Of all the unusual questions that were asked of rabbis during the COIVD pandemic, one was surprisingly personal: may a husband and wife have intercourse during the pandemic? The question is based on a solid Talmudic source, and it is found in today’s page of Talmud. According to the third century sage Reish Lakish , “it is prohibited for a person to have conjugal relations in years of famine…nevertheless, those without children may have marital relations in years of famine.”
תענית יא, א
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָסוּר לְאָדָם לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְיוֹסֵף יֻלַּד שְׁנֵי בָנִים בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא שְׁנַת הָרָעָב״. תָּנָא: חֲסוּכֵי בָּנִים מְשַׁמְּשִׁין מִטּוֹתֵיהֶן בִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן
Reish Lakish said: It is prohibited for a person to have conjugal relations in years of famine, so that children not be born during these difficult years. As it is stated: “And to Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came” (Genesis 41:50). It was taught in a baraita: Nevertheless, those without children may have marital relations in years of famine, as they must strive to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.
Another sage, Rav Avin, who lived in the early fourth century had a similar teaching. It is found in the Jerusalem Talmud, where he cited a verse from the Book of Job “Wasted from want and starvation, they flee to a parched land,“ and taught “when there is any want in the word, make your wife lonely.”
ירושלמי תענית א,ו
א"ר אבון כתיב (איוב ל) ’בחסר ובכפן גלמוד’ בשעה שאת רואה חסרון בא לעולם עשה אשתך גלמודה
These two teachings found their way into normative Jewish law. The first was codified in Shulkhan Arukh, first published in Venice in 1565, and the second was added to a gloss on it written by the Polish rabbi Moshe Isserles who died in 1572 (and who had himself once fled from a pandemic). “This applies,” he added to his gloss that became the accepted code of practice for Ashkenazi Jews, “to all kinds of natural disasters, for they are just like a famine.”
שולחן ערוך אורח חיים 240:12
אסור לשמש מטתו בשני רעבון אלא לחשוכי בנים [פירוש מי שאין לו בנים] הגה וע"ל סי' תקע"ד ס"ד וה"ה בשאר צרות שהם כרעבון [ירושלמי דתענית]
marItal intimacy during COVID
It was with this background that the question of sexual intercourse during the COVID pandemic was asked, and according to Rabbi Shai Tahan of Brooklyn, New York it was asked “many times” (see his Shut Shuf Veyativ, 97).
The answer would depend on the reason behind the Talmudic prohibition, and here context is important. The statement of Reish Lakish was cited as one of several rabbinic rulings that forbade a person to separate from the community during a natural disaster. Following Reish Lakish, the Talmud added that “when the community is deeply suffering, a person may not say: “I will go to my home and I will eat and drink, and peace be upon you, my soul.” Instead, “a person should be distressed together with the community. As we found with Moses our teacher that he was distressed together with the community.” Intercourse during a natural disaster suggests a level of personal pleasure that is not consonant with the parallel communal suffering. This was the way that the French medieval commentator Rashi (1040-1105) understood the prohibition, observing that during a famine “a person must conduct himself as if he is suffering” even if, perhaps, he is not. This was also the understanding of a super commentary on Rashi written by Eliyahu ben Abraham Mizrahi of Constantinople, (c.1475 - c.1525); the reason of prohibition is that “he should not be enjoying life while the rest of the world suffers” (Mizrachi on Gen. 41:3).
As Rabbi Tahan pointed out, the medieval commentary on the Talmud known as Tosafot explained that refraining from intercourse during a famine was a “pious action” but was not required, and furthermore, during COVID, the majority of the population was not technically “in distress.” Rabbi Tahan therefore ruled that there was no prohibition for a husband and wife to have intercourse during the pandemic, regardless of whether they had children. Rabbi Nahman Steinmetz of the community of Skverer Hasidim in New York also issued permission, as did Rabbi Asher Kleinman of Flatbush. (See Steinmetz, Sefer Ateret Nevonim, 379-383. Kleinman, Bigdei Hamudot, 286-288.)
The Prohibition during World War II
The question of whether it was appropriate for a husband and wife to have intercourse during a natural disaster was also asked about a man-made one. In 1940, Rabbi Yisroel Alter Landau (c.1884-1942), who was the Head of the Rabbinic Court in the northern Hungarian town of Edeleny (in Yiddish, Edelen) was asked whether under the present circumstances (which at the time were the Hungarian siding with the Axis powers), the Talmudic prohibition was in order. “As a result of our many sins this is a time of great hardship for Jacob and Israel,” wrote his interlocutor.
Israel is enslaved in most countries [in Europe] and also here [in Edeleny] both physically and spiritually. We are made to work very hard, just as it was in Egypt. We have to repair the roads, and in many places the yeshivot and mikva’ot [ritual baths] have been closed…and because of our many sins there are new decrees against Israel each and every day. May God have mercy on us and may we see His deliverance very soon. As a result, it would seem fitting for every Jewish husband to separate physically from his wife and not engage in marital relations, even if he himself is not in any danger, for it is still a time of great hardship for Israel.
But his lengthy responsa concluded that there was no need to rule strictly and forbid conjugal relations, although each person should decide for themselves “for a wise person has eyes in his head.” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rabbi Landau died of natural causes in 1942; his wife Rachel, and several of their adult children were murdered by the Nazis in 1941 and 1942.
The most pessimistic book in Hebrew literature
However, during the First World War there was a rabbinic ruling that did in fact forbid conjugal relations. It was published in 1916 by Shimon Pollak who lived in Waitzen (today Vac in Hungary, some twenty-two miles north of Budapest.) In a short book called Kol Haramah Vehafrasha - קול הרמה והפרשה - he reviewed the awful situation in which the Jews found themselves in war-stricken Eastern Europe:
Shimon Pollak. Kol Haramah Vehafrasha. Waitzen 1916, 31.
…Consider the many terrible troubles, blows, the sword, murder, loss and the fires consuming the women of Zion and the countless young girls in Jewish towns who are ravaged, and the young Jewish men who are hanged by the enemy, not to mention the elderly and the infants. We could never end mourning for them…and then there is the desecration of Shabbat, and the eating of non-kosher food that thousands upon thousands have committed…and there are the women who do not know what has become of their husbands, and the many children who depend upon them, all of whom wander without respite for their weary feet…they do not know the fates of their fathers or their mothers, their sons or their daughters, their brothers and sisters. Where are they wandering? Are they even still alive? ...It is certain therefore that there is a complete and utter prohibition for conjugal relations.
This is surely one of the most pessimistic books ever to appear in Hebrew literature, for while Jeremiah told of the destruction of Jerusalem, Rabbi Pollak recounted not a sad Jewish past, but a bleak Jewish future. So bleak, in fact, that there was no place in it for any new Jewish life.
The Munkacz Rebbe Disagreed
Rabbi Hayyim Elazar Spira (1871-1937), head of the Rabbinic Court of Munkacz (today Mukachevo) in western Ukraine also addressed the question in a work published in 1930. He noted that during and after the First World War the question of prohibiting conjugal relations had arisen, but that it had been permitted. One of the reasons for permitting relations was that the war and the later troubles that befell the Jewish people (including the Bolshevik uprising) seemed endless. Under these depressing circumstances, it would be necessary to prohibit conjugal relations” forever,” and that would clearly be improper.
Rabbi Spira also wrote that he had heard of “a certain leader who ruled that conjugal relations were absolutely forbidden for the duration of the [First World] war.” And then comes this remarkable passage.
This brought me incredible laughter, that which this old man (close to eighty) had warned against, and that which he ruled for his children. It made a laughingstock of us all. When we heard of this our hearts would sink for their ruling had no basis, and it is terrible to continue to speak of such a thing. Perhaps much was hidden from the eyes and the thinking of this old man. May the Master [God] forgive him! [c.f. Sanhedrin 99a.] Still, he should be given some respect. But nevertheless, the practical halakha is that Heaven forbid would we ever prohibit this.
Although Rabbi Spira did not identify the “old man” whose ruling he so disparaged, it was almost certainly Rabbi Pollak of Waitzen. See Hayyim Elazar Spira, Nimukei Orah Hayyim [Legal Descisions on Orah Hayyim] (New York: Edison Lithographic, 1930), (Hebrew)# 574, 106. Rabbi Pollak’s pessimism was rejected, even at a time when the Jewish feature seemed far more bleak than ever before.
Intimacy during a war in Israel
In volume eleven of his responsa, Rabbi Elhanan Prince of Mahon Meir in Jerusalem addressed another question that arises from the passage in today’s daf yomi: In Israel, may a married couple have intercourse during a military offensive? Here is the opening passage:
At a time when there is great danger to the House of Jacob, while our enemies are sewing fear and concern among our people, and our soldiers are risking their lives to restore peace and security to our borders, and fighting with all their strength to defeat those who would rise up to destroy us, and many are fighting on foreign territory, the question arises whether a married soldier who is on leave may have marital relations. Indeed, the same may be asked of any civilian: is it permitted to have marital relations at a time that we are at war and in mortal danger?
Having studied today’s page of Talmud, this is, of course a perfectly reasonable question. His responsa is a fascinating read. It cites, for example, the opinion of the Torah Temimah (Gen. 41:50) who wrote that the ruling only applied to those who were wealthy, for they are generally insulated from communal troubles. But for a person who is already personally familiar with the challenge of the moment - like a soldier - “why” asked Rabbi Prince “is is necessary to add to his pain?”
תורה תמימה בראשית 41:50
ונראה באור דבריהם, דבאמת לאיש שהוא מסובל בצער הרעב אין סברא להוסיף צער במניעת תה"מ שנקרא ענוי [ע"ל ס"פ ויצא], אלא רק למי שאין לו כל צער ודאגה מחמת הרעב, כמו עשירים גדולים ובעלי אוצרות תבואה וכדומה, כמו יוסף, להם ראוי להשתתף עם הצבור בצער זה תמורת צער הרעב שאין מרגישים בו
After citing many lenient authorities, Rabbi Prince also rules that in fact, during a military offensive, Israeli civilians and soldiers are permitted to have marital intimacy. While at first blush this question is perhaps slightly unusual, at its core it is a reminder that the Jewish people should share life’s burdens, or at least feel them. For those who live outside of Israel, just reading today’s page of Talmud is a good way to recall that while we sit in comfort, each and every day soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces sacrifice for the security of us all. Their safety should always be part of our prayers.
משנה ברורה או’ח 240:12:46
ואם יצרו מתגבר עליו ויש חשש שיבוא לידי השחתת זרע כתב א"ר בשם ספר דברי דוד בסימן תקע"ד להקל וכ"כ בספר בית מאיר לאה"ע
