Shevuot 36

ואנן במקדש תנן אלא משום דלא דמי ארוכה דהכא קצרה דהתם וארוכה דהתם קצרה דהכא

Whereas we learnt [this distinction, only] in the case of the Temple!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If this distinction holds good also in the case of a menstruous woman, why does not the Mishnah mention it?');">¹</span> - They are not the same:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And are therefore not mentioned in the MISHNAH:');">²</span>

מתקיף לה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן ומי אמר אביי אנוס הוא אלמא בשלא סמוך לוסתה קאמרינן והא אביי דאמר חייב שתים אלמא בסמוך לוסתה עסקינן

the longer route here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a menstruous woman, exempts him, as does the shorter route in the Temple.');">³</span> is as the shorter route there; and the longer route there is as the shorter route here.

כי איתמר דאביי בעלמא איתמר

R'Huna son of R'Nathan raised an objection: Did Abaye then say that he had no alternative;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he withdraws when it is passive, he is exempt, because he has no alternative.');">⁴</span> from which we deduce that we are discussing the time not near her period;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if he cohabited near the time of her period he should have realised that there is a possibility that she might become unclean; and he is liable for withdrawing even when passive, for Abaye holds that he who cohabits with membrum mortuum is also liable. (V. supra 18a.) Only if he cohabits not near the time of her period is he exempt if he withdraws when passive, with membrum mortuum, for he has no other alternative, and is not to be blamed for cohabiting then.');">⁵</span>

בעא מיניה רבי יונתן בן יוסי בן לקוניא מרבי שמעון בן יוסי בן לקוניא אזהרה לבועל נדה מנין מן התורה שקל קלא פתק ביה אזהרה לבועל נדה (ויקרא יח, יט) ואל אשה בנדת טומאתה לא תקרב

surely, it was Abaye who said that he is liable to bring two;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 17b; one for entering, and one for withdrawing.');">⁶</span> from which we deduced that it refers to the time near her period!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 18a.');">⁷</span>

אלא אזהרה למשמש עם הטהורה ואמרה לו נטמאתי דלא ניפריש מיד מנלן אמר חזקיה אמר קרא (ויקרא טו, כד) ותהי נדתה עליו אפי' בשעת נדתה תהא עליו

- Abaye's statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he is liable to bring two, was not made with reference to our MISHNAH: Abaye explains our Mishnah, which differentiates between withdrawing with virile member and passive, as referring to cohabitation not near the time of her period when, in entering, he is completely innocent, and in withdrawing forthwith is liable to bring a sin offering (not two) , because he could have withdrawn with member passive with less pleasure. Abaye's statement that he brings two offerings does not refer to our Mishnah, but to a case where he cohabits with a clean woman near the time of her period, and she tells him during cohabitation that she has become unclean. In this case he brings two offerings, one for entering, and one for withdrawing, even passive, for Abaye holds that in this case, there is no difference how he withdrew, since he is not entirely blameless, for he should have foreseen that she might become unclean during cohabitation.');">⁸</span> was made elsewhere.

אשכחן עשה לא תעשה מנלן אמר רב פפא אמר קרא לא תקרב לא תקרב נמי לא תפרוש הוא דכתיב (ישעיהו סה, ה) האומרים קרב אליך אל תגש בי כי קדשתיך

R'Jonathan B'Jose B'Lekunia enquired of R'Simeon B'Jose B'Lekunia: Where is the prohibition in the Torah against intercourse with a menstruous woman? - He took a clod, and threw it at him. Prohibition against intercourse with a menstruant! And into a woman who is impure by her uncleanness thou shalt not approach!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 19.');">⁹</span>

ת"ר (ויקרא טו, לא) והזרתם את בני ישראל מטומאתם אמר רבי יאשיה מיכן אזהרה לבני ישראל שיפרשו מנשותיהן סמוך לוסתן וכמה אמר רבה עונה

- Well then, [I meant to ask] where do we find the warning that he who cohabits with a clean woman, and she says to him, 'I have become unclean'; he should not withdraw immediately? - Hezekiah said, Scripture says: [And if any man lie with her (a menstruous woman) ] her impurity shall be with him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XV, 24.');">¹⁰</span> - even at the time of her impurity she shall be 'with him'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he must not withdraw immediately.');">¹¹</span>

א"ר יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי כל שאינו פורש מאשתו סמוך לוסתה אפילו הויין לו בנים כבני אהרן מתים דכתיב והזרתם את בני ישראל מטומאתם והדוה בנדתה וסמיך ליה אחרי מות

Hence, we have a positive precept; whence do we derive a negative precept? - R'Papa said, Scripture says: Thou shalt not approach [unto a woman who is impure];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 19. cre, tk');">¹²</span> thou shalt not approach means also, thou shalt not withdraw; for it is written: Who say, Approach to thyself, come not near me, for I am holier than thou.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. LXV, 5; in Lev. XVIII, 19, may, therefore, mean: thou shalt not approach to thyself, i.e., thou shalt not withdraw.');">¹³</span>

אמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן כל הפורש מאשתו סמוך לוסתה הויין לו בנים זכרים דכתיב (ויקרא יא, מז) להבדיל בין הטמא ובין הטהור וסמיך ליה אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר הויין לו בנים ראויין להוראה דכתיב (ויקרא י, י) להבדיל ולהורות

Our Rabbis taught: Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 31.');">¹⁴</span> R'Josiah said: From this we deduce a warning to the children of Israel that they should separate from their wives near their periods.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן כל המבדיל על היין במוצאי שבתות הויין לו בנים זכרים דכתיב להבדיל בין הקדש ובין החול וכתיב התם להבדיל בין הטמא ובין הטהור וסמיך ליה אשה כי תזריע רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר בנים ראוין להוראה דכתיב להבדיל ולהורות

And how long before? Rabbah said: One 'onah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A period of time (with special reference to marital duty) : the whole day or the whole night. If her period comes during the day, he must separate from the beginning of the day; if during the night, from the beginning of the night.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר כל המקדש את עצמו בשעת תשמיש הויין לו בנים זכרים שנאמר (ויקרא יא, מד) והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים וסמיך ליה אשה כי תזריע:

R'Johanan said in the name of R'Simeon B'Yohai: He who does not separate from his wife near her period, then even if he has sons like the sons of Aaron, they will die, even as it is written: Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness,'. .<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 31.');">¹⁶</span>

רבי אליעזר אומר השרץ ונעלם ממנו כו': מאי בינייהו

[this is the law.] of her that is sick with impurity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 33.');">¹⁷</span> and next to it: [And the Lord spoke unto Moses] after the death [of the two sons of Aaron].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVI, 1. He takes the sequence and contiguity of the verses to imply that if a man does not separate from 'her that is sick with her impurity', his sons will die, even as the sons of Aaron died.');">¹⁸</span>

אמר חזקיה שרץ ונבלה איכא בינייהו ר' אליעזר סבר בעינן עד דידע אי בשרץ איטמי אי בנבלה איטמי ורבי עקיבא סבר לא בעינן עד דידע דכיון דידע דאיטמא בעולם לא צריך אי בשרץ איטמי אי בנבלה איטמי

R'Hiyya B'Abba said that R'Johanan said: He who separates from his wife near her period will have male children, even as it is written: To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 47.');">¹⁹</span> and next to it: If a woman conceive and bear a male child.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII, 2.');">²⁰</span>

וכן אמר עולא שרץ ונבלה איכא בינייהו דעולא רמי דרבי אליעזר אדרבי אליעזר ומשני מי א"ר אליעזר בעינן עד דידע אי בשרץ איטמי אי בנבלה איטמי

R'Joshua B'Levi said: He will have sons worthy to be teachers, for it is written: That ye may make a distinction [between. the unclean and the clean]; and that may teach.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. X, 10, 11.');">²¹</span>

ורמינהי אמר רבי אליעזר מה נפשך חלב אכל חייב נותר אכל חייב שבת חילל חייב יום הכפורים חילל חייב אשתו נדה בעל חייב אחותו בעל חייב

R'Hiyya B'Abba said that R'Johanan said: He who recites the Habdalah over wine at the termination of the Sabbath will have male children, even as it is written: That ye may make a distinction between the holy and the common;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10. He who recites Habdalah also makes a distinction between the holy and the common (Sabbath and weekday) . In verse 9 the priests are commanded: Drink no wine . . when ye go into the tent of meeting. The implication is: but ye may drink wine when ye make a distinction between the holy and the common, I.e., when you recite the Habdalah.');">²²</span> and elsewhere it is written: To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, XI, 47.');">²³</span>

אמר לו רבי יהושע הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא ד, כג) או הודע אליו חטאתו אשר חטא בה עד שיודע לך במה חטא

and next to it: If a woman conceive [and bear a male child].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII, 2.');">²⁴</span> R'Joshua B'Levi said: He will have sons worthy to be teachers, even as it is written: That ye may make a distinction [between the holy and the common].

ומשני התם אשר חטא והביא אמר רחמנא חטא כל שהוא הכא מכדי כתיב (ויקרא ה, ב) בכל דבר טמא או בנבלת שרץ טמא למה לי שמע מינה בעינן עד דידע אי בשרץ איטמי אי בנבלה איטמי

and that ye may teach.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. X, 10, 11.');">²⁵</span> R'Benjamin B'Japhet said that R Eleazar said: He who sanctifies himself during cohabitation will have male children, even as it is said: Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XI, 44.');">²⁶</span>

ורבי עקיבא איידי

and next to it: If a woman conceive [and bear a male child].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, XII, 2.');">²⁷</span> R'ELIEZER SAID, [SCRIPTURE SAYS: IF ANY ONE TOUCH THE CARCASS OF AN UNCLEAN] CREEPING THING, AND IT BE HIDDEN FROM HIM etc. What is the difference between their views?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both R. Eliezer and R. Akiba agree in the Mishnah (supra 14b) that he is not liable unless he is aware that it is the Temple that he entered in an unclean state, and thus the question arises, what is the difference between them?');">²⁸</span> Hezekiah said: 'Creeping thing and carcass' is the difference between them; R'Eliezer holds, we require that he should know whether he had become unclean by [the carcass of] a creeping thing or of an animal; and R'Akiba holds, we do not require that he should know this; as long as he knows that he has actually become unclean, it is not necessary [that he should know] whether he has become unclean by a creeping thing or by an animal carcass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer holds he must know the exact source of his uncleanness (whether by a creeping thing or animal carcass) , whereas R. Akiba holds it matters not, as long as he knows he is unclean. ckj r,ub');">²⁹</span> And so said Ulla: 'Creeping thing and carcass' is the difference between them; for Ulla pointed out an incongruity between one statement of R'Eliezer's and another, and then explained it: Did R'Eliezer, then, say that we require he should know whether he had become unclean by a creeping thing or by a carcass? I question this, for R'Eliezer said: In any case, if he ate prohibited fat, he is liable, or if he a nothar, he is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ker. 19a; if there lay before him , a piece of prohibited fat, and , a piece of a sacrifice left over behind the time limit for its consumption, and he ate one of them unwittingly, but he does not know which, R. Eliezer says he must bring a sin offering, because, whether he ate the heleb or nothar, he is liable for a sin offering in either case; but R. Joshua says he is exempt; and is liable only when, he knows definitely which he has eaten.');">³⁰</span> if he desecrated the Sabbath, he is liable, or if he desecrated the Day of Atonement, he is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he did work unwittingly, but does not know whether it was on a Sabbath or the Day of Atonement.');">³¹</span> if he cohabited with his wife when menstruous, he is liable, or if he cohabited with his sister, he liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His wife and sister were together with him, and he cohabited with one, thinking it was his wife not believing her to be clean, but later it was ascertained that his wife was already unclean, and, moreover, a doubt arose as to whether it might not have been his sister with whom he cohabited.');">³²</span> Said R'Joshua to him, Scripture says: If his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be known to him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 23.');">³³</span> only when it is known to him wherein he hath sinned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., exactly what his sin was, does he bring a sin offering. This contradicts the previous statement of R. Eliezer, for here he says, he brings a sin offering even if he does not know exactly what his sin was, and in our Mishnah he says, he does not bring his offering unless he knows exactly the source of his uncleanness, whether carcass of creeping thing or animal.');">³⁴</span> [Ulla, however,] explains it thus: There, Scripture says: he hath sinned, then he shall bring [his offering] - as long as [he knows that] he has sinned [though he does not know the actual sin, he brings his offering]: but here, since it is already written: [If any one touch] any unclean thing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 2.');">³⁵</span> why do we require: or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely, unclean creeping thing is included in any unclean thing?');">³⁶</span> Hence, we deduce that we require he should know whether he had become unclean by a creeping thing or by an animal carcass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Scripture particularises, we deduce that he does not bring an offering unless he knows the exact source of his uncleanness.');">³⁷</span> And R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture particularises, why does R. Akiba hold that it is not necessary he should know the exact source of his uncleanness, as long as he knows he is unclean?');">³⁸</span> - Because