(א) וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע אֶת־חַוָּ֣ה אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וַתַּ֙הַר֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־קַ֔יִן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־יְהוָֽה׃
(1) Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gained a male child with the help of the LORD.”
(יז) וַיֵּ֤דַע קַ֙יִן֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וַתַּ֖הַר וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־חֲנ֑וֹךְ וַֽיְהִי֙ בֹּ֣נֶה עִ֔יר וַיִּקְרָא֙ שֵׁ֣ם הָעִ֔יר כְּשֵׁ֖ם בְּנ֥וֹ חֲנֽוֹךְ׃
(17) Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he then founded a city, and named the city after his son Enoch.
(יד) וַיֵּ֨לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֜ן בִּימֵ֣י קְצִיר־חִטִּ֗ים וַיִּמְצָ֤א דֽוּדָאִים֙ בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה וַיָּבֵ֣א אֹתָ֔ם אֶל־לֵאָ֖ה אִמּ֑וֹ וַתֹּ֤אמֶר רָחֵל֙ אֶל־לֵאָ֔ה תְּנִי־נָ֣א לִ֔י מִדּוּדָאֵ֖י בְּנֵֽךְ׃ (טו) וַתֹּ֣אמֶר לָ֗הּ הַמְעַט֙ קַחְתֵּ֣ךְ אֶת־אִישִׁ֔י וְלָקַ֕חַת גַּ֥ם אֶת־דּוּדָאֵ֖י בְּנִ֑י וַתֹּ֣אמֶר רָחֵ֗ל לָכֵן֙ יִשְׁכַּ֤ב עִמָּךְ֙ הַלַּ֔יְלָה תַּ֖חַת דּוּדָאֵ֥י בְנֵֽךְ׃ (טז) וַיָּבֹ֨א יַעֲקֹ֣ב מִן־הַשָּׂדֶה֮ בָּעֶרֶב֒ וַתֵּצֵ֨א לֵאָ֜ה לִקְרָאת֗וֹ וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֵלַ֣י תָּב֔וֹא כִּ֚י שָׂכֹ֣ר שְׂכַרְתִּ֔יךָ בְּדוּדָאֵ֖י בְּנִ֑י וַיִּשְׁכַּ֥ב עִמָּ֖הּ בַּלַּ֥יְלָה הֽוּא׃
(14) Once, at the time of the wheat harvest, Reuben came upon some mandrakes in the field and brought them to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.” (15) But she said to her, “Was it not enough for you to take away my husband, that you would also take my son’s mandrakes?” Rachel replied, “I promise, he shall lie with you tonight, in return for your son’s mandrakes.” (16) When Jacob came home from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him and said, “You are to sleep with me, for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” And he lay with her that night.
(ה) וַיְהִ֡י מֵאָז֩ הִפְקִ֨יד אֹת֜וֹ בְּבֵית֗וֹ וְעַל֙ כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ־ל֔וֹ וַיְבָ֧רֶךְ יְהוָ֛ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית הַמִּצְרִ֖י בִּגְלַ֣ל יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיְהִ֞י בִּרְכַּ֤ת יְהוָה֙ בְּכָל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ־ל֔וֹ בַּבַּ֖יִת וּבַשָּׂדֶֽה׃ (ו) וַיַּעֲזֹ֣ב כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ֮ בְּיַד־יוֹסֵף֒ וְלֹא־יָדַ֤ע אִתּוֹ֙ מְא֔וּמָה כִּ֥י אִם־הַלֶּ֖חֶם אֲשֶׁר־ה֣וּא אוֹכֵ֑ל וַיְהִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף יְפֵה־תֹ֖אַר וִיפֵ֥ה מַרְאֶֽה׃ (ז) וַיְהִ֗י אַחַר֙ הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה וַתִּשָּׂ֧א אֵֽשֶׁת־אֲדֹנָ֛יו אֶת־עֵינֶ֖יהָ אֶל־יוֹסֵ֑ף וַתֹּ֖אמֶר שִׁכְבָ֥ה עִמִּֽי׃
(5) And from the time that the Egyptian put him in charge of his household and of all that he owned, the LORD blessed his house for Joseph’s sake, so that the blessing of the LORD was upon everything that he owned, in the house and outside. (6) He left all that he had in Joseph’s hands and, with him there, he paid attention to nothing save the food that he ate. Now Joseph was well built and handsome. (7) After a time, his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said, “Lie with me.”
(כה) וְֽאִם־בַּשָּׂדֶ֞ה יִמְצָ֣א הָאִ֗ישׁ אֶת־הנער [הַֽנַּעֲרָה֙] הַמְאֹ֣רָשָׂ֔ה וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־בָּ֥הּ הָאִ֖ישׁ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וּמֵ֗ת הָאִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־שָׁכַ֥ב עִמָּ֖הּ לְבַדּֽוֹ׃ (כו) ולנער [וְלַֽנַּעֲרָה֙] לֹא־תַעֲשֶׂ֣ה דָבָ֔ר אֵ֥ין לנער [לַֽנַּעֲרָ֖ה] חֵ֣טְא מָ֑וֶת כִּ֡י כַּאֲשֶׁר֩ יָק֨וּם אִ֤ישׁ עַל־רֵעֵ֙הוּ֙ וּרְצָח֣וֹ נֶ֔פֶשׁ כֵּ֖ן הַדָּבָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה׃ (כז) כִּ֥י בַשָּׂדֶ֖ה מְצָאָ֑הּ צָעֲקָ֗ה הנער [הַֽנַּעֲרָה֙] הַמְאֹ֣רָשָׂ֔ה וְאֵ֥ין מוֹשִׁ֖יעַ לָֽהּ׃ (ס)
(25) But if the man comes upon the engaged girl in the open country, and the man lies with her by force, only the man who lay with her shall die, (26) but you shall do nothing to the girl. The girl did not incur the death penalty, for this case is like that of a man attacking another and murdering him. (27) He came upon her in the open; though the engaged girl cried for help, there was no one to save her.
And I said to my husband: What is the reason for this behavior? And he said to me: It is so that I will not set my eyes on another woman, i.e., think about another woman; if a man thinks about another woman during sexual intercourse with his wife, his children consequently come close to receiving a mamzer status, i.e., the nature of their souls is tantamount to that of a mamzer. . . . In any event, it can be seen from her words that a Sage conversed with his wife while engaging in sexual intercourse with her. . . whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may do. He may engage in sexual intercourse with her in any manner that he wishes, and need not concern himself with these restrictions. As an allegory, it is like meat that comes from the butcher. If he wants to eat it with salt, he may eat it that way. If he wants to eat it roasted, he may eat it roasted. If he wants to eat it cooked, he may eat it cooked. If he wants to eat it boiled, he may eat it boiled. And likewise with regard to fish that come from the fisherman. . . .A certain woman, who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to complain about her husband, said to him: My teacher, I set him a table, using a euphemism to say that she lay before him during intimacy, and he turned it over. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: My daughter, the Torah permitted him to engage in sexual intercourse with you even in an atypical manner, and what can I do for you if he does so? Similarly, a certain woman who came before Rav said to him: My teacher, I set a table for him and he turned it over. He said to her: In what way is this case different from a fish [binnita] that one may eat any way he wishes? . . . Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that it is derived from here that a man should not drink from this cup while setting his eyes on another cup, i.e., one should not engage in sexual intercourse with one woman while thinking about another woman. Ravina said: This statement is not necessary with regard to an unrelated woman. Rather, it is necessary only to state that even with regard to his own two wives, he should not engage in sexual intercourse with one while thinking about the other. The verse states: “And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and those that transgress against Me” (Ezekiel 20:38). Rabbi Levi said: These are children of those who have nine traits, who are defective from their conception and from whom rebels and transgressors emerge. The mnemonic for these nine traits is children of the acronym aleph, samekh, nun, tav, mem, shin, gimmel, ayin, ḥet. The children of nine traits are as follows: Children of fear [eima], i.e., where the wife was afraid of her husband and engaged in sexual intercourse with him out of fear; children of a woman who was raped [anusa]; children of a hated woman [senua], i.e., a woman who was hated by her husband; children of ostracism [niddui], i.e., one of the parents was ostracized by the court; children of substitution [temura], i.e., while engaging in intercourse with the woman, the man thought that she was another woman; children of strife [meriva], i.e., the parents engaged in intercourse while they were quarreling; children of drunkenness [shikhrut], i.e., the parents engaged in intercourse while they were drunk; children of a woman who was divorced in the heart [gerushat halev], i.e., the husband had already decided to divorce her when they engaged in intercourse; children of mixture [irbuveya], i.e., the man did not know with which woman he was engaging in intercourse; children of a shameless woman [ḥatzufa] who demands of her husband that he engage in intercourse with her. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani say that Rabbi Yonatan said: Any man whose wife demands of him that he engage in sexual intercourse with her will have children the likes of whom did not exist even in the generation of Moses our teacher? As it is stated: “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 written subsequently: “So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and well known” (Deuteronomy 1:15). And it does not say that they were understanding. Evidently, even Moses could not find understanding men in his generation.
דלא קא עביד איסורא אבל הכא דקא עביד איסורא הכי נמי דירד תני חדא אחד אילן לח ואחד אילן יבש ותניא אידך בד"א בלח אבל ביבש מותר אמר רב יהודה ל"ק כאן בשגזעו מחליף כאן בשאין גזעו מחליף גזעו מחליף יבש קרית ליה אלא לא קשיא כאן בימות החמה כאן בימות הגשמים בימות החמה הא נתרי פירי בדליכא פירי והא קא נתרי קינסי בגדודא איני והא רב איקלע לאפסטיא ואסר בגדודא רב בקעה מצא וגדר בה גדר: אמר רמי בר אבא אמר רב אסי אסור לאדם שיהלך על גבי עשבים בשבת משום שנאמר (משלי יט, ב) ואץ ברגלים חוטא תני חדא מותר לילך ע"ג עשבים בשבת ותניא אידך אסור ל"ק הא בלחים הא ביבשים ואי בעית אימא הא והא בלחים ולא קשיא כאן בימות החמה כאן בימות הגשמים ואיבעית אימא הא והא בימות החמה ול"ק הא דסיים מסאניה הא דלא סיים מסאניה ואיבעית אימא הא והא דסיים מסאניה ול"ק הא דאית ליה עוקצי הא דלית ליה עוקצי ואיבעית אימא הא והא דאית ליה עוקצי הא דאית ליה שרכא הא דלית ליה שרכא והאידנא דקיימא לן כר"ש כולהו שרי: ואמר רמי בר חמא אמר רב אסי אסור לאדם שיכוף אשתו לדבר מצוה שנאמר ואץ ברגלים חוטא וא"ר יהושע בן לוי כל הכופה אשתו לדבר מצוה הווין לו בנים שאינן מהוגנין אמר רב איקא בר חיננא מאי קראה (משלי יט, ב) גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב תניא נמי הכי גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב זה הכופה אשתו לדבר מצוה ואץ ברגלים חוטא זה הבועל ושונה איני והאמר רבא הרוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה ל"ק כאן לדעת כאן שלא לדעת: א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן כל אשה שתובעת בעלה לדבר מצוה הווין לה בנים שאפילו בדורו של משה לא היו כמותן דאילו בדורו של משה כתיב (דברים א, יג) הבו לכם אנשים חכמים ונבונים וידועים לשבטיכם וכתיב ואקח את ראשי שבטיכם אנשים חכמים וידועים ואילו נבונים לא אשכח ואילו גבי לאה כתיב (בראשית ל, טז) ותצא לאה לקראתו ותאמר אלי תבוא כי שכר שכרתיך וכתיב (דברי הימים א יב, לג) ומבני יששכר יודעי בינה לעתים לדעת מה יעשה ישראל ראשיהם מאתים וכל אחיהם על פיהם איני והאמר רב יצחק בר אבדימי עשר קללות נתקללה חוה דכתיב (בראשית ג, טז) אל האשה אמר הרבה ארבה אלו שני טפי דמים אחת דם נדה ואחת דם בתולים עצבונך זה צער גידול בנים והרונך זה צער העיבור בעצב תלדי בנים כמשמעו ואל אישך תשוקתך מלמד שהאשה משתוקקת על בעלה בשעה שיוצא לדרך והוא ימשל בך מלמד שהאשה תובעת בלב והאיש תובע בפה זו היא מדה טובה בנשים כי קאמרינן דמרציא ארצויי קמיה הני שבע הווין כי אתא רב דימי אמר עטופה כאבל ומנודה מכל אדם וחבושה בבית האסורין מאי מנודה מכל אדם אילימא משום דאסיר לה ייחוד איהו נמי אסיר ליה ייחוד אלא דאסירא לבי תרי במתניתא תנא מגדלת שער כלילית ויושבת ומשתנת מים כבהמה ונעשית כר לבעלה ואידך הני שבח הוא לה דא"ר חייא מאי דכתיב (איוב לה, יא) מלפנו מבהמות ארץ ומעוף השמים יחכמנו מלפנו מבהמות זו פרידה שכורעת ומשתנת מים ומעוף השמים יחכמנו זה תרנגול שמפייס ואחר כך בועל אמר רבי יוחנן אילמלא לא ניתנה תורה היינו למידין צניעות מחתול וגזל מנמלה ועריות מיונה דרך ארץ מתרנגול שמפייס ואחר כך בועל ומאי מפייס לה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הכי קאמר לה זביננא ליך זיגא דמטו ליך עד כרעיך לבתר הכי אמר לה לישמטתיה לכרבלתיה דההוא תרנגולא אי אית ליה ולא זביננא ליך:
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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)? 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. “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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
(לא) וַיַּ֤רְא אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וְהִנֵּה־ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם הַשִּׁשִּֽׁי׃ (פ)
(31) And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Neither sexual organs nor sexual intercourse are obscene, for how could God create something that contains an obscenity? God created man and woman, and all their organs and functions, with nothing obscene in them. We believe that God created nothing containing either ugliness or obscenity.
- Iggeret ha-Kodesh 13 C.
(ה) כִּֽי־יִקַּ֥ח אִישׁ֙ אִשָּׁ֣ה חֲדָשָׁ֔ה לֹ֤א יֵצֵא֙ בַּצָּבָ֔א וְלֹא־יַעֲבֹ֥ר עָלָ֖יו לְכָל־דָּבָ֑ר נָקִ֞י יִהְיֶ֤ה לְבֵיתוֹ֙ שָׁנָ֣ה אֶחָ֔ת וְשִׂמַּ֖ח אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֥וֹ אֲשֶׁר־לָקָֽח׃ (ס)
(5) When a man has taken a bride, he shall not go out with the army or be assigned to it for any purpose; he shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household, to give happiness to the woman he has married.
רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר שארה כסותה לפום שארה תן כסותה שלא יתן לה לא של ילדה לזקינה ולא של זקינה לילדה כסותה ועונתה לפום עונתה תן כסותה שלא יתן חדשים בימות החמה ולא שחקים בימות הגשמים: תני רב יוסף שארה זו קרוב בשר שלא ינהג בה מנהג פרסיים שמשמשין מטותיהן בלבושיהן מסייע ליה לרב הונא דאמר רב הונא האומר אי אפשי אלא אני בבגדי והיא בבגדה יוציא ונותן כתובה: רבי יהודה אומר אפילו עני שבישראל וכו': מכלל דת"ק סבר הני לא היכי דמי אי דאורחה מ"ט דת"ק דאמר לא ואי דלאו אורחה מ"ט דר"י לא צריכא כגון דאורחיה דידיה ולאו אורחה דידה ת"ק סבר כי אמרינן עולה עמו ואינה יורדת עמו הני מילי מחיים אבל לאחר מיתה לא ורבי יהודה סבר אפילו לאחר מיתה אמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא הלכה כרבי יהודה ואמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא מי שנשתטה בית דין יורדין לנכסיו וזנין ומפרנסין את אשתו ובניו ובנותיו ודבר אחר א"ל רבינא לרב אשי מ"ש מהא דתניא מי שהלך למדינת הים ואשתו תובעת מזונות בית דין יורדין לנכסיו וזנין ומפרנסין את אשתו אבל לא בניו ובנותיו ולא דבר אחר א"ל ולא שאני לך בין יוצא לדעת ליוצא שלא לדעת מאי דבר אחר רב חסדא אמר זה תכשיט רב יוסף אמר צדקה מ"ד תכשיט כ"ש צדקה מ"ד צדקה אבל תכשיט יהבינן לה דלא ניחא ליה דתינוול אמר רב חייא בר אבין אמר רב הונא מי שהלך למדינת הים ומתה אשתו ב"ד יורדין לנכסיו וקוברין אותה לפי כבודו לפי כבודו ולא לפי כבודה אימא אף לפי כבודו הא קמ"ל עולה עמו ואינה יורדת עמו ואפילו לאחר מיתה אמר רב מתנה האומר אם מתה לא תקברוה מנכסיו שומעין לו מ"ש כי אמר דנפלי נכסי קמי יתמי כי לא אמר נמי נכסי קמי יתמי רמו אלא האומר אם מת הוא לא תקברוהו מנכסיו אין שומעין לו לאו כל הימנו שיעשיר את בניו ויפיל עצמו על הציבור: מתני׳ לעולם היא ברשות האב עד שתכנס
Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says that she’era and kesuta should be interpreted as follows: In accordance with her flesh [she’era], i.e., her age, give her clothing [kesuta]. This means that he should not give the garments of a young girl to an elderly woman, nor those of an elderly woman to a young girl. Similarly, kesuta and onata are linked: In accordance with the time of year [onata], give her clothing [kesuta], meaning that he should not give new, heavy clothes in the summer, nor worn-out garments in the rainy season, i.e., the winter, when she requires heavier, warmer clothes. The entire phrase, therefore, refers only to a husband’s obligation to provide clothing for his wife. Rav Yosef taught the following baraita: “She’era,” this is referring to closeness of flesh during intercourse, which teaches that he should not treat her in the manner of Persians, who have conjugal relations in their clothes. The Gemara comments: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: With regard to one who says: I do not want to have intercourse with my wife unless I am in my clothes and she is in her clothes, he must divorce his wife and give her the payment for her marriage contract. This is in keeping with the opinion of the tanna of the baraita that the Torah mandates the intimacy of flesh during sexual relations. § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the poorest man of the Jewish people may not provide fewer than two flutes and a lamenting woman for his wife’s funeral. The Gemara infers: This proves by inference that the first, anonymous tanna cited in the mishna holds that these are not part of a husband’s obligations. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is the common custom in her family at funerals, what is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna who said that he does not have to do so? If he neglected to provide these items he would be treating her with disrespect. And if this is not the common custom in her family, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state their dispute in a case where it is the common custom for his family according to its social status, but it is not common for her family according to its social status. The first tanna holds: When we say that a woman who marries a man ascends with him, i.e., she must be treated as equal in status to her husband if his social status is higher than hers, and does not descend with him if he is from a lower social status, this applies only when they are alive, but after death the Sages did not enforce this rule. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Even after death she must be treated in accordance with his status, which means that if those in his family are mourned with flutes and lamenting women, he must provide the same for her funeral. Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Apropos this ruling, the Gemara cites another statement that Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva said: With regard to one who became insane, the court enters his property and feeds and provides a livelihood for his wife, his sons, and his daughters, and it also gives something else, as will be explained. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In what way is this case different from that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who went overseas and his wife claims sustenance, the court descends to his property and feeds and provides a livelihood for his wife, but not for his sons and daughters and does not give something else. If a father is not obligated to sustain his children in his absence, what is different about a situation where he is mad? Rav Ashi said to Ravina: Is there no difference for you between a man who leaves his responsibilities knowingly and one who leaves them unknowingly? A father who lost his sanity did not do so by his own choice, and therefore it can be assumed that he would want to provide for his children from his possessions, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. By contrast, if he went overseas he freely decided to depart, and one would think that he would leave enough for his sons and daughters. If he failed to do so, he has demonstrated that he does not want to provide for them. The Gemara asks: What is this something else mentioned in the baraita? Rav Ḥisda said: This is a wife’s ornaments, to which she is entitled in addition to her sustenance. Rav Yosef said: It is money for charity. The Gemara comments: According to the one who says that the court does not pay for a woman’s ornaments from her husband’s property if he has gone overseas, all the more so he maintains that the husband’s property is not taken for charity. Conversely, the one who says that the court does not give money for charity holds that this applies only to charity, but it does give her ornaments, as it is assumed that it is not satisfactory for him that his wife be demeaned by a lack of jewelry. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Huna said: In the case of one who went overseas and his wife died, the court enters his property and buries her in accordance with his dignity. The Gemara asks: Does the court act in accordance with his dignity and not in accordance with her dignity? What if she came from a more dignified family than her husband? The Gemara answers: Say that Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin meant: Even in accordance with his dignity, i.e., if his family was more distinguished than hers, he must bury her in accordance with the dignity of his family. The Gemara adds: This comes to teach us that she ascends with him to his social status and does not descend with him, and this principle applies even after her death, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in the mishna. Rav Mattana said: In the case of one who says that if his wife dies, they should not bury her using funds from his property, the court listens to him. The Gemara asks: What is different about the case when he says this command that induces the court to comply with his wishes? It is due to the fact that the property has come before the orphans as an inheritance, while the obligation to bury her is not incumbent upon them but is a duty of the inheritors of her marriage contract. However, even if he did not state the above preference, the property is cast before the orphans and it belongs to them. What does it matter whether or not the husband issued a command to this effect? Rather, the Gemara amends Rav Mattana’s statement: With regard to one who says that if he himself dies, they should not bury him using funds from his property, one does not listen to him, but the court spends his money without resorting to charity. The reason for this is that it is not in his power to enrich his sons by saving them this expense and to cast himself as a burden on the community. MISHNA: Even after she is betrothed, a daughter is always under her father’s authority until she enters
ענבי תאלא במים לחזזיתא ליתי שב חיטי ארזנייתא וניקלינהו אמרא חדתא ונפיק משחא מינייהו ונישוף רב שימי בר אשי עבד ליה לההוא עובד כוכבים לדבר אחר ואיתסי אמר שמואל האי מאן דמחו ליה באלונכי דפרסאי מיחייא לא חיי אדהכי והכי ניספו ליה בשרא שמינא אגומרי וחמרא חייא אפשר דחיי פורתא ומפקיד אביתיה אמר רב אידי בר אבין האי מאן דבלע זיבורא מיחייא לא חיי אדהכי והכי נשקיה רביעתא דחלא שמזג אפשר דחיי פורתא ומפקיד לביתיה א"ר יהושע בן לוי אכל בשר שור בלפת ולן בלבנה בלילי י"ד או ט"ו בתקופת תמוז אחזתו אחילו תנא והממלא כריסו מכל דבר אחזתו אחילו אמר רב פפא אפי' מתמרי פשיטא סד"א הואיל ואמר מר תמרי משבען ומשחנן ומשלשלן ומאשרן ולא מפנקן אימא לא קמ"ל מאי אחילו א"ר אלעזר אש של עצמות מאי אש של עצמות אמר אביי אש גרמי מאי אסותיה אמר אביי אמרה לי אם כולהו שקייני תלתא ושבעא ותריסר והאי עד דמתסי כולהו שקייני אליבא ריקנא והאי בתר דאכל ושתי ועייל לבית הכסא ונפיק ומשי ידיה ומייתו ליה בונא דשתיתא דטלפחי ובונא דחמרא עתיקא וניגבלינהו בהדי הדדי וניכול וניכרוך בסדיניה וניגניה וליכא דנוקמיה עד דקאי מנפשיה וכי קאי לישקליה לסדיניה מיניה ואי לא הדר עילויה אמר ליה אליהו לר' נתן אכול שליש ושתה שליש והנח שליש לכשתכעוס תעמוד על מילואך תני ר' חייא הרוצה שלא יבא לידי חולי מעיים יהא רגיל בטיבול קיץ וחורף סעודתך שהנאתך ממנה משוך ידך הימנה ואל תשהה עצמך בשעה שאתה צריך לנקביך אמר מר עוקבא האי מאן דשתי טיליא חיורא אחזתו ויתק אמר רב חסדא שיתין מיני חמרא הוו מעליא דכולהו סומקא ריחתנא גריעא דכולהו טיליא חיורא אמר רב יהודה האי מאן דיתיב בצפרני ניסן גבי נורא ושייף משחא ונפיק ויתיב בשמשא אחזתו ויתק תנו רבנן הקיז דם ושימש מטתו הוויין לו בנים ויתקין הקיזו שניהם ושימשו הוויין להן בנים בעלי ראתן אמר רב פפא לא אמרן אלא דלא טעים מידי אבל טעים מידי לית לן בה אמר רבה בר רב הונא בא מן הדרך ושימש מטתו הוויין לו בנים ויתקין תנו רבנן הבא מבית הכסא אל ישמש מטתו עד שישהה שיעור חצי מיל מפני ששד בית הכסא מלוה עמו ואם שימש הוויין לו בנים נכפים תנו רבנן המשמש מטתו מעומד אוחזתו עוית מיושב אוחזתו דלריא היא מלמעלה והוא מלמטה אוחזתו דלריא מאי דלריא אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי סם דלריא דרדרא מאי דרדרא אמר אביי מוריקא דחוחי רב פפא אליס ובלע ליה רב פפי אליס ושדי ליה אמר אביי מי שאינו בקי בדרך ארץ ליתי ג' קפיזי קורטמי דחוחי ונידוקינהו ונישליקינהו בחמרא ונישתי אמר רבי יוחנן הן הן החזירוני לנערותי: שלשה דברים מכחישים כחו של אדם ואלו הן פחד דרך ועון פחד דכתיב (תהלים לח, יא) לבי סחרחר עזבני כחי דרך דכתיב (תהלים קב, כד) ענה בדרך כחי עון דכתיב (תהלים לא, יא) כשל בעוני כחי: שלשה דברים מתיזין גופו של אדם ואלו הן אכל מעומד ושתה מעומד ושימש מטתו מעומד חמשה קרובין למיתה יותר מן החיים ואלו הן אכל ועמד שתה ועמד הקיז דם ועמד ישן ועמד שימש מטתו ועמד: ששה העושה אותן מיד מת ואלו הן הבא בדרך ונתייגע הקיז דם ונכנס לבית המרחץ ושתה ונשתכר וישן על גבי קרקע ושימש מטתו אמר רבי יוחנן והוא שעשאן כסידרן אמר אביי כסידרן מת שלא כסידרן חליש איני והא מעורת עבדה ליה לעבדה תלת מינייהו ומית ההוא כחוש הוה: שמונה רובן קשה ומיעוטן יפה ואלו הן דרך ודרך ארץ עושר ומלאכה יין ושינה חמין והקזת דם שמונה ממעטים את הזרע ואלו הן המלח והרעב והנתק בכייה ושינה על גבי קרקע וגדגדניות וכשות שלא בזמנה והקזת דם למטה כפלים תנא כשם שקשה למטה כפלים כך יפה למעלה כפלים אמר רב פפא
grapes grown by trellising the vine on a palm tree soaked in water. As a remedy for lichen planus [ḥazazita] on one’s skin, let him bring seven large wheat kernels [arzanayata] and let him roast them over a fire on the blade of a new hoe. And let him extract oil from the wheat and rub it into his skin. It is told: Rav Shimi bar Ashi used this remedy for a certain gentile who had something else, i.e., leprosy, and he was healed. Shmuel said: One who is struck with Persian spears [alunkei] will not live long afterward, as he will certainly die from this wound. In the meantime, they should force-feed him fatty meat that was roasted over coals, and undiluted wine. If they do this, it is possible that he will live for a little bit longer and have time to instruct his household with regard to what they should do after his death. Similarly, Rav Idi bar Avin said: One who swallowed a hornet will not live. In the meantime they should give him a quarter-log of sharp [shamzag] vinegar to drink. If they do this, it is possible that he will live for a little bit longer and have time to instruct his household with regard to what they should do after his death. § Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If one ate ox meat with a turnip, and slept by the light of the moon on the night of the fourteenth or the fifteenth of the month in the season of Tammuz, i.e., summer, he will be afflicted with aḥilu, a severe fever. A Sage taught: And one who fills his stomach with anything, meaning that he eats too much, will be afflicted with aḥilu. Rav Pappa said: Even if he fills his stomach with dates. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explicitly mentioned if one fills his stomach with anything. The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that since the Master said the following in praise of dates: Dates satisfy the body, warm it up, act as a laxative, strengthen the body, and do not spoil it, one might say that as dates are beneficial, he would not be harmed by eating too many. Nevertheless, it teaches us that they can also cause harm when eaten in excess. The Gemara asks: What is the affliction aḥilu mentioned here? Rabbi Elazar says: A fire of the bones. The Gemara asks: What is a fire of the bones? Abaye said: This is what is called esh garmei in Aramaic. What is its remedy? Abaye said: My mother told me that any drink consumed for medicinal purposes should be taken for either three or seven or twelve days, depending on what is necessary for that specific ailment. And if this is taken to treat aḥilu then he must drink it until he is healed. Any drink consumed for medicinal purposes should be consumed with an empty heart, i.e., without eating first. And for this disease of aḥilu he consumes the medicine after he eats and drinks and enters the bathroom, and exits and washes his hands, and they bring him a fistful of shetita, a type of food made from lentils, and a fistful of aged wine. And let him mix them together and let him eat this mixture. And let him wrap himself with his sheet and sleep. And let there be no one who will awaken him until he awakens on his own. And when he awakens let him remove the sheet from himself. And if he does not do this then the illness will return to him. § Elijah the prophet said to Rabbi Natan: Eat a third of your fill, and drink a third of your fill, and leave a third of your fill, so that when you become angry you will become full. If you do this, there will be room, as it were, for the anger. If you become angry when your stomach is full you will be harmed. Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: One who does not want to come to a situation whereby he contracts intestinal disease should become accustomed to dipping his food in wine or vinegar, both in the summer and in the winter. He also teaches: You should remove your hand, i.e., stop eating, from a meal that you enjoy so that you do not overeat. And do not delay yourself at the time when it is necessary to relieve yourself. Mar Ukva said: This one who drinks inferior white wine [tilya] will be afflicted with weakness [vitak]. Rav Ḥisda said: There are sixty types of wine. The best of them all is red, fragrant wine. The worst of them all is inferior white wine. Rav Yehuda said: This one who sits near the fire during the mornings in the month of Nisan and rubs himself with oil and then goes out and sits in the sun will be afflicted with weakness. The Sages taught: One who let blood and afterward engaged in sexual intercourse has weak children conceived from those acts of intercourse. If both of them, husband and wife, let blood and engaged in sexual intercourse they will have children afflicted with a disease known as ra’atan. Rav Pappa said: We said this only if he did not taste anything after letting blood. But if he tasted something then we have no problem with it. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: One who came back from traveling on the road and engaged in sexual intercourse immediately has weak children conceived from those acts of intercourse. The Sages taught: With regard to one who comes in from the bathroom, he should not engage in sexual intercourse until he waits the measure of time it takes to walk half a mil because the demon of the bathroom accompanies him. And if he engaged in sexual intercourse without waiting this measure of time, he has children who are epileptic. The Sages taught: One who engages in sexual intercourse while standing will be afflicted by spasms. One who engages in sexual intercourse while sitting will be afflicted with dalarya.If she, the woman, is above and he, the husband, is below during sexual intercourse, then he will be afflicted with dalarya. The Gemara asks: What is dalarya? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The remedy for dalarya is dardara. The Gemara asks: What is dardara? Abaye said: Saffron of thorns. Rav Pappa would chew [aleis] and swallow this remedy. Rav Pappi would chew and spit it out. Abaye says: As a remedy for one who is not an expert, i.e., does not have strength, in the way of the world, i.e., in sexual intercourse, let him bring three vessels [kefizei], each containing three-quarters of a log of safflower thorns. And let him grind them, and boil them in wine, and drink the mixture. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: These are the remedies that return me to my youth with regard to sexual intercourse. § Three things diminish a person’s strength, and they are: Fear, traveling on the road, and sin. The Gemara explains: Fear, as it is written: “My heart flutters, my strength fails me” (Psalms 38:11). Traveling on the road, as it is written: “He has weakened my strength on the road” (Psalms 102:24). Sin, as it is written: “My strength fails because of my sin” (Psalms 31:11). Three things break a person’s body, and they are: If he ate while standing, if he drank while standing, and if he engaged in sexual intercourse while standing. There are five actions that bring one closer to death than to life, and they are: If he ate and stood up immediately, if he drank and stood up immediately, if he let blood and stood up immediately, if he slept and stood up immediately, and if he engaged in sexual intercourse and stood up immediately. With regard to one who performs the following acts, if he performs the six of them consecutively he dies immediately, and they are: If one came back from a journey on the road and was exhausted, let blood, and entered the bathhouse, and drank and became intoxicated, and slept on the ground, and engaged in sexual intercourse, then he will die. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: But he will die for certain only in the case where he performs them in this order. Abaye said: If he performs these actions in this order he will die. But if he performs them out of order he will become weak. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t a woman named Me’oret make her slave perform three of these actions and he died as a result? The Gemara answers: That slave was weak, which is why he died. But an ordinary individual would die only upon performing all of these acts in the previously mentioned order. Eight actions are difficult for the body and the soul to handle in large amounts and are beneficial in small amounts, and they are: Traveling on the road, engaging in the way of the world, i.e., engaging in sexual intercourse, having wealth, work, drinking wine, sleep, hot water, and bloodletting. Eight actions or illnesses decrease the semen, and they are: Salt, hunger, a skin disease called netek, crying, sleeping on the ground, the melilot plant, and dodder eaten not in its time, i.e., before it is ripe. And bloodletting performed below, on the lower portion of the body, causes twice as much harm as the other actions mentioned. The Sage taught: Just as bloodletting below causes twice as much harm, so too, bloodletting above, on the upper portion of the body, is twice as effective. Rav Pappa said:
תניא אמר רבי עקיבא פעם אחת נכנסתי אחר ר' יהושע לבית הכסא ולמדתי ממנו ג' דברים למדתי שאין נפנין מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ולמדתי שאין נפרעין מעומד אלא מיושב ולמדתי שאין מקנחין בימין אלא בשמאל אמר ליה בן עזאי עד כאן העזת פניך ברבך א"ל תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך תניא בן עזאי אומר פעם אחת נכנסתי אחר רבי עקיבא לבית הכסא ולמדתי ממנו ג' דברים למדתי שאין נפנין מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ולמדתי שאין נפרעין מעומד אלא מיושב ולמדתי שאין מקנחין בימין אלא בשמאל אמר לו ר' יהודה עד כאן העזת פניך ברבך אמר לו תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך רב כהנא על גנא תותיה פורייה דרב שמעיה דשח ושחק ועשה צרכיו אמר ליה דמי פומיה דאבא כדלא שריף תבשילא א"ל כהנא הכא את פוק דלאו אורח ארעא אמר לו תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך מפני מה אין מקנחין בימין אלא בשמאל אמר רבא מפני שהתורה ניתנה בימין שנאמר (דברים לג, ב) מימינו אש דת למו רבה בר בר חנה אמר מפני שהיא קרובה לפה ור' שמעון בן לקיש אמר מפני שקושר בה תפילין רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מפני שמראה בה טעמי תורה כתנאי רבי אליעזר אומר מפני שאוכל בה ר' יהושע אומר מפני שכותב בה ר' עקיבא אומר מפני שמראה בה טעמי תורה א"ר תנחום בר חנילאי כל הצנוע בבית הכסא נצול משלשה דברים מן הנחשים ומן העקרבים ומן המזיקין ויש אומרים אף חלומותיו מיושבים עליו ההוא בית הכסא דהוה בטבריא כי הוו עיילי ביה בי תרי אפי' ביממא מתזקי רבי אמי ורבי אסי הוו עיילי ביה חד וחד לחודיה ולא מתזקי אמרי להו רבנן לא מסתפיתו אמרי להו אנן קבלה גמירינן קבלה דבית הכסא צניעותא ושתיקותא קבלה דיסורי שתיקותא ומבעי רחמי אביי מרביא ליה [אמיה] אמרא למיעל בהדיה לבית הכסא ולרביא ליה גדיא שעיר בשעיר מיחלף רבא מקמי דהוי רישא מקרקשא ליה בת רב חסדא אמגוזא בלקנא בתר דמלך עבדא ליה כוותא ומנחא ליה ידא ארישיה אמר עולא אחורי הגדר נפנה מיד ובבקעה כל זמן שמתעטש ואין חברו שומע איסי בר נתן מתני הכי אחורי הגדר כל זמן שמתעטש ואין חברו שומע ובבקעה כל זמן שאין חברו רואהו מיתיבי יוצאין מפתח בית הבד ונפנין לאחורי הגדר והן טהורין בטהרות הקלו ת"ש כמה ירחקו ויהיו טהורין כדי שיהא רואהו שאני אוכלי טהרות דאקילו בהו רבנן רב אשי אמר מאי כל זמן שאין חברו רואה דקאמר איסי בר נתן כל זמן שאין חברו רואה את פרועו אבל לדידיה חזי ליה ההוא ספדנא דנחית קמיה דרב נחמן אמר האי צנוע באורחותיו הוה א"ל רב נחמן את עיילת בהדיה לבית הכסא וידעת אי צנוע אי לא דתניא אין קורין צנוע אלא למי שצנוע בבית הכסא ורב נחמן מאי נפקא ליה מיניה משום דתניא כשם שנפרעין מן המתים כך נפרעין מן הספדנין ומן העונין אחריהן תנו רבנן איזהו צנוע זה הנפנה בלילה במקום שנפנה ביום איני והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם ינהיג אדם את עצמו שחרית וערבית כדי שלא יהא צריך להתרחק ותו רבא ביממא הוה אזיל עד מיל ובליליא א"ל לשמעיה פנו לי דוכתא ברחובה דמתא וכן אמר ליה רבי זירא לשמעיה חזי מאן דאיכא אחורי בית חבריא דבעינא למפני לא תימא במקום אלא אימא כדרך שנפנה ביום רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא במקום לא נצרכה אלא לקרן זוית גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם ינהיג אדם את עצמו שחרית וערבית כדי שלא יהא צריך להתרחק תניא נמי הכי בן עזאי אומר השכם וצא הערב וצא כדי שלא תתרחק משמש ושב ואל תשב ותמשמש שכל היושב וממשמש אפי' עושין כשפים באספמיא באין עליו ואי אנשי ויתיב ואח"כ משמש מאי תקנתיה כי קאי לימא הכי לא לי לא לי לא תחים ולא תחתים לא הני ולא מהני לא חרשי דחרשא ולא חרשי דחרשתא
It was taught in a baraita in tractate Derekh Eretz that Rabbi Akiva said: I once entered the bathroom after my teacher Rabbi Yehoshua, and I learned three things from observing his behavior: I learned that one should not defecate while facing east and west, but rather while facing north and south; I learned that one should not uncover himself while standing, but while sitting, in the interest of modesty; and I learned that one should not wipe with his right hand, but with his left. Ben Azzai, a student of Rabbi Akiva, said to him: You were impertinent to your teacher to that extent that you observed that much? He replied: It is Torah, and I must learn. Similarly, we learned in a baraita: Ben Azzai said: I once entered a bathroom after Rabbi Akiva, and I learned three things from observing his behavior: I learned that one should not defecate while facing east and west, but rather while facing north and south; I learned that one should not uncover himself while standing, but while sitting; and I learned that one should not wipe with his right hand, but with his left. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: You were impertinent to your teacher to that extent? He replied: It is Torah, and I must learn. On a similar note, the Gemara relates that Rav Kahana entered and lay beneath Rav’s bed. He heard Rav chatting and laughing with his wife, and seeing to his needs, i.e., having relations with her. Rav Kahana said to Rav: The mouth of Abba, Rav, is like one whom has never eaten a cooked dish, i.e., his behavior was lustful. Rav said to him: Kahana, you are here? Leave, as this is an undesirable mode of behavior. Rav Kahana said to him: It is Torah, and I must learn. The Gemara asks: Why must one not wipe himself with his right hand, but with his left? Rava said: Because the Torah was given with the right hand, as it is stated: “At His right hand was a fiery law unto them” (Deuteronomy 33:2). Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Because the right hand is close to the mouth, i.e., people eat with the right hand. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Because one ties the phylacteries onto his left hand with his right hand. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Because one points to the cantillation notes of the Torah with his right hand. The Gemara notes that this is parallel to a tannaitic dispute: Rabbi Eliezer says: One is forbidden to wipe himself with his right hand because he eats with it. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Because he writes with it. Rabbi Akiva says: Because he points to the notes of the Torah with it. Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai said: Anyone who is modest in the bathroom will be saved from three things: From snakes, from scorpions and from demons. And some say that even his dreams will be settling for him. The Gemara relates: There was a particular bathroom in the city of Tiberias, where, when two would enter it, even during the day, they would be harmed by demons. When Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would each enter alone, they were not harmed. The Sages said to them: Aren’t you afraid? Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi said to them: We have learned through tradition: The tradition to avoid danger in the bathroom is to conduct oneself with modesty and silence. The tradition to end suffering is with silence and prayer. Because fear of demons in bathrooms was pervasive, the Gemara relates: Abaye’s mother raised a lamb to accompany him to the bathroom. The Gemara objects: She should have raised a goat for him. The Gemara responds: A goat could be interchanged with a goat-demon. Since both the demon and the goat are called sa’ir, they were afraid to bring a goat to a place frequented by demons. Before Rava became the head of the yeshiva, his wife, the daughter of Rav Ḥisda, would rattle a nut in a copper vessel for him. This was in order to fend off demons when he was in the bathroom. After he was chosen to preside as head of the yeshiva, he required an additional degree of protection, so she constructed a window for him, opposite where he would defecate, and placed her hand upon his head. With regard to where one may or may not go to defecate, Ulla said: Behind a fence, one need not distance himself from people and may defecate immediately. In a valley or open field, one must distance himself sufficiently so that if he passes wind, no one will hear him. Isi bar Natan taught as follows: Behind a fence one must distance himself sufficiently so that if he passes wind another does not hear him, and in a valley, one must distance himself sufficiently so that no one can see him. The Gemara raises an objection based on what we learned in a mishna in Teharot: Physical laborers, who usually fall into the category of am ha’aretz and are not generally cautious with regard to the laws of ritual purity, exit from the entrance of the olive press, defecate behind the fence, and are ritually pure. There is no reason to be concerned that they might become impure in the interim. This indicates that a greater distance is unnecessary. The Gemara responds: With regard to the laws of ritual purity, they were lenient. To ensure maintenance of purity, they were lenient and did not require a greater distance. Come and hear from what we learned: How far may workers distance themselves, and the fruit and oil will remain pure? They may distance themselves only so far that he still sees him. This contradicts the opinion of Isi bar Natan, who required them to distance themselves sufficiently that they may not be seen. The Gemara responds: Those who eat in purity are different, as the Sages were lenient with them. Rav Ashi said: What is the meaning of: So long as another does not see him, which was the standard that Isi bar Natan said? Sufficient that another person cannot see his nakedness, although he does see him. The Gemara relates: There was a particular eulogizer who went to eulogize an important person in the presence of Rav Naḥman. Of the deceased, he said: This man was modest in his ways. Rav Naḥman said to him: Did you go to the bathroom with him and know whether or not he was modest? As we learned in a baraita: One can only describe as modest one who is modest even in the bathroom, when no one else is there. The Gemara asks: And what difference did it make to Rav Naḥman, that he was so insistent upon the details of whether or not this man was modest? The Gemara answers: Because it was taught in a baraita: Just as the deceased are punished, so too are the eulogizers and those who answer after them.The deceased are punished for transgressions committed in their lifetimes. The eulogizers and those who answer are punished for accepting the attribution of virtues that the deceased did not possess. The Sages taught in a baraita: Who is a modest person? One who defecates at night where he defecates during the day, i.e., who distances himself at night, in order to relieve himself, no less than he distances himself during the day. The Gemara challenges: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: One must always accustom himself to defecate in the morning and at night, when it is dark, so that he will not need to distance himself? Moreover, during the day, Rava would go up to a mil outside the city, and at night he would tell his servant: Clear a place for me in the city street. And so too, Rabbi Zeira told his servant: See who is behind the study hall, as I need to defecate. These Sages did not defecate at night in the same place where they defecated during the day. Rather, emend the statement and say as follows: In the manner that one defecates during the day, i.e. he should conduct himself at night with the same degree of modesty with which he removes his clothing when defecating during the day. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the text can remain as it was: Where he defecates during the day, it was only necessary in the case of a corner, where one may conceal himself. In the interest of modesty, he should go around the corner at night, just as he does during the day. The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One must always accustom himself to defecate early in the morning and late at night so that he will not need to distance himself. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: Ben Azzai said: Rise early in the morning and go defecate, wait for evening and go defecate, so that you will not need to distance yourself. He also said: Touch around the anus first to assist in the opening of orifices and then sit; do not sit and then touch, for anyone who sits and then touches, even if sorcery is performed in a distant place like Aspamia, the sorcery will come upon him. The Gemara says: And if one forgets and sits and then touches, what is his remedy? When he stands, he should recite the following incantation: Not for me, not for me, neither taḥim nor taḥtim, types of sorcery, neither these nor from these, neither the sorcery of a sorcerer nor the sorcery of a sorceress.
משלפו לדידה מקניא שרי קניא ממנה אסור אמר רבא ואם כלי קיואי הוא מותר אמר רב חסדא האי כישתא דירקא אי חזיא למאכל בהמה שרי לטלטולי ואי לא אסיר אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב האי תליא דבשרא שרי לטלטולי דכוורי אסיר אמר רב קטינא העומד באמצע המטה כאילו עומד בכריסה של אשה ולאו מילתא היא ואמר רב חסדא בר בי רב דזבין ירקא ליזבין אריכא כישא כי כישא ואורכא ממילא ואמר רב חסדא בר בי רב דזבין קניא ליזבין אריכא טונא כי טונא ואורכא ממילא ואמר רב חסדא בר בי רב [דלא נפישא ליה ריפתא] לא ליכול ירקא משום דגריר ואמר רב חסדא אנא לא בעניותי אכלי ירקא ולא בעתירותי אכלי ירקא בעניותי משום דגריר בעתירותי דאמינא היכא דעייל ירקא ליעול בשרא וכוורי ואמר רב חסדא בר בי רב דלא נפישא ליה ריפתא לא ליבצע בצועי ואמר רב חסדא בר בי רב דלא נפישא ליה ריפתא לא ליבצע מ"ט דלא עביד בעין יפה ואמר רב חסדא אנא מעיקרא לא הואי בצענא עד דשדאי ידי בכולי מנא ואשכחי [ביה כל צרכי] ואמר רב חסדא האי מאן דאפשר ליה למיכל נהמא דשערי ואכל דחיטי קעבר משום בל תשחית ואמר רב פפא האי מאן דאפשר למישתי שיכרא ושתי חמרא עובר משום בל תשחית ולאו מילתא היא בל תשחית דגופא עדיף ואמר רב חסדא בר בי רב דלית ליה משחא נימשי במיא דחריצי ואמר רב חסדא בר בי רב דזבין אומצא ליזבין אונקא דאית ביה תלתא מיני בישרא וא"ר חסדא בר בי רב דזבין כיתוניתא ליזבן מדנהר אבא וניחוורה כל תלתין יומין דמפטיא ליה תריסר ירחי שתא ואנא ערבא מאי כיתוניתא כיתא נאה וא"ר חסדא בר בי רב לא ליתיב אציפתא חדתא דמכליא מאניה וא"ר חסדא בר בי רב לא לישדר מאניה לאושפיזיה לחווריה ליה דלאו אורח ארעא דילמא חזי ביה מידי ואתי למגניא אמר להו רב חסדא לבנתיה תיהוי צניעתן באפי גברייכו לא תיכלון נהמא באפי גברייכו לא תיכלון ירקא בליליא לא תיכלון תמרי בליליא ולא תשתון שיכרא בליליא ולא תיפנון היכא דמפני גברייכו וכי קא קארי אבבא איניש לא תימרון מנו אלא מני נקיט מרגניתא בחדא ידיה וכורא בחדא ידיה מרגניתא אחוי להו וכורא לא אחוי להו עד דמיצטערן והדר אחוי להו: אין שולין את הכרשינין: מתני' דלא כי האי תנא דתניא ר"א בן יעקב אומר אין משגיחין בכברה כל עיקר: מתני׳ גורפין מלפני הפטם ומסלקין לצדדין מפני הרעי דברי רבי דוסא וחכמים אוסרין נוטלין מלפני בהמה זו ונותנין לפני בהמה זו בשבת: גמ׳ איבעיא להו רבנן ארישא פליגי או אסיפא פליגי או אתרוייהו פליגי ת"ש דתניא וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לא יסלקנו לצדדין אמר רב חסדא מחלוקת באיבוס של קרקע אבל באיבוס של כלי דברי הכל מותר ואיבוס של קרקע מי איכא למאן דשרי הא קא משוי גומות אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר א"ר חסדא מחלוקת באיבוס של כלי אבל באיבוס של קרקע דברי הכל אסור: ונוטלין מלפני בהמה: תנא חדא נוטלין מלפני בהמה שפיה יפה ונותנין לפני בהמה שפיה רע ותניא אידך נוטלין מלפני בהמה שפיה רע ונותנין לפני בהמה שפיה יפה אמר אביי אידי ואידי מקמי חמרא לקמי תורא שקלינן מקמי תורא לקמי חמרא לא שקלינן והא דקתני נוטל מלפני בהמה שפיה יפה בחמור דלית ליה רירי ונותנין לפני בהמה שפיה רע בפרה
to remove it from the reed upon which it is hanging is permitted; however, to remove the reed from it is prohibited. Since the reed is not a vessel, it is set-aside. Rava said: And if it is hung on a weaver’s vessel, it is permitted to remove the vessel as well. Although its primary function is for a prohibited labor, since it is a vessel, it may be moved. Rav Ḥisda said: This bundle of vegetables, if it is suitable for animal food, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat, but if not, it is prohibited to move it. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said as follows: In the case of this hook, if it is used for hanging meat, it is permitted to move it, as it is also suitable for other uses. However, if it is a hook for hanging fish, it is prohibited to move it, because it smells bad (Rabbeinu Ḥananel) and is used exclusively for fish. Rav Ketina said: One who stands on a board in the middle of a bed, it is as though he were standing on the stomach of a woman. Just as he would certainly injure the woman, he will certainly break the bed (ge’onim). The Gemara comments: And it is not a correct matter, and it is not accepted as halakha. On the topic of the bundle of vegetables, the Gemara cites additional advice on similar issues that Rav Ḥisda said to poor scholars experiencing difficulty earning a livelihood: A student of a Torah academy who buys vegetables should buy long ones. A bundle is a bundle, and they have a standard thickness at a standard price. However, the addition of length comes on its own for free. And Rav Ḥisda also said: A student of a Torah academy who buys reeds should buy long ones, since a bundle is a bundle. Bundles of reeds have a standard thickness, but the length comes on its own for free. And Rav Ḥisda further said: A student of a Torah academy who does not have much bread should not eat a vegetable, because it whets the appetite. And Rav Ḥisda said: I neither ate a vegetable in my state of poverty, nor did I eat a vegetable in my state of wealth. In my poverty, I did not eat a vegetable because it whets the appetite. In my wealth, I did not eat a vegetable because I said: Where a vegetable enters, let meat and fish enter instead. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy who does not have much bread should not cut it into thin slices; rather, he should eat what he has in one helping. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy who does not have much bread should not break it for guests. What is the reason? As he will not do so in a generous manner. And Rav Ḥisda said: Originally, I would not break bread until I placed my hand in the entire dish to assure that I found that there was enough bread to meet my needs. And Rav Ḥisda also said: One who is able to eat barley bread and nevertheless eats wheat bread violates the prohibition against wanton destruction. One who wastes resources is comparable to one who destroys items of value. And Rav Pappa said: One who is able to drink beer and nevertheless drinks wine violates the prohibition against wanton destruction. The Gemara comments: And this is not a correct matter, as the prohibition against destruction of one’s body takes precedence. It is preferable for one to care for his body by eating higher quality food than to conserve his money. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy who has no oil should wash, i.e., smear himself, with ditch water, as the scum that accumulates in it is as useful as oil. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy who buys meat should buy from the neck [unka], as there are three types of meat there. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy who buys a linen shirt [kitonita] should buy it from those who work by the river Abba, and should wash it every thirty days, so that it will last him for the twelve months of the year. And I guarantee that the shirt will remain in good shape. The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of kitonita? A fine class [kita], as fine clothing provide one entry into a well-dressed class of people. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy should not sit on a new mat, as its dampness ruins his garments. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy should not give his clothes to his host to wash for him, as that is not proper behavior, for the host might see something on it, such as signs of a seminal emission, and he will be demeaned in the eyes of his host. After citing Rav Ḥisda’s recommendations to students, the Gemara cites his advice to his daughters. Rav Ḥisda said to his daughters: Be modest before your husbands; do not eat bread before your husbands, lest you eat too much and be demeaned in their eyes. Similarly, he advised: Do not eat vegetables at night, as vegetables cause bad breath. Do not eat dates at night and do not drink beer at night, as these loosen the bowels. And do not relieve yourself in the place where your husbands relieve themselves, so that they will not be revolted by you. And when a person calls at the door seeking to enter, do not say: Who is it, in the masculine form, but rather: Who is it, in the feminine form. Avoid creating the impression that you have dealings with other men. In order to demonstrate the value of modesty to his daughters, Rav Ḥisda held a pearl in one hand and a clod of earth in the other. The pearl he showed them immediately, and the clod of earth, he did not show them until they were upset due to their curiosity, and then he showed it to them. This taught them that a concealed object is more attractive than one on display, even if it is less valuable. We learned in the mishna: One may not soak vetches in water in order to separate them from their chaff. However, one may take the straw in a sieve and place it into the trough of an animal. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: One may not look at a sieve at all on Shabbat, lest one come to violate the prohibited labor of selecting. MISHNA: One may sweep hay from before an animal that is being fattened, and one may move hay to the sides for an animal that grazes on its own in the field (Rabbeinu Ḥananel); this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis prohibit doing so. One may take hay from before this animal and place it before that animal on Shabbat. GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis, who are stringent, disagree with the first clause of Rabbi Dosa’s statement, or do they disagree with the latter clause of the mishna, or do they disagree with both clauses? Come and hear a resolution from that which was taught in a baraita. And the Rabbis say: With regard to both this, hay placed before an animal set aside for fattening, and that, hay placed before an animal that grazes on its own, one may not move it to the sides. Apparently, the Rabbis rule stringently in both cases. Rav Ḥisda said: This dispute is with regard to a trough formed in the ground; however, with regard to a trough which is a vessel, everyone agrees that it is permitted. The Gemara expresses surprise: Is there anyone who permits doing so in a trough formed in the ground? Isn’t one leveling holes and thereby performing the prohibited labors of building or plowing? Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Ḥisda said: This dispute applies only to a trough that is a vessel; however, with regard to a trough formed in the ground, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, due to the concern lest one level holes. We also learned in the mishna: One may take hay from before this animal and place it before that animal. It was taught in one baraita: One may take hay from before an animal whose mouth is fine and place it before an animal whose mouth is foul. And it was taught in another baraita: One may take hay from before an animal whose mouth is foul and place it in front of an animal whose mouth is fine. There is an apparent contradiction between the two baraitot. Abaye said: Both this baraita and that baraita hold that one may take hay from before a donkey and place it before an ox. However, one may not take hay from before an ox and place it before a donkey. The formulation of the baraitot can be explained as follows: That which was taught: One may take hay from before an animal whose mouth is fine, is referring to a donkey, and the reason the baraita says its mouth is fine is because it has no spittle. Therefore, the donkey does not dampen the remaining hay with its saliva. And the statement: And one may place it before an animal whose mouth is foul, is referring to a cow,