Parallel
שבועות 18:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
And if an illiterate man, then both acts are the same as eating two portions of forbidden fat, each the size of an olive, in one spell of unawareness. Well then, [shall we say,] it was not near the time of her period? And with whom? Shall we say, a learned man? Then he should not be liable to bring even one; for, in entering he was the victim of a pure accident, and in withdrawing he acted wilfully! And if an illiterate man, he is liable to bring one, for withdrawing? Afterwards, Raba said: It really refers to the time near her period, and to a learned man; but a learned man for this, and not a learned man for that. Raba said: And both [these laws] we have learnt: Entering, we have learnt; and withdrawing, we have learnt. ‘Withdrawing, we have learnt’ — for it states, IF ONE COHABITED WITH A CLEAN WOMAN, AND SHE SAID TO HIM: ‘I HAVE BECOME UNCLEAN!’, AND HE WITHDREW IMMEDIATELY, HE IS LIABLE. ‘Entering, we have learnt’ [in another Mishnah] — If [blood is] found on his [rag after cohabitation], they are [both] unclean, and are liable for a sacrifice. Now this surely refers [does it not?] to the time near her period, and to [the act of] entering. R. Adda b. Mattenah said to Raba: [No!] Really I can say to you, it refers to the time not near her period, and to withdrawing. And should you ask, what need is there to state the law of withdrawing, since it has already been stated? [I may reply,] because it is necessary to tell us: If [blood is] found on her [rag after cohabitation], they are [both] unclean because of the doubt, but exempt from bringing a sacrifice. And because he wishes to teach us [this law concerning] ‘If found on hers’, he teaches us also [the law concerning] ‘If found on his.’ Said Rabina to R. Adda; How can you maintain that that [other Mishnah] refers to the time not near her period, and to withdrawing, seeing that it states; If [blood is] found, and found implies later; and if it refers to withdrawing, from the very first when he withdrew he already had the knowledge! Said Raba to him [R. Adda]; Listen to what your teacher [Rabina] tells you. — [He replied:] How can you [maintain that it refers to entering], since it has been taught with reference to it: This is the positive precept concerning a menstruous woman for which one is liable; and if it is [as you say], it is a negative precept! — He said to him: If you have learnt [the Baraitha thus], it is defective, and your should read it thus: This is the negative precept concerning a menstruous woman for which one is liable; if [however] he was cohabiting with a clean woman, and she said to him; ‘I have become unclean’, and he withdrew immediately, he is liable: this is the positive precept concerning a menstruous woman, etc. The text says: ‘If he withdrew immediately, he is liable.’ What should he do? R. Huna said in the name of Rab: He should press his ten nails into the ground [i.e., bed] until his desire dies out. Raba said: From this we may deduce that he who commits incest with membrum mortuum is exempt, for, if it will enter your mind to say that he is liable, what is the reason that he is exempt here? Because he has no alternative? If it is because he has no alternative, then even if he withdraws immediately, let him also be exempt, for he has no alternative! — Abaye said to him: Verily, I may say to you, he who commits incest with membrum mortuum is liable, and here the reason that he is exempt is because he has no alternative, and as for your question, if he withdraws immediately, why is he liable? [I may reply,] because he should have withdrawn with little pleasure, and he withdrew with much pleasure. Said Raba b. Hanan to Abaye: If so, we find a longer and a shorter route in connection with a menstruant.30
—