Shevuot 18aשבועות י״ח א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shevuot 18a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
18aי״ח א

ואי בעם הארץ אידי ואידי אכל שני זיתי חלב בהעלם אחד הוא

And if we say that we are dealing with an am ha’aretz, an ignoramus, who does not know that it is prohibited for him to engage in intercourse with a woman near the expected onset of her menstruation, and who also does not know that it is prohibited for him to immediately withdraw from her if she experiences menstrual bleeding during intercourse, then for both this and that, his entry and his withdrawal, he should be liable to bring only a single sin-offering, since he had no awareness of his transgression between his two actions. This is like one who ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat in the course of one lapse of awareness and is therefore liable to bring only one sin-offering. Here too, although he performed two actions for which one could be liable to bring sin-offerings, entry and withdrawal, there was only one lapse of awareness.

ואלא בשאין סמוך לוסתה ובמאן אילימא בתלמיד חכם ולא חדא לא מיחייב אכניסה אנוס אפרישה מזיד אי בעם הארץ חדא הוא דמיחייב אפרישה

Rather, it must be a case where it was not near her expected date of menstruation, and there was no reason for the man to think that the woman would experience menstrual bleeding. And with whom are we dealing? If we say that we are dealing with a Torah scholar, then he should not be liable to bring even one sin-offering, because with regard to his initial entry, he was a victim of circumstances beyond his control, and with regard to his withdrawal, after he knew that she was a menstruating woman, his transgression was intentional, and he would be liable to receive karet. And if we are dealing with an am ha’aretz, he should be liable to bring only one sin-offering, for his immediate withdrawal.

הדר אמר רבא לעולם בסמוך לוסתה ובתלמיד חכם ותלמיד חכם לזו ואין תלמיד חכם לזו

Rava reconsidered and then said: Actually, it is a case where it was near the expected date of the woman’s menstruation, and we are dealing with a Torah scholar. But he is a Torah scholar only with regard to this halakha, that it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with a woman near the expected onset of her menstruation, and he erred in thinking that he could complete the act of intercourse before she experienced menstrual bleeding. Therefore, once he learns that she has experienced menstrual bleeding, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for his unwitting transgression at the time of his entry. But he is not a Torah scholar with regard to that halakha, that it is prohibited for one to immediately withdraw from a woman if she experiences menstrual bleeding during intercourse. Since he had awareness of his transgression between his two actions, this is not an instance of one lapse of awareness, and therefore he is liable to bring a second sin-offering for his unwitting transgression at the time of his withdrawal.

אמר רבא ותרוייהו תנינהו כניסה תנינא פרישה תנינא פרישה תנינא דקתני היה משמש עם הטהורה ואמרה לו נטמאתי ופירש מיד חייב

Rava said: And we learn both of these matters for which he is liable to bring a sin-offering; we learn about entry, and we learn about withdrawal. Rava now clarifies the matter: We learn about withdrawal, as the mishna teaches: If a man was engaging in intercourse with a ritually pure woman, and during the course of their act of intercourse she experienced menstrual bleeding and said to him: I have become impure, and unwittingly he immediately withdrew from her, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman.

כניסה תנינא נמצא על שלו טמאין וחייבין בקרבן מאי לאו בסמוך לוסתה ואכניסה

Rava continues: We learn about entry in a mishna (Nidda 14a): If a spot of blood is found on his rag, i.e., the rag that he uses to wipe his penis after intercourse, then it is clear that this blood came from the woman during their act of intercourse. Consequently, both the man and the woman are impure and are liable to bring a sin-offering for their unwitting transgression. Rava explains: What, is it not the case that the mishna speaks here of one who engaged in intercourse with a woman near the expected date of her menstruation, and it teaches that he is liable to bring a sin-offering for his initial entry at that time?

א"ל רב אדא בר מתנא לרבא לעולם אימא לך בשלא סמוך לווסתה ואפרישה וכי תימא פרישה למה לי הא תנא ליה הא איצטריך לאשמועינן נמצא על שלה טמאים בספק ופטורין מן הקרבן ואיידי דבעי מיתנא נמצא על שלה תנא נמי נמצא על שלו

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: Actually, I could say to you that the mishna speaks here of one who engaged in intercourse with a woman not near the expected date of her menstruation, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for his immediate withdrawal upon learning that she had experienced menstrual bleeding. And if you would say: Why do I need to be taught once again about withdrawal? Didn’t the tanna already teach this in the mishna here? One can respond: It was necessary to teach us this, i.e., the continuation of the mishna in tractate Nidda, which states: If a spot of blood is found on her rag, i.e., the rag that she uses to wipe herself after intercourse, they are impure only because of an uncertainty, as perhaps the bleeding commenced only after they completed their act of intercourse, and therefore they are exempt from bringing a sin-offering. And since the mishna had to teach the case where the blood was found on her rag, it also taught the case where it was found on his rag, even though there is no novel element in this ruling.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אדא מי מצית לאוקמה לההיא בשלא סמוך לוסתה ואפרישה והא נמצא קתני ונמצא לבתר הכי משמע ואי אפרישה מעיקרא כי פריש ליה מעיקרא הויא ליה ידיעה

Ravina said to Rav Adda: Can you really interpret that mishna as referring to a case where it was not near the expected date of the woman’s menstruation, and that he is liable to bring a sin-offering for his withdrawal? But isn’t it taught in that mishna: If blood is found on his rag? And these words indicate that the blood was found only afterward, after the man had already withdrawn from the woman. That is to say, only after he withdrew from the woman he learned that she had experienced menstrual bleeding. Ravina clarifies the difficulty: And if the mishna is referring to a case where he is liable for his withdrawal, at the outset, when he withdrew from the woman, it was from then that he had knowledge of her menstrual status, as he withdrew because she had informed him that she had experienced bleeding. Of what significance is his finding blood on his rag?

א"ל רבא ציית מאי דקאמר רבך היכי מצית דתניא עלה זו היא מצות עשה שבנדה שחייבין עליה ואם איתא מצות לא תעשה היא

Rava said to Rav Adda: Listen to what your teacher, Ravina, is saying, as he has explained the matter. Rav Adda said to Rava: How can I listen to his words and accept his explanation? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna concerning blood found on a rag: This is the positive mitzva with regard to a menstruating woman for which one is liable. Rav Adda explains: And if it is so that the mishna is referring to a case where the man is liable for his initial entry, this wording is difficult, as engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman is not the violation of a positive mitzva, but a prohibition.

אמר ליה אי תניתא חסר ותני הכי זו היא מצות לא תעשה שבנדה שחייבין עליה היה משמש עם הטהורה ואמרה לו נטמאתי ופירש מיד חייב זו היא מצות עשה שבנדה כו'

Rava said to him: If you learned this baraita in this manner, its wording is imprecise, as it is missing words, and you should teach it like this: When blood is found on the man’s rag, this is the prohibition with regard to a menstruating woman for which one is liable. And additionally, if a man was engaging in intercourse with a ritually pure woman, and during the course of their act of intercourse she experienced menstrual bleeding and said to him: I have become impure, and unwittingly he immediately withdrew from her, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for that act, and this is the positive mitzva for which one is liable with regard to a menstruating woman.

אמר מר פירש מיד חייב היכי עביד אמר רב הונא משמיה דרבא נועץ עשר צפרניו בקרקע עד שימות וטוביה

§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the mishna: The Master said above in the mishna: If he immediately withdrew from the woman after having been informed that she had experienced menstrual bleeding, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman. The Gemara asks: What should one do in such a situation? Rav Huna said in the name of Rava: He should press his ten fingernails into the ground, i.e., the bed, and restrain himself and do nothing until his penis becomes flaccid, and only then should he withdraw from her, and it is good for him to do so.

אמר רבא זאת אומרת המשמש מת בעריות פטור דאי סלקא דעתך חייב הכא מאי טעמא פטור משום דאנוס הוא אי אנוס הוא כי פירש מיד נמי ניפטר אנוס הוא

Rava said: That is to say, one who engages in intercourse, with a flaccid penis, with those with whom relations are forbidden is exempt. As if it enters your mind to say that he is liable, here, in the mishna, what is the reason that he is exempt if he waits and withdraws only later, after he has lost his erection? You might say that it is because he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control in that the woman experienced menstrual bleeding while he was in the middle of the act of intercourse, and not because he withdrew with a flaccid penis, as one who engages in intercourse with a flaccid penis is liable. But if he is exempt from liability because he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, then even if he withdraws immediately, before losing his erection, he should also be exempt, for the same reason, that he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

אמר ליה אביי לעולם אימא לך המשמש מת בעריות חייב והכא מאי טעמא פטור משום דאנוס הוא והא דאמרת כי פריש מיד אמאי חייב שהיה לו לפרוש בהנאה מועטת ופירש בהנאה מרובה

Abaye said to Rava: Actually, I could say to you that one who engages in intercourse, with a flaccid penis, with those with whom relations are forbidden is liable. And here, what is the reason that one who waits and withdraws only later, after he has lost his erection, is exempt? It is because he is considered a victim of circumstances beyond his control. And concerning that which you said: Why, then, is he liable if he withdrew immediately, i.e., when you said: He should also be exempt, it is because he should have withdrawn with a flaccid penis and experienced little pleasure, but instead he withdrew with an erect organ and experienced great pleasure.

אמר ליה רבה בר חנן לאביי אם כן מצינו ארוכה וקצרה בנדה

Rabba bar Ḥanan said to Abaye: If so, according to your opinion, we find a difference in halakha between a long way and a short way with regard to a menstruating woman. If he withdrew the short way, i.e., without waiting, he has committed a transgression, and if he withdrew the long way, i.e., after waiting, he has not committed a transgression.