שבועות 18 — Soncino English Talmud

¹And 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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ

^ᵃnote:Who acted unwittingly in both cases.
^ᵇnote:For which he brings only one sin offering. Here also, since he is illiterate, he is not aware, when she tells him she has become unclean, that he has committed a sin by cohabiting near the time of her period; or that it is prohibited to withdraw immediately. Since he has no knowledge of guilt between the two acts (entering and withdrawing), he should bring only one sin offering.
^ᶜnote:He could not be aware that she would become unclean, since it was not near her period.
^ᵈnote:Being learned, and knowing that it is prohibited to withdraw immediately, he is liable to kareth.
^ᵉnote:Thinking it is permitted to withdraw immediately, he acted unwittingly.
^ᶠnote:Knowing that he ought not to cohabit near the time of her period, yet thinking he still had time before she became unclean; he therefore committed a sin unwittingly (not accidentally, as would be the case if he cohabited not near her period), and brings a sin offering.
^ᵍnote:Not knowing that he must not withdraw immediately, he thus brings two, one for entering, and one for withdrawing. This is not the same as eating two portions of prohibited fat in one spell of unawareness (for which he brings only one sin offering) for, when she told him she had become unclean, he was immediately aware that he had committed a sin; for, being learned, he knew that he ought not to have cohabited with her near her period.
^ʰnote:Seven days; Lev. XV, 19 and 24.
^ⁱnote:Sin offering for cohabiting while she is unclean. Nid. 14a.
^ʲnote:Hence we learn that for entering (near her period) he is liable for a sacrifice, if she becomes unclean.
^ᵏnote:He brings the sacrifice for withdrawing immediately, when she tells him she is unclean; for entering he is not liable, because it was not near her period.
^ˡnote:In our Mishnah, supra 14b.
^ᵐnote:Not immediately, but after a short interval; Nid. 14a.
^ⁿnote:The woman is definitely unclean, because she is now menstruous, but the man is unclean only because of the doubt whether he had cohabited with her when she was already unclean, or before her uncleanness commenced.
^ᵒnote:Because she may have become unclean infer cohabitation; and he does not even bring a suspensive guilt offering for the doubtful sin (Mishnah, Nid. 14b).
^ᵖnote:And to distinguish between the case where she applied her rag immediately and the case where an interval elapsed (v. Nid. 14a).
^ᵠnote:Though this is superfluous.
^ʳnote:After withdrawing, blood was found, but during cohabitation they were not aware of uncleanness.
^ˢnote:That she is unclean, for she told him during cohabitation.
^ᵗnote:[So curr. ed. Other reading adopted by Adreth and Zerahis Halevi: ‘He (Rabina) said to him (R. Adda): Listen when your teacher (Raba) tells you.’ This is preferable, as Raba was the teacher of Rabina.]
^ᵘnote:That the Mishnah cannot refer to withdrawing.
^ᵛnote:[Read with MS. M. and other ed.: ,hmt, ‘How can I listen?’]
^ʷnote:As a comment on Mishnah in Nid. 14a.
^ˣnote:That it refers to entering.
^ʸnote:Lev. XVIII, 19.
^ᶻnote:He should remain passive.
^ᵃᵃnote:Cohabits with a woman forbidden to him owing to consanguinity (Yeb. 2a, b).
^ᵃᵇnote:For he must not withdraw immediately and must perforce withdraw when it is passive; but if he commits incest even with membrum mortuum he is liable.
^ᵃᶜnote:If you say that he is liable if he commits incest with membrum mortuum, then there is no difference between passive and virile member, so that he should be exempt even if he is withdraws forthwith.
^ᵃᵈnote:If he took the shorter route, i.e., withdrew immediately, he is liable; and if the longer route, i.e., waited till it was passive, he is exempt.

²Whereas 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^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ

^ᵃᵉnote:If this distinction holds good also in the case of a menstruous woman, why does not the Mishnah mention it?
^ᵃᶠnote:And are therefore not mentioned in the Mishnah.
^ᵃᵍnote:In the case of a menstruous woman, exempts him, as does the shorter route in the Temple.
^ᵃʰnote:If he withdraws when it is passive, he is exempt, because he has no alternative.
^ᵃⁱnote:For if he cohabited near the time of her period he should have realised that there is a possibility that she might become unclean; and he is liable for withdrawing even when passive, for Abaye holds that he who cohabits with membrum mortuum is also liable. (V. supra 18a.) Only if he cohabits not near the time of her period is he exempt if he withdraws when passive, with membrum mortuum, for he has no other alternative, and is not to be blamed for cohabiting then.
^ᵃʲnote:Supra 17b; one for entering, and one for withdrawing.
^ᵃᵏnote:Supra 18a.
^ᵃˡnote:That he is liable to bring two, was not made with reference to our Mishnah. Abaye explains our Mishnah, which differentiates between withdrawing with virile member and passive, as referring to cohabitation not near the time of her period when, in entering, he is completely innocent, and in withdrawing forthwith is liable to bring a sin offering (not two), because he could have withdrawn with member passive with less pleasure. Abaye's statement that he brings two offerings does not refer to our Mishnah, but to a case where he cohabits with a clean woman near the time of her period, and she tells him during cohabitation that she has become unclean. In this case he brings two offerings, one for entering, and one for withdrawing, even passive, for Abaye holds that in this case, there is no difference how he withdrew, since he is not entirely blameless, for he should have foreseen that she might become unclean during cohabitation.
^ᵃᵐnote:Lev. XVIII, 19.
^ᵃⁿnote:Ibid. XV, 24.
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e., he must not withdraw immediately.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lev. XVIII, 19.
^ᵃᵠnote:Isa. LXV, 5; cre, tk in Lev. XVIII, 19, may, therefore, mean: thou shalt not approach to thyself, i.e., thou shalt not withdraw.
^ᵃʳnote:Lev. XV, 31.
^ᵃˢnote:A period of time (with special reference to marital duty): the whole day or the whole night. If her period comes during the day, he must separate from the beginning of the day; if during the night, from the beginning of the night.
^ᵃᵗnote:Lev. XV, 31.
^ᵃᵘnote:Ibid. 33.
^ᵃᵛnote:Ibid. XVI, 1. He takes the sequence and contiguity of the verses to imply that if a man does not separate from ‘her that is sick with her impurity’, his sons will die, even as the sons of Aaron died.
^ᵃʷnote:Lev. XI, 47.
^ᵃˣnote:Ibid. XII, 2.
^ᵃʸnote:Ibid. X, 10, 11.
^ᵃᶻnote:Ibid. 10. He who recites Habdalah also makes a distinction between the holy and the common (Sabbath and weekday). In verse 9 the priests are commanded: Drink no wine . . . when ye go into the tent of meeting. The implication is: but ye may drink wine when ye make a distinction between the holy and the common, I.e., when you recite the Habdalah.
^ᵇᵃnote:Ibid, XI, 47.
^ᵇᵇnote:Ibid. XII, 2.
^ᵇᶜnote:Ibid. X, 10, 11.
^ᵇᵈnote:Ibid. XI, 44.
^ᵇᵉnote:Ibid, XII, 2.
^ᵇᶠnote:Both R. Eliezer and R. Akiba agree in the Mishnah (supra 14b) that he is not liable unless he is aware that it is the Temple that he entered in an unclean state, and thus the question arises, what is the difference between them?
^ᵇᵍnote:R. Eliezer holds he must know the exact source of his uncleanness (whether by a creeping thing or animal carcass), whereas R. Akiba holds it matters not, as long as he knows he is unclean.
^ᵇʰnote:Ker. 19a; if there lay before him ckj, a piece of prohibited fat, and r,ub, a piece of a sacrifice left over behind the time limit for its consumption, and he ate one of them unwittingly, but he does not know which, R. Eliezer says he must bring a sin offering, because, whether he ate the heleb or nothar, he is liable for a sin offering in either case; but R. Joshua says he is exempt; and is liable only when, he knows definitely which he has eaten.
^ᵇⁱnote:If he did work unwittingly, but does not know whether it was on a Sabbath or the Day of Atonement.
^ᵇʲnote:His wife and sister were together with him, and he cohabited with one, thinking it was his wife not believing her to be clean, but later it was ascertained that his wife was already unclean, and, moreover, a doubt arose as to whether it might not have been his sister with whom he cohabited.
^ᵇᵏnote:Lev. IV, 23.
^ᵇˡnote:I.e., exactly what his sin was, does he bring a sin offering. This contradicts the previous statement of R. Eliezer, for here he says, he brings a sin offering even if he does not know exactly what his sin was, and in our Mishnah he says, he does not bring his offering unless he knows exactly the source of his uncleanness, whether carcass of creeping thing or animal.
^ᵇᵐnote:Lev. V, 2.
^ᵇⁿnote:Surely, unclean creeping thing is included in any unclean thing?
^ᵇᵒnote:Because Scripture particularises, we deduce that he does not bring an offering unless he knows the exact source of his uncleanness.
^ᵇᵖnote:Since Scripture particularises, why does R. Akiba hold that it is not necessary he should know the exact source of his uncleanness, as long as he knows he is unclean?