37aל״ז א

וסבר רבי יהודה בקדושתה קיימא והתניא הגיורת שנתגיירה וראתה דם ר' יהודה אומר דיה שעתה ר' יוסי אומר הרי היא ככל הנשים ומטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה

And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that a captive woman remains in her state of sanctity? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a female convert who converted and saw the flow of menstrual blood on that same day, Rabbi Yehuda says: Deeming her impure from the hour that she saw the menstrual flow is sufficient for her. There is no decree of retroactive impurity on objects that she touched earlier, due to the concern that the blood flow might have started earlier. Rabbi Yosei says: Her legal status is like that of all of the Jewish women, and she therefore transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four hour period following her conversion, or from examination to examination, i.e., from the last time she examined herself.

וצריכה להמתין ג' חדשים דברי ר' יהודה ר' יוסי מתיר ליארס ולינשא מיד א"ל גיורת אשבויה קא רמית גיורת לא מנטרא נפשה שבויה מנטרא נפשה

And a convert is required to wait three months after her conversion before marrying a Jew, due to the concern that she is pregnant, leading to confusion whether the child was conceived before or after her conversion; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei permits her to be betrothed and to be married immediately. Clearly, Rabbi Yehuda is concerned that she engaged in sexual relations prior to her conversion. Rav Yosef said to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel: Are you raising a contradiction from the halakha of a convert to that of a captive woman? A convert does not protect herself from engaging in sexual relations before conversion, whereas a captive protects herself, as she is conscious of the sanctity of the Jewish people and does not want to be violated.

ורמי שבויה אשבויה דתניא הגיורת והשבויה והשפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו יתירות על בנות ג' שנים ויום אחד צריכות להמתין ג' חדשים דברי ר' יהודה ר' יוסי מתיר ליארס ולינשא מיד אשתיק

And Rav Pappa bar Shmuel raised a contradiction from one halakha with regard to a captive to another halakha with regard to a captive, as it is taught in a baraita: The convert, or the captive woman or the gentile maidservant, who were redeemed, converted, or emancipated when they were more than three years and one day old, are required to wait three months before marrying; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei permits these women to be betrothed and to be married immediately. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is concerned that she engaged in sexual relations prior to her redemption, contradicting his opinion here. Rav Yosef was silent, unable to respond.

א"ל מידי שמיע לך בהא אמר ליה הכי אמר רב ששת שראוה שנבעלה א"ה מאי טעמא דר' יוסי אמר רבה קסבר ר' יוסי אשה מזנה משמשת במוך שלא תתעבר

Later, Rav Yosef said to him: Have you heard anything with regard to this matter? Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said to him: This is what Rav Sheshet said: Rabbi Yehuda is referring to a captive whom witnesses saw engage in intercourse. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the rationale for the ruling of Rabbi Yosei that she may marry immediately? Shouldn’t he be concerned lest she is pregnant? Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei holds that a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual relations has relations with a contraceptive resorbent at the entrance of her womb, so that she will not become pregnant.

בשלמא גיורת כיון דדעתה לאיגיורי מנטרא נפשה שבויה נמי דלא ידעה היכא ממטו לה שפחה נמי דשמעה מפי מרה אלא יוצאה בשן ועין מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: Granted, a convert uses the resorbent; since it is her intention to convert, she protects herself from pregnancy. A captive too uses the resorbent because she does not know where they are taking her, and she does not want to become pregnant. A maidservant uses the resorbent too, as she heard from her master that he intends to free her, and she seeks to avoid confusion with regard to the lineage of her offspring. However, with regard a maidservant who emerges from slavery with the extraction by her master of her tooth or her eye, what is there to say? She has no advance knowledge that she will be freed and therefore would not take precautions to avoid becoming pregnant, and Rav Sheshet explained that this is a case where she was seen engaging in sexual relations.

וכי תימא כל ממילא לא א"ר יוסי הרי אנוסה ומפותה דממילא ותניא אנוסה ומפותה צריכות להמתין ג' חדשים דברי ר' יהודה ר' יוסי מתיר ליארס ולינשא מיד

And if you say that with regard to any situation that occurs on its own, without advance knowledge, Rabbi Yosei concedes to Rabbi Yehuda and did not say that it is permitted for her to marry immediately, that cannot be so. There is the case of a raped or seduced woman, which happens on its own without advance knowledge, and it is taught in a baraita: A raped woman and a seduced woman must wait three months before marrying; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda; Rabbi Yosei permits these women to be betrothed and to be married immediately.

אלא אמר רבה קסבר ר' יוסי אשה מזנה מתהפכת כדי שלא תתעבר ואידך חיישי' שמא לא נהפכה יפה יפה:

Rather, Rabba said: The rationale for the ruling of Rabbi Yosei is not because the woman uses a contraceptive resorbent that she inserts before engaging in relations. Rather, Rabbi Yosei holds: A woman who engages in promiscuous sexual relations turns over at the conclusion of the sexual act so that she will not become pregnant. Therefore, even if she engaged in unplanned sexual relations, she can take steps afterward to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda respond to this contention? The Gemara answers: We are concerned lest the semen remain in her womb because she did not turn over properly, and she will become pregnant.

שנא' (שמות כא, כב) ולא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש וכו': והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (דברים כה, ב) כדי רשעתו משום רשעה אחת אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום שתי רשעיות

§ The mishna states that one liable to receive the death penalty is exempt from payment, as it is stated: “And yet no harm follow, he shall be punished, etc.” (Exodus 21:22). The Gemara asks: And is this principle derived from here? Actually, it is derived from there: “And to be beaten before his face according to the measure of his iniquity” (Deuteronomy 25:2). From the term: His iniquity, it is inferred: You can hold one who performs one action liable for one iniquity, i.e., punishment for violating one prohibition, but you do not hold him liable for two iniquities, i.e., punishments for violating two prohibitions.

חדא במיתה וממון וחדא במלקות וממון וצריכא דאי אשמעינן מיתה וממון משום דאיכא איבוד נשמה אבל מלקות וממון דליכא איבוד נשמה אימא לא

The Gemara answers: One of these derivations, from the verse “And yet no harm follow” is stated with regard to one who performed an action for which he is liable to receive the death penalty and to pay money, and the liability to be executed exempts him from payment. And one of these derivations, from the verse “According to the measure of his iniquity,” is stated with regard to one who performed an action for which he is liable to receive lashes and to pay money, and he receives only one punishment. The Gemara elaborates: And both derivations are necessary, as if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to death and money, one would assert that the exemption from payment is due to the fact that there is loss of life, the ultimate punishment, leaving no room for additional punishment; however, in the case of lashes and money, where there is no loss of life, say no, there is no exemption and he is flogged and pays.

ואי אשמעינן מלקות וממון משום דלא חמיר איסוריה אבל מיתה וממון דחמיר איסוריה אימא לא צריכא

And if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to lashes and money, one would assert that the exemption from payment is due to the fact that the prohibition that he violated is not severe, as it is punishable by lashes, and for violating a prohibition that is not severe one does not receive two punishments. However, with regard to death and money, where the prohibition that he violated is severe, say no, he is not exempt from receiving two punishments. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to teach both derivations.

ולרבי מאיר דאמר לוקה ומשלם תרתי למה לי חדא במיתה וממון

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, who said that one is flogged and pays in cases where he violated a prohibition punishable by both, why do I require two derivations teaching that one does not receive the death penalty and pay? The Gemara answers: One derivation is with regard to death and money, exempting one liable to be executed from payment,