Our Gemara on Amud Beis describes two behaviors deemed intrinsically repulsive, violating lo teshakzu (“Do not make yourself repulsive,” Vayikra 14:43):
- Delaying a pressing need to use the bathroom.
- Drinking from a cup (horn) used by a bloodletter.
Many poskim hold that this prohibition is rabbinic, as the verse actually addresses eating non-kosher crawling animals (see Ritvah ibid, Beis Yosef YD 121). What if something is subjectively disgusting to one person but not to most? Or if it’s disgusting to most but not to the individual? Peri Chadash (YD 84:3) rules that if something is universally repulsive, it’s a violation even if the consumer doesn’t find it so, as we have a talmudic dictum “batela daata etzel kol adam”. However, if it’s repulsive to most but not to the consumer, they may not partake.
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 mens’ use of perfumed lotions today. Thus, something once deemed repulsive but now culturally acceptable might be permitted. This is relevant to certain sexual practices forbidden by Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 240:4), partly due to lo teshakzu, and also for apparently lacking shame, and for excessively goading lust. If conducted in the dark, these practices may not violate the latter principles. Furthermore, 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 (and niddah laws). Though many poskim, like Beis Shmuel, claim that Rama’s sweeping authorization excludes kissing “that area,” one might question if this reflects a “higher truth” misrepresentation, as Rama’s ruling is clear and hard to see why he would phrase it in a misleading manner. Additionally, even if we follow the Beis Shmuel, we we might argue that changing cultural norms might further support permissibility.
Related to abstention versus indulgence, I conclude with a Sefer Yereim (quoted in Shittah Nedarim 20b) 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 two readings of kadesh atzmecha bamutar lach (“Make yourself holy with what is permitted”). The simple meaning is to abstain from permitted pleasures. Alternatively, it means to sanctify oneself through permitted pleasures. Indulging with the intent to satisfy desires and avoid sin is a path to holiness.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com