Yevamot 34b:1יבמות ל״ד ב:א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Yevamot 34b:1"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
34bל״ד ב

והא תמר בביאה ראשונה איעברא א"ל תמר באצבע מעכה דאמר רבי יצחק כל מועכות של בית רבי תמר שמן ולמה נקרא שמן תמר ע"ש תמר שמעכה באצבעה והא הוו ער ואונן ער ואונן שמשו שלא כדרכן

But didn’t Tamar become pregnant from the first act of intercourse, despite the fact that she was a virgin at the time of her sexual act with Judah? Rav Naḥman said: Tamar broke her hymen with her finger prior to intercourse, and it is due to this that she became pregnant from the first act of intercourse, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said: All of those women from the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who break their hymens are named Tamar by nickname. And why are they named Tamar? They are called this on account of Tamar, who broke her hymen with her finger. The Gemara wonders about the proof from Tamar itself: But weren’t there Er and Onan, her previous husbands, who presumably engaged in sexual intercourse with her? The Gemara responds: Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and therefore she was still a virgin.

מיתיבי כל עשרים וארבעה חדש דש מבפנים וזורה מבחוץ דברי ר' אליעזר א"ל הללו אינו אלא כמעשה ער ואונן

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta (Nidda 5:6): After a woman gives birth, her husband penetrates inside and spills his semen outside for the entire twenty-four months during which the baby is breastfeeding, so that his wife not become pregnant, as that would terminate her milk production and the child might die. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. They said to him: These acts are nothing other than acts similar to those of Er and Onan, which are prohibited. Regardless, it can be deduced from here that Er and Onan engaged in normative sexual intercourse with Tamar, only they did not fully complete the sexual act.

כמעשה ער ואונן ולא כמעשה ער ואונן כמעשה ער ואונן דכתיב (בראשית לח, ט) והיה אם בא אל אשת אחיו ושחת ארצה ולא כמעשה ער ואונן דאילו התם שלא כדרכה והכא כדרכה

The Gemara answers: The Tosefta actually means that what they did was similar to the act of Er and Onan in some ways, but not similar to the act of Er and Onan in other ways. The Gemara elaborates: It was similar to the act of Er and Onan in that there was a spilling of semen, as it is written: “And it came to pass when he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground” (Genesis 38:9). Yet it was not similar to the act of Er and Onan, as there Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, while here the Tosefta is referring to sexual intercourse in a typical manner.

בשלמא אונן דכתיב ביה ושחת ארצה אלא ער מנלן אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דכתיב (בראשית לח, י) וימת גם אותו אף הוא באותו מיתה מת בשלמא אונן משום לא לו יהיה הזרע אלא ער מ"ט עבד הכי כדי שלא תתעבר ויכחיש יפיה

The Gemara continues to clarify what took place: Granted, Onan engaged in unnatural sexual intercourse with her, as it is written with regard to his act: “That he spilled it on the ground” (Genesis 38:9). However, from where do we derive that Er engaged in unnatural sexual intercourse with her? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: As it is written with regard to Onan: “And He slew him also” (Genesis 38:10). This indicates that he, too, died the same death for performing the same transgression as his brother. The Gemara asks: Granted, Onan engaged in anal intercourse because he did not want Tamar to give birth as “he knew that the seed would not be his” (Genesis 38:9). However, with regard to Er, what is the reason he acted in this way? The Gemara responds: He did so in order that she not become pregnant and become less beautiful as a result of her pregnancy.

ת"ר (ויקרא טו, כד) אותה פרט לכלה דברי רבי יהודה וחכ"א פרט לשלא כדרכה אמר ליה הון בריה דרב נחמן לרב נחמן לימא קא סבר רבי יהודה התורה חסה על תכשיטי כלה אמר ליה לפי שאין אשה מתעברת מביאה ראשונה

The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the woman, with whom a man shall lie giving seed, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening” (Leviticus 15:18). The extra term “with whom” comes to exclude a bride who does not become ritually impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: It excludes the case of sexual intercourse performed in an atypical manner. Hon, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Naḥman: Shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda holds: The Torah spared a bride’s adornments, including her make-up, and therefore exempted her from submersion in water, as that might cause them ruin? Rav Naḥman said to him: That is not the reason. Rather, it is because a woman does not become pregnant from the first act of intercourse. Therefore, that act of intercourse would not cause ritual impurity, as it is not considered intercourse that can result in the implanting of seed.

במאי קמיפלגי רבנן סברי שכבת זרע פרט להעראה אותה פרט לשלא כדרכה ורבי יהודה סבר שלא כדרכה והעראה משכבת זרע נפקא אותה פרט לכלה

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree? The Rabbis hold that the phrase “giving seed” excludes the initial stage of intercourse, during which there is no emission of semen. And the extra phrase “with whom” excludes intercourse that is performed in an atypical way. Rabbi Yehuda, on the other hand, holds that the exclusion of both atypical sexual intercourse and the initial stage of intercourse were derived from the phrase “giving seed,” as neither of these are sexual acts that might bring about the birth of a seed, i.e., a child. The phrase “with whom” then excludes a bride.

כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן כל ששהתה אחר בעלה עשר שנים ונשאת שוב אינה יולדת אמר רב נחמן לא שנו אלא שאין דעתה להנשא אבל דעתה להנשא מתעברת אמר ליה רבא לבת רב חסדא קא מרנני רבנן אבתריך אמרה ליה אנא דעתאי עלך הואי

On the topic of intercourse that cannot result in conception, the Gemara relates the following: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Any woman who waits after her husband has died or divorced her for ten years without intercourse and is then married can no longer bear children. Rav Naḥman said: They taught this principle only with regard to cases where she did not intend to get married at a later time, but if she intended to get married at some point, she can become pregnant later on. Rava said to his wife, the daughter of Rav Ḥisda: The Sages are gossiping about you. From the time she was widowed from her first husband until the time that she was married to Rava, more than ten years passed, yet she bore him children. It seemed as though she had engaged in intercourse in the meantime. She said to him: My mind was on you. Indeed, it is told that already as a young girl she prophesized that she would marry Rava.

ההיא דאתיא לקמיה דרב יוסף אמרה לו ר' אנא שהיתי אחר בעלי עשר שנים וילדתי א"ל בתי אל תוציאי לעז על דברי חכמים אמרה ליה לנכרי נבעלתי

The Gemara relates: A certain woman who came before Rav Yosef said to him: My teacher, I waited after my husband’s death for ten years, and nevertheless I gave birth. He said to her: My daughter, do not cast aspersions on the statement of the Sages. She said to him in confession: I had sexual intercourse with a gentile during those ten years.

אמר שמואל וכולן צריכות להמתין שלשה חדשים חוץ מגיורת ומשוחררת קטנה אבל קטנה בת ישראל צריכה להמתין ג' חדשים

§ Shmuel said: And all of those women who had sexual intercourse, and there is therefore a concern that they might be pregnant, must wait three months before marrying so as to differentiate between a child born from the previous intercourse and a child born from this marriage, except for a female convert who is a minor and a female released slave who is a minor. Although it is possible that they had sexual intercourse, they cannot become pregnant in any case. However, a female Israelite who was a minor and had intercourse must wait three months like all other women.

ובמאי אי במיאון והאמר שמואל דלא בעיא ואי בגט האמרה שמואל חדא זימנא דאמר שמואל מיאנה בו אינה צריכה להמתין שלשה חדשים נתן לה גט צריכה להמתין שלשה חדשים אלא בזנות

The Gemara asks: And with regard to what situation is this statement referring? If it is referring to a minor who was released from her marriage by refusal, as a minor girl who was married to a man by her mother or brothers may refuse to remain married to her husband until reaching majority, but didn’t Shmuel say that she is not required to wait three months? And if it is referring to a woman who received a bill of divorce as a minor, didn’t Shmuel already state this halakha one time? Why would he repeat this ruling, as Shmuel said: A female minor who refused her husband need not wait three months before her second marriage, but if he gave her a bill of divorce, she must wait three months, so as not to make a distinction between an adult divorcée and a minor divorcée. Rather, it must be that this is referring to a female minor who was involved in licentious sexual intercourse.