Niddah 32

Chapter 32

א <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר אע"פ שאמרו המשמש מטתו לאור הנר הרי זה מגונה בש"א צריכה שני עדים על כל תשמיש או תשמש לאור הנר ובה"א דיה בשני עדים כל הלילה
1 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: Although [the Sages] have said, 'He who has intercourse in the light of a lamp is contemptible',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given infra. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> Beth Shammai ruled: A woman needs two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Previously unused. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> testing-rags for every intercourse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 108, n. 16. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> or she must perform it in the light of a lamp, but Beth Hillel ruled: Two testing-rags suffice for her for the whole night.
ב תניא אמרו להם ב"ש לב"ה לדבריכם ליחוש שמא תראה טיפת דם כחרדל בביאה ראשונה ותחפנה שכבת זרע בביאה שניה
2 It was taught: Beth Shammai said to Beth Hillel, 'According to your view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is no need for a testing-rag after every act. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> is there no need to provide against the possibility that she might emit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'see'. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ג א"ל ב"ה אף לדבריכם ליחוש עד שהרוק בתוך הפה שמא נימוק והולך לו
3 a drop of blood of the size of a mustard seed in the course of the first act and this would be covered up with semen during the second act?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the test after that act would not reveal it. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> 'But', replied Beth Hillel, even according to your view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That testing-rags must be used after each act. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ד אמרו להם לפי שאינו דומה נימוק פעם אחת לנימוק שתי פעמים
4 is there no need to provide against the possibility that the spittle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a drop of blood. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> while still in the mouth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Euphemism; the uterus; i.e., during the first intercourse. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ה תניא א"ר יהושע רואה אני את דברי ב"ש אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי כמה הארכת עלינו אמר להם מוטב שאאריך עליכם בעוה"ז כדי שיאריכו ימיכם לעוה"ב
5 was crushed out of existence?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the test after that act would not reveal it. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> '[We maintain our view,] the former retorted, 'because what is crushed once is not the same as that which is crushed twice'. It was taught: R. Joshua stated, 'I approve<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'see'. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> of the view of Beth Shammai'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That testing-rags must be used after each act. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> 'Master', said his disciples to him, 'what an extension [of the restrictions] you have imposed upon us!' 'It is a good thing', he replied, 'that I should impose extensive restrictions upon you in this world in order that your days may be prolonged in the world to come. R. Zera remarked: From the words of all these authorities<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all of them', even Beth Hillel who requires only one test after the last act. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ו אמר ר' זירא מדברי כולם נלמד בעל נפש לא יבעול וישנה
6 we may infer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since intercourse is presumed lo be the possible cause of a discharge. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> that a conscientious man should not indulge in intercourse twice in succession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there was no examination after the first act. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ז רבא אמר בועל ושונה כי תניא ההיא לטהרות
7 Raba said: One may indulge in intercourse twice in succession, for that ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That each or, at least, the last intercourse must be followed by an examination. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> was taught only in respect of clean objects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. to make sure that the woman did not convey to them uncleanness when handling them. As regards intercourse, however, when a woman is in a presumptive state of cleanness no examination is necessary. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ח תניא נמי הכי בד"א לטהרות אבל לבעלה מותרת ובד"א שהניחה בחזקת טהרה אבל הניחה בחזקת טמאה לעולם היא בחזקתה עד שתאמר לו טהורה אני
8 So it was also taught: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That each or, at least, the last intercourse must be followed by an examination. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> applies only to clean objects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. to make sure that the woman did not convey to them uncleanness when handling them. As regards intercourse, however, when a woman is in a presumptive state of cleanness no examination is necessary. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> but to her husband she is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the absence of an examination. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ט א"ר אבא א"ר חייא בר אשי אמר רב בדקה בעד ואבד אסורה לשמש עד שתבדוק מתקיף לה ר' אילא אילו איתא מי לא משמשה ואע"ג דלא ידעה השתא נמי תשמש
9 This,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That as regards her husband no examination is required. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> however, applies only where he had left her in a state of presumptive cleanness, but if he left her in a state of presumptive uncleanness she is presumed to be in that state forever until she tells him, 'I am clean'. R. Abba citing R. Hiyya b. Ashi who had it from Rab ruled: If a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At night, before intercourse. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> examined herself with a testing-rag which was subsequently lost she is forbidden intercourse until she had reexamined herself. R. Ela demurred: If it had not been lost<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is'. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> would she not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the examination of the rags, according to Beth Hillel, is never to take place before the following morning and, even according to Beth Shammai, no lamp is required at night and the examination is equally postponed until the morning whenever two rags are used for each act. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
י א"ל רבא זו מוכיחה קיים וזו אין מוכיחה קיים
10 have been allowed intercourse even though she is unaware [whether there was or there was not a discharge], why then should she not now also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the rag is lost. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> be allowed intercourse? — Raba replied: In the former case her proof is in existence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it may well be examined in the morning to ascertain, regarding clean objects the woman had handled, whether she is clean or unclean. As regards intercourse too, should it be found that her uncleanness began prior to the act, she could bring a sin-offering. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יא א"ר יוחנן אסור לאדם שישמש מטתו ביום אמר רב המנונא מאי קרא שנאמר (איוב ג, ג) יאבד יום אולד בו והלילה אמר הורה גבר לילה ניתן להריון ויום לא ניתן להריון ריש לקיש אמר מהכא (משלי יט, טז) בוזה דרכיו ימות
11 but in the latter case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the rag is lost. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> her proof is not in existence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were intercourse to be allowed in such a case there would be no possible means of ascertaining the condition of the woman any more than if there had been no examination at all. Hence Rab's prohibition. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> R. Johanan stated: It is forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the day-time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis, 'said R. Hamnuna. MS.M. reads for 'Hamnuna' 'Huna'. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> What is the Scriptural proof? That it is said, Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night wherein it was said: 'A man-child is brought forth'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job III, 3. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> The night is thus set aside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'given'. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> for conception but the day is not set aside for conception. Resh Lakish stated: [The proof is] from here: But he that despiseth His ways<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. has intercourse at an improper time. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> shall die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XIX, 16. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יב ור"ל האי קרא דר' יוחנן מאי דריש ביה מבעי ליה לכדדריש רבי חנינא בר פפא דדריש ר' חנינא בר פפא אותו מלאך הממונה על ההריון לילה שמו ונוטל טפה ומעמידה לפני הקב"ה ואומר לפניו רבש"ע טפה זו מה תהא עליה גבור או חלש חכם או טיפש עשיר או עני
12 As to Resh Lakish, how does he expound R. Johanan's text?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job III, 3. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> — He requires it for the same exposition as that made by R. Hanina b. Papa. For R. Hanina b. Papa made the following exposition: The name of the angel who is in charge of conception is 'Night', and he takes up a drop and places it in the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He, saying, 'Sovereign of the universe, what shall be the fate of this drop? Shall it produce a strong man or a weak man, a wise man or a fool, a rich man or a poor man?' Whereas 'wicked man' or 'righteous one' he does not mention, in agreement with the view of R. Hanina. For R. Hanina stated: Everything is in the hands of heaven except the fear of God, as it is said, And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. X, 12. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> And R. Johanan?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Job III, 3 is required for the exposition of R. Hanina, whence does he derive his rulings? ');"><sup>31</sup></span> — If that were the only meaning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if so'. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> Scripture should have written,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As E.V. in fact renders the Heb. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> 'A man-child is brought forth'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the word gaber (male-child) should have preceded horoh (brought forth). ');"><sup>34</sup></span>
יג ואילו רשע או צדיק לא קאמר כדר' חנינא דא"ר חנינא הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים שנאמר (דברים י, יב) ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלהיך שואל מעמך כי אם ליראה וגו'
13 why then was it stated, 'was brought forth a man-child'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Horoh (cf. prev. n.) preceding gaber and thus standing close to the word 'night'. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> To indicate that the night<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> is set aside for conception<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> but the day is not set aside for conception. As to R. Johanan how does he expound the text of Resh Lakish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XIX, 16. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יד ור' יוחנן א"כ נכתוב קרא גבר הורה מאי הורה גבר לילה ניתן להריון ויום לא ניתן להריון
14 — He requires it for [an application to the same types] as those described in the Book of Ben Sira:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ecclesiasticus XXI, 23. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> 'There are three [types] that I hate, yea, four that I do not love: A Scholar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'chief'. ');"><sup>38</sup></span>
טו ור' יוחנן האי קרא דר"ל מאי דריש ביה מבעי לי' לכדכתיב בספר בן סירא שלשה שנאתי וארבעה לא אהבתי שר הנרגל בבית המשתאות ואמרי לה שר הנרגן ואמרי לה שר הנרגז
15 who frequents wine-shops<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a house of drinkings'. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> [or, as others say, a scholar that is a gossip],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. in parenthesis insert 'and others say, an excitable scholar'. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> a person who sets up a college in the high parts of a town,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A manifestation of arrogance. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> one who holds the membrum when making water and one who enters his friend's house suddenly'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was to types like these that Prov. XIX, 16 alluded. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> R. Johanan observed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not only 'his friend's house'. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> Even his own house.
טז והמושיב שבת במרומי קרת והאוחז באמה ומשתין מים והנכנס לבית חבירו פתאום אמר רבי יוחנן ואפילו לביתו
16 R. Simeon b. Yohai observed: There are four [types]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'things'. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> which the Holy One, blessed be He, hates, and as for me, I do not love them: The man who enters his house suddenly and much more so [if he so enters] his friend's house, the man who holds the membrum when he makes water,
יז אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחאי ארבעה דברים הקב"ה שונאן ואני איני אוהבן הנכנס לביתו פתאום ואצ"ל לבית חבירו והאוחז באמה ומשתין מים
17 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter