״וְלֹא תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם״, מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי: אַל יִשְׁתֶּה אָדָם בְּכוֹס זֶה וְיִתֵּן עֵינָיו בְּכוֹס אַחֵר. אָמַר רָבִינָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא, אֶלָּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ שְׁתֵּי נָשָׁיו.
§ The verse states: “And that you not go about after your own heart” (Numbers 15:39). 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּיוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי, אֶלָּא כֹּל מַה שֶּׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ — עוֹשֶׂה. מָשָׁל לְבָשָׂר הַבָּא מִבֵּית הַטַּבָּח, רָצָה לְאׇכְלוֹ בְּמֶלַח — אוֹכְלוֹ. צָלִי — אוֹכְלוֹ. מְבוּשָּׁל — אוֹכְלוֹ. שָׁלוּק — אוֹכְלוֹ. וְכֵן דָּג הַבָּא מִבֵּית הַצַּיָּיד.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is the statement of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. Rather, 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.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא יַחוֹדֵי הֲווֹ מְיַחֲדִי לְהוּ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ פַּת בְּסַלּוֹ לְמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ פַּת בְּסַלּוֹ.
And if you wish, say instead that these Sages were not actually proposing marriage; rather, they proposed so that they could be in seclusion with the women, without consummating the relationship. Since the women knew that the marriage would not be consummated, they did not experience anticipatory desire. There is no similarity between one who has bread in his basket and one who does not have bread in his basket. One who does not have access to bread experiences hunger more acutely than one for whom bread is available and can eat whenever he chooses. Similarly, an unmarried man experiences a more acute desire. In order to mitigate that desire, these Sages made certain that women would be designated for them.
והא אסתר פרהסיא הואי אמר אביי אסתר קרקע עולם היתה
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t the incident involving Esther, i.e., her cohabitation with Ahasuerus, a public sin? Why then did Esther not surrender her life rather than engage in intercourse? The Gemara answers: Abaye says: Esther was merely like natural ground, i.e., she was a passive participant. The obligation to surrender one’s life rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse applies only to a man who transgresses the prohibition in an active manner. A woman who is passive and merely submits is not required to give up her life so that she not sin.
לֹא תְּבַשֵּׁל בִּקְדֵירָה שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל בָּהּ חֲבֵירֶךָ. מַאי נִיהוּ — גְּרוּשָׁה בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ, דְּאָמַר מָר גָּרוּשׁ שֶׁנָּשָׂא גְּרוּשָׁהּ — אַרְבַּע דֵּעוֹת בַּמִּטָּה. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַלְמָנָה, לְפִי
Rabbi Akiva further told Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Do not cook in a pot in which your colleague cooked his food. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this statement? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Akiva is referring to marrying a divorced woman in the lifetime of her former husband. As the Master said: If a divorced man marries a divorced woman, there are four minds in the bed during intimacy. Each person thinks about his current and former spouse, which verges on illegitimacy. And if you wish, say instead that this advice holds true even with regard to marrying a widow, as
שְׁמַע אֲבוּהָ דַּאֲתָא גַּבְרָא רַבָּה לְמָתָא, אָמַר: אֵיזִיל לְגַבֵּיהּ, אֶפְשָׁר דְּמֵפַר נִדְרַאי. אֲתָא לְגַבֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדַּעְתָּא דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה מִי נְדַרְתְּ? אָמַר לוֹ: אֲפִילּוּ פֶּרֶק אֶחָד, וַאֲפִילּוּ הֲלָכָה אַחַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא הוּא. נְפַל עַל אַפֵּיהּ וְנַשְּׁקֵיהּ עַל כַּרְעֵיהּ וִיהַב לֵיהּ פַּלְגָא מָמוֹנֵיהּ. בְּרַתֵּיה דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא עֲבַדָא לֵיהּ לְבֶן עַזַּאי הָכִי. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: רְחֵילָא בָּתַר רְחֵילָא אָזְלָא, כְּעוֹבָדֵי אִמָּא כָּךְ עוֹבָדֵי בְּרַתָּא.
In the meantime her father heard that a great man came to the town. He said: I will go to him. Maybe he will nullify my vow and I will be able to support my daughter. He came to him to ask about nullifying his vow, and Rabbi Akiva said to him: Did you vow thinking that this Akiva would become a great man? He said to him: If I had believed he would know even one chapter or even one halakha I would not have been so harsh. He said to him: I am he. Ben Kalba Savua fell on his face and kissed his feet and gave him half of his money. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Akiva’s daughter did the same thing for ben Azzai, who was also a simple person, and she caused him to learn Torah in a similar way, by betrothing herself to him and sending him off to study. This explains the folk saying that people say: The ewe follows the ewe; the daughter’s actions are the same as her mother’s.
רַב גִּידֵּל הֲוָה רְגִיל דַּהֲוָה קָא אָזֵיל וְיָתֵיב אַשַּׁעֲרֵי דִטְבִילָה. אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי טְבִילוּ וְהָכִי טְבִילוּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לָא קָא מִסְתְּפֵי מָר מִיֵּצֶר הָרָע? אֲמַר לְהוּ: דָּמְיָין בְּאַפַּאי כִּי קָאקֵי חִיוָּרֵי.
It was also related about the earlier generations, that they would degrade themselves in the desire to glorify God. Rav Giddel was accustomed to go and sit at the gates of the women’s immersion sites. He said to them: Immerse yourselves in this way, and immerse yourselves in that way. The Sages said to him: Master, do you not fear the evil inclination? He said to them: In my eyes, they are comparable to white geese.
מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא אַחֵר?! אַדְּרַבָּה, אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּגוּפוֹ, אַחֵר לָאו כְּגוּפוֹ.
Rav Yosef strongly objects to this response: You say that he is permitted to recite Shema in bed with his wife, and needless to say he is permitted to do so when in bed with another. On the contrary, since his wife is like his own flesh, and he will not have lustful thoughts of her, it is permitted; another is not like his own flesh and it is prohibited.
רַב כָּהֲנָא הֲוָה פָּסֵיק סִידְרָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב. כִּי מְטָא לְהַאי קְרָא, נְגֵיד וְאִתְּנַח. אֲמַר, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּטֵל לֵיהּ חֶמְדֵּיהּ דְּרַב. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הוּא אָמַר וַיֶּהִי״ — זוֹ אִשָּׁה. ״הוּא צִוָּה וַיַּעֲמוֹד״ — אֵלּוּ בָּנִים. תָּנָא: אִשָּׁה חֵמֶת מָלֵא צוֹאָה, וּפִיהָ מָלֵא דָּם — וְהַכֹּל רָצִין אַחֲרֶיהָ.
The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana was reading biblical verses before Rav. When he got to this verse, Rav sighed. Rav Kahana said: We can derive from this that Rav’s desire has ceased. Rav Kahana also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For He spoke and it was, He commanded and it stood” (Psalms 33:9)? He understands this to mean that God created man with desires that push him to do things he would not do if he acted purely on the judgment of his intellect, and Rav Kahana therefore interprets the verse in the following manner: “For He spoke and it was”; this is a woman that a man marries. “He commanded and it stood”; these are the children who one works hard to raise. A tanna taught in a baraita: A woman is essentially a flask full of feces, a reference to the digestive system, and her mouth is full of blood, a euphemistic reference to menstruation, yet men are not deterred and they all run after her with desire.
אָמַר ר׳ יִצְחָק: טֶפַח בָּאִשָּׁה עֶרְוָה. לְמַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְאִסְתַּכּוֹלֵי בַּהּ, וְהָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לָמָּה מָנָה הַכָּתוּב תַּכְשִׁיטִין שֶׁבַּחוּץ עִם תַּכְשִׁיטִין שֶׁבִּפְנִים — לוֹמַר לָךְ כׇּל הַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה שֶׁל אִשָּׁה, כְּאִילּוּ מִסְתַּכֵּל בִּמְקוֹם הַתּוֹרֶף.
Rabbi Yitzḥak stated: An exposed handbreadth in a woman constitutes nakedness. The Gemara asks: Regarding which halakha was this said? If you say that it comes to prohibit looking at an exposed handbreadth in her, didn’t Rav Sheshet say: Why did the verse enumerate “anklets and bracelets, rings, earrings and girdles” (Numbers 31:50), jewelry that is worn externally, over her clothing, e.g., bracelets, together with jewelry worn internally, beneath her clothing, near her nakedness, e.g., girdles? This was to tell you: Anyone who gazes upon a woman’s little finger is considered as if he gazed upon her naked genitals, for if his intentions are impure, it makes no difference where he looks or how much is exposed; even less than a handbreadth.
(כב) בֶּן־אָדָ֗ם מָֽה־הַמָּשָׁ֤ל הַזֶּה֙ לָכֶ֔ם עַל־אַדְמַ֥ת יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר יַֽאַרְכוּ֙ הַיָּמִ֔ים וְאָבַ֖ד כׇּל־חָזֽוֹן׃ (כג) לָכֵ֞ן אֱמֹ֣ר אֲלֵיהֶ֗ם כֹּה־אָמַר֮ אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִה֒ הִשְׁבַּ֙תִּי֙ אֶת־הַמָּשָׁ֣ל הַזֶּ֔ה וְלֹֽא־יִמְשְׁל֥וּ אֹת֛וֹ ע֖וֹד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כִּ֚י אִם־דַּבֵּ֣ר אֲלֵיהֶ֔ם קָֽרְבוּ֙ הַיָּמִ֔ים וּדְבַ֖ר כׇּל־חָזֽוֹן׃ (כד) כִּ֠י לֹ֣א יִהְיֶ֥ה ע֛וֹד כׇּל־חֲז֥וֹן שָׁ֖וְא וּמִקְסַ֣ם חָלָ֑ק בְּת֖וֹךְ בֵּ֥ית יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
(22) O mortal, what is this proverb that you have in the land of Israel, that you say, “The days grow many and every vision comes to naught?” (23) Assuredly, say to them, Thus said the Sovereign GOD: I will put an end to this proverb; it shall not be used in Israel anymore. Speak rather to them: The days draw near, and the fulfillment of every vision. (24) For there shall no longer be any false vision or soothing divination in the House of Israel.