In today’s Psychology of the Daf, we are going to discuss an ancient sexual practice from the time of the Talmud, and what it can teach us about sexual ethics in marriage.

Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses some technical halakhic aspects of a virgin having intercourse for the first time on Shabbos. Since there can be bleeding, is this considered inflicting a wound, which is forbidden to do on Shabbos?  There are numerous iterations of halakhic arguments that are discussed.  One such argument is that since it is possible to have a form of intercourse and sexual contact that does not rupture the hymen, it is not considered a “psik reishe” (an inevitable act) and thus permitted, since making an wound is not the main intention. Akin to walking on grass on Shabbos. Since in a circumstance where you do not intend to uproot grass, and with each step it is not a sure matter that the grass will be uprooted, it is permitted. The Gemara also asserts that the Babylonians were not sophisticated in this regard, in comparison to the Jews of Israel.  That is, the Babylonians were unable to manage intercourse without rupturing the hymen, as opposed to the Jews of Israel.

This particular act of intercourse is called by the Gemara as “Hattaya”, which literally translates as “tilting to the side” or “slanting”.  What was this act, actually?  The simple reading is that somehow it is possible to carefully or shallowly penetrate without rupturing the hymen. However, it is clear from the Chasam Sofer’s commentary on this Gemara, that he understands hattaya as an entirely different act, which will have implications on marriage ethics as we shall see.  The Chasam Sofer’s explanation also helps us understand why the Jews of Israel were more expert in this practice.

The Chasam Sofer seems to understand that hattaya is not actually intercourse, but rather a form of sexual contact that is within the general genital area.  Since it was not actual intercourse, according to some opinions, ejaculation is forbidden since it is wasting seed.  (This itself is subject to discussion see Tosafos “Shalosh” Yevamos 12b, and Tosafos “Velo” ibid 34b, because even if the actual intercourse does not lead to conception, it is through intimacy between husband and wife, and therefore possibly not wasting seed. However, the Chasam Sofer is siding with the opinion that it is considered wasting seed and therefore explains as follows:) 

The Jews of Israel conducted themselves with purity standards and stringencies as if all the food they ate was Terumah bread.  Thus, a person who would have intercourse and ejacualte would not be able to eat Terumah until after he immersed in the Mikvah and waiting until sunset, as per the requirements.  

If so, at times, a husband may want to please his wife sexually, and engage in sexual contact, but not ejaculate.  The expertise of the Jews of Israel over the Babylonians was not in their ability to have a kind of intercourse that didn’t rupture the hymen.  That was a mere technicality that anyone can achieve so long as he intends to avoid penetration.  The expertise of the Jews of Israel was in controlling ejaculation! This was because the Jews of Israel were accustomed to controlling their ejaculation while still pleasing their wives sexually in order to remain pure for eating holy food, therefore they also had the expertise to be “sexual” with a virgin without rupturing her hymen. That is they could sustain sexual forms of contact without ejaculating.  This was because If they could control their ejaculation, there was no need to penetrate, and they could be sexual with a virgin Shabbos night.  However, the Babylonians who were not schooled (by their fathers? Chosson rebbes?) to control their ejaculation, would feel compelled to have complete penetration so as not to waste their seed.

The Chasam Sofer makes a similar interpretation to the Gemara (Niddah 31b).  The Gemara over there speaks of the virtue of “tarrying on the belly.”  The simple reading of that Gemara is that it is praiseworthy for a man to prolong intercourse in order that his wife achieve orgasm.  However, the Chasam Sofer in his commentary there interprets the Gemara differently.  He understand “tarrying on the belly” to be engaing in forms of close sexual contact, that is NOT intercourse.  The tarrying on the belly represents the ability to remain in such close proximity and stimulation without ejaculating.

What compelled the Chasam Sofer to explain these Gemaras in this unusual manner?  In our Gemara, his approach both explains hattaya in a more logical manner (as how can we really expect a person to have actual intercourse without rupturing the hymen?), as well as providing a logical explanation for the difference between Babylonians and Jews of Israel.  However, we also see from the Chasam Sofer several important Torah principles about the Mitzvah of sexual pleasure based on how he learned the Gemara:  The main focus of the mitzvah of onah, giving a wife sexual pleasure, was not necessarily dependent on intercourse, and that it was an intergral skill to know how to delay ejaculation long enough to please one’s wife.  Additionally, though they could have intercourse and delay ejaculation, the expectation was foreplay without ejaculation first, based on how he interpreted “tarrying on the belly”.  And finally, we see the importance of sex education when it comes to techniques to delay ejaculation, as we see that the Jews of Israel had a technique and practice of even intercourse without ejaculation in order to fulfill the mitzvah of pleasuring one’s wife and still being able to eat holy bread the next day. While I suppose you could argue the Jews of Israel all learned how to do this on their own by necessity, it is unlikely.  It is more likely that it was a tradition developed out of the wish to be sexual with one’s wife and please her, while still avoiding the problems of ritual impurity that comes with ejaculation.

Because the Chasam Sofer is such a chiddush and technical, I am quoting him in full below so you can see for yourself that this is what he seems to be saying:

Niddah 31b

ז״ל: ויהיו בני אולם אנשים גבורי חיל דורכי קשת פי' שהיו גבורים לכבוש יצרם שלא יוציאו זרע לבטלה ח"ו ע"י שמשהים עצמם על הבטן תדע שצריך לזה גבורה דא"כ מאי רבותא דרב קטינא שאמר יכולני לעשות כל בני זכרים אלא ע"כ צריך זהירות שלא יחטא ח"ו והיינו גבורה דבני אולם. וכינה אותם דורכי קשת היינו אבר התשמיש ע"ש שהוא יורה כחץ:

Kesuvos 6b

״ יש בקיאין בהטיי' להפוסקי' דס"ל דגם בתשמיש באותו מקום ממש שייך איסור השחתת זרע עיי' תוס' יבמות י"ב ע"ב ד"ה שלש נשים וכו' ובפוסקי' שם. א"כ צ"ל המטה באשתו יזהר שלא יגמר ביאתו. דכיון דההטי' אינה ראוי' להריון ה"ל משחית זרעו. אע"ג דבלאה"נ אין אשה מתעברת מביאה ראשונה. מ"מ האי דמטה באשתו. גורם שלא תתעבר נמי מביאה שני' שהיא ראשונה לו וע"כ יזהר מהוצאת זרע וא"כ לפ"ז הבועל בתחלה בשבת אע"ג שאין צריך לכוון להטיי' רק שלא יתכוון נמי לבעול בעילה גמורה ושני הדרכים יהי' שווים לו וכמ"ש בשיטה מקובצת וכמ"ש סמוך אי"ה. מ"מ עכ"פ צריך שידע בנפשו דרב גוברי' שיכול לבעול בלא גמר ביאה והוצאת זרע וכההוא דנדה ט"ו ע"א דפריך ות"ל דה"ל בעל קרי ומשני שלא גמר ביאתו וע"ש עוד ל"א ע"ב ובחידושנו שם ונ"ל דהיינו הבקיאות דאמר הש"ס. והיינו טעמא נמי דהוה בקיאי בי' בני א"י משום שהי' אוכל חולין בטהרת קרש ולפעמי' כשהי' ליל עונה ולא הי' צריך לפ"ו רק לקיים עונתו והי' צריך ביום שלאחריו לאכול בחבורה עם אוכלי חולין על טהרת קדש הי' רגילי' לבעול בלא הוצאת זרע ובכה"ג טהור הוא נכנס להיכל לשמש כמבואר בנדה הנ"ל. ועמג"א מ"ש מג"א סי' ר"פ על עונה של שבת לאוכלי חולין בטהרה ע"ש ועל דבר זה אמר שאול מקרה הוא בלתי טהור הוא. ועי"ז הי' יכול להיות נמי בקי בהטיי' משא"כ בני בבל שלא הורגלו בכך לבעול בעילה שאינה גמורה לא יכלו לבעול בהטי' משום מכשול השחתת זרע.״.