≡ Menu

How do fat people have sex?

Amidst the realization that by not checking my Facebook inbox due to the inordinate amounts of spam I get, I was missing a lot of good links and material, I announced to the world that if they wanted me to really see something, the best place to post it would be on my facebook wall, I am terrible with email and other private messaging devices and so someone posted the gemara argument about the sizes of sages penises and whether or not fat people could have sex. I have wondered how the bigger folks do it for years and if only we would have learned this gemara piece in yeshiva I would have known. I couldn’t help but add the RaHaf Shlita commentary (Rav Heshy Fried in Italics)

Two sages — R’ Ishmael (son of Rabbi Yossi) and Rabbi Elazar (son of Rabbi Shimon) — were extremely fat and had extremely large bellies. When they stood belly to belly a yoke of oxen could pass beneath their bellies without touching their flesh. (possibly my favorite line in the entire Talmud – does anyone know the Aramaic so I can bust it out randomly at shabbos meals) A respected gentile woman once met them and said that with bellies that big they could not possibly have full sexual relations with their wives. If so, the respected gentile lady argued, the sages’ sons are not really theirs, but were sired by other men.

They answered her: Our wives have even larger bellies than we do [hinting that following her own approach, no man would be able to have sexual intercourse with them]. If so, how did they manage to actually have sexual relations with their wives?

Answer: The larger the man’s body, the larger his sexual organ. Since the sages above had very large sexual organs, they could impregnate their wives.(I had this one rabbi who would play pocket ping pong during shiur)

Another answer: Desire and craving can make the impossible happen and the very fat couple will manage to have sexual relations: “Love compresses the flesh.” The scholars asked: Why did the sages answer the gentile woman when her whole question was merely to annoy? Is it not said “Answer not a fool according to his folly?”

Answer: If they did not respond to the words of the gentile woman it might be taken as an admission, so they answered her so their sons would not be mocked. One of the scholars, R’ Yochanan, described the large size of Rabbi Ishmael’s sexual organ thus: The size of his sexual organ is as a bottle which holds 12 liters.(the ancient Ron Jeremy) A different scholar, Rav Papa, described R’ Yochanan’s sexual organ: The size of his sexual organ is as a bottle which holds six liters, and some say only four liters. Later scholars described Rav Papa’s sexual organ: The size of his sexual organ is as the wicker-work baskets of Harpania. (I wonder what would have happened if the meraglim didn’t only describe the size of the fruits in the land of Israel)

(Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Bava Metzia 84a)

Thanks to Micheal for finding this piece on Daat Emet

{ 61 comments… add one }
  • Jameel @ The Muqata November 4, 2010, 6:07 AM

    ?? ??? ????? ?’ ?????? ???? ???? ??’ ????? ??’ ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???

  • Jameel @ The Muqata November 4, 2010, 6:17 AM

    Sent it you by email….guess wordpress doesn’t like hebrew.

  • Anonymous November 4, 2010, 7:41 AM

    Never mind sex… if you’re big enough even using the bathroom would have to be difficult.

  • BBG November 4, 2010, 8:47 AM

    This is from a vehemently anti-religious site. It most definitely ain’t frum.

    • Puzzled November 4, 2010, 9:45 AM

      Yes, how dare someone quote from the source text of the religion. How irreligious of them.

      • John November 4, 2010, 10:41 AM

        Im confused are you saying daat-emes isnt anti-religous?

        • A. Nuran November 4, 2010, 12:31 PM

          Knowledge of the truth tends be anti-religious one way or another. If the truth contradicts religion it destroys it. If it doesn’t, it reveals that which religion is trying to convey and destroys the need for it.

          • John November 4, 2010, 12:37 PM

            false, and irrelevant. The question was simple:
            “Im confused are you saying daat-emes isnt anti-religous?”
            whether they are right or wrong doesnt enter the equation, unless you mean: “they are anti-religous , but Knowledge of the truth tends be anti-religious …”

            • A. Nuran November 4, 2010, 8:50 PM

              Let’s try it again, because it’s true and relevant.

              All religions are approximations, guides, heuristics, stories and rules which may lead one to the truth. Since they are human creations they are not themselves ultimate truth.

              If you stumble across Truth with at a capital “T” and don’t immediately run screaming or pick yourself up, blink and continue on religion will suffer.

              If the Truth contradicts your religious belief religion is destroyed. Simple as that.

              If what you find is the reality which the creation tries to show the way towards it is the end of the religion, at least for you. You’ve gotten past the mask or the analogies to what’s inside. The guides, the teaching stories, the training methods, the metaphors or whatever else they are are not necessary. The need for them is destroyed.

              • A. Nuran November 5, 2010, 2:28 AM

                That said, religion can serve a useful purpose. Screw theology. It’s practice that’s really important. If you’re fortunate or diligent enough to have that moment of clarity it’s generally fleeting. Good practice can help you reconnect to that source or at least stay nearer to it.

                The tragic paradox is that with time the practice will inevitably be corrupted take on a life of its own as a memetic organism dedicated mostly to its own survival, wealth and power.

                • s(b.) November 8, 2010, 5:05 PM

                  I like this.

          • kissmeimshomer November 4, 2010, 4:20 PM

            @ A. Nuran you just made my day with that quote

            • A. Nuran November 5, 2010, 3:58 PM

              *doffs cap*
              *tugs forelock*
              Thankee, guv’nor

        • Puzzled November 4, 2010, 1:31 PM

          If it is, what does that say about the religion? What does it say about a body of beliefs if the act of stating them is itself anti-religious?

          • John November 4, 2010, 1:36 PM

            It says that taking quotes out of context can make anything look bad.
            Youre making a mistake btw, nobody said they are anti-religous BECAUSE they “quote from the source text of the religion” well you said that, nobody else did.
            Simple question that for some reason you seem to have trouble answering: “Im confused are you saying daat-emes isnt anti-religous?”

            • A. Nuran November 5, 2010, 12:23 AM

              Or that it’s just ugly or ridiculous when you look at it in the light with your eyes open.

  • Frayda November 4, 2010, 8:58 AM

    Hysterical! Who knew that the gemara actually discussed things like this.

    • Radical Centrist November 4, 2010, 9:08 AM

      Anyone who cared to read it?

      • Orthoebonyjewess November 4, 2010, 10:23 AM


  • Anonymous November 4, 2010, 9:57 AM

    In all seriousness though, a fat man’s penis is not any larger than a thin man’s, so how do they have sex without either crushing their lady, or her being on top?

  • anon chick November 4, 2010, 9:58 AM

    doggie style, moron!

  • Phil November 4, 2010, 9:59 AM

    I guess those were holy rabbis, they felt it necessary to defend their honor. How many dudes with poles that size would have simply taken the shiksa into the alley and let her sample the goods?

    • A. Nuran November 4, 2010, 12:35 PM

      In the Dead Sea Scrolls we are told that the length of an Israelite’s spear was seven cubits.

      • Mahla November 4, 2010, 2:46 PM


  • Donna November 4, 2010, 10:14 AM

    A very intresting question. HMMM doggie style I think is a good position. 😉

  • Avrumy November 4, 2010, 2:19 PM

    What a nonsensical puerile anecdote, Talmudic or otherwise. I guess even the rabbis liked to act like little boys now and then, telling fibs and exaggerating about their phalli.
    Or is it Purim Torah?

  • Phil November 4, 2010, 2:54 PM


    I’m not too sure their was any benefit in telling fibs about their size, it seems they were defending their kids honor.

    If you go through the list of blemishes that disqualify a kohen from serving in the Beit Hamikdash, one with a weewee so long that it reaches his knees is disqualified, as it’s considered a blemish.

    In today’s society most guys only dream of having such “blemishes”. 😉

    • A. Nuran November 4, 2010, 4:53 PM

      And as I’ve said before…

      If it’s down past the knees who cares about being a priest?
      You’re gonna be CHIEF!!!

  • Guest November 4, 2010, 2:59 PM

    I’m just curious Heshy, while funny, does it ever cross your mind that something you post may actually cross the line. Something G-d might not be too happy about?

    • Heshy Fried November 4, 2010, 3:28 PM

      I pray to God it does every time – once in a while I cross a line and retreat, but the line keeps getting farther and farther as I sink farther and farther away from Sinai – think about it this way – I may have just gotten a bunch of folks interested in learning gemara, sure it’s not lishmah, but maybe someday it will be and they will look back and say “imagine that, frum satire got me to shteig in gemara”

      • Guest November 4, 2010, 4:32 PM

        Great logic, that’s exactly why I had sex with this Asian hooker Trina last night, I was thinking, I pray to God that a little of my Judaism rubs off on her, and that she would come back to her Orthodox roots (as she claimed her mother is Jewish). You and me Heshy, we think alike, you see, we should stick together….Admit that some stuff you say/post get’s tacked on the bad side of the scale and I’ll stop.

      • A. Nuran November 4, 2010, 5:09 PM

        Heshy, are you familiar with Mullah Nasreddin?

        • A. Nuran November 4, 2010, 5:24 PM

          Nasreddin was a 13th century Sufi, an actual historical figure known for being a champion to the poor and oppressed. He is also the repository for every Trickster story from Mombasa to the Taklamakan. In your small way Heshy is like one of his Jewish disciples like Herschel of Ostropol or Joha.

          Nasreddin was said to be blessed and cursed. He had the highest degree of Enlightenment which a human being can attain. He could only communicate it with stories, pranks and practical jokes which was as much a curse to people around him as it was to himself.

          I’ve seen pictures of Nasreddin Hoca’s tomb. It has tall doors made of timbers a foot thick which are bound in heavy iron chains and seven locks.

          And no walls.

          What Heshy is doing here is one of the oldest and most effective teaching techniques. He uses humor, stories and irreverence to shake people up, get in under their ego’s defenses and change their perspective enough to give the message a chance of getting through. Sometimes it crosses the line. The blindly pious and the fanatic both hate it; fanatics generally suffer from severe irony deficiency.

          Nobody will ever put up a bronze plaque to him on a row of seats in a synagogue. But in his offbeat way he probably does more good than a dozen kiruv rabbis.

  • kissmeimshomer November 4, 2010, 4:18 PM

    i want to know, how the hell do all their disciples know the size of their rabbis penis??!

    • Phil November 4, 2010, 4:32 PM



    • Avrumy November 4, 2010, 4:33 PM

      Sly glances at the mikvah. All men do it.
      Maybe not Phil. 🙂

      • Phil November 4, 2010, 4:39 PM


        I only go once a year, but when someones got a “knee grow”, it’s tough not to notice. 🙂

        • kissmeimshomer November 4, 2010, 5:34 PM

          nope. It’s against halacha to go to the mikva when your rebbi is inside

          • Phil November 4, 2010, 5:48 PM


            OK you got me stumped.

            Maybe a 4 liter capacity (2 soda bottles) is tough not to notice even under a robe, would be like a 3rd leg. One thing’s for sure, they weren’t wearing tight jeans.

          • zach November 4, 2010, 7:32 PM

            Yeah, and it’s also against halacha to hide under the bed to see how your rebbe shtups his wife. Check out Berachos 62a.

    • Yochanan November 4, 2010, 5:56 PM

      My rabbi’s bigger than your rabbi.

      Na na na na na na!

      • idiedtryin November 4, 2010, 7:27 PM

        stupid….L.A.M.E. –have u run out of stuff to write about..why is bashing religion the new stuff?

        u are constantly putting a twist on everything..DISLIKE!

        • kissmeimshomer November 7, 2010, 6:33 PM

          idiedtryin: asshole, ur not religious urself. you only pretend you are when you’re home.

  • madkinggeorge November 5, 2010, 3:35 AM

    Check this out:


    Amazing how Chassidus can distort Gemaras…

    Also, in the Roman world, having a large penis was considered disgusting and ridiculous, so it would certainly be a blemish.


    • Phil November 5, 2010, 8:11 AM


      I think Priapus was from Greek mythology, they were then ones that found big d’cks disgusting.

      I suspect it has something to do with the rampant homos*xuality in Greece. After all, regardless of how gay a dude is, who’d want the guy ramming him to have a Louisville slugger?

      • A. Nuran November 5, 2010, 4:02 PM

        Priapus was from Roman mythology, not Greek.
        Since he was a god of gardens and fertility a big fertilizer is kind of in the job description.

        Homo****** acts were very common in Greece. And several types of same-gender relations were accepted. But men penetrating each other was not permitted. In some cities you could lose your civil rights if you were caught being the catcher.

        • Yoreh K'chetz (aka Phil) November 5, 2010, 4:23 PM


          According to that Wiki article, he was from Grekk mytholgy, his Roman counterpart was Mutunus Tutunus (Where did these funky names come from?). Not that it makes too much of a difference.

          I wasn’t aware that pitcher and catcher had a different status in those societies, I figured they just took turns. Maybe one of our resident homos can shed some light on this… Then again, better not.

          • A. Nuran November 5, 2010, 4:48 PM

            Had the same name both places according to my old Classics notes. But definitely the guy with the oversized tallywhacker.

            Not to get too explicit here, but in many, many cultures there’s a real difference. You’re still manly and can be considered hetero as long as you just pitch. If you catch you’re submissive, womanly and despicable. Consider that the classic aggressive insult translates into German as “(Ich) fokken zie”. And while it’s insulting to call someone something that sounds like cork-soaker it’s not considered demeaning to be the cork.

            For the modern West look up “top”, “bottom”, “switch” and “versatile”.

          • Elchanan November 5, 2010, 6:50 PM

            I wont shed too much light, but not all ‘mos identify as “pitcher” or “catcher”… some are both, or like myself, neither. There’s definitely more to it than penetration…. and that was also the case back in Greece (though, to be fair, it was more of a mentor/mentee relationship and not so much a romantic relationship)

            • kissmeimshomer November 7, 2010, 8:50 PM

              versa. not a “both” its called versa. so says a gay friend of mine

              • Elchanan November 8, 2010, 12:17 AM

                😛 I know what it’s called. Both is just shorter 😉

  • Mike November 7, 2010, 4:54 PM

    Must have been suggested by DK!

  • Karrie Bennett September 26, 2011, 11:31 AM

    I am fat and trust me, it is hard to have sex. First off it is hard to find someone who is willing to have sex with me. Then they have to be willing to wade through all my layers of fat just to find my parts. Half the time they end up just doing it with a fold of fat instead of inside me.

  • Allen Roth October 22, 2012, 12:18 PM

    There is no relationship whatsoever between body size and penis size. Period. If anything, fat men tend to have very small penises. I had no opinion on this matter, but years of working out in many gyms across the country and lockerrooms have shown that the very obese are generally poorly endowed. I began to suspect this, and then I noticed it more and more often. What I am saying is that not all poorly-endowed men are fat, but almost all fat men are poorly endowed. In fact, my theory is that if a man is very self-conscious about his small penis, frequently he will attempt to compensate subconsciously by increasing his body size. As if…
    And furthermore, how, HOW is it possible that I spent 12 years studying the Talmud, and never even heard of this passage? I still can’t believe it exists.

    • Crowin' Cock October 22, 2012, 12:25 PM

      Fat men just seem that way due to extra padding above the base.

      At some point in time, I lost about 50 lbs, noticed an increase of about 2 inches 😉 A while later, I remember seeing a doctor on TV saying that fat men can gain about 1 inch for every 20 lbs they lose, so it seems concurrent.

  • Allen Roth October 22, 2012, 6:44 PM

    I’m not inclined to agree. I recall when noticing a very overweight man in a lockeroom, I would notice his small penis, and I remember wondering if it were an optical illusion due to his large size body. But I don’t think that was the case; I genuinely believe that obese men generally have smaller endowments.
    You say that you heard an MD say that fat men will gain penile size if they lose weight? Now that is really difficult to believe since, whatever your belief about body size and penis size, it’s difficult to believe that one can change one by changing the other. Now my theory, on the other hand, makes sense (at least as far as this is concerned) because, an under-endowed man (or youth) in trying to compensate, will gain body size. I’m not claiming that if he loses weight, that he will gain size; that really strains credulity!

    • Crowin' Cock October 23, 2012, 1:37 PM

      It’s not an illusion or a myth. Check with guys that have lost significant amounts of weight (50 lbs +), I’m sure you’ll get the same response.

Leave a Comment