Niddah 17a — the Talmud in English

c.

and urinates

naked before his bed

d.

and has intercourse before any living creature.

Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: And

even

before mice

is one not to have intercourse?

He said to him: Sharp-witted one, no.

They said this regarding animals.

Rather, for example, the household of a certain person—

who have intercourse before their male and female slaves. And they—

what did they expound? [

Genesis 20]

“Sit here for yourselves with the donkey”—

with [

an open ayin]

that resembles a donkey;

the slaves are not considered, for this matter, as human beings before whom it is disgraceful to have intercourse, but merely as donkeys, before whom it is permitted to have intercourse.

Rabba bar Rav Huna rattled

bells and made noise with

the bells of the canopy,

the bells of the canopy surrounding his bed, in order to prevent the presence of members of the household at the time of intercourse. And see Tosafot.

Abaye drove away

and frightened away even

flies,

flies that were around his bed, so that he would not have intercourse even before them.

Rava drove away

and frightened away even

mosquitoes,

mosquitoes.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai said: There are five things whose perpetrator incurs liability for his own life [

he places himself in danger],

and his blood is upon his head [

he incurs punishment for having endangered himself]:

a.

one who eats

peeled garlic, peeled onion, or a peeled egg.

b.

and one who drinks

diluted beverages over which a night has passed.

c.

and one who spends the night in a cemetery.

d.

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

e.

and one who lets blood and

shortly after letting blood he

has intercourse.

The Gemara explains: a.

one who eats peeled garlic:

And although they are placed

the peeled garlic cloves

in a basket

in a basket

and tied and sealed,

and bound and sealed with a seal, nevertheless—

an evil spirit rests upon them.

And we said this only when he left neither their root

the roots

nor their peel.

But if he left their root or their peel—

we have no concern.

b.

And one who drinks diluted beverages over which a night has passed.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: And this is when they were left overnight in metal vessels. Rav Pappa said: And earthenware vessels are considered like metal vessels.

And similarly Rabbi Yohanan said: And this is when they were left 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 this

so that there may rest upon him

“an impure spirit” [

see Rashi], because

sometimes they endanger him.

d.

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

Because a pregnant woman passes over them, and

this causes her to

miscarry

her fetus.

And we said this only when he cuts

when he cuts his nails

with scissors,

with scissors.

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

of the hands and feet, at one time.

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

we have no concern.

The Gemara concludes:

It 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 regarding nails:

one who burns them—

is pious; one who buries them—

is righteous [

and the pious person is superior to him, because if he buries them there is concern lest they become exposed again]; and one who

throws them—

is wicked.

e.

And one who lets blood and has intercourse.

For the master said: One who lets blood and has intercourse—

will have weak sons,

weak.

If both of them let blood and had intercourse—

he will have sons afflicted with ra'atan [

those suffering from the illness called ra'atan [see Rashi]].

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

after the bloodletting.

But if he tasted something—

we have no concern.

Rav Hisda said: It is forbidden for a person to have intercourse during the day, as it is stated [

Leviticus 19]

“And you shall love your fellow as yourself”.

The Gemara explains:

What

how

does it imply

this from the verse?

Abaye said:

for

perhaps he will see something repulsive in her

when he has intercourse during the day,

and she will become repulsive to him,

and he will not love her; and the Torah said, “And you shall love your fellow as yourself.”

Rav Huna said: Israel

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

Rava said: And if it was a dark house—

it is permitted.

And a Torah scholar,

one who knows how to conduct himself modestly—

darkens himself with his garment and has intercourse.

The Gemara raises an objection: But

we learned in the Mishna: “Or have intercourse by lamplight!”

And this implies that this is the proper conduct initially!? It answers:

Say: He should examine by lamplight.

The Gemara raises another objection:

Come and hear: Even though they said that one who has intercourse

by lamplight—

this is disgraceful!

And this implies that it is merely disgraceful, but not prohibited.

And it resolves:

Say: One who examines his bed by lamplight—

this is disgraceful.

The Gemara adds another objection:

Come and hear: The household of King Monbaz used to do three things

in matters of ritual purity,

and they mentioned them

for this

as praise:

They had intercourse during the day, examined their beds with cotton,

with cotton,

and practiced impurity and purity with snow,

as we will explain below.

In any event, it teaches—

they had intercourse

during the day!?

And it answers:

Say: They examined their beds during the day.

This too is evidently so,

that the intention is that they examined their beds during the day.

For if you should think that they had intercourse

during the day, the difficulty would be: Surely

they mentioned them as praise

for this!?

The Gemara rejects this:

Indeed so,

they mentioned them as praise for having intercourse during the day and not at night, since they did so for the needs of their wives—

because, since there is

at night

the constraint of sleep,

for they are tired,

it is repulsive in her presence [

see Rashi].

And

what they

examined their beds with cotton—

supports Shmuel.

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

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

in the Land of Israel,

on the eve of Shabbat [

which is the time designated for intercourse of Torah scholars],

they would say: Who wants “

cotton in bread”! [

Bread is lechem, and this is a designation for intercourse],

and I did not know what they were saying.

Rava said: These worn linen garments

worn-out linen garments—

are suitable for examination.

And we object:

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 discernible only on a white cloth],

but only with cotton or with clean and soft wool!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

that we learned in the teaching of the school of Menashe, that one does not examine with linen, is

with linen,

with linen itself, with which one does not examine.

This

that Rava said, that one does examine, is

with linen garments,

with linen garments in which the blood is more discernible.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that are with linen garments.

This—

with new ones; this—

with worn ones,

in which the blood is more discernible.

We learned in the beraita that they

practiced impurity and purity with snow.

We learned there: Snow is neither food nor beverage.

If he intended it for eating—

it does not contract food impurity.

But if he intended it

for a beverage—

it contracts beverage impurity.

If part of it became impure—

the whole of it did not become impure,

for each unit of snow is considered an independent unit.

If

part of it became pure

through its “sowing” in the waters of a mikveh [see Rashi regarding the manner of sowing that purifies]—

the whole of it became pure.

And the Gemara asks:

this itself is difficult.

You said: if part of it became impure—

not all of it.

And then it teaches: "

if part of it became pure—

all of it became pure"—

is this to say that all of it became impure,

and it is difficult: how did all of it become impure?

Abaye said: for example, that he passed it

the snow

over the airspace of an oven

made of earthenware.

For the Torah testified concerning an earthenware vessel

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