halakha<\/em> does not follow Yo\u1e25anan b. Dahavai. Rather, whatever a man wishes to do with his wife, he may do.\u201d The Talmud further recounts: \u201cA certain woman came to R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi and said to him, \u2018I set the table for my husband, and he overturned it. (I.e., I prepared for normal intercourse, and he penetrated me anally. Is this forbidden?)\u2019 R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi replied, \u2018My child, the Torah permits this. What then can I do?\u2019\u201d His answer implies that he was uncomfortable with this, but could not forbid it since the Torah allows it. Perhaps in this case the woman took no pleasure in it, but agreed on condition that it was not prohibited. The Talmud continues with yet another story: \u201cA woman came to Rav and said, \u2018Rabbi, I set the table for my husband, and he overturned it.\u2019 He replied, \u2018How is this any different from fish?\u2019\u201d Rav was invoking an opinion of the Sages cited a few lines earlier: \u201cWhatever a man wishes to do with his wife, he may do. An analogy can be drawn to meat from the butcher. If he wishes to eat it salted, he may; if he wants to eat it roasted, he may; if he wants to eat it seethed, he may; if he wants to eat it stewed, he may. The same is true of fish delivered from the fisherman.\u201d The implication is that according to Rav, there is no prohibition, just as a person may eat fish however he likes.<\/p>\nThis seems to contradict a talmudic passage (Yevamot<\/em> 34b), which states that the sin of Er and Onan was having anal intercourse with Tamar, thereby wasting their seed. Most poskim<\/em> limit this prohibition to doing this regularly to avoid conception. When done occasionally, it is permissible. This is the opinion of Tosafot<\/em> (Sanhedrin<\/em> 58b, s.v. \u201cmi\u201d); Tosafot Rid<\/em> (Yevamot<\/em> 12b, s.v. \u201ctanei\u201d); Or Zaru\u2019a<\/em> (Kuntres Ha-re\u2019ayot<\/em> on Sanhedrin<\/em> 58a); Rosh (Yevamot<\/em> 3:9); Rabbeinu Yeru\u1e25am (Toldot Adam Ve-\u1e24ava<\/em>, netiv<\/em> 23, part 1); Mordechai<\/em> (Shevu\u2019ot<\/em>, Hilkhot Nidda<\/em> \u00a7732); Hagahot Maimoniyot<\/em> (Laws of Sexual Prohibitions 23:4); Ritva (in his primary explanation as cited in Shita Mekubetzet<\/em>, Nedarim<\/em> 20b); and Rabbeinu Yona (Sanhedrin<\/em> 58b). This is also the correct text of Rambam (MT, Laws of Sexual Prohibitions 21:9). It is also the opinion of Yam Shel Shlomo<\/em> (Yevamot<\/em> 3:18); Levush<\/em> (240:14); Shetilei Zeitim<\/em> (240:20); and Torot Emet<\/em>, Yeshu\u2019ot Yaakov<\/em>, and Erekh Shai<\/em> in their commentaries on SA EH 25:2.<\/p>\nOthers are stringent and maintain that anal sexual intercourse is permitted only on condition that the husband does not ejaculate there. This is the opinion of R. Avraham Min Ha-har (Nedarim<\/em> ad loc<\/em>.); Or\u1e25ot \u1e24ayim<\/em> (Hilkhot Ketubot<\/em> \u00a77); Ri (in his first explanation as cited in Tosafot<\/em>, Yevamot<\/em> 34b s.v. \u201cve–<\/em>lo\u201d); Beit Yosef<\/em> (EH 25:2); and AHS (EH 25:11). This is also the reading that appears in the printed editions of Rambam\u2019s Mishneh Torah<\/em>. Some are even stricter and do not permit anal penetration at all (Sefer \u1e24aredim<\/em> ch. 64; Shlah<\/em>, Sha\u2019ar Ha-otiyot<\/em>, Kedushat Ha-zivug<\/em> \u00a7\u00a7360-364). They understand the phrase \u201cshelo ke-darka<\/em>\u201d (non-normal) to mean that the wife is on top of her husband or that the husband is behind his wife during vaginal intercourse. Even when it comes to these positions, people who do not feel a need for them are considered holy. According to these authorities, the Sages did not even speak of anal intercourse because it is forbidden. However, this interpretation is rejected by almost all poskim<\/em>. Rema mentions the first two opinions and concludes, \u201cEven though this is all permitted, anyone who sanctifies himself [by refraining from] what is permitted to him is considered holy\u201d (EH 25:2).<\/p>\nIn practice, the halakha<\/em> follows those who are lenient, as they are in the majority. Furthermore, according to most poskim<\/em> the entire discussion relates to a rabbinic prohibition (because it is not truly a violation of the prohibition against wasting seed, as masturbation would be for a man). On the contrary, if this brings the husband joy and satisfaction, it has value and is a mitzva. Certainly, then, if both husband and wife enjoy it, it is a fulfillment of the mitzva of ona<\/em> according to most poskim<\/em>. Rav Kook wrote similarly in his explanation of the lenient opinion: \u201cEven in this manner, when done occasionally, since the Torah permits it according to this opinion, it is considered something of a mitzva as it helps satisfy the husband, and therefore is not really a waste [of seed]\u201d (Ezrat Kohen<\/em> \u00a735).<\/p>\n[20]<\/a>. According to Kalla Rabbati<\/em> 1:23, \u201cHe on the bottom and she on top \u2013 this is impudent.\u201d Several Rishonim cite this (Raavad, Sha\u2019ar Ha-kedusha<\/em>; Ohel Mo\u2019ed<\/em>; Sefer Ha-eshkol<\/em>; Menorat Ha-ma\u2019or<\/em>; and Tur<\/em>). SA 240:5 cites it as well, as do many A\u1e25aronim. Sefer \u1e24asidim<\/em> \u00a7509 limits the admonition to mikveh<\/em> night, when it is more likely that the woman will conceive. This is also the approach of Birkei Yosef<\/em> 240:7 and Da\u2019at Torah<\/em> 240:5.<\/p>\nIn contrast, most Rishonim, and Rambam foremost among them, do not record the admonition at all. As Rabbeinu Yeru\u1e25am writes, \u201cThe case in Nedarim<\/em> about a woman who said that she set a table and her husband turned it over, which the Sages ruled was permitted, was referring to anal intercourse. It does not mean that she was on top and he was beneath her, because that is certainly permitted, and she would not have been upset about it\u201d (Toldot Adam Ve-\u1e24ava<\/em>, netiv<\/em> 23, part 1). Zohar<\/em> (II 259a) implies that the admonition is against positions where the husband faces his wife\u2019s back, \u201cFor it says, \u2018And he shall cling to his wife\u2019 (Bereishit 2:24) \u2013 specifically to <\/em>his wife, not behind <\/em>his wife.\u201d Ma\u2019amar Mordechai<\/em> 240:7 explains that the problem with the \u201cimpudent\u201d position is that it seems like the woman is trying to dominate her husband, implying that if both spouses consent, it is permissible. In practice, since according to most poskim<\/em> it is not forbidden to change from the missionary position, they may. Even those who are stringent view insistence on the missionary position as a pious practice, not a requirement, and some explain that the stringency applies only when there is no mutual consent. Therefore, a couple who wants to change from the missionary position may do so, and it is even a mitzva if it increases their pleasure. Nevertheless, when a couple is hoping to conceive, the pious practice is for them to defer to the stringent opinion and have sexual relations in the missionary position.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Normal sexual intercourse is vaginal, but some people desire anal intercourse, which the Talmud calls bi\u2019a she-lo ke-darka, \u201cabnormal intercourse.\u201d Clearly, if anal sexual intercourse is painful for the wife or done against her wishes, it is forbidden. But what if she consents or even desires it? The Talmud records (Nedarim 20b) that the Sages […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[155],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-14-02"],"yoast_head":"\n
18. Anal Intercourse - Peninei Halakha<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n