not in accordance with the law and ejaculation through organs (i.e., casual friction of the organ in the body of his wife). Those who prohibit ejaculating in ejaculation that is not in accordance with the law do not take into account that this has a “name” of ejaculation.
The prohibition of ejaculating in the two aforementioned cases (in accordance with the law and through organs) is not from the Torah, but rather a decree of the Rabbis, an act of being awake and masturbating. And according to those who permit it, anything that is not similar to the act of being awake and masturbating, i.e., only by chance (whatever the definition of this chance may be), is not prohibited.

The Rabbi here forbade “through the limbs”, his right as a rabbi is a ruling, I did not understand the difficulties.

There is a great disagreement among the rabbis as to whether “through the limbs” is permissible, and the Rabbi ruled for the prohibition.
All the best.

And so is the Halacha's opinion simply to prohibit "through the limbs", and only in special cases such as medical problems and the like will it be permissible within the framework of a rabbi's question, and even this in certain ways and with the guidance of both light and heavy.

She enjoys
that her husband, despite his many and immense desires, is focused on her and all that pleases him is around her and in connection with her
Maybe this is a great spiritual rest for a woman?
And also the fact that she is his sign of satisfaction as long as he is with her and in her presence causes her a kind of peace of mind?

Brings about an obstacle.

Even someone who does not have any semen at all is forbidden. We learn this from Joseph the Tzadik. And the semen of his hands was scattered, as if it were scattered. The semen that came out from between the fingers of his hands. According to the Ari, it was spiritual and in practice, so even if it does not come out physically, it still comes out spiritually. And besides, regarding a married man who has a discharge before or after or during, as well as the drops that come out later, from the beginning, they must all be in the place of the offering, and for what did not come in for whatever reason, it is necessary to make a basic correction according to Rabbi Chaim the Cohen the Milkman.