Niddah 17a (יז.) — the Talmud in English

c.

and urinates

naked before his bed

d.

and engages in intercourse in the presence of any living creature.

Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: And

even

before mice

is it forbidden to engage in intercourse?

He said to him: Sharp one, no.

They did not say this with regard to animals.

Rather, it is referring, for example, to the household of a certain man—

who engage in intercourse in the presence of their male and female slaves. And they—

what did they derive?

(Genesis 20)

“Stay here with the donkey”—

with

an ayin pronounced with its mouth open

means one who resembles a donkey;

the slaves are not considered, for this purpose, human beings in whose presence it is disgraceful to engage in intercourse, but merely donkeys, in whose presence it is permitted.

Rabba bar Rav Huna rattled

and made noise with

the bells of the canopy,

the bells surrounding his bed, in order to prevent members of the household from being present at the time of intercourse. See also Tosafot.

Abaye drove away

and dispersed even

the flies,

the flies surrounding his bed, so that he would not engage in intercourse even in their presence.

Rava drove away

and dispersed even

the mosquitoes

.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: There are five things whose perpetrator endangers his life

and thereby places himself in danger,

and his blood is upon his own head

and he is liable for the punishment for having endangered himself:

a.

One who eats

peeled garlic, peeled onion, or a peeled egg.

b.

One who drinks

diluted beverages that remained overnight.

c.

One who spends the night in a cemetery.

d.

One who cuts his fingernails and throws them into the public domain.

e.

One who lets blood and

immediately after letting blood

engages in intercourse.

The Gemara explains: a.

One who eats peeled garlic:

And even though they are placed

the peeled cloves of garlic

in a basket

and

tied up and sealed,

bound and sealed with a seal,

an evil spirit rests upon them.

And we said this only when he did not leave their roots,

the roots,

or their peel.

But if he left their roots or their peel—

we have no concern.

b.

And one who drinks diluted beverages that remained overnight.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: And this is when they remained overnight in metal vessels. Rav Pappa said: And earthenware vessels are considered like metal vessels.

And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And this is when they remained overnight in metal vessels, and earthenware vessels are considered like metal vessels.

c.

And one who spends the night in a cemetery:

And he does so

so that there should rest upon him “

an impure spirit”

(see Rashi), because

at times it endangers him.

d.

And one who cuts his fingernails and throws them into the public domain.

Because a pregnant woman may pass over them, and

this causes her to

miscarry

her fetus.

And we said this only when he cuts

his fingernails

with scissors

.

And we said this only when he cuts those of his hands and those of his feet

at the same time .

And we said this only when he did not cut anything after them, but if he cut something after them—

we have no concern.

The Gemara concludes:

That is not so,

for these three qualifications are not correct. Rather—

we are concerned with the entire matter.

The Sages taught: Three things were said with regard to fingernails:

one who burns them—

is pious; one who buries them—

is righteous

(the pious person is superior to him, because if he buries them there is concern that they may become exposed again); and one who

throws them away—

is wicked.

e.

And one who lets blood and engages in intercourse.

As the master said: One who lets blood and engages in intercourse—

will have weak children

.

If both of them let blood and then engaged in intercourse—

he will have children afflicted with ra'atan

(who suffer from the illness called ra'atan; see Rashi).

Rav said: And we said this only when he did not taste anything

after letting blood.

But if he tasted something—

we have no concern.

Rav Ḥisda said: It is forbidden for a person to engage in intercourse during the day, as it is stated

(Leviticus 19)

“And you shall love your fellow as yourself.”

The Gemara explains:

What

how

is it implied

from the verse?

Abaye said:

For

perhaps he will see something repulsive in her

when he engages in intercourse during the day

and she will become repulsive to him,

so that he will no longer love her; and the Torah said, “And you shall love your fellow as yourself.”

Rav Huna said: Jews

are holy, and they do not engage in intercourse during the day.

Rava said: And if it was a darkened house—

it is permitted.

And a Torah scholar,

who knows how to conduct himself modestly—

darkens himself with his garment and engages in intercourse.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But

we learned in a Mishna: Or engage in intercourse by candlelight!

This implies that this is the proper course of action initially. The Gemara answers:

Say instead: He may examine himself by candlelight.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Come and hear: Although they said that one who engages in intercourse

by candlelight—

it is disgraceful!

This implies that it is merely disgraceful, but not prohibited.

The Gemara resolves this:

Say instead: One who examines his bed by candlelight—

it is disgraceful.

The Gemara adds another difficulty:

Come and hear: The household of King Monobaz would perform three practices

in matters of ritual purity,

and they are mentioned

for this

as praise:

They would engage in intercourse during the day, examine their beds with milta parhava,

cotton,

and practice impurity and purity with snow,

as we will explain below.

In any event, it teaches—

they would engage

in intercourse during the day!

The Gemara answers:

Say instead: They would examine their beds during the day.

This too is evidently so,

that the intention is that they would examine their beds during the day.

For if you suppose that they engaged in intercourse

during the day, there is a difficulty: Would they really be

mentioned as praise

for this?

The Gemara rejects this:

Yes, indeed,

they were mentioned favorably for engaging in intercourse during the day and not at night, because they did so for the benefit of their wives—

since there is

at night

the constraint of sleep,

as they are tired,

which makes her repulsive to him

(see Rashi).

And

the fact that they would

examine their beds with milta parhava—

supports Shmuel.

For Shmuel said: One examines the bed only with fleabane, or with clean, soft wool.

Rav said: This is what happened when I was there,

in Eretz Yisrael:

On Friday evenings,

when it is the time designated for the marital relations of Torah scholars,

they would say: Who wants “

fleabane in bread”?

(Bread is leḥem, and this is a euphemism for intercourse.)

And I did not know what they were saying.

Rava said: These worn linen garments

are old, worn garments made of flax—

are suitable for examination.

We challenge this:

Is that so? But the school of Menashe taught: One does not examine the bed with a red cloth, nor with a black cloth, nor with linen

(since it is not white, and blood is recognizable only on a white cloth),

but only with fleabane or clean, soft wool!

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.

This

that was taught in the statement of the school of Menashe, that one does not examine with linen, refers

to flax,

to flax itself, with which one does not examine.

This

that Rava said is suitable for examination refers

to linen garments,

linen garments in which blood is more readily discernible.

And if you prefer, say: Both this and that refer to linen garments.

This

refers to

new garments, and

this to worn garments, in which Rashi (s.v. “nor”) explained that the advantage of worn garments for examination is that they are whiter. Tosafot in Shevuot (6b, s.v. “galima”) proved from that sugya the opposite: new garments are whiter than worn ones. Therefore, they explained that the advantage of worn garments for examination is that they are softer. To reconcile Rashi’s view that worn garments are whiter, Tosafot (s.v. “veha”) wrote that the Gemara in Shevuot is referring to a cloak, which is not customarily laundered, and therefore its new state is whiter, whereas our sugya is referring to a shirt that is laundered frequently, and the older it is, the whiter it becomes. In other texts, Rashi’s wording reads: “whiter and softer.” The Rema (Yoreh De'ah 190:33) wrote that it is forbidden to examine with a hard cloth. Sederi Tahara (196:22) explained that the reason for the prohibition is that the examination cloth must be soft, as is clear from our sugya, and cited this as also the view of the Rashba, who held that a hard garment is unsuitable for examination because its hardness could injure the woman.

We learned in a beraita that they would

practice impurity and purity with snow.

We learned there: Snow is neither food nor liquid.

If one intended it for food—

it does not contract the ritual impurity of food.

But if one intended it

for liquid—

it contracts the ritual impurity of liquids.

If part of it became impure—

all of it did not become impure,

since each unit of snow is considered an independent unit.

If

part of it became pure

by “sowing” it in the waters of a mikve (see Rashi for an explanation of the purifying act of sowing)—

all of it became pure.

And the Gemara asks:

This matter itself is difficult.

You said: If part of it became impure—

the whole did not become impure.

And then it teaches: “

If part of it became pure—

the whole became pure”—

does this imply that the whole became impure?

And this is difficult: How could the whole become impure?

Abaye said: For example, when he transferred it to

the snow

over the airspace of an oven

made of earthenware.

For the Torah testified concerning an earthenware vessel

that it renders impure, through its airspace, all the foods and liquids within it,