No Rabbi Shmuley, That’s Not What the Talmud Says

  • 0

Last month, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was interviewed by New York Magazine about his new book “Kosher Lust.” He drops a bombshell right off the bat:

Among us religious Jews, sex is a big deal. It’s a religious obligation. In Jewish law, a man has to make his wife orgasm before he does.

The interviewer is skeptical. Really?

The Rabbi insists. It’s in the Talmud.

This week, Rabbi Shmuley cited the interview in an article that weirdly places the blame for Rabbi Freundel’s voyeurism on his wife. Or something like that. Here’s how he restated his position:

The rule applies even more to women. I was amazed last week that an orthodox Jewish sex counselor attacked me for an interview I gave on my new book “Kosher Lust” to New York Magazine, reprinted in Britain’s Daily Mail, that said that Jewish law encourages a man to make his wife climax first. This is Judaism’s tacit acknowledgment of a fact that modern science has finally caught up with – that women are much more sexual than men, having more deeply-rooted sexual needs.

This passage presents a softer version of the New York Magazine bombshell. It’s no longer a religious obligation for the man to make his wife orgasm before he does – now it’s encouragement – but there is a more fundamental problem with the entire premise. It’s not in the Talmud.

Undoubtably, the rabbi is referring to a selection from Tractate Niddah 31A.674x501_682670_548164_1346314330 “R. Isaac citing R. Ammi stated: If the woman emits her semen first she bears a male child; if the man emits his semen first she bears a female child; for it is said, If a woman emits semen and bear a man-child.” (Translation: Soncino)

The Soncino translation is confusing to the modern reader because women don’t emit semen.  In the original Hebrew, “emit semen” is “mazra’at,” which is more literally translated as “she seeds.” What does mazra’at mean in practical terms? And why would it affect the gender of the baby?

We find two general paths of interpretation in the commentaries. One is that when the female climaxes first, the child will be a boy. Thus, mazra’at is indeed orgasm. The other possibility is that women actually do emit a substance during intercourse and if the woman’s emission arrives first, the child will be a boy. In this version, mazra’at follows a more literal translation and refers to a female version of sperm.

It sounds completely unscientific to believe that gender is determined this way. In fact, we can demonstrate that both of the translations are absolutely false, but the Talmud and its commentators got these ideas from the science of their day. The two paths of interpretation may reflect a dispute between the Greek philosophers Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen, who all held that female orgasm was essential to conception in some way. Aristotle believed that the woman had no seed, but the womb was inhospitable to semen before she climaxed. Hippocrates and Galen believed that friction would “heat” the woman, and a seed would be released inside her body when she climaxed. (Source)

Either way, the Talmud holds that in order to bear a male child, the female must climax first. The background to all of this is purely medical and obviously obsolete.

Most importantly though, the Talmud does not say what Rabbi Shmuley claims it says. Not even close. Rabbi Shmuley is trying to teach a lesson about sexual pleasure within a marriage based on a Talmudic statement, but nowhere in this statement is there an indication of preference regarding which person climaxes first. Armed with the background information, his attempt seems laughable. The Talmud is not giving sex advice. The Talmud is giving information about sex selection. It simply informs the reader that, scientifically speaking, the order of orgasm determines the gender of the child. That’s all. No obligations. No encouragement. None of that.  Since the information is based on a false premise, it follows that any directive would be obsolete as well.

There is one last twist of irony that undermines the rabbi’s broader point and betrays a troubling bias. Rabbi Shmuley paints the obligation to pleasure one’s wife before oneself as an example of Judaism’s sensitivity towards women. However, the only way one could make that inference from the text is with the assumption that male offspring are better than females. Were males truly more desirable, one could argue that when the Talmud reports how to conceive a male child, it is actually instructing the reader to do so. To me, it seems totally incongruous to make a feminist point from a Talmudic statement that is instructing couples in the fine art of producing male children.

In Rabbi Shmuley’s defense, it’s possible that he borrowed this teaching from a 55 year old article written by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman in Tradition. He mentions this idea, citing the Talmud in Niddah 31A as part of his broader thesis in the article.  His version is softer than Rabbi Shmuley’s version, saying that the Talmud is specifically referring to practices that are not laws. Rather, they are natural consequences of principles that are part of the fabric of Jewish life and tradition.

In summary: Rabbi Shmuley waffles on whether it is an obligation or an encouragement. It’s almost certain that the entire purpose of the talmudic statement is to educate couples in gender selection techniques, and not in the secret to happy marriage. The Talmud is agnostic about whether he or she should climax first. That is, unless you are so patriarchal that you deduce the importance of pleasuring one’s wife first in order to have male children.

It’s wrong to advance one’s agenda by misquoting and misunderstanding sections from the Talmud. Fortunately, we don’t need to rely on mangled proof-texts to make Rabbi Shmuly’s point. In any good relationship, both partners are seeking ways to pleasure their counterparts. Whether it’s through intimacy, general kindness and consideration, support, helping significant others achieve personal success, or raising children together, putting the other ahead of the self is a fundamental of Judaism.

The Talmud (and this is actually true) says that a man has an obligation to make his wife happy (Kiddushin 34b). After all, the Torah commands us “Love your neighbor like yourself.” We are commanded to treat others the way we want to be treated. Seems to me, that’s reason enough to take Rabbi Shmuley’s advice. We don’t need advice that locks us into a specific formula; we use our discretion and follow the love in our hearts. A good husband already knows to put his wife first, as a good wife wishes to put her husband first.

Above all, a good relationship needs honesty and trust. Doling out advice based on an untruth – even decent advice – is a terrible way to teach people about relationships.

  • Maggie Anton

    It is indeed ironic that when the Talmud “encourages” a man to have his wife emit seed [climax] first, it is for the misogynistic purpose of producing sons. That “emits seed’ does mean climax in the Talmud, at least to Rava, comes in another discussion of ensuring sons where Rava says that a man should have sex twice in a row to get sons, because the woman will be so aroused by the first act that she will certainly emit seed first during the second [sorry, I’m on book tour so I can’t quote the exact daf I have on my home computer]. Rami bar Hama disagrees and states that doing it twice in a row will annoy the woman, but the argument ends with both Rava and Rami being right as it depends on the woman’s desire. If she wants the second act, then do as Rava says and do it twice. If she doesn’t, follow Rami and don’t. The interesting thing about this argument is that both rabbis are married to the same woman, Rav Hisda’s daughter – obviously not at the same time. The amazing things one finds in Talmud!

    • Benignuman

      The Gemara you are referring to is Eruvin 100b. However, you are misremembering what Rami bar Hama said. The subject starts with Rami bar Hama saying that it is forbidden for a man to force his wife to have sex (i.e. rape). The Talmud brings a Tannaic statement as support for Rami bar Hama. The Tannaic statement however adds that not only is it forbidden to rape’s one’s wife, a man should also not have sex twice in a row. To this the Talmud asks, how could Rava advise men to have sex twice in row to have male children if it is forbidden? The Talmud answers that Rava is referring to instances where the wife wants the second act. So Rami bar Hama does not actually speak to the issue.

      • What about three times? 🙂

        • MarkSoFla

          Three times? That’s how you make a homosexual child 🙂 #itsinthebookofbubba

          • So six times would make homosexual twins, and….sorry, math isn’t my forte. 🙂

    • daniel rosen

      Why is having sons misogynistic? Is having a daughter misandrist?

      • Preferring sons would be.

        • daniel rosen

          Does the text of Niddah indicate any preference or just give the method for selection of either gender? Even assuming (and this goes against the talmudic quote) that there was a preference for boys, this is not misogynistic. A societal preference for boys (for any variety of reasons) was a practical choice, not one based in hatred of women. If a family HAS a girl and wants to (at a minimum) fulfill the halacha of pru ur’vu according to Beit Hillel, they would want a way to increase the odds of having a boy. How is this misogyny?

          • No it does not. But other sugyos do and Rabbi Shmuley’s entire argument only works under the assumption that boys are preferable. And misogyny doesn’t have to be based on hatred but when preference for boys is ingrained into society – not only in cases where boys are desired because one wishes to observe the mitzvah – could be called misogynistic.

            • daniel rosen

              Paternalistic and patriarchal, maybe. Maybe even practical (with the expectation that boys could do more heavy labor). But it seems to me to be a stretch to say misogynistic.

              • I could go either way. It’s probably misogynistic but it also might be anachronistic to use that word in this situation.

                • Milton

                  The gemara in sanhderin makes clear that the reason for the preference for boys is that fathers of girls worry more. Not misogynistic, just practical.

              • Chris

                It’s certainly misogynistic. The preference for sons comes about when men are more valued in society. It’s not a reasonable practical concern – in all preindustrial societies women perform as much work, if not more than men.

                Especially in Haredi families in modern times, men perform very little work at all. Yet, men are still given special privileges while women’s rights are heavily curtailed. This is misogyny, full stop.

                • Milton

                  Try reading the whole talmud before passing judgement on it. The talmud in sanhedrin makes very clear why they prefer boys- fathers of girls worry more.

                • Hanan

                  Im still not following your logic how preference = dislike/hatred, which is what misogyny is. Generally, every father (including myself) prefers to have at least a son over all girls. This has nothing to do with economic considerations but a different sort of bond we have with a son.

                • In ancient times one had to provide an dowry for a daughter’s marriage. Then the daughter left her home for the home of her spouse. The bride’s family lost her labor, which was gained by her in-laws. Sons were needed to support the parents in their old age. One can understand how these attitudes developed.

              • Yes, I don’t believe we can fairly apply modern sensibilities to an ancient society. I am blessed with two sons, but they don’t do much labor, heavy or otherwise. I picked up a, “Help Wanted,” sign from Home Depot and put it up in my kitchen.

  • Benignuman

    “However, the only way one could make that inference from the text is with the assumption that male offspring are better than females. Were males truly more desirable, one could argue that when the Talmud reports how to conceive a male child, it is actually instructing the reader to do so. ”

    I believe that there are commentaries that understand the Talmud’s meaning just that way. I recall seeing a commentary (which one precisely I cannot recall but will try to look up next time I have access to an otzer) that explains the Gemara to be explaining Chronicles II 8:40 that as a reward for pleasuring their wives the family of Ulam merited many sons.

    • That’s fine but you can’t use it to support a feminist idea at the same time.

      • Benignuman

        Not modern feminism, certainly not. But it does evidence concern for the marital pleasure of women.

        • Or with the preference for having boys.

          • Benignuman

            I think it evidences both. It’s not like they are contradictory.

            • Chris

              Female pleasure is secondary to having sons. It’s like icing on a cake. Surely not the primarily goal.

              • Hanan

                Wait. There is something wrong here. Clearly, if it doesn’t work today, than it didn’t work then either. So maybe it’s to be understood the other way around. Maybe they wanted women getting pleasure and baited men to do it by promising something like having boys.

                • E the P

                  That’s an awesome pshat actually! But, probably not accurate. Since there was no way of testing the thesis (can anyone know from which exact intercourse a woman became pregnant? Even if they could, were the men trading the stats during minyan?) it is more logical to assume that they simply believed it erroneously. Also, contrary to Rabbi Shmuely’s money making idea, it is beyond unlikely that the Rabbis of the Talmud were overly concerned with maximizing sexual “fulfillment”. That entire concept (especially for women!) has no basis anywhere in Rabbinic thought. The fact that according to Jewish law a man must have sex with his wife regularly has nothing to do with her sexual fulfillment,. Rather it speaks to the sense that she deserves to be wanted by her husband – which in times past determined her personal value. In cases of multiple wives, this halacha is specifically pertinent. Imagine a man being more attracted to one wife and only sleeping with the homely one once every few years in order to impregnate her. That would be demeaning. Hence the commandment to be with ones wife regularly, even if you have many. Just as you shouldn’t marry a woman that you cannot support, you shouldn’t marry one that you cannot provide intimacy. It’s not about “kosher lust” in any way, it’s ancient near east practicalities, and still not bad advice today!)

              • Benignuman

                The implication is that the divine goal is female pleasure, that is the good act that is being rewarded. The human goal is to have male children, that is the reward.

  • Catskills1

    Bava Basra (16b): A daughter was born to Rav Shimon the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and he was upset because of it. His father tried to comfort him by saying, Increase has come to the world. Bar Kappara said to him, Your father has tried comforting you with a worthless consolation. Because the braissa says, The world can not exist without both males or females and yet happy is he whose children are males and woe is he whose children are females. Similarly the world cannot exist without both spice sellers or tanners, and yet happy is he whose profession is that of a spice seller and woe is he whose professions is that of tanner. On this issue of the value of daughters there is a dispute amongst the Tannaim. It says in Bereishis (24:1), G‑d blessed Avraham with everything [ba-kol]. What is meant by the word “everything”? R’ Meir said it means he was blessed with not having a daughter. R’ Yehuda said it means he was blessed with a daughter. Others (Acherim) say it means that he had a daughter whose name was “everything” (ba-kol).

    Berachos(5b): ‘And that my bed should be placed north and south’. For R. Hama b. R. Hanina said in the name of R. Isaac: Whosoever places his bed north and south will have male children, as it says: And whose belly Thou fillest with Thy treasure, who have sons in plenty. R. Nahman b. Isaac says: His wife also will not miscarry. Here it is written: And whose belly Thou fillest with Thy treasure, and elsewhere it is written: And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold there were twins in her womb.

    Bava Basra(141a):  For R. Hisda said: [If a] daughter [is born] first, it is a good sign for the children. Some say, because she rears her brothers; and others say. because the evil eye has no influence over them. R. Hisda said: To me, however, daughters are dearer than sons.

    Berachos(60a): Within the first three days a man should pray that the seed should not putrefy; from the third to the fortieth day he should pray that the child should be a male; from the fortieth day to three months he should pray that it should not be a sandal; from three months to six months he should pray that it should not be still-born; from six months to nine months he should pray for a safe delivery.

    Sanhedrin(100b): R. Joseph said: it is also forbidden to read the book of Ben Sira. Abaye said to him: Why so? Shall we say because there is written therein, … A daughter is a vain treasure to her father: through anxiety on her account, he cannot sleep at night. As a minor, lest she be seduced; in her majority, lest she play the harlot; as an adult, lest she be not married; if she marries, lest she bear no children; if she grows old, lest she engage in witchcraft!’ But the Rabbis have said the same: The world cannot exist without males and females; happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females.

    Nida (31b): R. Isaac citing R. Ammi further stated: As soon as a male comes into the world peace comes into the world, for it is said, Send ye a gift for the ruler of the land [and the Hebrew for] male [is composed of the consonants of the ‘words for] ‘this is a gift’R. Isaac citing16 R. Ammi further stated: When a male comes into the world his provision comes with him, [the Hebrew for] male [zakar, being composed of the consonants of the words for] ‘this is provision [zeh kar]’,for it is written, And he prepared a great provision [kera] for them. A female has nothing with her, [the Hebrew for] female [nekebah] implying ‘she comes with nothing’ [nekiyyah ba’ah]. Unless she demands her food nothing is given to her, for it is written, Demand [nakebah] from me thy wages and I will give it.

    • Milton

      The Gemara in Sanhedrin is the key one here. It is the only gemara that explains why a boy is “preferable” to a girl- because fathers of girls worry more than fathers of boys. This is hardly a misogynistic idea- and it’s certainly one that I can relate to….

      • Chris

        Fathers wouldn’t have to worry about daughters differently if not for some people’s sons.

  • yoyo

    I love how you decided which gemora the rabbi was reffering to when there are tens of times if not more where this subject is discussed so to DA look mofo and go do you god damn homework!

    • Watch your language. And anyone who spends 5 minutes on Thai topic learns that the primary text for this issue is the Gemara cited here. It’s also the Gemara Rabbi Rackman used to make the same point.

      • eli

        That’s simply not true and just one example of the top of my mind is when the gemora speeks about how many times to have sex 1,2 etc. All for the PLEASURE OF THE WOMEN its like anything in the Talmud nothing is 100% clear there will always by difrent ways to pull and interpret things but at the end of the day anyone with a half penunt on his head understands that Rabbi Shmuley is right it’s just that it Makes Us UNCOMFORTABLE TO ADMIT IT

  • Should we turn the keys to the mikvah over to Rabbi SB? I don’t blame him for seeking to generate publicity for his latest book, but hinting that Rabbi F type exploits could be prevented if wives played personal porn star? You know, you are consecrated to me according to the law of Moshe, Israel and, “Joy of Sex?” Sisterhood luncheon with pole dance demonstration? I should be relieved that my husband has only suggested I learn to play golf, rather than pole dance. But he’s a software developer and not a rabbi and the only thing he has keys to is technology storage. Shmuley is kind of like my cocker spaniel; not exactly an intellectual heavyweight, but still cute and lovable. I wonder why he wasn’t even nominated for, “10 Hottest Rabbis?”

  • Shmuel Aharon Kam

    You seriously expected any better from this Shmuly clown?? This is the guy that said that pretending to have adultery was a good idea (See Kosher Zex). What about the thought often being considered worse than the deed? What about thinking of another woman while with your wife (1 of the 9 Bnei Midot).

    Another interpretation for “Isha Mazra’at Tekhila” refers to ovulation! There is a clinically demonstrable advantage when trying to conceive a boy, to copulate immediately after ovulation. The theory being that because male sperm are more “fragile” than female sperm, they don’t remain as viable as long. So if the husband “seeds” first, it is more likely to be a girl. There is a doctor in Israel, who using ultrasound on the ovaries, just before the ovulation, to tell you when to do it. This has helped many couples who, until then, had only girls.

    • MarkSoFla

      “What about the thought often being considered worse than the deed?”

      I think that’s pretty much a Christian concept. Judaism considers deeds for the most part.

      • E the P

        That theory is nonsense and frustrates me every time it rears its head..1)Hirhurei aveira kasha min ha aveira. 2) Machshava tova HKBH mezarfa l’maysa. 3) Entire sections of major kabbalistic/mussar works are dedicated to the critical importance of thoughts. 4) The Rambam’s whole theology is focused on knowledge and mental perfection, attributing to actions only the ability to lead to perfected intellect.

        While actions are certainly important, to erase the importance of thoughts and beliefs from the Jewish landscape is either naive or purposefully manipulative.

        • MarkSoFla

          “Hirhurei aveira kasha min ha aveira.”

          I’d like to see the source of this. One to see the context, and two, to see how the punishment for hirhurim is more severe than the punishment for committing the forbidden act itself.

          “While actions are certainly important, to erase the importance of thoughts and beliefs from the Jewish landscape is either naive or purposefully manipulative.”

          I don’t think anyone is trying to “erase the importance of thoughts and beliefs”.

    • I don’t believe it is an original idea anyway. Many years ago, there was a book by Dagmar O’Conner, “How to Make Love to the Same Person for the Rest of Your Life.” Yes, there is research behind moving the odds in favor of one sex or the other, but this is far from 100% accurate.

  • Chaim Deutch

    I don’t understand what this vendetta against Rabbi Shmuley is. Why can’t you make your point without Shmuley bashing. It seems that everyone is so eager to jump onto the wagon of smearing him, which is most certainly not a Judaic (or human) value. Express some love and respect to your fellow man and brother.

    • No vendetta. Both debate and humor are Jewish values. As mentioned, I love my cocker spaniel – well sometimes – but I sure don’t respect him.

  • Give and be holy

    The idea of the Talmud is that the male is intended to be a giver, and when he does so in the act of creating a child, that child is affected by the spiritual energy of the giver, and in turn the child will also be a giver (male).
    Regarding Shmully Boteach, he grossly misrepresents Judaism, and I would love to see what the Talmud would say about him. The way to prevent this kind of behavior is actually the opposite, by shunning sexuality and immorality, not by channeling it. We are a holy nation, and our preoccupation is with spirituality and holiness. As long as we indulge in oversexed modern culture, we will be vulnerable to deeds uncharacteristic of God’s People. This is much more than a bein adam lachaveiro issue, the perpetrator is obviously an enormous baal taavah. He needs holiness, not a different type of taavah.

    • chaim deutch

      Sexuality is a huge aspect of our psyche and functioning. In fact, the only reason you are on this forum writing your comments is because your father and mother did the deed. It is unhealthy and impossible to suppress sexuality. Instead learning how to channel it appropriately is what’s necessary for healthy functioning. And BTW there is nothing unholy about sex. Besides, I personally don’t care what the Talmud would say about Shmuley.

      • Give and be holy

        The Yetzer Hara, the reason that you are on this forum writing your comments, is also part of our psyche.
        Don’t give in, be holy. Its our mission. Learn about bris milah from true Torah sources, and gain some appreciation for a Jew’s power to transcend his natural physical inclinations.
        Interpreting the Talmud should be reserved for people that epitomize the Torah sheball peh that it conveys, not base and materialistic sex ed teachers. He is a chilul hashem in the grandest sense.

  • ChaimB

    Isn’t Boteach referring instead to the gemara at the bottom of the amud that reads:

    וכי בידו של אדם להרבות בנים ובני בנים? אלא, מתוך שמשהין עצמן בבטן כדי שיזריעו נשותיהן תחלה, שיהו בניהם זכרים – מעלה עליהן הכתוב – כאילו הם מרבים בנים ובני בנים

    Doesn’t this sound like at least a praise/encouragement of the behavior in question?

  • SDK

    XY sperm move faster but die more quickly, while XX sperm move more slowly and live longer. Thus, timing intercourse as close as possible to ovulation does result in more boys while timing it for a few days before results in more girls. Women do release seeds — eggs are our contribution to the reproductive process — so there was nothing fundamentally wrong with either Greek or Talmudic science in this case. Some believe that female orgasm can hasten ovulation and/or help sperm move faster up the reproductive tract. Combining it with intercourse timed as close as possible to ovulation seems like a good way to help the XYs. While Greek and Talmudic science were wrong on many things, remember that people have been reproducing other people for a long time and that people who live in small intimate communities and who observe cause and effect over time can and do discover scientific truths.

  • Karim Gayraud

    I am very disappointed but definitely not surprised to read all the comments here about misogyny and such a misunderstanding of so many things about religions. First all the comments I read are about physical life, materialistic reasons. Since when religions which ever they are, promote physicality over spirituality? None of the comments refer to anything about spirituality or anything above mere physicality. This is exactly the telltale of what history has taught us which most are completely missing. The issue of women vs men is not of a physical practical reason as everyone here seems to believe. While the world has attempted to free women, according to history, they have only been played and fell into an insidious trap. Women have never been described as lesser then men in any way. Women are one of the most beautiful creation of God for those that believe in the most high, the one and only God. But we have been warn in so many ways, that women were so beautiful that even the angels wanted to take them as their wives, though it was expressly forbidden, hence the fallen angels. For those less religiously inclined, let’s look at the Greek mythology. What happened with the so called Greek gods (fallen angels really) when they cheated human women and procreated with them. They had what many call demi-gods, though the scriptures call them the Nephilim, cyclops, minotaurs, and other such beings.

    So to make this short, women who have been made beautiful, hold the power of giving life, but like the earth itself, they will allow any seed to grow, good or bad indiscriminately. Men have been made as guardians, like a farmer who would cure his land, not rape it (don’t be stuck by this metaphor. It is only an image however poor it is). From this, we experienced all sort of straying like the burka, misogyny, and all sort of women mistreatments which are the trap.

    The trap worked, as if we mortals live only a short life, angels do not. Everything has been done to weaken the bond between men and women, from the destruction of family values, to sexual deviance, pedophilia and bestiality. The natural forbidding of cross breeding species was a big one which is now almost gone. How did they do it? A long time ago, when speaking about vampires for example, it was inconceivable for a woman to give herself to such a beast. Now a days, watching the latest movies, they made these monsters romantic characters, that few women would not want to give themselves to, even more than any real men. Of course homosexuality has a big part in it to, even if people do not want to hear about it. DNA manipulation and industrial food introducing so much female hormones estrogen have rendered men, less then what they are supposed to be. Women are almost ready to fully give themselves to the beast again without knowing. They have been fully prepped for that purpose. Babylon is back to our own demise. So those fallen angels, Nephilim, extraterrestrial beings, or whatever name one want to give them, are not interested in men beside their need to make as many females as possible, not more men. This is why men from a religious perspective are preferable, not because of misogyny. It is a practical reason rooted in something else then our puny little pleasures and physicality. This is why Islam is so much hated as it is the last one resisting this agenda, not falling for the trap, though it is pretty close to fall too.

    The irony is in these women that are so proud of their sexual freedom without understanding that they are actually fully prepped for the beast. This statement will make many cringe and even laugh, but history says otherwise even if they tried everything to rewrite it. Freedom is not found in sexuality, but in integrity which is the oposite of corruption. One with ears to listen, eyes to see, and a brain to think, may understand. I hope so.
    Now you know what is the whore of Babylon and why Babylon was destroyed!

  • jon

    Ketubot 61b says that a man has to fulfill his wife’s desires, and even sets baseline for how often he should have sex with his wife. And many Jewish law codes hold exactly like Rabbi Boteach that a man must fulfill all of his wife’s sexual needs before he focuses on his own enjoyment.