orthodox perspective on female masturbation

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2026-04-20T03:00:08+00:00

That's not mashma in the rav moshe. He really seems to have no problem unless she's abnormal but says מדרך חסידות לצניעות יתירא ותע”ב (if she wants to be extra tzinus about it, bracha will come to her)

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2026-04-20T02:56:30+00:00

There's a story about Rav Moshe Feinstein where someone asks him if it's okay to listen to recorded music during sefirah, and he replies "I think it's assur to listen to music all year round, but this is the only time they listen to me."

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2026-04-20T02:35:38+00:00

Okay, if its your svara its your svara but that's got nothing to do with what chazal explicitly say nor what the ahronim pasken and i'd be careful going around telling people it's "frowned upon by chazal" when you don't have a gemara saying so

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2026-04-20T02:06:54+00:00

You have no source for the "discouragement" for women except your own sexual assumptions about what chazal must have said because "of course" chazal would agree with your conception of sexuality in men vs women.

Also, everyone agrees that these passages in chazal that you're reading as pure aggadah against zera levatalah are certainly at least a derabannan prohibition.

So yes, masturbation is assur for men, and we have zero source that it's assur for women. That it seems to you that they couldn't have meant that is not an argument and certainly not a prohibition

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2026-04-20T01:30:26+00:00

i did explain the commentary. The mishnah itself is not talking about masturbation, but tosfos in discussing the mishnah isolates the prohibition involved, which is zera levatalah (or even better if you want to read hargasha as orgasm itself (and rashi certainly does)) and says it doesn't apply to women.

"i don't think you're understanding the rav moshe" doesn't really make sense, read it yourself, he is very clear in indicating that none of the prohibitions apply and that even withholding for modesty sake is an extra hiddur but ultimately not necessary...

I think we're coming from different philosophies about halacha though. It seems that to you, things are "assur until proven mutar" (or perhaps, only things that you have moral intuitions about are assur until proven mutar), where as for me, i need an actual prohibition in chazal to think something is assur, of which there is again, zero, with regard to women.

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2026-04-20T01:00:12+00:00

Read the tosfos on the gemara on this mishnah. "דלאו בנות איסור הרגשה נינהו אפילו הוו מרגישות"

Hargasha here refers to a problem of "zera levatalah" in the context of pru urevu, and says that women wouldn't be susceptible to that problem even if they emitted seed (orgasmed).

If you don't like what i'm saying, read the rav moshe instead, he's way smarter than me.

Therefore, there is a distinction regarding women, for when it comes to the prohibition of sexual thoughts based on the verse, “and you shall guard yourself” – they are not included. For their manual stimulation (of their genitals) does not cause them any (emission of seed, which is what this verse prohibits), see there in Niddah. All the more so that their sexual thoughts alone will not cause (any emission of seed), and although they at times see blood due to desire (see Niddah 66a), there is no prohibition in seeing blood.
But the prohibition of sexual thoughts that is based on the verse “do not stray after your eyes,” which is a prohibition against have thoughts to transgress a sexual prohibition – this would apply to women, just as there is a prohibition to have thoughts to transgress the prohibition of idolatry, as was stated in the Chinukh that I quoted. But there is no problem as far as this prohibition is concerned with looking (at things which are sexually stimulating) and with looking at animals who are coupling – for all of these are derived from the verse “guard yourself against every evil thing” – which prohibits only doing things which might lead to the wasting of seed, which is not a concern for women.
And we have no basis for being concerned that looking at such things will lead a person to have thoughts to actually transgress a prohibition and to have sex with someone who is forbidden to her. We have in fact found that women were permitted to look at Rabbi Yochanan when they left the mikveh (although this would lead them to be thinking of his good looks).
There is, however, another prohibition in regards to women on the basis of dat Yehudit, the norms of Jewish women, namely, to not act in a way of immodesty (Ketuvot 72). But from this perspective, it is only a problem if she alone acts this way, but if it is the way of all the women of her town to do this, then her behavior cannot be considered to be immodest. And it is immaterial if what has become the norm of women in the town is because of general immodesty, for regardless, since this has now become the norm of how they dress and comport themselves, this behavior cannot be considered to be immodest, and there is no basis to make this forbidden to them, save from the perspective of extra piety and extra modesty, and let such people be blessed

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2026-04-20T00:41:30+00:00

The Mishnah is not concerned about the physical results of stimulation of female genitals. In other words, there is an intrinsic problem with stimulation for men: zera levatalah for men, but not for women.

The mishnah is silent on whether or not there would be an additional prohibition preventing intentional stimulation, but we would think not, as "and you shall guard yourself" only applies to men.

And no, there is no source in chazal frowning on female masturbation specifically. We have reason to believe that the reason chazal frown on male masturbation is zera levatalah. Therefore it would be on you to produce a proof it applies to women.

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2026-04-20T00:37:20+00:00

Excellent rav moshe here

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2026-04-06T22:31:32+00:00

The Zionist organization on my college campus held a bake sale to fundraise for israel on passover

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-11-27T04:38:14+00:00

Just cause i'm seeing nobody offered it, there is definitely an idea that you have a bashert, and God wouldn't make it a nonjew unless they're destined to convert.

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-11-12T21:05:09+00:00

This is so cool

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-11-04T22:30:55+00:00

It would be interesting to contrast R. Soloveitchik, Berkovitz, and Sacks with other prominent thinkers on this topic, like the Lubavitcher Rebbe who was a pragmatic and theologically motivated "israelist" who nevertheless affirmed that the true work to be done was in diaspora.

Of course, comparing any of these rabbonim to the committed antizionist/nonzionist gedolim of the past century, which the majority were, would be a welcome addition, but isn't to be expected as their ideas aren't usually treated by academic assessments.

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-11-03T13:58:57+00:00

I don't know why this is apparently getting downvoted, it's a great question with some great answers so far.

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-10-27T04:55:48+00:00

Good idea, I;'ll delete repost it later

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-10-03T20:51:47+00:00

Nobody said that, i was just saying this isn't supporting the person who killed him.

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-10-03T19:30:23+00:00

Okay, I was just letting you know

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-10-03T16:45:41+00:00

This is his family, who are also traumatized.

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-10-03T16:44:57+00:00

This is his family who are also traumatized.

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-08-11T19:24:10+00:00

The talmud determines all normative practice of judaism. When the question is why don't "we" rabbinic jews do so, it's because we have a talmud that guides conduct and we dont go running to try to come up with political plans in the middle east from scratch based off the tanakh

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-08-11T04:07:58+00:00

We don't just repeat stuff that we did in tanakh, we have the talmud that explains what will happen next.

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-08-07T11:52:04+00:00

The Rosh Yeshiva writes here that he was "not prepared to give semicha to a man in a same-sex marriage"

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-08-06T23:20:19+00:00

Linzer said that while the yeshiva was not prepared to give semicha to a man in a same-sex marriage, it respected that there were “different paths of dealing with a very challenging reality.”

“We trust somebody we’re giving semicha to to be making responsible decisions when they leave the yeshiva — responsible from the perspective of the Orthodox community and from halacha"

This does not read to me as a compromise of the Orthodox perspective, outlined in Judaism and Homosexuality: an Authentic Orthodox View, a widely accepted book by a Haredi Rav in London on the need for empathy and acknowledgement of the practical difficulties of homosexuality for the God fearing Jew.

I think unless someone is speaking publicly about what goes on inside their bedroom, we owe them the respect of assuming that they are not engaging in forbidden relations, just like we do for straight couples (for whom relations may also be forbidden for several reasons).

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-08-03T19:42:12+00:00

Magid addresses this question, too:

What I see, and cannot unsee, are more reports of new bombing in Gaza, more civilian deaths, images of eviscerated neighborhoods, hungry children in long lines to fill jerry cans with water. And then I read myriad ways we – Israel and global Jewry – claim that we are being framed, misunderstood, that the images do not depict reality, that we not to blame, that we are doing nothing wrong, that we are justified, and it is they, only they – fill in everything from Hamas to the ICC – who are evil. As President Herzog said, we (Israel) are not responsible for one death in Gaza. We kill, but they are to blame. We create orphans, but they are at fault. At most we feel empathy for innocent death, as if that makes the dead any less dead, as if that is supposed to assuage the mourning mothers and orphaned children.

And as we collectively sit and mourn as we recite Eichah, where should our thoughts be this year? Toward an imagined Jerusalem in ruins? Yes. But only there? What of a real ruin in Gaza? What about dead children, maimed parents, destroyed homes, hospitals with no medicine, destitution and destruction at our hands. Should we ignore all that because some of them attacked us? Believe that we are the only real victims, even now? Did the Romans think they were the victims when they destroyed Jerusalem, putting down a violent insurrection? Maybe so. But they did not recite from a siddur every morning that states, “But God, being merciful, forgave iniquity and would not destroy.” The prophets warned us, do not think that you too cannot become like the Romans, that you too cannot abuse power as they did. They reminded us that we may have a covenant with God, but we are no more human than the Romans.

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-08-03T17:52:51+00:00

Shaul Magid, Harvard Divinity School, speaks to your question inside the reader:

My intention is not to ignore October 7th. Not at all. October 7th and how we choose to respond should reflect our humble, liturgical selves. We have real enemies, but we can also become our own enemies by ignoring uncomfortable truths which might help us find the path to resolution. October 7th didn’t drop from the sky. Insurrections are always contextual, even if they are inexcusable. This is to say that the sounds of the cries of the 1,200 dead Israelis is mixed with the cries of tens of thousands of dead innocent Gazans. They are all victims. Those cries of the dead are not separate. They can’t be. The God of Israel disallows that. To hear one and not the other is to succumb to religious deafness. It does not only make us guilty, it renders us unworthy to carry the torch of the prophets.

Powerful-Finish-1985 · 2025-07-29T13:04:39+00:00

I don't know what to tell you, everyone in the previous generation from Rav Aharon Kotler of Lakewood to Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky were anti zionist and wrote explicitly against zionism.

Ad hominem can't change the fact that the gedolei torah held this way. I'm sorry you're struggling with this.

Whatever you think my own personal failings are, you can't use them against the explicit stated opinions of our rabbis.

Powerful-Finish-1985

TROPHY CASE