Daf Yomi, Marriage Counseling, Psychotherapy, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Torah and Psychology
Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses a practice of Ravina. Technically, worms that gestate inside the fish are kosher. Still, seeing them might be disgusting. So Ravina instructed his mother: “Conceal the fish’s worms inside it so I cannot see them, and I will eat the fish.”
This might not be merely an aesthetic matter, but it is a Torah prohibition to engage in something that feels disgusting, subjectively or objectively. Let’s take a closer look.
The Pri Chadash (YD 84, note 3) rules from here that though there is a prohibition of Baal T’shaktzu (Vayikra 11:4), which is extended as a general prohibition in engaging in something determined to be disgusting by most people, if the person is not disgusted, then it is permitted. As we see Ravina would eat this wormy fish even if others might not. This is only regarding matters that most would find disgusting, but not all. However, if it is universally disgusting, the fact that he is not disgusted does not render it permissible.
Apparently, there is a distinction between “most” and “all.” Pri Chadash also says we see the reverse, if subjectively a person is disgusted even if others are not, it would be a violation.
What about practices repulsive in one generation but not another? No sources directly address this, but a parallel exists in the prohibition of cross-dressing.
Though men looking in mirrors was once considered effeminate, violating lo yilbash (Devarim 22:5), Rama (YD 156:2) permits it in locales where men commonly use mirrors. Rav Zilber (Az Nidbru IV:37) extends this to permit men’s use of perfumed lotions today. Thus, something once deemed inappropriately feminine, but now culturally acceptable as masculine, might be permitted for a man.
This may be relevant to certain sexual practices forbidden by Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 240:4), partly due to bal teshakzu, and also for apparently lacking shame, and for excessively goading lust. We might negate all three conditions, as they might not be considered repulsive, excessively lustful, or brazen, if they are considered more common acts today.
Notably, Rama (YD 25:2) states that while modesty is praiseworthy, any pleasing behavior is permitted within marriage. Though many poskim, like Beis Shmuel, claim that Rama’s sweeping authorization excludes kissing “that area,” even if we follow the Beis Shmuel, one might argue that different cultural norms supports permissibility. Do people consider this disgusting today, and if it is more of a norm is it even considered brazen or excessively lustful?
Related to abstention versus indulgence, I conclude with a Sefer Yereim (quoted in Shittah Nedarim 20b) that adds:
“One may conduct himself as he wishes with his wife” is not a diminishment of holiness. Presumably, Yereim holds that enhancing love and intimacy isn’t indulgence.
Yismach Moshe (Kedoshim) offers an ironic reading of the classic directive kadesh atzmecha bamutar lach (“Make yourself holy with what is permitted”). The simple meaning is to abstain from permitted pleasures, that is to be holy by not indulging. Yismach Moshe cleverly reinterprets this as “sanctify yourself through permitted pleasures,” meaning to say, indulging with the intent to satisfy desires in a permitted manner can be a path to holiness.
sponsored by https://empowermentaftertrauma.com/
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation
Free resource for couples/families:
Over 80 lectures on heathy communication, marriage and sexuality from a Torah perspective Click here
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, LMFT, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com