Parallel
שבועות 18:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Whereas we learnt [this distinction, only] in the case of the Temple! — They are not the same: the longer route here is as the shorter route there; and the longer route there is as the shorter route here. R. Huna son of R. Nathan raised an objection: Did Abaye then say that he had no alternative; from which we deduce that we are discussing the time not near her period; surely, it was Abaye who said that he is liable to bring two; from which we deduced that it refers to the time near her period! — Abaye's statement was made elsewhere. R. Jonathan b. Jose b. Lekunia enquired of R. Simeon b. Jose b. Lekunia: Where is the prohibition in the Torah against intercourse with a menstruous woman? — He took a clod, and threw it at him. Prohibition against intercourse with a menstruant! And into a woman who is impure by her uncleanness thou shalt not approach! — Well then, [I meant to ask] where do we find the warning that he who cohabits with a clean woman, and she says to him, ‘I have become unclean’; he should not withdraw immediately? — Hezekiah said, Scripture says: [And if any man lie with her (a menstruous woman)] her impurity shall be with him — even at the time of her impurity she shall be ‘with him’ Hence, we have a positive precept; whence do we derive a negative precept? — R. Papa said, Scripture says: Thou shalt not approach [unto a woman who is impure]; thou shalt not approach means also, thou shalt not withdraw; for it is written: Who say, Approach to thyself, come not near me, for I am holier than thou. Our Rabbis taught: Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; R. Josiah said: From this we deduce a warning to the children of Israel that they should separate from their wives near their periods. And how long before? Rabbah said: One ‘onah. R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: He who does not separate from his wife near her period, then even if he has sons like the sons of Aaron, they will die, even as it is written: Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness,’. . . [this is the law . . .] of her that is sick with her impurity; and next to it: [And the Lord spoke unto Moses] after the death [of the two sons of Aaron]. R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: He who separates from his wife near her period will have male children, even as it is written: To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean; and next to it: If a woman conceive and bear a male child. R. Joshua b. Levi said: He will have sons worthy to be teachers, for it is written: That ye may make a distinction [between . . . the unclean and the clean]; and that ye may teach. R. Hiyya b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: He who recites the Habdalah over wine at the termination of the Sabbath will have male children, even as it is written: That ye may make a distinction between the holy and the common; and elsewhere it is written: To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean; and next to it: If a woman conceive [and bear a male child]. R. Joshua b. Levi said: He will have sons worthy to be teachers, even as it is written: That ye may make a distinction [between the holy and the common] . . . and that ye may teach. R. Benjamin b. Japhet said that R Eleazar said: He who sanctifies himself during cohabitation will have male children, even as it is said: Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy, and next to it: If a woman conceive [and bear a male child]. R. ELIEZER SAID, [SCRIPTURE SAYS: IF ANY ONE TOUCH THE CARCASS OF AN UNCLEAN] CREEPING THING, AND IT BE HIDDEN FROM HIM etc. What is the difference between their views? Hezekiah said: ‘Creeping thing and carcass’ is the difference between them; R. Eliezer holds, we require that he should know whether he had become unclean by [the carcass of] a creeping thing or of an animal; and R. Akiba holds, we do not require that he should know this; as long as he knows that he has actually become unclean, it is not necessary [that he should know] whether he has become unclean by a creeping thing or by an animal carcass. And so said Ulla: ‘Creeping thing and carcass’ is the difference between them; for Ulla pointed out an incongruity between one statement of R. Eliezer's and another, and then explained it: Did R. Eliezer, then, say that we require he should know whether he had become unclean by a creeping thing or by a carcass? I question this, for R. Eliezer said: In any case, if he ate prohibited fat, he is liable, or if he ate nothar, he is liable; if he desecrated the Sabbath, he is liable, or if he desecrated the Day of Atonement, he is liable; if he cohabited with his wife when menstruous, he is liable, or if he cohabited with his sister, he is liable. Said R. Joshua to him, Scripture says: If his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be known to him; only when it is known to him wherein he hath sinned. [Ulla, however,] explains it thus: There, Scripture says: he hath sinned, then he shall bring [his offering] — as long as [he knows that] he has sinned [though he does not know the actual sin, he brings his offering]: but here, since it is already written: [If any one touch] any unclean thing, why do we require: or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing? Hence, we deduce that we require he should know whether he had become unclean by a creeping thing or by an animal carcass. And R. Akiba? — Because
—