Shevuot 18a — the Talmud in English

But if [he is] an ignoramus

we are dealing with one who does not know about the prohibition of separating after she became impure, and therefore he is not intentional regarding the separation, but says, “It is permitted,” and is liable for a sin-offering for it; this raises a difficulty: since he is an ignoramus, it follows that he also does not know what the Sages said [below, 18b], that a person must separate from his wife during the period [day or night] in which she is expected to see [blood]. If so, even when it became known to him that she had become impure, he thinks that he was not liable for a sin-offering for the entry, because he thinks that he was compelled and could not have imagined that she would become impure. If so:

Both this and that

this and that, the entry and the separation, [are] like one who

ate two olive-bulk portions of forbidden fat in one lapse of awareness!

For whenever it did not become known to him that he had become liable for the first one between one transgression and the other, he is not liable for two sin-offerings. Here too, it did not become known to him that he had become liable for his entry, since the ignoramus thinks that he was compelled regarding the entry.

But rather, with

such as when he had intercourse with her

when it was not close to her expected period—

And with whom?

If you say [that it is] with a Torah scholar,

this cannot be said, since:

He is liable for neither one, and is not liable

for even one of them, because:

For the entry

he is not liable because he is

compelled,

since he did not know and did not have to imagine that she would see [blood]—

And even

for the separation

he is not liable because he is

intentional, since he is a Torah scholar and knows that it is forbidden to separate with a living organ.

as he is a Torah scholar and knows that it is forbidden to withdraw while the organ is still erect.

If [he is] an ignoramus,

who does not know about the prohibition of separating with a living organ, this too cannot be said, because:

Nevertheless,

one

alone

is what he is liable for,

namely,

for the separation; but he is not liable for the entry, since he is compelled. If so, in what manner did they say that he is liable for two!?

but he is not liable for the initial act, since he was compelled. If so, in what manner did they say that he is liable for two acts?

Rava then said: Really, with

such as when he had intercourse with her

close to her expected period, and [he is] a Torah scholar,

who knows what the Sages said, that a person must separate from his wife close to her expected period, and knows, once she became impure, that he is liable for a sin-offering, and he is not compelled, and he has awareness between one transgression and the other. And as for what is difficult for you: If so, for the separation he should not be liable, since he knows the prohibition against separating with a living organ, and he is intentional—

Do not raise this difficulty:

and

with regard to

a Torah scholar concerning this one,

concerning the obligation of separation close to her expected period,

but he is not a Torah scholar concerning this one, concerning the prohibition against separating with a living organ.

regarding the prohibition against withdrawing while the organ is still erect.

Rava said: And both of them

these two liabilities for sin-offerings—

were taught

by the Sages:

the entry was taught, and

the separation

also

was

taught.

The separation was taught, for it teaches

in our Mishna:

If he was having intercourse with the pure woman and she said to him, “

I have become impure,”

and he separated immediately, he is liable

for a sin-offering, since he did not know the prohibition of separation with a dead organ.

The entry was taught

in the Mishna in tractate Niddah [14a], for we learned: The practice of the daughters of Israel is that they have intercourse using two examination cloths, one for him and one for her [to wipe with after intercourse]—

It was found

blood

on

the cloth

belonging to him,

with which he wiped the organ,

both are impure—

she because of a menstruant, and he because of one who had intercourse with a menstruant—

and they are liable for a sacrifice.

It is thus explained that he is liable for a sacrifice if she became impure during intercourse.

Is it not [dealing] with

such as when he had intercourse with her

close to her expected period,

so that he is not compelled,

and for the entry

is where they become liable for a sacrifice? Thus the entry was taught.

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: I will say to you, in any event,

that the Mishna in Niddah deals even

with

such as when he had intercourse with her

not close to her expected period.

And

it is not for the entry that he becomes liable, since he is compelled, but

for the separation

he becomes liable, because he separated with a living organ, and this is such as when she said to him, “I have become impure,” and he is an ignoramus who does not know the prohibition of separation. And the entry close to her expected period has still not been taught.

And if you would say:

If the Mishna makes him liable for the separation,

why do I need [the teaching of] separation

for Rabbi, the arranger of the Mishnayot, to teach us that he is liable for a sacrifice?

This

has already

taught it to him

with regard to separation in our Mishna, that he is liable.

It can be said:

This—

the final clause of that Mishna—

was needed to inform us,

for it was taught there:

If blood was found on hers immediately [which she examined directly after intercourse], both are impure [she because of a menstruant, and he because of one who had intercourse with a menstruant], and they are liable for a sacrifice—

It was found

[blood]

on hers

after some time [when she did not examine immediately], they are

impure by doubt,

because it is not known whether he is one who had intercourse with a menstruant, since perhaps she saw [the blood] after intercourse,

and they are exempt from the sacrifice.

And since he needed to teach

[because the tan[n]ay taught] “

it was found on hers,”

and to distinguish between immediately and after some time,

he also taught “

it was found on his,”

even though we had already learned this law from our Mishna.

He said

he wondered

to Rav Adda

bar Mattana:

Can you establish that one

of tractate Niddah

as not close to her expected period, and

the liability for the sacrifice is

for the separation, because she said to him, “I have become impure,” before he separated!?

because she told him, “I have become impure,” before he withdrew?

But “

it was found

on his, both are impure and liable for a sacrifice,”

it teaches

there,

and “

it was found,”

after this

[after intercourse]

implies,

that he wiped after intercourse and the blood was found on it, and from this we know that she became impure—

And if it is for the separation

that he is liable, because she said to him, “I have become impure,” then

from the outset, when he separated from her

[at first, when she explained to him, “I have become impure”],

from the outset, he had awareness;

whereas from the Mishna it is implied that he became aware of her menstruation only after intercourse!?

Rava said to him

to Rav Adda bar Mattana:

Listen to what your teacher says

[pay attention and listen to the words of your teacher Ravina, who wondered at your words]!

He said to him

Rav Adda bar Mattana to Rava:

How can you

explain it as referring to the entry, and specifically when he had intercourse with her close to her expected period,

for

this

is taught concerning it

regarding that Mishna in Niddah:

This is the positive commandment concerning menstruation for which they are liable

the court

for it—

And if it is so

that the intention of the Mishna is to make him liable for the entry, then

it is a negative commandment

not to have intercourse with a menstruant, and there is no positive commandment in it; necessarily, the Mishna comes to make him liable for the separation, which is a positive commandment, as we learned in our Mishna!?

He said

he answered

to him,

Rava to Rav Adda bar Mattana:

If you teach

[if you teach the beraita as you brought it]

it is lacking

something

and teach it thus

[as in the other instances of “it is lacking, and thus it teaches”]:

This—

the one taught in our Mishna, where he is liable when it was found on his—

is the negative commandment

concerning menstruation for which they are liable

the court

for it.

And if

he was having intercourse with the pure woman and she said to him “

I have become impure,”

and he separated immediately, this is the positive commandment concerning menstruation for which they are liable

the court

for it.

The master said

in our Mishna: He was having intercourse with the pure woman and she said to him, “I have become impure,” and

he separated immediately, he is liable:

The Gemara asks:

What should he do

[how must he act]?

Rav Huna said in the name of Rava: He drives his ten fingernails into the ground,

that is, he holds himself without thrusting of the organ until it dies—

And praiseworthy is he

[and fortunate is he] if he does so.

Rava said:

Our Mishna, which we learned, “He separated immediately, he is liable,” which implies that one who separates with a dead organ is exempt—

this means

that

one who has intercourse

with an organ

dead, in forbidden sexual relations

is

exempt—

For if it enters your mind

that one who has intercourse with a dead organ also

is liable, and even when he waits until the organ dies he transgresses a prohibition, then necessarily

and even when he waits until the organ becomes flaccid he violates a prohibition, then necessarily,

here, when he separates with a dead organ,

when he withdraws with a flaccid organ,

for what reason

is he

exempt

from a sin-offering?

Because

it deals with a case in which it was not close to her expected period,

for he is compelled,

since he could not have imagined that she would become impure— and

if he is compelled,

because he had intercourse with her not close to her expected period, and this is the reason for his exemption when he separated with a dead organ, even though it is a prohibition,

because when he separated with a living organ, he should likewise be exempt

from a sin-offering, for the very same reason, since

he is compelled,

and what difference is there whether, under compulsion, he performed this prohibition or, under compulsion, performed another prohibition!?

Rather, it is certainly necessary [to say] that he is not compelled, because he had intercourse with her close to her expected period. The reason for his exemption with a dead organ is that this is not intercourse at all; therefore, when he separates with a living organ he is liable. From here [it follows] that anyone who has intercourse with a dead organ is not liable.

Abaye said to him

to Rava, rejecting his proof from the Mishna that one who has intercourse with a dead organ in forbidden sexual relations is exempt:

I will say to you in any event: One who has intercourse with a dead organ in forbidden sexual relations is liable, and here—

when he separated with a dead organ—

for what reason is he exempt

from a sin-offering?

Because he is compelled; and as for what you said,

to prove that this is not so, because of the difficulty:

When he separates immediately, why is he liable?

Yet he is compelled; I will say to you:

For this is why he is liable:

He should have separated with slight pleasure

with a dead organ,

but he separated with great pleasure

with a living organ.

Rabba bar Hanan said to Abaye: If so—

according to your words, that even separation with a dead organ is intercourse, and necessarily he must transgress a prohibition, except that he must separate with a dead organ because it involves slight pleasure and a lighter prohibition, and not separate with a living organ because it involves great pleasure and a more severe prohibition—then

we find

a distinction between the

longer

path and the

shorter path

with a menstruant, just as we find with one who became impure in the Temple courtyard—

in the case of a menstruating woman, just as we find with one who became impure in the Temple courtyard—