Yevamot 110

Chapter 110

א אתיא ביאה ביאה

1 — 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 Whence [the prohibition of a yebamah]2 to a stranger?3

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

2 — If [one follows] him who holds that it4 is a negative precept,5 [it     would be subject to the same restrictions as any other] negative precept;6

ג אלא יבמה ליבם מנלן אתיא ביאה ביאה

3 if [one follows] him who holds that it7 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 [it would be subject to the same restrictions as any other] positive precept.6

ד אשה לבעלה מנלן אתיא קיחה קיחה

4 Whence, however, [its9 force10 in respect of] the yebamah and the levir? — It is arrived at by the analogy between the two expressions of 'coming'.11

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

5 Whence [its9 force12 in respect of the kinyan], between husband and wife? — It is arrived at by comparison between the expressions of 'taking'.13

ו דשפחה חרופה כדאמרן דאשת איש פרט למשמש מת

6 Raba said: For what purpose did the All Merciful write 'carnally' in connection with the designated bondmaid,14 a married woman,15 and a sotah?16

ז 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

7 That in connection with the designated bondmaid [is required] as has just been explained.17 That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum.18 This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated;19

ח 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

8 what, however, can be said, according to him who maintains [that for such an act one is] guilty? — The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman.20 Since it might have been assumed that, as [a wife], even after her death, is described as his kin,21 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 that22

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

9 of the sotah? — Such as was taught: Carnally22 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!23 — 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

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

10 — Rather, said Abaye, the exclusion is the case where the husband's warning was concerning superficial contact.25 This is a satisfactory explanation according to him who maintains that the first stage of contact26 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

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

11 what can be said, however, according to him who maintains that it28 is the superficial contact!29 — The exclusion is rather the case where he warned her concerning lecherous contact of her limbs; but30

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

12 it was necessary [to state it, because] it might have been assumed that, as the All Merciful has made the prohibition31 dependent on the objection of the husband,32 [the woman should here be forbidden] since he objected,33

יג 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

13 hence we were taught [that such a case is excluded]. Samuel stated: The first stage is constituted by superficial contact.25 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 came34

יד 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

14 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: 'Carnally35 implies that guilt is incurred only when intercourse was accompanied by friction';36

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

15 does not this refer to friction of the membrum! — No; friction of the corona. When R. Dimi came34 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

טז לא מנשיקה ועד הכנסת עטרה העראה קרי לה

16 or I.38 When Rabin came34 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.39

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

17 Must it be said, however, that he differs also from Samuel?40 — No; [the entire process] from the superficial contact until the insertion of the corona is described as the first stage.41 When R. Samuel b. Judah came34 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.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter