נשים מתחפשות

Sit properly and do not act in a revolting manner. Satan then said to him: Give me a cup. They gave him a cup. He coughed up his phlegm and spat it into the cup. They berated him for acting this way, at which point Satan pretended to sink down and die. They heard people around them saying: Peleimu killed a man! Peleimu killed a man! Peleimu fled and hid himself in the bathroom. Satan followed him and fell before him. Upon seeing that Peleimu was suffering, he revealed himself to him. Satan said to him: What is the reason that you spoke this way, provoking me by saying: An arrow in the eye of Satan? He replied: But what then should I say? Satan said to him: Let the Master, i.e., Peleimu, say: Let the Merciful One rebuke the Satan. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi was accustomed to say, whenever he would fall on his face in prayer: May the Merciful One save us from the evil inclination. One day his wife heard him saying this prayer. She said: After all, it has been several years since he has withdrawn from engaging in intercourse with me due to his advanced years. What is the reason that he says this prayer, as there is no concern that he will engage in sinful sexual behavior? One day, while he was studying in his garden, she adorned herself and repeatedly walked past him. He said: Who are you? She said: I am Ḥaruta, a well-known prostitute, returning from my day at work. He propositioned her. She said to him: Give me that pomegranate from the top of the tree as payment. He leapt up, went, and brought it to her, and they engaged in intercourse. When he came home, his wife was lighting a fire in the oven. He went and sat inside it. She said to him: What is this? He said to her: Such and such an incident occurred; he told her that he engaged in intercourse with a prostitute. She said to him: It was I. He paid no attention to her, thinking she was merely trying to comfort him, until she gave him signs that it was indeed she. He said to her: I, in any event, intended to transgress. The Gemara relates: All the days of that righteous man he would fast for the transgression he intended to commit, until he died by that death in his misery. The Gemara explains the source that one who intended to transgress is punished even though he did not actually sin. As it is taught in a baraita concerning a husband who nullified the vow of his wife: “Her husband has made them null; and the Lord will forgive her” (Numbers 30:13). With regard to what case is the verse speaking? Why would the woman require forgiveness if her husband has nullified her vow? It is referring to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and her husband heard and nullified her vow. And she did not know that her husband had nullified her vow, and she drank wine and contracted impurity from a corpse, violating her presumed vow. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Akiva came to this verse he would cry. He said: And if with regard to one who intended to eat pork, and kosher lamb came up in his hand, like this woman who intended to violate her vow but in fact did not, the Torah nevertheless says: She requires atonement and forgiveness, all the more so does one who intended to eat pork and pork came up in his hand require atonement and forgiveness. In a similar manner, you can say that the same lesson can be derived from the verse: “Though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17). When Rabbi Akiva came to this verse he would cry. He said: And if with regard to one who intended to eat permitted fat, and forbidden fat mistakenly came up in his hand, the Torah states: “Though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity,” all the more so is this true for one who intended to eat forbidden fat and forbidden fat came up in his hand. Isi ben Yehuda says with regard to the verse “Though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity”: With regard to this matter all sufferers shall grieve, since the verse teaches that one is punished even for sinning unawares. § The mishna teaches that a man may be secluded with his mother. Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: A man may be secluded with his sister, and live with his mother or with his daughter in a permanent arrangement, without concern. When he said this before Shmuel, the latter said: It is prohibited to be secluded with all those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah, and even with an animal, as it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with an animal as well. We learned in the mishna: A man may be secluded with his mother, and with his daughter, and sleep alongside them with bodily contact, and this appears to be a conclusive refutation of the statement of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: And according to your reasoning, how should one explain that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to his sister, and his mother-in-law, and all those with whom relations are forbidden, including his mother and daughter, one may be secluded with them only in the presence of witnesses, from which it can be inferred: In the presence of witnesses, yes; without the presence of witnesses, no. This baraita supports the opinion of Shmuel that one may not be secluded with his mother or sister. Rather, it is a dispute between tanna’im as to whether one may be secluded with his mother or sister. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir said: Be careful with me because of my daughter, i.e., make sure I am not left secluded with her. Similarly, Rabbi Tarfon said: Be careful with me because of my daughter-in-law. A certain student mocked him for being wary of the possibility of sinning with his daughter-in-law. Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Not many days passed until that student stumbled into sin with his mother-in-law. The Gemara stated that according to Shmuel it is prohibited for one to be alone even with an animal. The Gemara relates: Abaye removed the animals from the entire field he was in. Rav Sheshet transferred the animals to the other side of the fence. Rav Ḥanan from Neharde’a happened to come to Rav Kahana in Pum Nahara. He saw that he was sitting and studying, and an animal was standing before him. Rav Ḥanan said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold that one may not be secluded even with an animal? Rav Kahana said to him: It did not enter my mind that an animal was before me. Rava says: A man may be secluded with two sisters-in-law and with two rival wives, i.e., two women who share a husband; with a woman and her mother-in-law; and with a woman and her husband’s daughter. Since these women typically dislike each other, each fears that the other will publicize her sins, and they will be careful not to transgress. Similarly, a man may be secluded with a woman and a girl who knows the meaning of sexual intercourse, i.e., one who is old enough to understand the nature of intercourse, but is still young enough that she does not submit herself to intercourse, since she does not yet desire it. In such a situation, the woman is concerned that the child will reveal her behavior. § The mishna teaches that when one’s children have grown up, this one sleeps in his garment and that one sleeps in her garment, but they may share a bed. The Gemara asks: And how old must a child be to be considered grown up for the purposes of this halakha? Rav Adda bar Rav Azza says that Rav Asi says: A girl must reach the age of nine years and one day; a boy must reach the age of twelve years and one day. There are those who say: A girl must reach the age of twelve years and one day; a boy must reach the age of thirteen years and one day. And according to this and that, according to both opinions, the girl is considered a child until she has reached the stage of: “Your breasts were fashioned, and your hair was grown” (Ezekiel 16:7), meaning the onset of puberty. Rafram bar Pappa says that Rav Ḥisda says: They taught that a man may sleep in close proximity to his minor daughter only if she is not ashamed to stand naked before him, but if she is ashamed to stand naked before him, it is prohibited for him to sleep close to her, regardless of her age. What is the reason? It is that the inclination has a hold upon her, as otherwise she would not be ashamed. The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥa bar Abba arrived at the house of Rav Ḥisda, his son-in-law. He took his daughter’s daughter and placed her on his lap. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Doesn’t the Master think that she might already be betrothed? Rav Aḥa said to him: If that is true, you have transgressed the ruling of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say it was said by Rabbi Elazar: It is prohibited for a man to betroth his daughter when she is a minor, until she grows up and says: I want to marry so-and-so, as otherwise she might reject the designated husband and ultimately sin by committing adultery. Rav Ḥisda replied: The Master has likewise transgressed the words of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: One may not make use of a woman, so how can you hold her on your lap? He said to him: I hold in accordance with another statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says:

The Gemara addresses another case in which the court forces a man to divorce his wife who has not had children after ten years. If he said: You miscarried within the ten years of our marriage, and since less than ten years have elapsed since that time he should not have to divorce her, and she said: I did not miscarry, Rabbi Ami said: Even in this case she is believed, because if it is so that she miscarried she would not establish herself as barren through denying his claim. If she miscarried, and then miscarried again, and miscarried again, she has been established to be a woman who is prone to miscarriages, and her husband must divorce her so that he can have children with another woman. If he said she miscarried twice, and she said it occurred three times, Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar said: There was an incident of this kind that was adjudicated in the study hall and they said that she is believed, because if it is so that she had not miscarried a third time she would not establish herself as one who is prone to miscarriages. MISHNA: A man is commanded with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but not a woman. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that a woman is also commanded, as the verse states with regard to both of them: “And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). GEMARA: From where are these matters derived, that a woman is not obligated in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the land and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28). It is the manner of a man to conquer and it is not the manner of a woman to conquer. Consequently, it is evident that the entire command, including the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, was given only to men and not to women. The Gemara raises a difficulty. On the contrary, the plural term: “And conquer it [vekhivshuha],” indicates that the two of them are included. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is written in the Torah without the letter vav, so that it can be read: And conquer it [vekhivsha], in the singular. Rav Yosef said: The proof is from here: “And God said to him: I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply [perei urvei]” (Genesis 35:11), which is in singular, and it does not state: Be fruitful and multiply [peru urvu] in the plural. The Gemara cites other statements made by Rabbi Ile’a in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Just as it is a mitzva for a person to say that which will be heeded, so is it a mitzva for a person not to say that which will not be heeded. One should not rebuke those who will be unreceptive to his message. Rabbi Abba says: It is obligatory for him to refrain from speaking, as it is stated: “Do not reprove a scorner lest he hate you; reprove a wise man and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8). And Rabbi Ile’a further said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: It is permitted for a person to depart from the truth in a matter that will bring peace, as it is stated: “Your father commanded before he died, saying: So you shall say to Joseph: Please pardon your brothers’ crime, etc.” (Genesis 50:16–17). Jacob never issued this command, but his sons falsely attributed this statement to him in order to preserve peace between them and Joseph. Rabbi Natan says: It is a mitzva to depart from the truth in order to preserve peace, as it is stated: “And Samuel said: How can I go, and Saul will hear and kill me” (I Samuel 16:2). God responded in the next verse that Samuel should say he went to sacrifice an offering, indicating that God commands one to lie in order to preserve peace. It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Great is peace, as even the Holy One, Blessed be He, departed from the truth for it. As, initially it is written that Sarah said of Abraham: “And my lord is old” (Genesis 18:12), and in the end it is written that God told Abraham that Sarah said: “And I am old” (Genesis 18:13). God adjusted Sarah’s words in order to spare Abraham hurt feelings that might lead Abraham and Sarah to quarrel. § It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that women are also included in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. It was stated that two amora’im, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, disagreed concerning this matter. One said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and one said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. The Gemara comments: Conclude that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as Rabbi Abbahu sat and said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, who were sitting across from him, turned their faces as an indication that they disagreed with this report of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, but did not want to explicitly contradict Rabbi Abbahu’s statement out of respect for him. And some say a different version of the incident, that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said this statement, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces. Rav Pappa said: Granted, according to the one who said that Rabbi Abbahu said it, it makes sense that due to the honor of Caesar’s court, where Rabbi Abbahu maintained close ties, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not say anything to him and merely hinted at their disagreement. However, according to the one who said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said it, let them say to him explicitly: Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say this. In any event, it is clear that according to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this issue? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Asi said: There was an incident that came before Rabbi Yoḥanan in the synagogue of Caesarea involving a woman who wanted a divorce from her husband after ten years of childless marriage, and he said that the husband must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract. If it enters your mind to say that she is not commanded to be fruitful and multiply, what is payment for a marriage contract doing here? Why does she have a right to demand to be divorced and to receive the payment for her marriage contract? The Gemara responds: Perhaps that was in a case when she came to demand a divorce due to another claim, i.e., she wanted children for a reason other than the fulfillment of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Since this claim has merit, her husband must divorce her and pay her marriage contract. This is like the case of a certain woman who came before Rabbi Ami and requested a divorce due to her husband’s inability to father children. She said to her husband: Give me the payment for my marriage contract. He said to her: Go away, as you are not commanded to be fruitful and multiply and have no right to demand a divorce. She said to him: In her old age, what will be with this woman, i.e., if I have no children, who will take care of me when I grow old? Rabbi Ami said: In a situation such as this, we certainly force the husband to divorce and her and pay her marriage contract. The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain woman came before Rav Naḥman and requested a divorce due to her husband’s inability to father children. He said to her: You are not commanded to be fruitful and multiply. She said to him: Does this woman not require a staff for her hand and a hoe for her burial? In other words, the woman said that she wanted children so that they could care for her in her old age and bury her when she would die. Rav Naḥman said: In a case such as this, we certainly force the husband to divorce her. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya’s sons, Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, were twins, but one of them was fully developed after nine months of pregnancy and one was fully developed at the beginning of the seventh month, and they were born two months apart. Yehudit, the wife of Rabbi Ḥiyya, had acute birthing pain from these unusual deliveries. She changed her clothes to prevent Rabbi Ḥiyya from recognizing her and came before Rabbi Ḥiyya to ask him a halakhic question. She said: Is a woman commanded to be fruitful and multiply? He said to her: No. She went and drank an infertility potion. Eventually the matter was revealed, and Rabbi Ḥiyya found out about what Yehudit had done. He said to her: If only you had given birth to one more belly for me, i.e., another set of twins. As the Master said: Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya were twin brothers and became prominent Torah scholars, and Pazi and Tavi, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s daughters,