Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

A man cannot touch, stare, kiss or have relations with a woman he is not married with.

On the days when the laws of impurity do not apply, what exactly can a man do with his wife?

Assuming extra precaution is taken to avoid wasting the seed of the man, is everything else allowed?

share|improve this question
related: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/25603/… – Ani Yodea Aug 11 '13 at 1:23
This is definitely the most appropriate formulation of this question we've seen here on Mi Yodeya. I'm going to leave this open for now until others can comment. – Double AA Aug 11 '13 at 1:38
how about gemara havruta ? – eliavs Aug 11 '13 at 7:47
see :נדרים כ, starting ''אמר ר' יוחנן'' – moses Aug 11 '13 at 14:37
In Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim Siman 240 and Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer Siman 25 are the address for these laws. – Meir Zirkind Aug 11 '13 at 17:18
up vote 7 down vote accepted

As with many issues, there is a variety of opinions on this topic, ranging from generally permissive to strictly limited.

The Gemara (Nedarim 20b), and consequently the Rambam and Rama (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Issurei Biah 21:9; Rama, Even haEzer 25:2) explicitly permit just about anything, but recommend that one conduct himself with respect for the holiness of the act.

The Shulchan Aruch (OC 240, EH 25) expands on this idea of holiness, and regards cohabitation as something that should be done only because it is a mitzvah. As such, it and sources based on it (such as the Kitzur, 150), are far more strict, and prohibit various acts due to their apparent vulgar nature.

On the other hand, some rabbis are far more permissive. This includes Tosfos, who allow acts that even include "spilling of seed," as long as it's only done occasionally and with the right intentions. (Yevamot 34b, Sanhedrin 58b; Ri"d, Yevamot 12b).

Contemporary rabbis are also generally permissive, with reservations and limitations. (See R' Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, Even Ha'Ezer 63). However, as with all such questions, for practical applications please consult your Rabbi or Yoetzet Halacha.

Example quotes from the aforementioned sources with translations:

Shulchan Aruch OC 240:1 ; EH 25:2

אם היה נשוי לא יהא רגיל ביותר עם אשתו אלא בעונה האמורה בתורה. ... ואף כשהוא מצוי אצלה לא יכוין להנאתו אלא כאדם שפורע חובו שהוא חייב בעונתה ולקיים מצות בוראו שיהיו לו בנים עוסקים בתורה ומקיימי מצות בישראל.

A married man should not have intercourse more often than prescribed in the Torah. ... His intentions should not be to satisfy his desires, but to fulfill the mitzvah to have children that will do good deeds...

Nedarim 20b

אבל אמרו חכמים אין הלכה כיוחנן בן דהבאי, אלא כל מה שאדם רוצה לעשות באשתו עושה

Our Sages said: The halachah is not as R. Johanan b. Dahabai, but a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife [at intercourse] (Soncino Translation)

Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Issurei Biah 21:9 (Translation Source)

אשתו של אדם, מותרת היא לו; לפיכך כל מה שאדם רוצה לעשות באשתו, עושה--בועל בכל עת שירצה, ומנשק בכל אבר שירצה, ובא עליה בין כדרכה, בין שלא כדרכה, בין דרך אברים. ואף על פי כן, מידת חסידות שלא יקל אדם את ראשו לכך, ושיקדש עצמו בשעת תשמיש, כמו שביארנו בהלכות דעות; ולא יסור מדרך העולם ומנהגו, שאין דבר זה אלא כדי לפרות ולרבות.

A man's wife is permitted to him. Therefore a man may do whatever he desires with his wife. He may engage in relations whenever he desires, kiss any organ he desires, engage in usual or unusual intercourse or engage in physical intimacy without relations.

Nevertheless, it is pious conduct for a person not to act frivolously concerning such matters and to sanctify himself at the time of relations, as explained in Hilchot Deot. He should not depart from the ordinary pattern of the world. For this act was [given to us] solely for the sake of procreation.

Tosfos, Yevamot 34b

אמר ר"י דלא חשוב כמעשה ער ואונן אלא כשמתכוין להשחית זרע ורגיל לעשות כן תמיד אבל באקראי בעלמא ומתאוה לבא על אשתו שלא כדרכה שרי

It is permitted for one who to perform [unusual intercourse] with his wife on occasion, to satisfy his desires, for this is not like the act of Ar and Onan, who spilled their seed regularly with intent to destroy it

share|improve this answer
The last source seems irrelevant. It doesn't even mention a wife. – Double AA May 11 '14 at 18:26
הלכות דעות ה:ו-ט – Yishai May 11 '14 at 18:35
@DoubleAA Quotes fixed. – Shmuel May 11 '14 at 19:11
@Yishai - added link to that in the Rambam I quoted – Shmuel May 11 '14 at 19:21
@Shmuel, yeah, but that part of the Rambam is really where the Shulchan Aruch is coming from. Your answer makes it sound like this was a Chiddush in Shulchan Aruch. – Yishai May 11 '14 at 19:25

"Seven days of impurity."

Actually it's more like 12-ish. The Torah states that if a woman experiences an unusual flow, she needs to wait for it to end, and then count seven clean days. For the last ~1600 years, we operate with the rule of thumb that we don't know what's called "usual" or "unusual", and thus it's duration of bleeding, or 5 days, whichever is more; followed by 7 clean days. AND then an IMMERSION IN A MIKVAH (ritual bath). Without the immersion she's still impure.

But to answer your question. The Talmud quotes a Rabbi Yochanan ben Dahavai -- "as holy as G-d's ministering angels" -- that if you look there, you'll die; if you kiss that, your children will be crippled, all sorts of awful stuff. The Talmud acknowledges this ascetic opinion, and then simply states: "but the majority of rabbis opine otherwise, and the law does not follow Rabbi Yochanan ben Dahavai."

At first glance, thus, everything would be permitted. Some later rabbis, however, read the conclusion as "everything -- means everything except for one or two things." Meanwhile, an ascetic tradition -- whose influences may have been Kabbalistic and/or Christian -- certainly influenced several major later codifiers of Jewish law. The Karo/Issreles code from the 1500s doesn't seem too thrilled with intimacy as anything other than a necessity, and proscribes several acts accordingly. (Though fascinatingly, their code addresses the subject twice -- once in the section relating to an individual and his personal ritual obligations, using very stern language; the other in the section on laws of marriage, and suddenly as there are now two people in the room, the language isn't nearly as harsh.)

Similarly, the Talmud speaks of a prohibition called "don't do gross things", for instance, while certain kinds of locusts are kosher (at least in theory) and they don't require ritual slaughter, you shouldn't swallow a live one as it's wiggling -- "don't do gross things." Certain rabbis applied this language to certain intimate acts, which raises the question of subjectivity and whose definition of "gross" if it wasn't already described by the Talmud.

Today, there are contemporary rabbis with opinions running the gamut from a very ascetic view to a very permissive one -- with similar discussion whether the more ascetic language of some texts was intended as law, custom, suggestion, or an appropriate act of piety for those on the right spiritual level.

Contemporary authority Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin sets out his opinion in Bnei Banim 4:16 (and the next few essays), for those who read rabbinic Hebrew. He has declined to publish his stance in English, however if you email someone at www.yoatzot.org, they will privately describe his ruling.

share|improve this answer
As someone who is unfamiliar with Rabbi Henkin, can you tell me what "flavor" or Orthodoxy he is part of? – Shraga Aug 13 '13 at 6:24
@Shraga he's a major Centrist Orthodox (or Center-Left, depending on your perspective) posek. The yoatzot halacha go to him for psak. He was an Israeli municipal rabbi for some time and is in good standing with the rabbanut, though considered on their left end. For instance, he maintains when the Gemara says it's a bad idea for women to lein, that means it's a bad idea; not that it's outdated and we're so much more enlightened and can get around it (left-wing), nor that there's an outright ban on it (right-wing). Fascinatingly his sefer has a haskama by far-right-winger R' Menashek Klein ztl. – Shalom Aug 13 '13 at 12:58
Where do you draw the line for what's considered "gross"? – Ani Yodea Aug 13 '13 at 22:37
@Shalom R Klein declined to give a haskama, actually. – Double AA Oct 2 '15 at 6:24
@DoubleAA hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21282&st=&pgnum=5 okay he writes a letter blessing and encouraging Rabbi Henkin and his work. "I can't give it my official approbation as I haven't read the entire thing, and besides there are plenty of great rabbis in Israel to ask." That's a very common non-haskama haskama, which is what Rav Moshe Feinstein would usually give seforim. But you don't give one of those to someone you think is entirely out of line. (E.g. Rav Moshe wouldn't give any sort of letter to the all-electric-shaving-is-assur book.) – Shalom Oct 2 '15 at 11:40

Since none of the previous answers referred to this, The Sulchan Aruch clearly states that:

אסור להסתכל באותו מקום... וכל שכן הנושק שם שעובר בכל אלה, ועוד שעובר על בל תשקצו את נפשותיכם

Although the Rambam did not hold that way, most of the later Poskim agreed with the Sulchan Aruch, and thus, if the above is generally considered not permissible by the Halacha.

share|improve this answer
Actually, that is referenced in the Shut cited in Shalom's answer, but now we also have your opinion of what the general halacha is. – Double AA May 11 '14 at 19:49
The Rama's glosses to the Shulchan Aruch also clearly state ומנשק בכל אבר שירצה. Were you intending this answer for Sefardim only? Why did you leave out half the story? – Double AA May 11 '14 at 19:51
@DoubleAA - Are we talking about the same Sulchan Aruch? he qoute you brought is from the Rambam, and the Sulchan Aruch (Orech Hachaim רמ) mentions no such thing. – nbubis May 11 '14 at 20:09
The one written by R Yosef Karo and added to by R Moshe Isserlis? I think it's the same one. My quote is from there, but you won't find it in OC 240. The book is bigger than that. Try EH 25. – Double AA May 11 '14 at 20:11
I'm not saying one should or should not paskin that way, but if you didn't even know that existed then I don't have much faith in your authority on any of the claims in this answer. – Double AA May 11 '14 at 20:23

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.