2

This article seems to claim that for single men masturbation isn't forbidden. It is a little bit over my head, especially since most of the modern day literature (albeit based largely on the Zohar and Kabbalah) seems to hold the "destruction of seed" as a horrible crime against G-d (lengthening the exile etc.).

Is there any basis for this claim (i.e has it been dealt with in other sources)?

(note: at the bottom of the article in the comments section, I've noticed there are several upset posters that accuse the author of the article of causing the masses to sin, so it sounds like there is some sort of issue with the author's logic)

(note: this is not asking about the history of masturbation being forbidden, but who falls under the prohibition)

  • 2
    There is some basis and it's outlined in that article. Are you looking for a summary? You probably figured out that the idea is it's not a waste since it wouldn't have been used any other way. You probably also figured out that most (if not virtually all) don't hold of that logic. What else do you want? – Double AA Aug 9 '17 at 12:39
  • 1
    What does "dealt with" mean? It is dealt with in the article you linked to. – Double AA Aug 9 '17 at 13:09
  • 2
    @DoubleAA I think he means do others deal with the topic as expressed in that article such as explaining why they do not agree (or even if some do agree). – sabbahillel Aug 9 '17 at 13:33
  • 1
    @TrustMeI'mARabbi Did you read the essay or not? Are you referring to specific mepharshim to that gemara which discuss the issues in the essay? Which? – Double AA Aug 9 '17 at 18:01
  • 1
    @Fei23 As doubleAA noted, you need to clarify more clearly how the article isnt enough. Doesnt the article indicate it isnt unanimous? Are you only looking for sources from a particular period? – mevaqesh Oct 30 '17 at 2:19
2

First to explain its structure, it first says that his initial answer to the unmarried person who found himself unable to control his urges was that he was "forced" and that the situation is one where he may die if he doesn't do it (!) and thus not liable. I'm leaving that aside because the principle is true, the application is off but that is less black and white. Either way one is not "forced" if he just says I'm allowed to do it, so there is little point in dwelling on that. And there is no tradition that failure to have marital relations is potentially deadly, nor do doctors agree. As far as I can tell he just makes that up claiming it is comparable to other cases.

He attributes the position that it isn't an issue for an unmarried person to waste seed to the העזר מקדוש which is a commentary to shulchan aruch by the same author as the אשל אברהם (as this author himself writes). He derives this from the idea that the העזר מקודש holds the prohibition is rabbinic and the permission for interactions with one's wife that may lead to wasted seed. Given how off this Teshuva is I'm not spending the time to verify that this claim is correct (this is a known opinion that is usually attributed to the Drisha and not regarded as the Halacha - you can see Bnei Banim among other places that mention it - I'm just not going to see if the העזר מקודש contradicts it elsewhere and thus can't be said to agree with it), but his derivation is certainly not correct.

The אשל אברהם (the same person) to S.A. O.C. 3:14 s.q. 1 says on what the S.A. says that an unmarried person may not touch the Glans when urinating because of the concern of wasting seed, there he specifically speaks to the fact that an unmarried person is stricter than a married one and is strict in the prohibition of rubbing or holding for a married person, in the notion of "even a married person" where a married person might have reasons to be lenient. He doesn't come along and argue that there is no problem here because there is no prohibition or anything like that. This is the quote of the אשל אברהם:

נשוי ובסעיף י״ז[ט"ז] ז״ל לא הותר לנשוי לאחוז באמה אלא להשתין אבל להתחכך לא מעתה אין הכרע אי מותר לנשוי להתחכך למטה מעטרה או לוקא להשתין מותר ועיין ב״י מ״ש בשם סמ״ג שהביא ספיקא של מהרי״ל ז״ל בזה לענין אחיזה באמה ע״ש ובת׳ שב יעקב סי׳ ל׳ האריך למעניתו ופסק לאף לנשוי לא שרי להתחכך ט אם מעטרה ולמטה ע״י כתונת לוקא ולפניו אפי׳ בכה״ג אסור:

The rest of this is of similar quality, including the tenuous claim that marital relationship with a woman past child bearing years is the equivalent of wasting seed (see here). He doesn't even consider a different possibility and rejects it. He asserts these derivations as "obvious".

If someone wanted to spend more time on this I'm sure it could be more thoroughly refuted, but I think this gets the point across.

  • 1
    He addresses (or at least tries to address) the issue of OC 3 later on the page. If you haven't read the Ezer Mikodesh inside then I'm not sure you're qualified to answer this. In any event if the prohibition is lowered to a Derabanan (which is especially cogent if the events are beAkrai) that can have significant applications in terms of what sorts of Onesim would override it, even if the author, perhaps for rhetorical effect, argues solely in the most extreme direction – Double AA Aug 10 '17 at 23:46
  • 1
    In any event, a full accounting here of the merits of that article is clearly forbidden by both the letter and spirit of Chagigah 2:1 as well as being a violation of Mi Yodeya's modesty policy. ישמע חכם ויוסף לקח ודי למבין – Double AA Aug 11 '17 at 0:29
  • 2
    @doubleaa, I don't see that he mentions the אשל אברהם's comments, and anyway what he says is the issue is not what the sif explicitly says the issue is. I agree about the full treatment, I just felt that it was worse if this question was left unanswered, considering the Yetzer HaRa for motivated reasoning on this subject. – Yishai Aug 11 '17 at 1:56
1

An extensive rebuttal of the permissibility of single men to masturbate is presented by Rav Yehoshua Shapira here.

He basically goes through the Ezer Mekudash's commentary on Even HaEzer 23,25 and 76 precisely describing why (in his estimations) that even according to the Ezer Mekdash (whom the author of the linked article primarily depends on) holds that there is still an issur d'Rabbanan for masturbation/wasting seed.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .