Yevamot 110

אתיא ביאה ביאה

— It is arrived at by an analogy between the two expressions of 'coming'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression of 'coming' is used with a case that is forbidden by a negative precept (Deut. XXIII, 3) as well as with those whose prohibition is derived from a positive precept (ibid. 9) and whose penalty is kareth. Cf. note 9 supra. ');">¹</span> Whence [the prohibition of a <i>yebamah</i>]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prior to halizah. ');">²</span> to a stranger?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to the street'. ');">³</span>

יבמה לשוק מנלן אי למאן דאמר לאו לאו אי למאן דאמר עשה עשה

— If [one follows] him who holds that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage with a stranger before halizah had been performed. ');">⁴</span> is a negative precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Derived from Deut. XXV, 5, Shall not be married abroad. ');">⁵</span> [it &nbsp; &nbsp; would be subject to the same restrictions as any other] negative precept;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, as has been shewn supra, the first stage is included in the restrictions. ');">⁶</span>

אלא יבמה ליבם מנלן אתיא ביאה ביאה

if [one follows] him who holds that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage with a stranger before halizah had been performed. ');">⁷</span> is a positive precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Deut. XXV, 5, it follows that the levir shall marry her (positive); hence no other (negative); and a negative precept derived from a positive one has the force of the positive. ');">⁸</span> [it would be subject to the same restrictions as any other] positive precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, as has been shewn supra, the first stage is included in the restrictions. ');">⁶</span>

אשה לבעלה מנלן אתיא קיחה קיחה

Whence, however, [its<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the first stage. ');">⁹</span> force<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To constitute levirate marriage as if actual cohabitation had taken place. ');">¹⁰</span> in respect of] the <i>yebamah</i> and the levir? — It is arrived at by the analogy between the two expressions of 'coming'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 370, n. 10. The expression of 'coming' is also used in respect of the levir (v. Deut. XXV, 5). ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבא למה לי דכתב רחמנא שכבת זרע בשפחה חרופה שכבת זרע באשת איש שכבת זרע בסוטה

Whence [its<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the first stage. ');">⁹</span> force<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 5. ');">¹²</span> in respect of the <i>kinyan</i>], between husband and wife? — It is arrived at by comparison between the expressions of 'taking'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used in the case of husband and wife (Deut. XXIV, 1) as well as in that of those whose penalty is kareth. Cf. supra p. 370, n. 10. ');">¹³</span>

דשפחה חרופה כדאמרן דאשת איש פרט למשמש מת

Raba said: For what purpose did the All Merciful write <i>'carnally'</i> in connection with the designated bondmaid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 20. ');">¹⁴</span> a married woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVIII, 20. ');">¹⁵</span> and a sotah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 13. ');">¹⁶</span>

הניחא למאן דאמר משמש מת בעריות פטור אלא למ"ד חייב מאי איכא למימר אלא פרט למשמש מתה דסד"א [הואיל] לאחר מיתה נמי איקרי שארו אימא ליחייב עלה באשת איש קמ"ל

That in connection with the designated bondmaid [is required] as has just been explained.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 55a. ');">¹⁷</span> <font>That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no fertilisation can possibly result. ');">¹⁸</span> This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains that <font>if one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated</font>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 18a, Sanh. 55a. ');">¹⁹</span>

דסוטה למה לי לכדתניא שכבת זרע פרט לדבר אחר מאי דבר אחר אמר רב ששת פרט לשקינא לה שלא כדרכה א"ל רבא משכבי אשה כתיב

what, however, can be said, according to him who maintains [that for such an act one is] guilty? — <font>The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though she died as a married woman. ');">²⁰</span> Since it might have been assumed that, as [a wife], even after her death, is described as <i>his kin</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. XXI, 2, where the text enumerates the dead relatives for whom a priest may defile himself. As was explained, supra 22b, his kin refers to one's wife. ');">²¹</span> one should be guilty for [intercourse with] her [as for that] with a married woman, hence we were taught [that one is exonerated]. What was the object of that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'carnally' in Num. V, 13. ');">²²</span>

אלא אמר רבא פרט לשקינא לה דרך אברים א"ל אביי פריצותא אסר רחמנא

of the sotah? — Such as was taught: Carnally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'carnally' in Num. V, 13. ');">²²</span> excludes [the case where the husband's warning was] concerning something else. What is meant by 'something else'? R. Shesheth replied: The exclusion is the case where he warned her concerning unnatural intercourse. Said Raba to him: The text reads, As with womankind!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 22, in which natural and unnatural intercourse are regarded as analogous (v. Sanh. 54a). What matters it then for which she was warned! ');">²³</span> — Rather, said Raba, the exclusion is the case where the husband's warning concerned lecherous contact of her limbs. Said Abaye to him: Has the All Merciful forbidden [a wife to her husband] because of obscenity?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. For mere laxity, in the absence of adultery, a wife would not have been subjected to such a severe penalty. What need then was there to state the obvious? ');">²⁴</span>

אלא אמר אביי פרט לשקינא לה בנשיקה הניחא למ"ד העראה זו הכנסת עטרה אלא למ"ד זו נשיקה מאי איכא למימר

— Rather, said Abaye, the exclusion is the case where the husband's warning was concerning superficial contact.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'kissing'. ');">²⁵</span> This is a satisfactory explanation according to him who maintains that the first stage of contact<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is forbidden. ');">²⁶</span> is the insertion of the corona;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra. As this stage only constitutes cohabitation and causes the prohibition of the woman to her husband, it is possible to exclude from such prohibition the earlier stage of superficial contact. ');">²⁷</span>

אלא לעולם לשקינא לה דרך אברים ואיצטריך סד"א בקפידא דבעל תלה רחמנא והא קא קפיד קמ"ל

what can be said, however, according to him who maintains that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'first stage' that is forbidden. ');">²⁸</span> is the superficial contact!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can this be excluded from the prohibition in view of the ruling that the first stage does constitute cohabitation! ');">²⁹</span> — The exclusion is rather the case where he warned her concerning lecherous contact of her limbs; but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Despite Abaye's objection (v. supra note 3). ');">³⁰</span>

אמר שמואל העראה זו נשיקה משל לאדם שמניח אצבעו על פיו אי אפשר שלא ידחוק הבשר

it was necessary [to state it, because] it might have been assumed that, as the All Merciful has made the prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a sotah to her husband. ');">³¹</span> dependent on the objection of the husband,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The laws of the sotah apply only where such an objection or warning has been expressed. ');">³²</span> [the woman should here be forbidden] since he objected,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By his warning. ');">³³</span>

כי אתא רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן גמר ביאה בשפחה חרופה זו הכנסת עטרה מתיב רב ששת שכבת זרע אינו חייב אלא על ביאת המירוק מאי לאו מירוק גיד לא מירוק עטרה

hence we were taught [that such a case is excluded]. Samuel stated: The first stage is constituted by superficial contact.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'kissing'. ');">²⁵</span> This may be compared to a man who puts his finger to his mouth; it is impossible for him not to press down the flesh. When Rabbah b. Bar Hana came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">³⁴</span>

כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן העראה זו הכנסת עטרה אמרו ליה והא רבה בר בר חנה לא אמר הכי אמר להו או איהו שקראי או אנא שקרי

he stated in the name of R. Johanan: Consummation in the case of a designated bondmaid is constituted by the insertion of the corona. R. Shesheth raised an objection: 'Carnally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 20, dealing with a designated bondmaid. ');">³⁵</span> implies that guilt is incurred only when intercourse was accompanied by friction';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'friction', Syr.-Aram. rt. [H] So Golds. against Levy's (III, p. 260) Ergiessung which he regards as an error based on a misunderstanding of Rashi. ');">³⁶</span>

כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן העראה זו הכנסת עטרה אדרבה בר בר חנה ודאי פליג אדשמואל מי לימא פליג

does not this refer to friction of the membrum! — No; friction of the corona. When R. Dimi came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">³⁴</span> he stated in the name of R. Johanan: The first stage is constituted by the insertion of the corona. They said to him: But, surely, Rabbah b. Bar Hana did not say so! — He replied: Then either he is the story-teller<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'liar'. Rabbah h. Bar Hana was a well known teller of hair-raising stories (Cf. B.B. 73aff). and sometimes made self-contradictory statements on questions of halachah also (cf. Hul. 97a, Kid. 75b). ');">³⁷</span>

לא מנשיקה ועד הכנסת עטרה העראה קרי לה

or I.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I lied', i.e., they had his word against Rabbah b. Bar Hana's, and it was for them to decide the report of which of them was the more reliable. ');">³⁸</span> When Rabin came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">³⁴</span> he stated in the name of R. Johanan, 'The first stage is constituted by the insertion of the corona'. He is certainly in disagreement with the report of Rabbah b. Bar Hana.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who regards this act as consummation. ');">³⁹</span>

כי אתא רב שמואל בר יהודה א"ר יוחנן העראה זו הכנסת עטרה גמר ביאה גמר ביאה ממש

Must it be said, however, that he differs also from Samuel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who reported that superficial contact alone constitutes the first stage. ');">⁴⁰</span> — No; [the entire process] from the superficial contact until the insertion of the corona is described as the first stage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On this both Samuel and Rabin agree; the one mentioning the beginning of the process and the other the conclusion. ');">⁴¹</span> When R. Samuel b. Judah came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">³⁴</span> he stated in the name of R. Johanan, 'The first stage is constituted by the insertion of the corona; and the final stage, by actual consummation.