To bypass the ban on “light” viewing in the media in order to avoid bypassing “serious” viewing

Hello Rabbi,

The Rabbi already mentioned on the website that there is no halakha as R’ Elai.

I didn’t understand what the problem was with his words, and why not rule as he said.
Let me explain:
R’ Elai does not legitimize sin. He does not say, “You shall sin.”
He simply says, it is worse to sin publicly and to unburden yourself. Therefore, if you are already a sinner, do it secretly, so as not to desecrate the name of God, so as not to receive a stigma from society, and so on.

He does not “permit” to sin. He only says that sinning publicly is more serious, and therefore, why should you get into a serious situation, if the urge allows you to sin secretly.

What is the problem with that?
Why not rule like that?

The problem with this is that it assumes determinism. A person must cope and not give up on himself. Everyone knows that it is better to sin in secret than in public. This is not Rabbi Elai's innovation. The innovation is the permission to commit sin in secret when you expect to commit it in public. And about this, the Rif and the Rash wrote in Mok 16 that there is no halakha according to Rabbi Elai.

I wonder if this is about ”giving up on oneself”.
I mean a “controlled” and ”idealistic” place where a person expects that he will most likely fail [if free choice can be introduced into a model of chances at least externally, perhaps like the person, the subject, imposing himself on reality and becoming an object after having already chosen (in existentialist terms), and then from another point in time (in our case earlier) this falls into the category of probability] Therefore, since he believes that he will fail in a severe prohibition, he is from the beginning, ideologically, failing himself in a minor prohibition. And it seems that this is the story in the Book of Hasidim of a man who asks about his assessment that he will fail in his wife Nida and the wife of a man and asks if he will discharge his desire by ejaculating by hand, which from an idealistic point of view he does not want to give up, but rather to transgress a minor prohibition instead of a severe one.

And I said and I repeat that such a thing means giving up on oneself. He must fight even if most likely he will fail (as far as one can talk about chances). Beyond that, the very possibility of giving up increases the chance of sinning and decreases the chances of coping.

I can understand that this is a renunciation of some supreme effort. But it must be remembered that this is also a prohibition on thought, and the psychology of the average human being says that when one resists thoughts, they come much stronger. So this supreme effort also leads to a proliferation of reflections in the long term (and beyond that, to the crushing of many areas of life due to the excessive investment of energy in the struggle against the urge, and also ultimately sometimes to complete despair from the struggle, and perhaps even more religious struggles, but that is only in parentheses).
And in fact, is the most appropriate mental movement when the urge is strong not to drive the heart from words of corruption to words of benefit (as Maimonides said)? That is, not to engage in some kind of “overcoming like a lion” or some “struggle against” but to engage in positive things? (As said when you go through a meditation, you mostly get stronger – “Don't think about a pink elephant”) But unfortunately, that doesn't always help either.. So what is “giving up on yourself” here? The situation is that the urge awakens and a person tries to deal with positive things until the urge becomes so strong and a person continues with positive things and he doesn't concentrate against the urge, and he doesn't turn the world against the urge – because that will only increase the urge, then he understands the balance of power from the struggles he has had in his life with his urge and is decisive. One has to be an honest person, and what do the Christians say? You have a law that tells you exactly what to do at every moment. It's much harder for us without the law because we have to be moral people. This is a real test for a person to know himself and his strengths.
I ask honestly, and it seems to me from a very real place with myself, where is the point of giving up here?

You are talking about an act that leads to reflection and not just reflection. Renunciation is doing an act that is forbidden in your decision. And as I wrote, in my opinion it is forbidden. A person has to struggle and sometimes will fail. We repeat ourselves.

To Rabbi Shalom,

I thought about the things and let them sink in.
And I am puzzled why the Rabbi rules in his opinion (despite the fact that you also presented the opinions of others) that there is no halakha like Rabbi Ilai regarding the matter of going to a faraway place and doing whatever his heart desires?

A. Isn't this the Gemara's interpretation? “Rabbi Ilai the Elder said, if he sees a person whose urges overpower him, he should go to a place where no one knows him and wear black and cover himself with black and do as his heart desires and not profane the name of God in public, I am not, and he decreed that anyone who does not spare the honor of his Creator deserves not to come to the world. What is the rabbi saying? This is the one who looks at the bow of Rav Yosef saying? This is the one who commits a sin in secret, not a kesha, is it a demtzi keif lyzriya, and is it a dela matzi keif lyzriya” Even the Gemara cites another baraita according to Rabbi Ilai in order to align with it.

B. After all, many of the subjects of the tools on the Shul brought the book of Hasidim, which claims this (now I believe you that he claims this based on Rabbi Ilai because I did not examine all the sources in depth.)

C. Isn't this "almost refined logic" that it is better to transgress a minor prohibition than a major one? I understand that it can be called "waiving", but it is a waiver that makes perfect sense in a cold mind (if we do not include emotional reluctance to commit a transgression proactively, and it seems to me that the Torah is learned with common sense rather than, for that matter, with the reluctance of religious OCD, or at least that is how it should be as learners).

Thank you very much,

Hello A.
I don't know what else I can explain. We may disagree and that's fine. I'm just saying that your math makes an incorrect assumption. You assume that if a person estimates that he won't be able to handle something, then that's how it really will be. And I assume that if we allow him, then that's how it will be, but if not - there's a chance that he'll be able to fight harder and succeed. And certainly when he knows in advance that it's allowed (and not just that he's allowed when he comes to ask).
Search for the article on the story of Chai Sarah here on the website:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwJAdMjYRm7IY0xlc1dmYTMweVE

To Rabbi Michael Shalom,

I am still pondering and writing about this matter and I am in contact with other people who are involved in this.

I am wondering about your argument, which claims that if we allow (and in my opinion even require) a person to undergo a light ejaculation in order to avoid the risk of a hard ejaculation (as with the use of pornography), then offenses will increase because the person's very knowledge that he can sin will tempt him to sin more. (If I understood correctly).

The question I am asking myself is – Is it permissible for a posk to conceal from the public a specific correct halakha, and even to rule against it for fear that the public will stumble. Especially in matters of desire. (I am talking about a specific law that has a practical, practical effect on the life of the entire public, and not about the “secrets of adultery” in general as a system within the more esoteric halakhic literature.)
If we are talking about a decree that the sages are permitted to make a reservation to the Torah – then we are talking about a decree that the public cannot abide by – isn't that right? And are rabbis in our generation even allowed to issue decrees? In other words, isn't that the exclusive authority of the Sanhedrin or the Great Knesset?
And if we are talking about a simple exclusion that has no binding legal basis – isn't that what the story of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge teaches that it is forbidden to add to the word of the ’, in our case – the law that includes the commandment “do not turn aside”, in matters of exclusion from lust? After all, that is exactly what the snake did, isn't it?
And in general, one wonders whether this is a good exclusion or edict, because by the way, if this halakhic ruling is good and correct in principle, by the way – it could allow a more natural life for young men (even though its main purpose is to prevent falling into pornography) and an exclusion or edict here could probably cause very significant reasons for young men to distance themselves from religion and cast off the yoke of mitzvot in general (that is, in my opinion, even today the prohibition of shal”l causes young men to distance themselves from religion). And this illustrates how this can indeed be an exclusion or edict that is actually quite parallel to the story of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge (again, if from the main point of halakhic law as I claim).

But in your opinion, it is mainly law and not an exclusion or edict, so the prohibition in the Gemara is a prohibition of ejaculating for nothing and here it is for the purpose of avoiding a transgression and how can we say that it is for nothing? For example “He who turns his heart to nothing” It is not for the sake of heaven in general and not for any special "action" of the heart (if we speak in Aristotelian language that attributes purpose to everything) and the ejection of semen has a meaning according to the Gemara also to check whether he has cut off ejaculation and this is not in vain, and the prohibition of contemplation is permitted if it is "in the work of a gynecologist (and quails animals), and it is clear that he will contemplate only that it is the course of his work and is for a need and not in vain (and the matter of contemplation and ejection by the hand are not so far apart in their severity and it is possible that they are the same halakhic prohibition as in "holding his penis and urinating" and "everyone who says, "wide, wide And the Torah explains that the spiritual idea of the prohibition against sinning is mainly from “You shall not sin,” but if a person ejaculates in order not to commit a transgression, then it is clear that he is not following his own eyes and heart but rather the will of God, and his decision is like one who has cast out a demon. (And this is the main point of what I am seeking to rule that one should act “as if one had cast out a demon,” and therefore I am talking about the main point of the law in this paragraph, but the fact that a person probably will not be able to truly do this at such a level of righteousness is what I discussed in the previous paragraph on the question of whether it is permissible to hide the law from the public eye as a decree or a ban.)
And no one has stated this more clearly than the wisdom of Solomon in Even HaEzer, Mark 23, That anyone who ejaculates for the sake of a mitzvah or to prevent a transgression is like one who begets children by ejaculating his own semen, and this does not invalidate it at all. And thus he placed the bearers of utensils on the Shulchan Aruch and the Shulchan Aruch itself.

And in conclusion, I would be happy to know if the Rabbi claims that it should be prohibited because of a prohibition or a decree or from the principle of the law, and if it is because of a prohibition or a decree, I would be happy if he answered my questions in the paragraph where I asked about it in 3 directions.

With greetings and many thanks,

It is difficult for me to continue a discussion at such large intervals. I no longer remember what was discussed. In short, I will say that it is indeed impossible to issue new decrees, and a posk does not have permission to hide a law from the public. This is a matter of law, not exclusion or decree. The expenditure of semen for a benefit other than procreation is an expenditure for nothing. Otherwise, the expenditure of semen to earn money would also be permissible.
So far.