דְּלָא קָא עָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּקָא עָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּיֵרֵד.
where one does not commit a transgression by refraining from action. However, here, where one commits a transgression every additional moment he remains in the tree, indeed, he should descend from it.
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: אֶחָד אִילָן לַח וְאֶחָד אִילָן יָבֵשׁ, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּלַח, אֲבָל בְּיָבֵשׁ — מוּתָּר.
The Gemara cites an apparent contradiction: It was taught in one baraita that both a green tree and a dry tree are included in the prohibition against climbing a tree, whereas it was taught in another baraita: In what case are these matters, that one may not climb a tree, stated? With regard to a green tree. But in the case of a dry one, it is permitted to climb it.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בְּשֶׁגִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף, כָּאן — בְּשֶׁאֵין גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף.
Rav Yehuda said: It is not difficult. Here, the baraita that includes a dry tree in the prohibition is referring to a tree whose stump sends out new shoots when cut; whereas there, the baraita that excludes a dry tree from the prohibition is referring to one whose stump does not send out new shoots.
גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף יָבֵשׁ קָרֵית לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה, כָּאן — בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים.
The Gemara expresses surprise at this answer: You call a tree whose stump sends out new shoots dry? This tree is not dry at all. Rather, it is not difficult, as both baraitot deal with a dry tree whose stump will not send out any new shoots. However, here, the baraita that permits climbing a dry tree, is referring to the summer, when it is evident that the tree is dead; whereas there, the baraita that prohibits climbing the tree is referring to the rainy season, when many trees shed their leaves and it is not obvious which remain alive and which are dead.
בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה, הָא נָתְרִי פֵּירֵי! בִּדְלִיכָּא פֵּירֵי. וְהָא קָא נָתְרִי קִינְסֵי! בְּגִדּוּדָא.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: In the summer, the fruit of the previous year left on the dry tree will fall off when he climbs it, and climbing the tree should therefore be prohibited lest he come to pick the fruit. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a case where there is no fruit on the tree. The Gemara asks: But small branches will fall off when he climbs the tree, and once again this should be prohibited in case he comes to break them off. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a tree that has already been stripped of all its small branches.
אִינִי?! וְהָא רַב אִיקְּלַע לְאַפְסַטְיָא, וַאֲסַר בְּגִדּוּדָא! רַב בִּקְעָה מָצָא, וְגָדַר בָּהּ גָּדֵר.
The Gemara asks: Is that really so? But Rav arrived at a place called Apsetaya and prohibited its residents from climbing even a tree that had already been stripped of all its branches. The Gemara answers: In truth, no prohibition was involved, but Rav found an unguarded field, i.e., a place where transgression was widespread, and fenced it in. He added a stringency as a safeguard and prohibited an action that was fundamentally permitted.
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיְּהַלֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי עֲשָׂבִים בְּשַׁבָּת, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָץ בְּרַגְלַיִם חוֹטֵא״.
Rami bar Abba said that Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a person to walk on grass on Shabbat, due to the fact that it is stated: “And he who hastens with his feet sins” (Proverbs 19:2). This verse teaches that mere walking occasionally involves a sin, e.g., on Shabbat, when one might uproot the grass on which he walks.
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: מוּתָּר לֵילֵךְ עַל גַּבֵּי עֲשָׂבִים בְּשַׁבָּת, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אָסוּר. לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּלַחִים, הָא — בִּיבֵשִׁים.
The Gemara cites another apparent contradiction: It was taught in one baraita that it is permitted to walk on grass on Shabbat, and it was taught in another baraita that it is prohibited to do so. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to green grass, which one might uproot, thereby transgressing the prohibition against reaping on Shabbat. That other baraita is referring to dry grass, which has already been cut off from its source of life, and therefore the prohibition of reaping is no longer in effect.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, הָא וְהָא בְּלַחִים, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה, כָּאן — בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים.
And if you wish, say instead that both baraitot are referring to green grass, and yet there is no difficulty: Here, the baraita that prohibits walking on grass is referring to the summer, when the grass includes seeds that might be dislodged by one’s feet, whereas there, the baraita that permits doing so is referring to the rainy season, when this problem does not exist.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, הָא וְהָא בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — דְּסָיֵים מְסָאנֵיהּ, הָא — דְּלָא סָיֵים מְסָאנֵיהּ.
And if you wish, say instead that both baraitot are referring to the summer, and it is not difficult: This baraita, which permits walking on grass, is referring to a case where one is wearing his shoes, whereas that other baraita, which prohibits it, deals with a situation where one is not wearing his shoes, as the grass might get entangled between his toes and be uprooted.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא דְּסָיֵים מְסָאנֵיהּ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — דְּאִית לֵיהּ עוּקְצֵי, הָא — דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עוּקְצֵי.
And if you wish, say instead that both baraitot are referring to a case where one is wearing his shoes, and nevertheless this is not difficult: This baraita prohibits walking on grass, as it involves a case where one’s shoe has a spike on which the grass might get caught and be uprooted, whereas that other baraita permits it, because it deals a case where one’s shoe does not have a spike.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, הָא וְהָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ עוּקְצֵי: הָא — דְּאִית לֵיהּ שְׁרָכָא, הָא — דְּלֵית לֵיהּ שְׁרָכָא.
And if you wish, say instead that both are referring to a case where the shoe has a spike, and it is not difficult: This baraita, which prohibits walking on grass, is referring to a case where the grass is long and entangled, and it can easily get caught on the shoe, whereas that other baraita is referring to a case where the grass is not long and entangled.
וְהָאִידָּנָא דְּקַיְימָא לַן כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁרֵי.
The Gemara concludes: And now, when we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that there is no liability for a prohibited act committed unwittingly during the performance of a permitted act, all of these scenarios are permitted, as here too, one’s intention is merely to walk and not to uproot grass on Shabbat.
וְאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיָּכוֹף אִשְׁתּוֹ לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָץ בְּרַגְלַיִם חוֹטֵא״.
The Gemara cites another halakha derived from the verse mentioned in the previous discussion. Rami bar Ḥama said that Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a man to force his wife in the conjugal mitzva, i.e., sexual relations, as it is stated: “And he who hastens with his feet sins” (Proverbs 19:2). The term his feet is understood here as a euphemism for intercourse.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל הַכּוֹפֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ לִדְבַר מִצְוָה הָוְיָין לוֹ בָּנִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְהוּגָּנִין. אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בַּר חִינָּנָא, מַאי קְרָאָה: ״גַּם בְּלֹא דַעַת נֶפֶשׁ לֹא טוֹב״.
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anyone who forces his wife to perform the conjugal mitzva will have unworthy children as a consequence. Rav Ika bar Ḥinnana said: What is the verse that alludes to this? “Also, that the soul without knowledge is not good” (Proverbs 19:2). If intercourse takes place without the woman’s knowledge, i.e., consent, the soul of the offspring will not be good.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״גַּם בְּלֹא דַעַת נֶפֶשׁ לֹא טוֹב״ — זֶה הַכּוֹפֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ לִדְבַר מִצְוָה. ״וְאָץ בְּרַגְלַיִם חוֹטֵא״ — זֶה הַבּוֹעֵל וְשׁוֹנֶה.
That was also taught in a baraita: “Also, without knowledge the soul is not good”; this is one who forces his wife to perform the conjugal mitzva. “And he who hastens with his feet sins”; this is one who has intercourse with his wife and repeats the act in a manner that causes her pain or distress.
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: הָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת כׇּל בָּנָיו זְכָרִים יִבְעוֹל וְיִשְׁנֶה! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — לְדַעַת, כָּאן — שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת.
The Gemara is surprised by this teaching: Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: One who wants all his children to be males should have intercourse with his wife and repeat the act? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: Here, where Rava issued this advice, he was referring to a husband who acts with his wife’s consent. There, the baraita that condemns this behavior is referring to one who proceeds without her consent.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁתּוֹבַעַת בַּעְלָהּ לִדְבַר מִצְוָה הוֹוִין לָהּ בָּנִים שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בְּדוֹרוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה לֹא הָיוּ כְּמוֹתָן. דְּאִילּוּ בְּדוֹרוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה כְּתִיב: ״הָבוּ לָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבוֹנִים וִידוּעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם״, וּכְתִיב: ״וָאֶקַּח אֶת רָאשֵׁי שִׁבְטֵיכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וִידוּעִים״, וְאִילּוּ נְבוֹנִים לָא אַשְׁכַּח.
Apropos relations between husband and wife, the Gemara cites that Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Any woman who demands of her husband that he fulfill his conjugal mitzva will have sons the likes of whom did not exist even in Moses’ generation. With regard to Moses’ generation, it is written: “Get you, wise men, and understanding, and well-known from each one of your tribes, and I will make them head over you” (Deuteronomy 1:13), and it is later written: “So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and well-known, and made them heads over you” (Deuteronomy 1:15). However, men possessing understanding, which is a more lofty quality than wisdom, Moses could not find any of these.
וְאִילּוּ גַּבֵּי לֵאָה כְּתִיב: ״וַתֵּצֵא לֵאָה לִקְרָאתוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלַי תָּבוֹא כִּי שָׂכוֹר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וּמִבְּנֵי יִשָּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים לָדַעַת מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל רָאשֵׁיהֶם מָאתַיִם וְכׇל אֲחֵיהֶם עַל פִּיהֶם״.
While with regard to Leah, it is written: “And Leah went out to meet him, and said, You must come in to me, for indeed I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes” (Genesis 30:16). Her reward for demanding that Jacob fulfill the conjugal mitzva with her was the birth of Issachar, and it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred, and all their brethren were at their commandment” (I Chronicles 12:33).
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: עֶשֶׂר קְלָלוֹת נִתְקַלְּלָה חַוָּה, דִּכְתִיב:
The Gemara poses a question: Is that so? Is it proper for a woman to demand her conjugal rights from her husband? But didn’t Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi say: Eve was cursed with ten curses, due to the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, as it is written: “To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your pain and your travail; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and yet your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16)?
״אֶל הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה״, אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי טִפֵּי דָמִים — אַחַת דַּם נִדָּה, וְאַחַת דַּם בְּתוּלִים. ״עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ״, זֶה צַעַר גִּידּוּל בָּנִים. ״וְהֵרוֹנֵךְ״, זֶה צַעַר הָעִיבּוּר. ״בְּעֶצֶב תֵּלְדִי בָּנִים״, כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi proceeds to explain this verse. “To the woman He said: I will greatly multiply [harba arbe]”; these are the two drops of blood unique to a woman, which cause her suffering, one the blood of menstruation and the other one the blood of virginity. “Your pain”; this is the pain of raising children. “And your travail”; this is the pain of pregnancy. “In sorrow you shall bring forth children”; in accordance with its plain meaning, i.e., the pain of childbirth.
״וְאֶל אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מִשְׁתּוֹקֶקֶת עַל בַּעְלָהּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיּוֹצֵא לַדֶּרֶךְ. ״וְהוּא יִמְשׇׁל בָּךְ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה תּוֹבַעַת בַּלֵּב וְהָאִישׁ תּוֹבֵעַ בַּפֶּה. זוֹ הִיא מִדָּה טוֹבָה בַּנָּשִׁים.
“And yet your desire shall be to your husband” teaches that the woman desires her husband, e.g., when he sets out on the road; “and he shall rule over you” teaches that the woman demands her husband in her heart but is too shy to voice her desire, but the man demands his wife verbally. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi adds: This is a good trait in women, that they refrain from formulating their desire verbally. Apparently, it is improper for a woman to demand her conjugal rights from her husband.
כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן, דְּמַרְצְיָא אַרְצוֹיֵי קַמֵּיהּ.
The Gemara answers: When we say that a woman who demands her conjugal rights from her husband is praiseworthy, it does not mean she should voice her desires explicitly. Rather, it means that she should make herself pleasing to him, and he will understand what she wants on his own.
הָנֵי שֶׁבַע הָוְויָן! כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: עֲטוּפָה כְּאָבֵל, וּמְנוּדָּה מִכׇּל אָדָם, וַחֲבוּשָׁה בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין.
The Gemara analyzes the above statement with regard to Eve’s ten curses: Are they in fact ten? They are only seven. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that the other curses are: A woman is wrapped like a mourner, i.e., she must cover her head; and she is ostracized from all people and incarcerated within a prison, as she typically spends all her time in the house.
מַאי מְנוּדָּה מִכׇּל אָדָם? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲסִיר לַהּ יִיחוּד, אִיהוּ נָמֵי אֲסִיר לֵיהּ יִיחוּד. אֶלָּא דַּאֲסִירָא לְבֵי תְרֵי.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of ostracized from all people? If you say this is because it is forbidden for her to seclude herself with a man, it is also forbidden for a man to seclude himself with women. Rather, it means that it is forbidden for her to marry two men, whereas a man can marry two women.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: מְגַדֶּלֶת שֵׂעָר כְּלִילִית, וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת וּמַשְׁתֶּנֶת מַיִם כִּבְהֵמָה, וְנַעֲשֵׂית כַּר לְבַעְלָהּ.
It was taught in a baraita that the three additional curses are: She grows her hair long like Lilit, a demon; she sits and urinates, like an animal; and serves as a pillow for her husband during relations.
וְאִידַּךְ? הָנֵי שֶׁבַח הוּא לָהּ.
And why doesn’t the other Sage include these curses? The Gemara answers: He maintains that these are praise for her, not pain, either because they are modest practices, e.g., urinating in a seated position, or because they add to her comfort, e.g., her bottom position during relations.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״מַלְּפֵנוּ מִבַּהֲמוֹת אָרֶץ וּמֵעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם יְחַכְּמֵנוּ״. ״מַלְּפֵנוּ מִבַּהֲמוֹת״ — זוֹ פְּרֵידָה, שֶׁכּוֹרַעַת וּמַשְׁתֶּנֶת מַיִם. ״וּמֵעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם יְחַכְּמֵנוּ״ — זֶה תַּרְנְגוֹל, שֶׁמְּפַיֵּיס וְאַחַר כָּךְ בּוֹעֵל.
As Rabbi Ḥiyya said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who teaches us by the beasts of the earth, and makes us wiser by the birds of the sky” (Job 35:11)? He explains: “Who teaches us by the beasts of the earth”; this is the female mule, which crouches and urinates and from which we learn modesty. “And makes us wiser by the birds of the sky”; this is the rooster, which first cajoles the hen and then mates with it.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִילְמָלֵא לֹא נִיתְּנָה תּוֹרָה, הָיִינוּ לְמֵידִין צְנִיעוּת מֵחָתוּל, וְגָזֵל מִנְּמָלָה, וַעֲרָיוֹת מִיּוֹנָה. דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ מִתַּרְנְגוֹל — שֶׁמְּפַיֵּיס וְאַחַר כָּךְ בּוֹעֵל.
Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the Torah had not been given, we would nonetheless have learned modesty from the cat, which covers its excrement, and that stealing is objectionable from the ant, which does not take grain from another ant, and forbidden relations from the dove, which is faithful to its partner, and proper relations from the rooster, which first appeases the hen and then mates with it.
וּמַאי מְפַיֵּיס לַהּ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, הָכִי קָאָמַר לַהּ: זָבֵינְנָא לִיךְ זִיגָא דְּמָטוּ לִיךְ עַד כַּרְעָיךְ, לְבָתַר הָכִי אָמַר לַהּ: לִישְׁמַטְתֵּיהּ לְכַרְבַּלְתֵּיהּ דְּהָהוּא תַּרְנְגוֹלָא אִי אִית לֵיהּ וְלָא זָבֵינְנָא לִיךְ.
What does the rooster do to appease the hen? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Prior to mating, it spreads its wings as if to say this: I will buy you a coat that will reach down to your feet. After mating, the rooster bends its head as if to say this: May the crest of this rooster fall off if he has the wherewithal and does not buy you one. I simply have no money to do so.