[net.religion.jewish] sex

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