dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (06/19/85)
> > Is unmarried straight sex any more permissable than > Gay sex? > No.
candide@ihlpg.UUCP (candide) (08/30/85)
I have some questions concerning the laws of sexual behavior which are codified in Chapter 240 of the Orah Hayyim. Most of the time Rabbi Karo uses straightforward language. He says ``assur l<verb>'' or ``lo y<verb>'' or ``eyn <verb>im'' et cetera to indicate that a course of action is forbidden. If a course of action is customary, but not required, he says ``nohagim l<verb>'' et cetera; if a course of action is neither customary, nor required, but he considers it meritorious, then he will tell us in so many words that <verb>ing is a sign of piety. It is never hard to determine Karo's psak [legal ruling]. Now we come to Chapter 240, and suddenly Rabbi Karo uses terms with no agreed-upon legal meaning, terms we have never seen before. For example, sexual intercourse with the woman on top and the man on the bottom is ``derekh azzut''. What kind of talk is that, ``derekh azzut''? Is it assur or is it mutar [permitted]? What does Karo mean? And why doesn't he tell us what he means? Now, I happen to know the halakha in this case, so my question so far is purely literary, not practical. Rabbi Shimon Eider has rendered a psak that it is best to perform the insertion with the man on top; however, if the man cannot remain preorgasmic in that position long enough to satisfy the woman, than they may occasionally have sex with the woman on top so that she can have an orgasm too. Such a couple should try to train themselves eventually to achieve mutual satisfaction in the man-on-top position. When it comes to cunnilingus Rabbi Karo renders his opinion in strong and unambiguous language. Here there is no doubt, no possibility of misunderstanding the psak. It is forbidden even to look at ``that place'', and certainly, certainly forbidden to kiss it. And this leads me to my question: Why? Why does the Shulhan Arukh forbid cunnilingus? In which Gemara is the halakha derived from the verses of Torah which Rabbi Karo quotes? In addition to this, my main question, I also have several subsidiary questions: 1) Why does Karo appear to use vaguer terminology in Chapter 240 than in the rest of his work? When it comes to sexual behavior, why does he not speak in a straightforward manner? 2) Why are there asymmetries in the laws of sexual behavior? The Shulhan Arukh forbids a woman to enjoy cunnilingus, but it does not forbid a man to enjoy fellatio (if it does not lead to ejaculation). On the other hand, a man is forbidden to fantasize about a woman other than the wife with whom he is having sex, but a woman is not forbidden to fantasize about another man! 3) Are there other rishonim [medieval authorities] who disagree with the Shulhan Arukh, either concerning cunnilingus or concerning other sexual activity (are any rishonim stricter than the Shulhan Arukh)? 4) If the answer to the above question is ``yes'', then whom do we follow? Do we follow the Shulhan Arukh, or do we follow other opinions? 5) Does the halakha admit of extenuating circumstances, of the kind discussed by Rabbi Eider? In other words, if a woman cannot reach an orgasm through genital intercourse, is she permitted to have cunnilingus occasionally? Please respond to the net, as I am sure that the questions are of general interest.
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (09/03/85)
> When it comes to cunnilingus Rabbi Karo renders his opinion in strong > and unambiguous language. Here there is no doubt, no possibility of > misunderstanding the psak. It is forbidden even to look at ``that place'', > and certainly, certainly forbidden to kiss it. And this leads me to my > question: > > Why? Before I put in my $.02, let me emphasize that I am NOT giving a psak on this matter, and that I have not (yet) done any research into this topic. My understanding from when I learned this in preparation for marriage is that ``that place'' refers to the vagina proper, NOT the labia and clitoris. Therefore, it would appear that cunnilingus is permissable, so long as only a shallow penetration was used. I too am interested in any further information on this topic from competent halachic athorities, since I do not currently have the time to properly research this. -- Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus Development Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner slerner%sesame@harvard.ARPA
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/03/85)
> I have some questions concerning the laws of sexual behavior which > are codified in Chapter 240 of the Orah Hayyim. > 2) Why are there asymmetries in the laws of sexual behavior? Why would you expect symmetry? -- Matt Rosenblatt
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (09/10/85)
> 3) Are there other rishonim [medieval authorities] who disagree > with the Shulhan Arukh, either concerning cunnilingus or > concerning other sexual activity (are any rishonim stricter > than the Shulhan Arukh)? > 4) If the answer to the above question is ``yes'', then whom do > we follow? Do we follow the Shulhan Arukh, or do we follow > other opinions? The Rambam, Maimonides, states in his Book of Laws ( section on prohibited relations, 21st chapter [ I think, but it could be elsewhere]) that a man can do as he sees fit with his wife. However, he says that certain things should not be done [ should not, but are not prohibited ]). As for whom we follow, Ashkenazic law is decided by the Rama ( Rabbi Moshe Isserlis ) who wrote a commentary on R. Karo's work. Where he disagrees with R. Karo he writes a note, otherwise he agrees. The S'faradim generally follow Rambam ( I say generally to fend off the S'faradi attack I anticipate about an Ashkenazi writing about s'faradi law, when after all I'm probably not even Jewish ). Eliyahu Teitz.
martillo@csd2.UUCP (Joachim Martillo) (09/12/85)
/* csd2:net.religion.jewish / teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) / 4:53 pm Sep 10, 1985 */ > As for whom we follow, Ashkenazic law is decided by the Rama ( Rabbi > Moshe Isserlis ) who wrote a commentary on R. Karo's work. Where he disagrees > with R. Karo he writes a note, otherwise he agrees. The S'faradim generally > follow Rambam ( I say generally to fend off the S'faradi attack I anticipate > about an Ashkenazi writing about s'faradi law, when after all I'm probably > not even Jewish ). I assume this refers to me. Since I specifically exempted those Ashkenazim whose behavior is recognizably Jewish by Sefardi standards, I am not sure why you are saying this. I believe my position is reasonable. Given that the Jewish community is not isolated from the non-Jewish population in the USA, if a person is not acting in a recognizably Jewish fashion, he should be considered non-Jewish. I have heard Turkish non-Jewish acquaintances make a distinction between the Sefardim in Turkey who are musevi (the polite word for Jewish) because the little that they do is recognizably Jewish and Ashkenazim who are yiddish because what they do is so bizarre. Anyway, I have no quarrel with your family. I have heard that when Dr. Raccah asked your grandfather(?) whether he should change his nusah, your grandfather told him no because one should not go from a higher level of qedushah to a lower (at least in prayer).
spector@acf4.UUCP (David HM Spector) (09/13/85)
[No flames, Please...this is just an observation...] My only question is what qualifies as 'Jewish behaviour'? What about the Jews of India, Ethiopia, North Africa, Yemen,(or China) etc, etc. It seems that most of the current classifications of 'Jewishness' are centered on behaviours and cultural ideas/ideals developed by one group or another in exile. Very subjective if you ask me...
martillo@csd2.UUCP (Joachim Martillo) (09/13/85)
In re: Jewish Behavior. Actually, there were cases before the beginning of the 19th century of individuals who started say in a backward place like Vilna then moved to Berlin, then to Soloniki, to Livorno, to Marrakkesh, to Cairo, to Sana`a and then finally settled in Cochin and never commented on differences in Jewish behavior or ways except perhaps for the most trivial of differences. Traditional Jewish behavior is basically the same everywhere because the way of the shas simply does not permit so much variance. Every morning I say in Hebrew: Thes are things that have no measure: the peah, the first fruits, the pilgrimage, and charity, and talmud torah. These are things which a human being does, eats from their fruit in this world while the capital is laid up for him in the world to come: And they are these: Honoring father and mother, charity, visiting the sich, welcoming guests, early rising for the synogogue, bringing peace between a man and his fellow, between a husband and his wife, and talmud torah above all. To tell the truth, I am probably failing fairly miserably in at least five of the last list but these are most important parts of being Jewish (of course some are just important parts of being decent human beings). The sages have given us very explicity descriptions of how to carry out these commandments. These descriptions given a fairly complete description of Jewishness which was basically the same wherever you were in the Jewish world. Unfortunately somewhere along the last couple of centuries the vast majority of Ashkenazim dropped out from the Jewish world and adopted western ways. I think the corruption began when Ashkenazim adopted some very explicit Christian practices many centuries ago. Then Ashkenazim took the attitude that Yahudut was foremost a religion (as David Sherman posted not so long ago). This attitude would have been an anathema to all the great sages of the Sefardi world. What happens when we come to an age like now when religion is not so important? Most of the Jews become either Rosens or Harazduks.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/16/85)
> I believe my position is reasonable. Given that the Jewish community > is not isolated from the non-Jewish population in the USA, if a person > is not acting in a recognizably Jewish fashion, he should be > considered non-Jewish. [MARTILLO] "Recognizably Jewish" by your standards? Why not by theirs? Aren't they Jews? No, of course not, you excluded them a priori so as to render their opinions of what Jewishness might be invalid. This sounds an awful lot like people trying to claim that certain acts are "against nature". Are human beings a part of nature? Do some of us do those things? Thus, how can they be considered against nature? Same thing here. Are Jews behaving in certain ways and doing certain things? If so, how can you arbitrarily define such things as "not recognizably Jewish"? -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/16/85)
> Unfortunately somewhere along the last couple of centuries the vast > majority of Ashkenazim dropped out from the Jewish world and adopted > western ways. I think the corruption began when Ashkenazim adopted > some very explicit Christian practices many centuries ago. Then > Ashkenazim took the attitude that Yahudut was foremost a religion (as > David Sherman posted not so long ago). This attitude would have been > an anathema to all the great sages of the Sefardi world. What happens > when we come to an age like now when religion is not so important? > Most of the Jews become either Rosens or Harazduks. Go ahead, Yakky, tear your clothes. Mourn for us that we're no longer Jews. They're your clothes. Or is this a vusvusish Ashkenazi custom? For the last time, Yakky, tell us all why it is not YOU who has "dropped out of the Jewish world". Please. If all you can say is "that is not true because MY perspective is the only right one", after the laughter dies down, we'll begin talking about something else, perhaps. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (09/17/85)
Could all you folks please change the heading--this discussion no longer has anything to do with sex. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl