Vil’amsburg Diaries: Simchas mit Nachas
[Serial Fiction]
My cell phone vibrates. Nuchem taught me how to set it on vibrate when I’m in shul or, as I am now, at a simcha. Breindy wanted me to look around to see if it would be suitable for Yidi’s Bar Mitzveh. As if I can afford a place like this to begin with. Maybe it’s the caterer she wanted me to check out. He just sent out the appetizer – sautéed liver on it’s own edible cracker-plate. It’s all the rage these days and quite tasty too.
Again my pocket vibrates. It must be a txt message. A neier meshigas, which, like the cell-phone itself, the world would be better without.
“I am going to take the test tomorrow,” the text says.
Wow. A test. I thought those days were behind us. Breindy knows by now when she’s pregnant. She always did, really. The only reason she would get the pregnancy test kit was to get me to believe. And she was always right. So, another baby now. Oy, I hope I had pure thoughts when we did the mitzvah; I want God-fearing children.
Another little mouth to feed now. The costs add up so quickly. We had some money set aside for Nuchem’s wedding but we’ve been using it for Yidi’s Bar Mitzveh. What can I say though? It doesn’t look like Nuchem will be getting married anytime soon. But I shouldn’t say that; al tiftach peh la’soton. He just decided to go to Israel for Lag Ba’omer. How? I’m not paying for the trip, I told him. So he said he’s paying it on his own; has his own money. Where in God’s name does he earn money from? I don’t want to know.
I just hope the next baby is a girl. They’re just so much easier to raise. A girl has to kill someone to be considered bad. Or wear makeup before she’s married. Boys have many more rules. It gets complicated, and one is easily branded a “bum” for not entirely fitting the mold.
“Der eibershter zol takke helfen…” The speech is winding down. This is my cue to leave. I go over to Yanki, the baal simche, or Reb Yankel, as he likes to be called, and wish him a heartfelt mazel tov.
I think I’m too old for another baby. I should have einiklech by now, I mutter to myself as I ignite the car engine. And the name? Oy, that’s where all the trouble starts. Baby’s hardly born, and the aggravation begins. Who to name her after? Breindy’s family will insist we name her after her great-aunt Janet. Well, not Janet, but Esther, or Esther Yachet. There’s some controversy over her name. She died childless, and her tombstone just says Esther, but one cousin brought home pictures from the great-great-grandmother’s tombstone in Debrezcin on which the inscription reads, “Hu’ishu Hachashivu Ve’hatzniu Esther Yachet bas Reb Mordche Shmiel z”l.” She must have been named after this great-great-grandmother, it stands to reason, and it’s the war that made her, or us, forget her real name.
No one in the family wants to name their kids after her. Her husband Uncle Itchy promised my brother-in-law Mendy ten thousand dollars to name his daughter after Janet. Uncle Itchy died before he could make good on his promise. “Not a big deal,” Mendy says, “I named her after Esther from the megilleh anyway.” You see, she wasn’t heimish. First of all, she lived in Queens. The family wasn’t close at all. She didn’t cover her hair and there was some suspicion that she sometimes wore pants. Who knows if she even kept Shabbos? A lost neshama.
The war destroyed everything. She had children back in derheim. Sweet little kids, killed somewhere in that godforsaken land of unspeakable horrors, their bones probably buried in some mass grave, if there were any bones to be buried at all. No one really knows, and Janet never spoke about it. I can’t imagine the agony. Maybe that’s why she turned out the way she did. A little baby girl would be the perfect answer to Hitler yemach shemoi.
Nuchem’s home. What wind blew him in here? I still can’t get over him saying he’d pay for his trip himself. He’s sitting on the couch reading some book, looks like he’s studying it. Not bad, I think to myself; can’t remember the last time I saw him reading. Then I notice the DMV logo, and I realize it’s the prep book for the driving test. Bucherim aren’t supposed to drive, and he knows it. But I have no energy left to argue. I don’t know how I’ll manage to father the new little girl on the way; odd how I’m already thinking – hoping? – it’s a girl, because if it isn’t bin ich oif tzures.
He looks up at me as I put my good hat, the one I keep for simchas and the like, back in the box. “Did you get my text?” He asks.
”Which text?”
”I’m going for my road test tomorrow.”
He probably wonders why I stand dumbfounded. Zol er zein gebentcht.
Printable Version
oy breathtaking for its reality…
but don’t you always picture rabaini hakudosh zy”a when you have sex?
did you make sure she didn’t orgasm?
I’m always amazed at how many yoilys are truck drivers…
Like this comment?
1
HIMM,
That she *didn’t* orgasm? Isn’t ‘the mitzvah’ about making sure that she is satisfactorily pleasured?
Like this comment?
0
A girl has to kill – or wear make-up. ROFL.
What is with the Zeideh’s Matzeivah? “Harabuni Hanugid Reb Mordche Shmiel bas Esther Yachet z”l.” Was he buried alive? Was he born female too?
Like this comment?
1
Great work, as usual. I can almost hear the thoughts along these lines in the heads of so many guys around here. Very realistic.
HMM, what does Yoily and truck driving have to do with this particular set of thoughts? Are you implying that Nuchem will become a truck driver because he’s taking the driving test?
Like this comment?
0
Nice surprise ending. I didn’t see it coming.
Like this comment?
1
Nice, very nice. Well done.
Like this comment?
1
Gigi — I’m not sure the mitzvah has much to do with her having an orgasm. The entire concept of Judaism placing so much emphasis on pleasing a woman sexually is more or less the invention of apologists and kiruv professionals.
And you can be certain no chosson teacher in the chasidish world ever mentions orgasm to his charges, let alone emphasize it as an inherent part of the mitzvah.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
4
HR;
You are clearly wrong on this. We all know about “onah”, and it is clearly defined in Shulchan Aruch, an entire siman actually, the sexual responsibilities that a husband has to his wife. The Shulchan Aruch doesn’t mention orgasm specifically, but the from the context there is no room for doubt that the husband has to please his wife in bed, just as she has the same requirement to him. The Shulchan Aruch lists the times that he owes her sexual relations, and how often etc. and that has nothing to do with reproduction. If a husband refuses to sleep with his wife that is grounds do force him to divorce. The Shu”A even says that if he only wants to sleep with her while clothed, that too is grounds for divorce (seemingly the problem with the frummies isn’t a new one). So where do you get your ideas that it’s an invention of the kiruv specialists? Reb Moshe has a teshuva about a chosson reading sex manuals…
The chassidishe which don’t teach these things, are probably hoping that the couple will figure it out on their own, as most do. (I am being here the devil’s advocate).
Like this comment?
0
Gigi, I could be wrong, but I thought HIMM was alluding to the amusing Gemara that says that whoever climaxes first during conception decides what the sex of the child is. If the woman comes first, the child will be a boy. I assumed that was why HIMM said that, because the character said he wanted a girl.
HR, I never heard anyone say that Judaism emphasizes pleasing a woman, but I have heard chosson teachers say it’s important, not necessarily from a Judaic perspective but a logical one. If you don’t, or can’t, please your wife in bed, there will probably be difficulties with your marriage.
Like this comment?
0
Kaf — Onah is not exactly akin to sexual pleasure. It’s about providing her basic needs so that she doesn’t feel undesired. And of course, as you mentioned, has nothing to do with orgasm (which was the main point I was making in response to Gigi).
And yes, there is passing mention for accommodating a woman’s needs. Particularly with reference to “pius,” or priming her to be in the right mood. But there’s far more support for not overly indulging in sex. Siman Reish-Mem has far more about the man’s general behavior during sex, and what is or isn’t forbidden, than it is about the woman. It’s been years since I’ve studied, and I no longer have my s’forim handy, but just a mention of the dictum “k’ilu kofoi shed” should show the general attitude towards sex.
(As for the clothing issue, that’s hardly an indicator of much. There’s a difference between emphasizing the need to “pleasure the woman” and to refrain from behavior that would cause her to feel demeaned, unwanted, unapreciated.)
Apologists and kiruv professionals have taken to emphasizing the minor references and allusions that are mentioned for the woman’s benefit and gloss over all the references that indicate otherwise. The same people who claim that Judaism considers women more spiritual, and therefore have fewer religious obligations. (Obvious BS.) The same people who emphasize all the beautiful things in Judaism that are consistent with contemporary mores and values, and gloss over all the xenophobia, racism, sexism, and support for religious fundamentalism.
And none of this begins to address attitudes in the Chasidish world. Even though the mitzvah of Onah is taught in a technical sense, I am not aware of any emphasis placed on actual sexual pleasure, for neither the man, nor the woman. Maybe it differs by group, but from my own experiences (which, I have reason to believe, are fairly typical), sex is taught more as something to be done and be over with, and not to be indulged in. And just skim through any basic work on Chasidus and you’ll find much to support the idea that sex should be performed with the least amount of pleasure possible.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
4
HR: “The same people who emphasize all the beautiful things in Judaism that are consistent with contemporary mores and values, and gloss over all the xenophobia, racism, sexism, and support for religious fundamentalism.”
I actually think this is a good thing. It shows that the religious are making an effort to adapt to modern mores. If hasidism is to evolve (which it cannot help doing), isn’t it better if it tends toward the current trends than to insist on antiquated, passe attitudes?
Like this comment?
0
Laura — that’s arguable. I don’t necessarily disagree. The question still remains whether it can be claimed as a Jewish value, or merely a contemporary value with incidental support from religious texts. It has often been argued that, with enough creativity, one can use religion to support or condemn any notion or ideology. Akin to the old Blu Greenberg saying, “Where there’s a rabbinic will, there’s a halachic way.” But I also think there’s value in not misrepresenting original source texts.
Like this comment?
3
HR ;
Keep in mind, that during the times of the amoroim in the gemara, many other cultures were treating woman as mere chattel (which is true to a certain extent in Judaism as well, but as I pointed out a different time, I think that is more legalistic terminology than what it really sounds like, not unlike many doctrines and theories in the common law until fairly recent). That in Judaism it was instituted early on that a husband has sexual obligations to his wife at all, no matter how you define them, along with many other chazals, I think can show how chazal envision the marital relationship, even though they did not go into the details of how to sexually satisfy one’s wife. Also bear in mind, that the gemara and shulchan aruch were written way before the Kinsey Report… so you shouldn’t expect a discussion on how to stimulate the female clitoris! The “kufoi shed” statement doesn’t really refute any of that, because it isn’t mentioned as a chiyuv, just as an ideal, and the shulchan aruch was written for people on many different levels, and after all, kedoshim tiyuh applies here as well, each according to his level.
Like this comment?
0
Well, ancient texts were only able to be as modern as was possible at the time, and the Bible and biblical texts *were* pretty modern by those standards. (Any comparison to older documents, such as the Hittite Laws, or documents even slightly later than the Bible’s times will reveal the progressive nature of the Bible for that period of time.)Obviously, the Talmud is not going to speak about orgasm because documents of that time–or people of that time–did not speak about orgasms. But if the texts mention satisfying a woman and modern scholars choose to interpret that as orgasming a woman, why is that a form of apologia? And since when is it only kiruv guys or apologists spouting this interpretation? As far as I know, it’s a commonly accepted interpretation, just as kafhakele claims.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
4
Oh, just saw kafhakele’s newer comment. It’s similar to what I’m saying.
Like this comment?
0
Laura and Kaf — Whether or not the bible and rabbinic literature were progressive for their times is a side issue. True, those texts have historical context and we can’t divorce it from such. But that hardly matters. It’s like saying that the Bible condones slavery only because it was accepted in that milieu. That might be true, but the fact remains that they condoned slavery — as progressive as their laws of slavery might have been. (And we still need to examine whether those laws really were progressive for their times. A totally separate question.)
The fact remains that the importance of a woman’s “sexual pleasure” has little support in classic rabbinic literature. Other than the concept of “onah” and the accompanying “pius,” notions only alluded to in a backhanded way, there is to my knowledge nothing that mentions a woman’s “sexual pleasure” per se. In the whole of Siman Reish-Men there’s not a single seif that says, “Not only must a man give his wife sex, but he must see that she gets pleasure out of it.” The concept simply doesn’t exist in rabbinic texts. And if it was a notion they valued they could’ve had at least one sentence about it. In between talking about whether a man can have his woman cooked, broiled, or baked, or where they discuss whether or not he can kiss or look at her vagina, they could also have added something about “Ask her how she likes it.” But they didn’t.
The argument about orgasms not being discussed in those days has no validity. If the rabbis were too prudish to mention it, fine. But fact is, they didn’t. And it’s not like they didn’t know about orgasms. It’s not the human genome we’re talking here, that had to be discovered by teams of hundreds of scientists working over decades. This is a phenomenon that (at least theoretically) is within the realm of experience of half the human population since the rise of homo sapiens.
(And BTW, we don’t see the rabbis being very prudish in general. Talking about Rav Pupa’s penis size, and the specifics of female anatomy, however legalistic, shows they were never too prudish to discuss any matter of importance.)
This isn’t a value judgement about the rabbinic texts. Hey I love the rabbis. The tanna Hillel was a standup guy (even if his counterpart Shammai was a bit of a douche). And Reish Lakish was a badass that would put Clint Eastwood to shame. But let’s just tell it like it is and not put words in their mouths just to make it consistent with our 21st century cultural norms.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
7
Oh — and as for “kofoi shed,” chiyuv or ideal, I doubt any woman would get much sexual pleasure out of a man behaving as if possessed by a demon. (Unless possessed in a good way — which, perhaps the woman might quite enjoy — but I don’t think the rabbis meant it that way.) The fact that it’s even mentioned as an ideal should tell you something. It should’ve been assur if they really cared about how the woman felt.
Like this comment?
3
HR,
If chazal would have the philosophy that one has to “feed” his wife well, as part of the requirement of mezonos, and then they elaborate that he should give her bread and onions, and a piece of chicken once a week, and then todays Rabbi’s interpret that today he should make sure she has a fully stocked fridge of the best fruits vegetables and meats, would that be putting words into chazal’s mouths? Or is that part of a posek’s job?
Like this comment?
2
Kaf — Female sexual pleasure existed since the dawn of the human species. Unlike a well-stocked fridge. There’s no comparison.
Like this comment?
3
HR, you misunderstood what I said. I did not attribute chazal’s non-discussion of orgasm to prudishness; the Talmud seems to easily discuss human sexuality in the crudest terms. What I said was that female orgasm wasn’t discussed because it simply wasn’t discussed in documents of that time. Not the word *orgasm* and not because of prudishness, simply as a concept. Women’s sexual pleasure held little or no importance (in fact, many people–even as late as early twentieth century–believed that only males could enjoy sex). Considering this, chazal’s mention of a wife’s satisfaction is relatively startling within the context of the times. But that was not the main point of my initial comment. As we know, modern rabbis are intellectually agile when it comes to interpreting ancient texts. They could have easily interpreted the sparse mentions of female sexual satisfaction to mean, say, something only applicable in the beis hamikdash’s tzeiten.
Instead, the yungeleit (apparently under rabbinic auspices) infer that the verses counsel them to bring their wives to orgasm. And that is a good thing.
Like this comment?
2
I agree, Laura. Anything that tells men to bring their wives to orgasm is a good thing.
Though, I think the question of whether a man was allowed to put his mouth on his wife’s vagina shows that they knew some things about pleasuring women.
Like this comment?
0
H R – Misechta Kalla chapter 1 certainly making your wife happy and fulfilling her needs. S”A speaks of the obligation to go beyond the normal amount of times when she seems to want (although she isn’t supposed to ask). So while I don’t know if I can point to any one word that translates as “pleasure” – there are many, not just a few isolated, that speak of your obligation to fulfill her needs.
In fact, the Rabbis seem to consider these light headed frivolous beings that want it all the time – and tell the men to “give in” to their needs and that is not considered a sin on the mans part.
Like this comment?
0
I just looked inside Tur reish mem “now a man is obligated to fulfill his wifes needs to make her happy with this happiness any time she needs it” etc.
Like this comment?
0
Laura — I addressed that. I don’t believe chazal were unaware of orgasms and certainly not about female sexual pleasure. How else does one understand the motivations of “Aishes Potifar”? C’mon.
The silence you allude to is recent, a reflection of Victorian sensibilities, hardly valid for a sweeping judgement of historical awarenesses. And yes — that silence probably was prudishness, not a fundamental lack of awareness. (Think of the Greco-Roman world. You can bet your ass they were aware of female sexual pleasure big time. If I remember correctly, Bacchanalias were actually mostly female-based, parties of wine and erotic entertainment.)
As for Chazal’s creativity in their interpretations, fine. No one disputes that. They were wise enough to realize that “an eye for an eye” wouldn’t pass muster in the “politically correct” zeitgeist of the time, and interpreted it metaphorically. So they get points for being flexible. (Although hardly progressive. Greco-Roman ideals were already well-established in Chazal’s day, and almost certainly influenced rabbinic thought.)
But you’re confusing the bible, chazal, later rabbis, and modern day apologists. Chazal interpreted the bible. Later rabbis interpret Chazal. Apologists interpret everyone, based on their pre-determined values.
So let’s see where precisely female sexual pleasure comes in as such:
The bible mentions Onah — the sexual obligation of a man who marries his slave-girl and then takes another wife. If you think that’s radical for its time, I have no idea why. Hittite texts or the Code of Hammurabi may not have exact equivalents, but they’re generally not much more primitive than the bible. In any case, so far no mention of female sexual pleasure. It doesn’t say, “Make sure she has a good time.” It says, “Don’t lock the poor slave-girl in a tent and never look at her just because you got yourself a new hot lay.” It is said in the context of providing her basic needs, along with food and clothing.
Alongside this, the bible is heavy with sex-negative messages. Don’t sleep with this one, don’t sleep with that one, don’t spill your seed; basically, keep your pecker in your pants whenever possible.
Chazal take the biblical mention of “Onah” and apply it to marital obligations universally. Fine. So far, still no mention of female sexual pleasure per se. Later rabbis elaborated on the details of the “Onah” responsibility, and basically came up with a formula depending on one’s vocation, which sorta averages out at once a week. Still no mention of female sexual pleasure. It’s about providing basic needs.
At the same time, Chazal are busy with more sex-negative messages. One says, “do it as if forced by a demon.” Another says “Kadesh atzmecha b’mutar lecha.” A major opinion is that sex is only to be done very conventionally, missionary style, no shelo kedarka, etc. And even though it’s rejected as the prevailing decision, it’s given honorable mention in all later law codes.
Modern day comes around and you have two phenomena in parallel. Fundamentalists (Chasidim, etc.) stick to a more or less basic reading of the texts, and completely disregard any notion of female sexual pleasure per se (other than “Onah” and “pius,” — the latter translating roughly to very basic romantic foreplay) — and for good reason. Because the texts don’t mention it. At all. Instead, Chasidim focus on all the sex-negative aspects in the texts.
At the same time, kiruv professionals fill the English Judaica section of your local bookstore and Judaism-centered websites with talk of the amazingly sex-positive attitude in Judaism (most particularly female-sex-positive) — a complete bastardization and mischaracterization of both Chazal and later rabbinic literature.
Now, if you think what they’re doing is right and correct: fine. I have no beef with that. I might even agree. But let’s not kid ourselves by taking the modern day apologia and mistaking it for mainstream Judaism, historical or contemporary. Attitudes in the fundamentalist Jewish world are still not sex-positive at all. So let’s not pretend that they are.
This pretty much exhausts my input on the topic, so I’ll let you (or Kaf, or anyone) have the last word, if you care to.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
4
“Still no mention of female sexual pleasure. It’s about providing basic needs.”
Couldn’t you make the argument that female sexual pleasure fits under the category of basic needs that a husband must provide his wife with? You’re supposed to keep your wife happy and a lot of things are included in that.
Like this comment?
0
I would love to hear Chaim Lieb Katz’s take on this issue…
Like this comment?
3
HR, I dont know which version of the shulchan aruch you are currently using, but in my shulchan aruch its a b’feyrush biyur hagru.
ןחייב אדם לדפוק את אשתו (או את אשת חברו) עד שהיא נובע מים ממקורה, מנקודת הגימל. ויש אומרים עד שכל גופה מזעזע.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
7
“או את אשת חברו”
באשתו אמרו קל וחומר באשת חבירו, — אבות א, ה
Like this comment?
0
HT,
Yes, I give your husband a heter allowing him to give you an orgasm.
Like this comment?
0
HT, this is what I said at my last shabbes shiva drusheh in the Skevere Talmid toiyreh oif di dry in fertzigster gasse.
“Di hantigeh froiyen
farlangeb oiyr-geyshem! Ven immer is doos amul gehert gevure, az a
yiddishe tuchter zul zahn azoiy oisgalassen k’achad hagoiyim….. Fin vanen kimt doos, fin di triefene magazinen? Fin dem churben noiyreh di internet? M’zugt nuch az di friyedige Belzer Ruv z’chisoy yugen uliny’s rebbetzin hud kienmul nisht gevist fin kahn oiyr-geyshem. An amuliger yiddisher froiy hut nur in ihr chulem gechulemt fin oiyr-geyshem……
Highly rated. Like this comment?
6
Can someone translate?
Like this comment?
0
Sarah, it won’t be quite as funny.
Like this comment?
0
PP,
או את אשת חברו
Did the SH”A request you please your “Frined’s wife”? this is very exciting news! I have a neighbor who’s wife I’m dying for!! Dachuf!!
Like this comment?
0
Reb Mechel. No! You can’t with your neighbors wife. That would be nichlal in the isser of “lo sachmoiyd “bayis” ra’yachu.” And we know that “beysoiy” zu “ishtoy”. There is also an issur of losachmod “eyshes” ra’yach”. So if its your friends wife, its also prohibited. The only thing that is mitter, is eishes chaveyro. Your companion’s wife. Like your business partner’s wife, a shul friend’s wife, but not a real close friend, or neighbors wife. We don’t want chas veshulem “le’harboiys mamzeyrim b’yisroel!!!”
Like this comment?
0
It is so sad when the ability to write well is mistaken for authority on the subject.
Sadder still when one can mask his ignorance by citing sources, however incorrectly. The inaccurate interpretation is probably due to the fact that he is completely uneducated in the matter at hand. Either because he is incapable of grasping the concept, or because he doesn’t care to. Whichever the case, the skillful (and more pretentious) writer, is given the unique opportunity to present his case to suit his bias regardless of accuracy.
For a guy who says he spent so much time coming to the conclusion that these rules are arbitrary, excessive and oppressive, I’m kind of surprised that he hadn’t chosen to be more informed and dally in the more fascinating and certainly more fun subject of Chazal’s approach to sex, and its relevance to marital bliss.
Chazal was at times so emphatic about the significance of adding passion to sex, and romance to marriage, that the lack of awareness alludes to well disguised illiteracy or just for entertainment purposes, intentional buffoonery.
Like this comment?
3
Gigi, lots of hot air, no substances. Sources please.
Like this comment?
2
“It is so sad when the ability to write well is mistaken for authority on the subject.”
Pot. Kettle. Black. Take it as a compliment if you wish.
“Sadder still when one can mask his ignorance by citing sources, however incorrectly…”
Sadder still when one can’t even mask it.
“Either because he is incapable of grasping the concept, or because he doesn’t care to.”
Or because he doesn’t drink the kool-aid. Just givin’ options, ya know.
“Chazal was at times so emphatic about the significance of adding passion to sex, and romance to marriage…”
Says the one who cites not a single source.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
6
hoezn, I’m curious as to your method of pulling a rabbi out of a hat. That is to say: do you think Rav Bick or Chaim Doovid Cats have any differences of opinion on this issue? I highly doubt it, and even if they had different ideas on it, none of ‘em would ever be man enough to dear “come out” with those ideas.
BTW, a few yrs ago I overheared a dayan rumoring in a BP kava-shtiebl that a daughter of the Sadderheller Ruv “went off de deyrich; kloimar, she went to shtudier in a inevursetate in gevurn a psychilug”, that is to say she got a phd in psych. It’s chooleeloo not my want here to induldge in idle looshnara, but it’d be quite something to hear what she has to say about her own ideas vss her fathers’ on this issue.
Like this comment?
0
Eruv Ruv: HT knew that I spoke about Oiyer-Geyshem at may latest Shabbes Shiva drusheh, thats why he/she implored me to express my stance on the subject on this forum.
If you must know, we had a asifas harabunim on the subject, and not all BP’er rabunim are on the same page. Reb Chayim Duvid Katz hut furgeshlugen az oiyr-geyshem should be permitted on Yumim Toiyvim. Rrav Bik said that he is quite possitive that he once heard his mother “the late Reb Moshe Bik’s wife” have an oiyer-geyshem. Reb Berish Miezles admitted that sometimes when he only unbuttons his shirt his rebbetzin can exhibit oiyer-geyshem’dige simunim. B’kitzer not all of the rabunim are so against it, uber “ani b’sheli” az si’z zyer oiysgelassen in s’past nisht far a yiddishe tuchter.
Emes mien tuchter iz gegangen shtudiren, uber ich bet dich- bite!!- farshpriet nisht di yedieh. Siiz charpes in bishes far mich az azans iz aroiysgekimen fin mahn shtib.
Like this comment?
0
DerSerd… How often are you actually posed with que[e]ries regarding the sugya of tomtom v’androgynous to decice a persons gender. You’re probably aquainted with such situations as a moyhel. As for the case of hoezen, as it seems your’e familiar with him/her… do you think this case is to be a teyku? Why not ask the prophet next time you ‘perform’ @ a briss?
Like this comment?
0
Voos miynt @?
Like this comment?
0
Is that a Rorsach test!?
Like this comment?
0
Nieyn! Ich bin nur bakant mit die goiy’she buch-shtaben, nisht mit di niye oiyfgekimene tzymbulen.
Like this comment?
0
Voos miynt roar shach? Die geshry fin a shach? A shach ken den immer amul shryen?
Like this comment?
0
voos klert Der [Serde] Ruv a semiynt “@”? Dakhtzech mir az khob es gezeyn in raziel hamalakh tzishen di bilder fin farsheedine malukhim
Like this comment?
0
In gradeh, der sha”ch shriyet gevald ofn Ta”z
Like this comment?
0
HR
Although Chaza”l prohibited DATY – Dining At The Y – which is an argument in your favor however, that can be attributed to “שמא יתגנה” due to the delicious aroma emanating from that garden, hence they threatened with blind children the one even daring to throw a glimpse down there to that beautiful valley of pleasure, it must be said though, that the “כאילו כפאו שד” dictum was clearly not a command but an idea for the devout zealot who wants to offer more of his selfless soul, and is only conveyed in a telling – if I remember correctly – about the Tana Reb Eliezer that he practiced it in such manner, just like the Nazarite which is clearly not a command ordering Jews to abstain from drinking wine or growing a Samsonite Afro but an option to the one who wants to offer more to God. Chaza”l is clearly sprinkled throughout with the notion of one pleasing his lady.
Like this comment?
0
Iz doos malach M’t@?
Like this comment?
0
Insider. Nobody claimed that these things are prohibited, rather that chazal’s attitude towards the subject reflects more appropiatley on the way the pious man should approach intimacy, than what the neo re-dedicators of Jewish philosophy and ethics would have you believe.
Like this comment?
0
Insider, how do you know how the Nazzarite pleasured Marry Magdalene?
Like this comment?
0
PP
nobody prohibits a Nazarite from making love to a prostitute.
Serdehller, HR’s stance is that chaza”l were not in favor of having pleasureful intimacy. Discussion is not in the scope of permitted or not but what chazal dictated.
Like this comment?
0
Sorry Insider, seems like I confused nazarite (riligious monk) with The Nazarite.
How can you say that about the Lords wife? Flog yourself and repent.
Like this comment?
0
Thought so.
Oh, its not sacrilege, doesn’t Hashem have Lilith in Jewish mythology? (Zohar Hakudesh). Its all deeper than meets the eye…
Like this comment?
0
No Hashem’s wife goes by the name “Shechinneh” and she was never unfaithful to him, as opposed to Mary. But calling her a prostiute is a bit tasteless; its the lords wife were talking about!!
It is indeed deeper than meets the eye; thats why you shouldnt gaze at the garden of delicious aroma, as you termed it. Thats what chazal meant when they said that looking can cause blindness. They meant blindness of mind and thought. One might look and think that what meets the eye is all, but in essence its a lot deeper. Chazal were weary of people underestimating and undervaluing the concealed garden.
Like this comment?
0
For what it’s worth:
“Also, he shall ejaculate only when both of them are mutually pleasured. But he shall not ejaculate to waste his seed when he is enjoying himself and she is not enjoying herself, heaven forefend!”
(Derekh Pekudekha, positive mitzvah 1, sec. 3 part 27 sub #10)
Like this comment?
1
Insider — That’s not quite my position. I’m simply arguing that Chazal do not explicitly emphasize female sexual pleasure as such — the way kiruv professionals would have you believe.
Chazal do say he should make her happy and have sex with her when she wants (although she’s not allowed to ask for it directly — and that alone should tell you something). But that’s not the same as encouraging a man to really please his wife sexually (let alone bring her to orgasm). Heck, the rabbis were pretty discouraging about varying positions, “unnatural” penetration, going down on her (kissing or even looking at the “oisoi mukom”), or even too much talk during sex. And even if they ultimately allowed it, that was probably b/c of men’s inability to control their desires anyway, and not for the woman’s sake. And still all the major codifiers give place of prominence to the more stringent opinions of having sex in the most straightforward way, with little room for excitement or use of imagination.
And you gotta love those who proclaim “passion and romance” a virtue in the name of chazal. Passion and Romance. I’d laugh if it weren’t so sadly delusional.
Like this comment?
0
So there’s this little anecdote in Chazal that comes to mind. It is of a father’s advice to his daughter, a name that might be recognizable to those familiar with Talmudic text, the Amoira Rav Chisda. His daughter’s wedding was approaching, and doing his fatherly duties he imparted words of wisdom, forever immemorialized in Chazal.
I’m not sure about her particular choice in lingerie, or whether her negligee was sexy by today’s standards – but her father advised her to be slow in undressing. I don’t think he was recommending a strip tease, but he was explaining to her that slowly revealing her flesh will build passion and desire. He was quite specific about how not exposing her boobs early on, will create a sense of urgency. It will entice and excite.
Come to think of it, maybe he did invent the strip tease.
Like this comment?
0
Gigi: I’ll quote you the gemureh. No mention of strip tease. Its quite obvious that R’ Chusta was into masichisim.
אמר להו רב חסדא לבנתיה תיהוי צניעתן באפי גברייכו לא תיכלון נהמא באפי גברייכו לא תיכלון ירקא בליליא לא תיכלון תמרי בליליא ולא תשתון שיכרא בליליא ולא תיפנון היכא דמפני גברייכו וכי קא קארי אבבא איניש לא תימרון מנו אלא מני נקיט מרגניתא בחדא ידיה וכורא בחדא ידיה מרגניתא אחוי להו וכורא לא אחוי להו עד דמיצטערן והדר אחוי להו
His advice to his daughters was. Grant your husband access to the boobs, but restrain him from accesing the vagina. When he is sufficently upset or tortured, you shall permit him to penetrate. I dont see where you extrapolted female orgasm or chazals “know how” to matteres concerning intimacy, passion and sexual excitment. All we see is that Rav Chusda personal prefrence was S&M.
Like this comment?
1
Oh, Gigi, dear, is that the best you can come up with? Ok, so let’s go with it, shall we? And while we’re at it, how ’bout we quote Rav Chisda in full, just to get some context.
מסכת שבת, דף ק”מ ע”ב:
אמר להו רב חסדא לבנתיה תיהוי צניעתן באפי גברייכו לא תיכלון נהמא באפי גברייכו לא תיכלון ירקא בליליא לא תיכלון תמרי בליליא ולא תשתון שיכרא בליליא ולא תיפנון היכא דמפני גברייכו וכי קא קארי אבבא איניש לא תימרון מנו אלא מני נקיט מרגניתא בחדא ידיה וכורא בחדא ידיה מרגניתא אחוי להו וכורא לא אחוי להו עד דמיצטערן והדר אחוי להו
“Rav Chisda said to his daughters: Be modest in the presence of your husbands. Do not eat bread in front of your husbands. Don’t eat vegetables at night, don’t eat dates at night, and don’t drink beer at night. And do not relieve yourselves (i.e., um, do your business) where your husbands relieved themselves. And when someone’s at the door, don’t ask, “Who is he?” only, “Who is she?” He held a jewel in one hand and a seed in the other. He showed them the jewel but didn’t show them the seed, until they were tormented and he showed it to them.”
Well, we certainly see how Rav Chisda advised his daughters to behave in front of their husbands. Valuable advice, certainly: Don’t eat in front of him, don’t shit where he shits, and… then, um, he shows them a jewel and a seed and plays some stupid game of peek-a-boo… (WTF?) But where’s the romance, the striptease, the passion?
Ah, well, that’s where Rashi comes in:
נקיט מרגניתא בחדא ידיה וכורא בחדא ידיה: כשבעליך ממשמש ביך להתאוות ליך לתשמיש ואוחז הדדים בידו אחת והאחרת עד אותו מקום.
מרגניתא אחוין ליה: הדדין המציאו לו שתתרבה תאותו ומקום תשמיש אל תמציאי לו מהר כדי שיתרבה תאותו וחיבתו ויצטער הדר אחוי ליה.
“‘He held a jewel in one hand and a seed in the other:’ When your husband touches you to get aroused for sex, and puts one hand on your breast and the other at “that spot” (your, um, vagina).”
“‘He showed them the jewel:’ Show him your breasts to increase his arousal, but don’t show him the place of intercourse too soon, so that his arousal and desire would increase and he’ll be tormented, and then show it to him.”
It takes a genius like Rashi to give Rav Chisda’s cryptic words some meaning. And indeed, Rashi seems to have understood how to have a pretty good sex life — but that’s as far as the man is concerned. But what about the woman? Well, surprise, surprise, neither Rav Chisda nor Rashi say anything about that aspect. Kiss her neck slowly and sensually? Nope. Get familiar with those many erogenous zones she has aplenty? Not a word. Use that magical touch of yours “down there” until she moans and screams the name of the hot dude next door she always fantasizes about, the one with the brand new “fully-loaded” carriage and blinged out horses? Ain’t nothin’ bout that neither.
All we know is Rav Chisda said nothing. They’re just some cryptic words. Rashi, with some mental and linguistic gymnastics, interpreted Rav Chisda’s words to mean, “Give your man a good time; use those God-given assets of yours for your man’s pleasure.”
Oh, and let’s not forget all the misogynistic crap that came along with it. (“Don’t eat bread in front of your husband”?! Can anyone explain that one? Don’t shit where he shits? What, get separate bathrooms?)
This is hardly “The Talmud’s Guide to Pleasing a Woman in Bed.” But nice try, Gigi. Points for effort.
(Although one does wonder why you didn’t actually quote the passage instead of providing your nice little modified version of it that suits your line of thinking so perfectly. Guess that wouldn’t quite serve your purpose, would it.)
Like this comment?
2
Serdeheller: you beat me to it, while I was busy providing some nice commentary.
Like this comment?
0
HR, I might suspect you work for artscroll
Your effort isnt wasted. It was all worth for this: “until she moans and screams the name of the hot dude next door she always fantasizes about, the one with the brand new “fully-loaded” carriage and blinged out horses?”
You made my day, now I can pasken on sh’matelech mit yishev hadaas.
Like this comment?
1
My previous comment was in response to HR’s difficulty laughing. He wanted to he says, but he just found the ‘delusion’ that Chazal was encouraging of passion and romance, just too sad a thought to fathom.
Indeed, I wasn’t pointing to Shir Hashirim’s talk of romance and longing. I wasn’t referring to the Bnei Yissoscher, that mutual pleasure is paramount during sex. Nor the Gemara about the wife coming first. In this particular piece I was merely pointing out a Chazal that did laud passion and desire in marriage.
But then, Serde’Hell’er, you seem unfamiliar with the interpretations of the popular Amoira Rav Chisda. Perhaps you favor the priorly unknown new guy (probably Litvish) named Rav Chusta. And maybe this Rav Chusta is indeed into S&M. Some guys like it, I hear.
But I’ll go with the old Chazal and the commentary by Rashi. This Rashi guy, not an apologist nor a ‘neo re-dedicator of Jewish philosophy’, and yet amazingly he brazenly interpreted the Chazal to mean that marital intimacy should focus on building passion during sex. He actually suggested that an amoira was advising his daughters on the finer points of seduction. That he encouraged his daughters to incite the sweet agony of desire! I bet he was into kiruv. The OTD in question must’ve been a sex addict. Only reason Rashi would concoct something so absurd.
If anyone would actually care to analyze and examine what it was that Rav Chisda was advising, and why it made its way into the Gemara, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that Rav Chisda was actually encouraging his daughters to set the precedent of what sex within their marriage should be like. He was in reality advising along the lines of what would nowadays be ‘Don’t eat food that makes you gassy, don’t kiss your lover with bad breath, and don’t pick your nose in front of your spouse.’ Irrelevant if their lives were to be devoid of romance, and sex was merely perfunctory.
If this was not the intended message, then why does the Gemara bother mentioning Rav Chisda’s advice to his daughers at all?
As a matter of fact, his advice included ideas of how to get their husbands to pay more attention to them, rather than just going for the gold. With the advise of “…Show him your breasts to increase his arousal, but don’t show him the place of intercourse too soon, so that his arousal and desire would increase and he’ll be tormented, and then show it to him.” he’s actually encouraging them to position themselves to have their erogenous zones pleasured! The advice is to hold him off and keep him at first and second base, so that he pleases you and satisfies you prior to going for the home run.
Again, there are other stories. This was but one example of a positive approach to a healthy sex life mentioned in Chazal. Boring prudes.
Like this comment?
1
A point was missed in the translation above, and I’m wondering whether it was intentional. The actual translation of the Rashi was “Show him your breasts to increase his desire but don’t show him the place of intercourse too soon, so that his desire and love would increase and he’ll be tormented, and then show it to him.”
It’s not just about his pleasure. It’s not even just about his arousal. It’s about his desire and love for you. It’s about a bond forming here. It’s about the seduction bringing you two closer, and loving and passionate sex ensuing.
I’m baffled as to why this is being interpreted as just about giving him his ultimate pleasure.
Like this comment?
1
I hesitate to wade in, late, to a conversation with passionate debate already well underway. Still, I thought I’d share a few thoughts.
1. The homogenous-sounding term “Chazal,” refers, of course, to a large group of rabbis, living over a span of many hundreds of years, in cultures with varying norms, and with individual opinions and sensibilities differing greatly. Thus, in addition to the direct disagreements between contemporaries—the classic “machloikes”—there are many views all across the spectrum on a host of issues, not specifically presented as a machloikes, but clearly disagreeing with each other.
Examples of such varying points of view within Chazal are innumerable—not only on halachah, but on their understandings of everything from precisely what happened on the crossing of the yam suf to how one should view the motives of Roman road-building. A couple of behavioral/attitudinal examples that come immediately to mind: A mishna in Pirkei Avos says “Kach hee darkuh shel toirah: Pas ba’melech toichal…” whereas I remember learning a gemara that told the story of an amoira who claimed that when he really needed to understand a difficult matter in learning he would eat a huge amount of beef (I think it was an entire animal). Similarly, many teachings discourage taking pleasure, but one oft-quoted one says that a person will have to give “din v’cheshbon” on every pleasure he did not take advantage of in this world God prepared for him. Then, of course, we have the very different sensibilities of Shamai and Hillel: Shamai the no-nonsense, hard-edged halachist, and Hillel, the warm-hearted, people-centered sage. Again, the number and degree of differences are so great, that cataloguing extensive examples would be redundant.
2. Even “Chazal” were clearly departing in many ways from what Moshe Rabeinu taught (on everything from life after death to milk after chicken) and Moshe Rabeinu, in the name of God, was clearly departing from the norms and ethics of the avos, etc.—Avrohom, Yitzchok, Yaakov, the sh’votim.
3. The geonim, rishonim, and achronim, have very different views amongst themselves, too, on matters ranging from theology to sex, and everything in between. (Pertaining to the matter under discussion in this thread, the Rambam famously allows various forms of sexual activity with one’s wife, whereas other authorities discourage anything unconventional.)
4. True, certain communities—contemporary Chassidim (though not necessarily all Chassidim of previous generations) and contemporary litvishe/yeshivishe—have tended to highlight the dour and restrictive elements of Jewish tradition…even in clothing, for heaven’s sake! Colors are banned from men, almost like Mao’s cultural revolution’s insistence on blandness…
But this is different from saying that such a model was the only one represented in “Chazal.”
5. Getting down to the matter of sexuality, I think it’s clear that most cultures did not commit to writing—nor probably teach much in any public or formal sense—about the details of how a couple should stimulate each other. Even when sexuality was discussed in any public/formal sense in traditional societies, general and euphemistic terms (the equivalents of such words as “pleasure,” “satisfaction,” “delight,” “love,” “yearning,” “needs,” etc. were far more likely to be employed than more blatantly sexual terms. Yes, there are a few notable exceptions, the Kama Sutra and the traditions from which it sprang, etc. Even chazal or rishonim, etc., occasionally get specific; but when they don’t, it seems to me, it wouldn’t be fair to judge them negatively for this.
6. Societies all over the globe have been male-dominated since the dawn of history, and only recently has that balance shifted in any significant sense…and only in certain countries. That halacha is mostly spoken of from man’s perspective, and tends to load him down with both privileges and responsibilities/burdens, is unsurprising. Still, the great bulk of practical Jewish law and sensibility have been, in the post-biblical period, relatively benign and relatively kind-hearted—toward women, too.
7. When a society holds up an ideal of female modesty, or male stoicism and discouragement of hedonistic pursuits, though sometimes difficult to distinguish from oppressing/suppressing one sex or the other, these need not be automatically labeled negative. When is hanging from wooden stakes driven through one’s skin a hardening rite of passage, and when is it abominable torture? When are taxes a reasonable function of government, and when are they good cause for bloody revolution? When is a draft/conscription a fine practice, and when is it the kidnapping of a country’s best youth in order to send them to an early death or a savage and traumatic trial by fire? When is conducting a war to prevent states from governing themselves a noble Civil War, and when is it the act of a tyrannical and murderous government? And when is modesty a beautiful gentleness and self-mastery, and when is it repression of autonomy and healthy appetite? Communities, and states, must sometimes require of their members certain behaviors—but how one chooses to view these requirements can make all the difference.
8. In short, “chazal”s sayings and opinions comprise so many varying and conflicting points of view, that—as has been justly said about the Bible—one can find support for nearly anything one wants to argue for. Let’s acknowledge this, and not make the willful error too many contemporary rigid-minded charedim make when insisting that “chazal” constitutes a perfectly coherent and consistent message. And let’s also recognize that even in cases of seeming unanimity in chazal, just how to view the teaching is significantly left open to interpretations—and we can choose whether to be generous-spirited and admiring, bitter-hearted and condemning, or something in-between.
9. For my part, in the big picture, I think that whatever varying points of view were taken by chazal on the matter of female sexual satisfaction, the main reason to pass negative judgment on Orthodox Judaism—irrespective of how beautiful and feminist some of chazal’s teachings are argued by some to have been—is that Judaism and all traditional religions are based on premises that do not stand up to intellectually honest scrutiny.
In light of all religions being seen as mistaken in their foundational beliefs, the small details about what rabbis taught about a woman’s sexual satisfaction within marriage almost don’t seem worth fighting about. Let’s say the rabbis each wrote, and illustrated, their own super-feminist versions of the Kama Sutra, this still would not change the fact that the whole tradition, as well as the traditions of other religions, is based on error and insufficient honesty. So what would remain? Some sages, deeply mistaken about what they thought God wants of us, who produced creative, women-centered sex manuals. Now what?
But if one chooses to look away from such foundational matters, I’m confident one can find within the tradition of Judaism—and Christianity, and Islam, and Hinduism, and Buddhism, etc., too—some teachings discouraging and devaluing sexual pleasure overall, and certainly female sexual pleasure; and I’m equally sure one can find other teachings encouraging or requiring such pleasure…and waxing passionate and eloquent about the need for emotional intimacy between man and woman, too.
Remember, it’s a fundamentalist fiction that there’s one unified “Chazal” speaking with one voice on nearly any issue—let alone all issues.
Like this comment?
1
Gigi — Rav Chisda’s advice (at least according to Rashi’s interpretation) is as much about passion and romance as a lesson in pole dancing would be. No doubt, pole dancing can increase passion. But no one would argue that a strip club filled with pole dancers is meant for anything but increasing a man’s desire. Interpret however you wish, but you’re engaging in the same old apologetics.
Be that as it may, there’s certainly no question that female sexual pleasure was almost never mentioned, let alone encouraged. The only specific source so far is that of the B’nei Yesoschor in Derech Pekudecha. And it’s drowned out in all the other sex-negative messages to make it hardly noticeable.
And if you really want to start with B’nei Yesoscher, you can bet your last orgasm that he has more to say about the negative aspects of sex than the positive. Anyone who’s spent any time studying sifrei chasidus knows that sex is considered a deeply undesirable indulgence.
But it’s not only in sifrei chasidus. The sources against sex in general are so innumerable and overwhelming that one hardly knows where to begin. But here are just some references:
Before the giving of the Torah at Sinai, the Israelites were commanded: “Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman.” (Equating sex with impurity.)
Afterwards, at God’s command, Moses separated from his wife in order to remain at higher levels of holiness and purity.
The gemara relates a statement from Rabbi Eliezer’s wife, who indicates this as the reason her sons were good looking: [My husband] would uncover a handbreadth and cover a handbreadth, and it was as if he was forced by a demon. (Indicating Rabbi Eliezer living up to the highest ideals, and not deriving much pleasure from sex.)
The Aruch Hashulchan in Siman Reish-Mem:
Seif 4: “When he is with her he shuold have no intention for pleasure but only as one who must pay a debt.
Seif 5: One may have sex even if only to refrain from forbidden thoughts. But it would’ve been better had he banished his evil inclination and overcome it. For a man has a small organ; starve it and it will be satisfied. Satisfy it and it will be starved.
Rabeinu B’chayei writes in Parshas Achrei Mos: “The concept of sexual relations exists only for the preservation of the human species.”
He does concede that while that is its primary purpose, it is also allowed for other purposes, except for the purpose of physical pleasure. He quotes the Raavad: “There are five types of sexual relations: 1) For preserving the species, 2) For the mitzvah of “Onah,” 3) For health reasons, 4) To avoid forbidden thoughts, 5) And this one is forbidden; for physical pleasure.
Maimonides writes in the “Morah” that the Torah’s extensive prohibitions on various sexual acts were presented in order to minimize and to encourage abhorrence towards sexual relations in general.
Reb Yakov Emden has much to say on the subject and it’s mostly about refraining from pleasurable sex as much as humanly possible.
Much the same message is repeated again and again and again in many sifrei mussar (especially those based on kabbalah) and sifrei chasidus. Both Reishis Chochma and Shaarei Kedusha are filled with warnings against pleasurable sex.
A few examples from sifrei chasidus:
The Berditcever in Kedushas Levi: One must not marry a woman for indulging his desires but only because it is one of God’s commandments. One should not engage with a woman, chas v’sholom, for physical pleasures.
The Magid of Koznitz: One must attain purity and holiness even in that which is permitted during intimacy with a woman… and the breaking of one’s physical desires gives birth to pleasure in the heaven’s above.
The “Tzetel Kuton” from Reb Elimelech instructs one to imagine himself being burned at the stake when experiencing any kind of physical pleasure from sex.
All this shows a clearly consistent theme. While not quite as dirty as the Christians might see it, Judaism isn’t quite so sex-positive. Denying this is denying the obvious.
And btw — the thing about a woman coming first? Setting aside the question of its scientific validity — Chazal were making a statement that was just that: supposedly scientific. The specific phrase (in translation), is: “If the woman sows her seed first, she will give birth to a male.” There’s no evidence that they were proposing female orgasm as a value in and of itself; merely a pseudo-scientific technique for giving birth to males.
Like this comment?
0
Michael — Well-elucidated points.
I would only point out that I make no value judgement on Chazal or traditional Judaism (at least not in this discussion). Even if one can state unequivocally that Judaism shuns anything sexual it does not follow that it’s necessarily wrong (although it might be — but that’s not my argument). What I take issue with are contemporary values passed off as being fully and overwhelmingly supported by traditional texts. In my opinion that’s something of a con, meant only to make tradition more palatable to the modern-minded, and mostly a product of the “kiruv industry.”
Jewish tradition has many components that sincere individuals must grapple with; genocide, slavery, ethnocentrism, sexism, you name it. The traditional but intellectually honest individual recognizes that the sages were not infallible, tradition is not immutable, and paradox and contradiction are inevitable parts of any faith or tradition. Rather than project contemporary values onto the sages of previous generations, many have chosen — with tormenting honesty — to recognize that some components need to be discarded or modified. Replacing “Shelo asani isha” with “She-asani kirtzono” for both men and women, including the matriarchs in the liturgy, allowing women to read from the Torah, etc. are just some examples.
The inability to grapple honestly with these issues shows an inability to approach any issue with honesty. It is that with which I take issue.
Like this comment?
0
Gigi, I stand corrected on taavah as “desire”. But I’m not sure chibah conveys “love” in this context. It’s hard to see how keeping a vagina covered induces love. Desire, yes. Arousal, yes. Love, not so sure.
Like this comment?
0
HR,
I agree that the Kiruv mindset–and its professional proponents–does apologetics, picking and choosing and artificially enhancing what they select from within the far-from-unanimous welter of Jewish sources.
I also think that the disenchanted–many atheists and people who go OTD–take the opposite approach: picking and choosing and artificially degrading what they select from wthin Jewish sources.
But on the point of kiruv people misrepresenting as traditional their air-brushed view of Jewish teachings, I would say this: Theyre guilty of a far bigger air-brushing, which makes this one almost trivial. They airbrush the critical matter of whether they can honestly know the word of God–as they claim they do–upon which the entire house of cards stands.
Once one turns away from honesty on the most fundamental matters of their teachings and worldview, should we really be surprised–or too bothered–at how they don’t quite adhere to the strictest standards of honesty, and want to remake the rabbis of old into idealized versions of not only Freud and Einstein, but Oprah too?
Like this comment?
1
HR,
The latter parts of your comment addressed to me above get into the matter of those who choose to adapt tradition to contemporary values (as in your example of “She’lo Asani Isha”).
A very interesting question: When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to concede that religions are mistaken in their foundational teachings, should they be scrapped, or should they be reinterpreted and recycled so as to fit in to contemporary knowledge and sensibilities?
(Of course, many who want to adapt details of religious practice or teaching don’t necessarily agree that the fundamental claims of their religion are mistaken. They may not have even thought much into such matters.)
It’s late, and this comment section probably isn’t the appropriate forum for such a discussion anyway, so I’ll leave it at the question.
Like this comment?
0
Michael — I guess your last comment is sort of my answer to the previous one. I think it’s conceivable that some people embrace religious sensibilities while fully aware of its foundational problems and are honest enough to know that traditional dogmas are based on faulty premises. I don’t necessarily understand it fully, but I think it’s a matter of personality and psychological inclination — not necessarily an inability for facing tough questions head-on.
Certain non-Orthodox Jewish movements fall into this category. I have often wondered about this same question: if the foundational principles of the tradition are faulty, what is left? What are these people embracing? But perhaps belief isn’t so black and white. I suppose one would have to engage with an individual of such inclination to understand it better. But I for one can’t dismiss it out of hand.
And that’s really my argument to the kiruv people. It’s one thing to embrace religious belief and encourage others to do the same; quite another to bury your head in the sand regarding difficult or uncomfortable aspects of your own tradition and pretend, both to yourself and to others, that they don’t exist.
Like this comment?
0
HR,
I agree that what causes many to remain affiliated with religious community even after foundational beliefs are called into question is often related to personality/temperament and other psychological and social factors and needs. Community/belonging, and social structure, and tradition/nostalgia/rooted to one’s people’s past, and a framework within which one can express transcendence are four very powerful needs for many. (And some, in their religious affiliations, are more calculating or practical: professional networking, social interaction, child-care and other services, all provide motivation for some.)
(And if one is familiar with the Myers-Briggs typology, the most likely religious affiliators are the EFJ (extrovert, feeling, and judging) combination, though any of those elements alone makes one more likely to gravitate toward religious community, and of course some with none of those elements are religious, too.)
I also think that along with, perhaps because of, psychological needs and inclinations, most such people are likely to not think very much about the uncomfortable questions of just how much if anything is left of the foundational teachings of their religion, and what might be the arguments against religious affiliation.
Yes, there are a relative few who do sincerely engage in religious community with full awareness of religion’s eroded foundation, and the arguments for not affiliating–but then there are a few ranchers who are strict vegetarians, and a few passionate vegetarians who own steakhouses.
We humans have an astounding degree of proficiency at not thinking about what we desperately don’t want to think about. I’ve listened for years to the religious arguments of people of various religions–even those belonging to liberal and open-minded denonimations, who didn’t believe in miracles, a literal Bible, etc.–and most people simply do not have a well-thought-out philosophy of religion that has taken into account the basic arguments opposing their position. It wouldn’t surprise me if the percentage of truly intellectually honest and substantive worshippers were no higher in well-educated Conservative and Reform congregations than in Charedi Orthodox ones. Yes, their beliefs and arguments will be different, their distractions different…but the common denominator will usually be a studious avoidance of (what are to them) threatening questions.
And for the great majority of kiruv people who are Orthodox, one of the very threatening questions (no matter how many times they say such questions aloud in the course of their seminars, and pretend to deal with them) is whether their religion is accurate or moral in its foundational teachings. And because they can’t deal with truly confronting such questions, they find themselves creating dishonest apologetics.
But, again, I’ve not found it much different in other religious communities–that is, I’ve not found a greater willingness to confront the uncomfortable questions–no matter the level of belief or non-belief. It’s just that the questions one finds threatening differ.
But I absolutely understand your frustration with those who distort truth, especially in the name and service of spreading truth. And in that sense the kiruv people’s dishonesty is more distasteful, even maddening, than the implicit avoidance and deficit of intellectual honesty in many other people affiliated with religion (or various other commitments).
Like this comment?
0
I’m not sure about Rav Bick stance on a woman having an orgasm is, but he sure knows what pussy looks like… Vda”l.
Actually, I think that if she moans and screams Shabbos while having th orgasm, it might be muter… Or maybe is it considered ‘mitzvah habu bavira…
Like this comment?
0
U guys are very impressive, make me want to learn a little more Torah….
Like this comment?
0
My apologies before I start this long long comment. Brevity is not my strong suit. Initially I didn’t intend to get involved, but reading these comments I realized that there was quite a bit of confusion in this area and I wanted to try and clear things up. This Shabbos I spent some time reviewing some of the material. I found it to be quite interesting, and I don’t mind sharing.
Jewish law is guided by 3 principles,
1. mitzvahs Aseh – the ‘thou shalt’ sort (i.e. do put on tefillin, do eat matzo on Pesach etc.)
2. Lo Sasah – the ‘thou shalt not’ sort (do not eat pork, do not light a fire on Shabbos, do not minimize your wife’s onah etc.)
And then there is 3. Reishus – these are things that or neither obligations nor are they prohibited. Such as general eating (kosher food obviously), having sex with your wife (on her ‘clean’ days, yet days not required by onah etc.)
We find that for an individual who is attempting to live a more spiritually fulfilled life, and is yearning to define is existence through reaching a higher intellect, Chazal would encourage him to abstain from indulging in earthly pleasures. That goes across the board from physical gratification like sex or food to other worldly pleasures.
Every yeshiva bucher knows the mamar Chazal that says “One should pray that sweets should not enter his body, rather than pray for words of Torah to be absorbed”. Reason being, Chazal believed that as long as one is occupied with attending to his bodily/animalistic needs, above and beyond what one needs to sustain a normal and healthy lifestyle, one can not achieve a higher intellectual and spiritual state. (It’s worthwhile noting that this belief, in an even more extreme format, was also held by the renowned ancient philosopher Aristotle. “The sexual sensation in our body is an embarrassment to mankind”. As I’ll point out later in this comment, Chazal didn’t share his extreme view on this matter.)
With the above concept in mind we can now sort out and understand Chazal’s approach to sexuality.
As mentioned before having sex with one’s wife is a Reshus. It is therefore permitted at all times and in all ways, as is clearly ruled in the Shulchan Orech. With that said, we still find many verses and phrases in Chazal (see above comments for reference) where they advise one not to do so excessively. But note that the advice is for the above mentioned reason. It is only sex for sex’s sake that is dissuaded. Indulging in instant physical gratification doesn’t do anything for one’s development of character, or spiritual nor intellectual pursuits. For the believing person who sees life as a means to an end, this advice makes perfect sense.
Besides which, sex for sex’s sake – is certainly not about bringing about intimacy nor about bringing one’s spouse the ultimate pleasure. Simply focusing on physical pleasure only, is selfish and thus condemned.
Now let’s look at Chazal’s approach to the mitzvah of onah. It is quite clear, and I will prove, that not only were Chazal concerned with the quantity of the Mitzvah but with the quality as well. What I mean by that is that the husband is required to make sure that his wife is fully pleased, and it is even the husband’s obligation to give her an orgasm.
There are 4 scenarios where the mitzvah of onah applies:
1. This obligation differs from person to person and is mostly determined by his occupation.
2. When he is about to leave on a trip.
3. When she goes to the mikvah.
4. Last but by no means least, when it’s obvious by her behavior that she desires it, (i.e. she dresses up on a plain day).
The reason for 2, 3, and 4, as is mentioned in gemara and halacha, is simply that at these times a woman wants for her husband’s touch and that is when it is the actual obligation to fulfill her needs. It isn’t a matter of merely acknowledging the ‘slave girl … so that she shouldn’t feel neglected’ It is about recognizing her needs and fulfilling them. This in itself shows that the intent of this mitzvah is to make sure a woman’s sexual needs are met.
We also see that Chazal were concerned with the proper timing for the mitzvah of onah so that it should be done at a time when the experience would be most pleasing. The Gemara Kasubes (pg. 62), while discussing the time for Onah for a talmud chuchem (a person that will try to fulfill every mitzvah in its most accomplished format) the Gemara chooses Friday night. Rashi explains that that’s when the body is most relaxed and is ready to be pleasured. (Once again, we are talking about onah, and as such it is about pleasuring her body) Also the Gemara Niddah (pg. 17) speaks in favor of the family of King Munvaz, because they practiced onah by day. Rashi explains that this is because, at night when a person is sleepy he is not into it, and will just do it to get over with, so therefore it is best when done by day while a person is more awake and energized. The Me’iri adds that it is also a concern that at night the woman is in a state of sleepiness and therefore cannot fully enjoy it. He goes on to say “We want our sexual experience to be accompanied by joy and love not just “k’dores v’toref”. (That would be translated in current lingo as ‘not just to f…’)
Reb Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe, (Even Haezer, volume 3, pg. 452) is exploring whether one can fulfill the mitzvah of onah by having anal sex, and he concludes that one could not. He goes on to explain that even if there is some pleasure by doing so – as we see in Kedushin pg. 22, (I guess he had no personal experience to speak of) but since there is also some pain associated with it (I think that whoever has tampered with this, can attest to it) and since the pleasure is not the same as when done regularly, therefore you can not fulfill the mitzvah of onah in this way. He then refers to the Ravad as quoted in Tur reish”mem that it is a man;s obligation in the mitzvah of onah to give his wife pleasure. (Anyone familiar with Reb Moshe will not accuse him of being an apologist of any sort, when it came to halacha, he was straight as an arrow.)
Lest one argues that even so we still don’t see Chazal actually speaking of orgasm, let us take a look at the Gemara Nida (pg. 31 side 1). Reb Tzudek says, “… one should linger on one’s stomach, while having intercourse because by doing so the woman will be mazria(climax) first, and in return one will be zocha to boys.” Rashi explains that what the Gemara refers to, is to hold off from coming so the women can be mazria first.
Now let’s play this out. A guy learned this Gemara and wants to follow it, So he is having sex with his wife and remembers that according to the Gemara he needs to hold back and restrain himself from coming. For how long does he need to do this? If we’re not accepting that mazria means an orgasm – then what precisely is he waiting for? And for how long exactly must he wait? (The Chasam Sofer in his commentary on this Gemara says that it takes a gibor (strong man) to do so.) So what then is it the Chazal want from him? I think the only plausible answer that fits the description of this verse is to wait until his wife has an orgasm. Simple reason, because it is his obligation to make sure that she gets to that level of pleasure and once he has climaxed, he will not be as inclined to do so.
In return you will be zocha to have sons. According to Chazal, that is a blessing. (Now hold off all ya feminists out there
. I did just prove that in spite of this, Chazal did care a great deal about you and your pleasure too.)
Now let’s turn the page to 31 side 2.
The Amorah Rovah says, (he is speaking to those that are not as strong or experienced and can not hold it that long. Or just suffer from premature ejaculation.) in case you dropped the ball and you couldn’t get her off in the first round, don’t worry. Your boys can still come -just do it again. Rashi explains and is a bit more explicit in Gemara Eiruvin (pg 100, side 2) that since the woman is already fully turned on by his first try, and her body is filled with desire; when he will proceed with round 2, she will be ready and “come” first.
To prove this point further we need to analyze the aforementioned Ravad that the Tur quotes in reish”mem.
The Ravad asks why the Tana Reb Eliezer didn’t apply himself to the above mentioned practice. (Exactly how and what Reb Eliezer did or didn’t do is in dispute, but all agree that it was a matter of “wham, bam, thank you ma’am”)
It seems incongruous that the Ravad would even ask such a question. Reb Eliezer being a Tana, can easily disagree with another Tana – Reb Tzudek’s opinion. What seems apparent then, is that the Ravad wasn’t so much referencing Reb Tzudek, as much as he simply believed that no one would argue about what the mitzvah of onah is. And since it was commonly agreed that one needs to please his wife to accomplish this mitzvah, therefore an explanation is needed as to why Reb Eliezer didn’t follow through.
Before I complete this comment I would like to also mention that Reb Moshe in Igrus Moshe (Even Huezer, volume 4, pg 136-137) clearly rules that kissing and cuddling is part of mitzvahs onah. Reb Moshe refers to Emdin in his siddur, where he writes that no sexual intercourse should take place, unless there has been sufficient foreplay. The Emdin was actually quite specific as to what kind of foreplay had in mind. He goes on to say that if someone feels that by hugging and kissing he will ejaculate prematurely, then he should not go on for too long, but he should continue with the cuddling after sex so as to accommodate his wife with that as well. For you guys out there who have read Men are from Mars, and Mars and Venus in the Bedroom, you know John Gray’s opinion on the matter, and you probably know that to some women that can be more important than sex.
(When it comes to Emdin’s stance on sexuality there is so much more to say. Perhaps if I have time, I’ll expand on that in another comment.)
Highly rated. Like this comment?
10
Thanx Abe, very nice. The central idea of your comment, distinguishing between issur and reshus, and the reasons to withhold from reshus, has been said already above, in so many words. But you still did a nice job bringing it out. I also particularly enjoyed the fine points and ‘kneitches’ that you added to the above chazal’s, VDPCH”CH.
I was going to mention earlier in the discussion that we find the same ‘contradictions’ in Chazal in regard to food and eating, albeit not to such an extreme degree, and over there I think most people understand pretty much the point.
Like this comment?
0