Shabbat 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

Meitiv:

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: The schoolchildren would arrange the passages and read by candlelight

on Shabbat.

This clearly proves that they permitted the schoolchildren to read the entire passage .

And we answer:

Alternatively,

that which it teaches, “They arrange passages,” refers

only to the beginnings of passages

alone.

Alternatively: The schoolchildren are different, since they are in awe of their teacher and will not come to tilt

the lamp. For even on weekdays they do not extend their hands toward anything except at their teacher’s instruction.

We learned in the Mishna:

Similarly, a zav may not eat

with a zava, because of habituation to transgression.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Come and see how far

[it]

the observance of ritual purity had spread in Israel

that people would eat non-sacred food in a state of purity:

For

we did not learn

in the Mishna

“A pure person may not eat with an impure woman,” but

we learned

“A zav may not eat with a zava,” because of habituation to transgression—

lest he come to have relations with her.

And although for this reason it should also be prohibited for a pure man to eat with a zava, there was no need to prohibit him, since on their own, without a decree, pure men would not eat with their wives when the latter were impure. Since they ate their non-sacred food in purity, they were concerned that the food might become impure.

And

similarly

we learned:

A zav who is a perush

—one who is meticulous regarding the laws of purity—

may not eat with a zav who is an am ha-aretz—

lest he accustom him to his company.

Here too, the tanna mentioned a case in which both individuals are impure only to teach the greater novelty. If both were pure, it would be obvious that he may not eat with him, since the Sages decreed impurity upon an am ha-aretz.

And we inquire about this:

But if he accustoms him to his company—

what of it?

And we answer:

Rather, say: Lest he feed him impure food.

And we ask:

But is a zav who is a perush

not one who eats impure food?

Surely everything he touches becomes impure.

Abaye said: It is a decree lest he feed him untithed produce,

from which the tithes have not been separated.

And Rava said:

We are not concerned about this, because

most amei ha-aretz do tithe.

By Torah law, the produce of an am ha-aretz is presumed to have been tithed and is permitted to eat; only the Sages decreed that it be prohibited as demai.

Therefore, one may not decree that a chaver, who tithes his produce, must refrain from eating his own food together with an am ha-aretz. The prohibition against eating the produce of an am ha-aretz is merely rabbinic, and we do not enact a decree to safeguard another decree.

Rather,

the reason that a perush may not eat with him during his period of impurity is that we are concerned

lest he become accustomed to his company

even when he is pure,

and feed him impure food during the perush’s period of purity

.

They raised a dilemma: What is the status of a menstruating woman sleeping with her husband

in one bed when

she is in her clothing and he is in his clothing?

Are we concerned about habituation to transgression, or perhaps, since they have established a distinguishing sign—sleeping while he is clothed and she is clothed—they will remember the prohibition and will not come to transgress it? This refers to a case in which there is no concern of ritual impurity, such as when he too is impure, or in the present era, when we are not particular about impurity and purity. Rashi.

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear: Fowl may be placed together with cheese on the table, but may not be eaten

with cheese. That is, the prohibition against eating fowl with milk is only rabbinic; therefore, they did not decree that they may not be placed together on the table lest one come to eat them together, since that would be a decree safeguarding another decree.

These are the words of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel say:

Fowl

may not be placed

on the table together with cheese,

and may not be eaten

with it, for we decree that placing them together is prohibited because of eating them together.

It may be proved from the words of Beit Hillel for our matter that a man may not sleep with a menstruating woman, lest he come to transgress.

But one could distinguish between the cases: Here, there is a distinguishing sign, namely, he is clothed and she is clothed. Rashi.

And we reject this:

The case there

of fowl and cheese

is different, for there are no

two

independent minds

belonging to two people; there is only the mind of one person. Therefore, there we are concerned that he may forget and eat them together. But here there are two minds—the man’s and the woman’s—and they will remind one another of the prohibition; consequently, there is no reason for concern.

And we prove this:

This is also reasonable,

that where

there are

two

independent minds, the case is different.

For

that which

is taught

there

in the latter clause: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests

—

eat at one table—

one eats meat and the other eats cheese, and there is no concern that they may come to eat meat with cheese. Thus, where there are two people, we rely on the fact that they will remind one another.

And we challenge this:

But

why,

was it not stated concerning it—

this Mishna—

Rav Ḥanin bar Ami said in the name of Shmuel: We taught

that the two are permitted

only

when

they do not know one another,

for only then are we not concerned that one of them may take food from his fellow and eat it.

But

when they

know one another, they are prohibited

from eating meat and cheese together at the same table, since we are concerned that one may take food from the other and eat it together with his own. Thus, two minds belonging to two people do not suffice to permit it. Once again, this would prove from here that it is prohibited to sleep with a menstruating woman.

And we reject this:

How can these cases be compared!?

There,

in the case of eating meat and milk at the same table, there are indeed two

minds,

but

there is no change.

For they eat at one table without a distinguishing sign.

But

here,

in the case of a menstruating woman,

there are

also two

minds

belonging to the man and the woman,

and

there is also

a change,

in that he sleeps in his clothing and she sleeps in her clothing. Together, these two factors mean that we are not concerned that they will come to transgress.

Some say

that this teaching was stated as follows:

Come and hear: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests eat at one table, one with meat and the other with cheese.

And it was stated

concerning it:

Rav Ḥanin bar Ami said in the name of Shmuel: We taught only when they do not know one another.

But

if they

know one another, it is prohibited.

This may be resolved from there with regard to our case. For

these

man and woman

also

know one another,

and there is reason to fear that they will come to transgress, even though there are two minds.

And we reject this:

There

there are indeed two

minds,

but

there is no change.

Whereas

here—

there is

also two

minds, and there is

also

a change,

for he sleeps in his clothing and she sleeps in her clothing.

And again we resolve it:

Come and hear: A zav may not eat with a zava, because of habituation to transgression.

For this reason, sleeping together should likewise be prohibited, even though there are two minds.

And we reject this:

Here,

in the case of eating,

also, only two

minds

are

present,

but

there is no change.

Whereas in the case of sleeping, since he sleeps in his clothing and she sleeps in her clothing, there are both two minds and a distinguishing sign.

Come and hear:

It is written:

“He did not eat upon the mountains

—he was not sustained by the merit of the patriarchs, but by virtue of being righteous himself—

and did not raise his eyes to the idols of the House of Israel. He did not defile his fellow’s wife, and did not approach a

menstruating woman.” The verse

equates

the prohibition of a

menstruating woman with that of a fellow’s wife:

Just as with a fellow’s wife,

even when

he is in his clothing and she is in her clothing, it is prohibited

to sleep with her—for even mere seclusion with her is prohibited —

so too, with his wife who is menstruating,

to sleep with her when

he is in his clothing and she is in her clothing is prohibited.

It follows that even in such a case it is prohibited to sleep with her, and our dilemma is resolved.

And we conclude:

Learn from this!

And this disagrees with

Rav Yosef, who derived from this exposition that it is prohibited,

and with Rabbi Pedat.

For Rabbi Pedat said: The Torah prohibited only physical intimacy that constitutes the uncovering of forbidden relations.

That is, the actual forbidden intercourse.

As it is stated: “Each man, do not approach any of his flesh to uncover nakedness.”

But mere physical closeness is prohibited only rabbinically. According to him, since it is prohibited only rabbinically, when they sleep with him clothed and her clothed, and there is no physical contact, it is permitted even rabbinically.

When Ulla would come from the house of Rav, he would kiss his sisters on their chests; and some say, on their hands.

For it is customary that when people leave the synagogue, they immediately kiss their father, mother, or someone older than they are, on the knee or on the palm of the hand. This is an expression of honor. Rashi, Avoda Zara 17a.

And this disagrees with

Ulla’s deed,

and with

the statement

of Ulla himself.

For Ulla said: Even any physical closeness is prohibited

in matters of forbidden relations,

because of

distancing oneself from transgression. As we say:

“They say to the nazirite, ‘Go, go,’

around; do not approach the vineyard,”

meaning: Distance yourself, nazirite, and do not walk through the vineyard; rather, go around it so that you will not stumble into the prohibition against eating grapes.

According to his view, he should not have kissed his sisters, because of the requirement to distance oneself from transgression, even though, Heaven forbid, it was not in a manner of transgression.

Indeed, Ulla did so because he knew about himself that he would not come to improper thoughts, for he was completely righteous. This is similar to Rav Aḥa, who carried the bride on his shoulders and danced with her, because she appeared to him like an ordinary wooden beam. Tosafot.

The school of Elijah taught: There was an incident involving one student who studied much, read much, and served Torah scholars extensively

—they explained to him the obscure passages of the Mishna and their reasons, which is the meaning of “Talmud.”

And he died in the prime of his life.

And his wife would take his phylacteries

—in which longevity is mentioned, as it is written: “The Lord is upon them—they shall live.” Tosafot of the Rosh—

and carry them around to the synagogues and houses of study.

And she said to them,

to those seated in the house of study:

“It is written in the Torah: ‘For it is your life and the length of your days.’”

“My husband, who studied much and read much,