Fantasy, Concealing Abuse, Kama Sutra cards and vibrators- Joy of Text 1:1 by Rabbi Dov Linzer

Zohar, Sitrei Torah, Parshat VaYeitzei, 155a (Tishby/Goldstein translation)

All the affairs of the world depend on thought and intention. Scripture alludes to this when it says “Sanctify yourselves, therefore, and be holy” (Vayikra 11:44), because one can produce every kind of holiness by a good thought.

If a man defiles himself by evil thoughts when he comes to have intercourse with his wife, and sets his thoughts and desire upon another woman, and emits semen with these evil thoughts, then he exchanges the exalted levels of the world above, the level of holiness, for the level of uncleanness. Just as his thought effects changes in the world below, so it effects changes in the world above. Just as the body of the child that he begets is called a “changeling,” (ben temurah), so too the soul is called “a changeling,” because in his thought he fails to attract a flow of holiness, and [the child’s] soul is exchanged for an alien level.

As for Jacob, the most perfect of all, it was revealed before the Holy One, blessed be He, that all his ways were in truth, and that his thoughts were in every respect thoughts of truth. On the night when he had intercourse with Leah he was thinking of Rachel. He lay with Leah but thought of Rachel, and his semen followed his thought, but it was not intentional for he did not know. Reuben was therefore not given a specific name. The Holy One, blessed be He, who knew, showed it through the phrase “See, a son (re’u ben),” who has just been born. Concerning this it is written “Can a man hide himself in secret places, and I not see him?” (Jer. 23:24). Do not read er’enu (and I not see him), but ar’enu (and I not show him), so that others might see him. And because the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that it was not intentional and that Javob had truthful thoughts during his desire, [Reuben] was not disqualified from being counted among the holy tribes. Otherwise he would have been disqualified. And since thought is the principal thing and the element that is effective, the Holy One, blessed be He, who knew that the thought [was true], reserved the birthright for the place where [Jacob’s] first drop [of semen] fell, as it is written “[The sons of Reuven, the firstborn of Israel], for he was the first born; [but since defiled his father’s bed], his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph” (I Chronicles 5:1). To the very place that was the object of thought, and upon which the drop fell, the birthright was committed and assigned. Then the birthright was taken away from Reuben, and transmitted to the place where the thought had been directed. Rachel was the object of thought and desire, and therefore the birthright was transmitted to Rachel. It all followed the thought and intention.

Mor uKtziya, (Rav Yaakov Emden), OH 240

...This concern [of ben temurah, a child conceived when the husband has sex with one wife thinking she is his other wife,] does not apply to Leah, for Rachel gave her the signals and freely waived her rights, thus both of their intentions [Rachel’s and Leah’s] was good and desirable before God, and there was nothing improper at all [neither one was cheating the other out of her conjugal rights].
This explanation can also explain why there was no concern of the statement that “a man should not drink from one goblet, etc., even if they are both his wives.” For that statement is in regards to a person who strays after his heart, knowing that he is having sex with this person and with derision [towards her] is thinking of another one, but regarding the exchange [of Rachel] with Leah, it is said, “And the exchange shall be holy.”

Metziat Yitzchak, Rav Yitzchak ben Ben-Zion Zinkin, VaYeitzei

“And God saw that Leah was despised” – since this matter has come to our hands, let us say something regarding it, to resolve the question that was raised by Magen Avraham, [namely,] how could stumbling came to Yaakov our father to sleep with Leah? Are not [the children of] such an act are called benei temurah, children of exchange, at matter which the Rabbis were very strict about? The answer seems as follows, that benei temurah are called those who are conceived if a man “drinks from one cup while putting his eyes towards another cup” for the purpose of satisfying his desire, and his heart is not fully present with his wife [or “he is not acting with integrity towards his wife”] who is laying beneath him. He is like someone who deceives the owner, and this is not the “one flesh” that God commanded. In such circumstances is it considered a sin. But here, Yaakov put his heart and his thoughts only towards the “cup” that he drank from, for he thoughts it was Rachel, and he was with her with a full heart and a desiring soul.

Shalom David, David ben Moshe Kohen, homily Shekhem Echad, vol. 1, p. 93

It is know that a person who has thoughts of adultery is one how “drinks from this cup and places his eyes towards another cup,” and from this [the children conceived thusly,] all the licentious and foolish people of the generation emerge.

A Letter from the Steipler (Rav Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky 1899-1985)

(Translated Rabbi Dov Linzer)

Marital obligation of sex…
2. The Obligation – all forms of contact (intimacy or “intimate contact”), touch, and kissing are included. The Hazon Ish allows a man to have sexual thoughts for his wife (when she is not a niddah) for the sake of becoming physically intimate with her, and a man must do all that his wife desires (in the name of the Hazon Ish). Thus, he should lie with his wife together naked with touching and kissing for approximately a quarter of an hour before intercourse – this is under normal circumstances. But if he is already sexually excited and concerned that he will ejaculate prematurely, God forbid, then he should speed up (the foreplay). And after intercourse, he should lie with his wife for a half-hour, because this will give her greater pleasure than the act itself…

From the Steipler Rav, author of Khilot Yaakov

Tishrei 5734 (1973)

Minchat Chinukh, Mitzvah 46

Regarding sex in an unnatural way (anal sex), whether a person fulfills his obligation to not transgress this negative prohibition [against withhold his conjugal duties to his wife]. – See Tur, EH 25.
And it seems to me that according to the opinion [in the Talmud, Ketuvot 47b] that derives the mitzvah of marital sex from the word “onah,” linking it to the verse “if you afflict (te’aneh) my daughters,” – and see Tosafot… who explain that this is her suffering, when he withholds the sex that is due to her – thus, sex in the “unnatural way” which is considered a form of affliction to the woman – see Rashi on the verse va’yeaneha, “And he afflicted her” (Breishit 34:2), who explains that this means that he (Shechem) had sex with her (Dina) in an “unnatural way”… therefore if one had sex in this fashion (since it is painful to the woman), one transgresses this prohibition (against withholding sex from one’s wife, i.e., one has not fulfilled the mitzvah of onah).

However, according to the opinion [in the Talmud] that derives the obligation of marital sex from the word she’eira (meaning, “her flesh,” i.e., the closeness of flesh due to her), it is possible that one fulfills his obligation through sex in the “unnatural way” (since their bodies are still joining in intercourse).

And according to Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov (who does not derive the mitzvah of onah from directly from the verse) – according to how Tosafot explains this position, that the obligation is a logical one, for it was for this purpose that they married – it would appear that a person also does not fulfill his obligation, for she did not marry him with this (type of sex) in mind.

Responsa of Radvaz, 4:118

This (he’arah, penetration of only the crown of the penis) is not a fulfillment of onah. Quite the opposite – she suffers even more (from this uncompleted act than not having had sex at all). Although he’arah is considered to be an act of intercourse in all areas of halakha, regarding fulfilling the mitzvah of onah it is not considered as such (because the wife does not derive the pleasure of sex from the act).

Iggrot Moshe, EH 3:28

It is not possible that there would be in this act (anal sex) a fulfillment of the mitzvah of onah. Although it is stated in Kiddushin (22b), “Says R. Achai bar Ada from Acha, “who is to say that they both don’t have pleasure from the act (of anal sex)?”, nevertheless, it is certainly only a small amount of pleasure [for the woman], even if she has some pleasure in the act… But it is without a doubt that the pain is greater than the pleasure, and there is no doubt in this matter (that the husband does not fulfill the mitzvah of onah), and not like the Ezer MiKodesh writes in this regard.
Also, what he writes, that it is possible that the husband fulfills his obligation even through he’arah and just a “kissing” (of the genitals) – it is clear that one does not fulfill his obligation, for she has increased desire in the middle of intercourse… Behold it is extremely difficult for her to stop in the middle of intercourse, so much so that [one Talmudic passage] considers her to be in the category of annus (compelled and unable to interrupt). It is thus clear that the pain is very great when he separates from her before he completes the act of intercourse (fully enters into her). We also find that the pain is very great for the man when he separates from her in the middle of intercourse – Sotah 9 – and how would it be possible that he would fulfill his obligation through this. For behold, it would have been better for her that he would not have had sex with her at all, rather than to separate in the middle, and this [the position of Ezer MiKodesh] requires investigation. As a matter of law, he does not fulfill his obligation through he’arah or through sex in an “unnatural manner”.