Yevamot 34b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

But Tamar

Judah’s daughter-in-law—

at the first intercourse

with Judah

became pregnant!

He said to him

Rav Naḥman:

Tamar—

before the intercourse with Judah,

with a finger

she

crushed

her hymen, and her opening was open; and with regard to this it was considered for her as though her intercourse had been a second intercourse, through which she could become pregnant!

For Rabbi Yitzḥak said: All those who were crushed in the house of Rabbi,

who crushed and removed their hymens with a finger—

they were called “Tamar.”

And why were they called “Tamar

”? Because of Tamar, who crushed

her hymen

with her finger.

And we raise an objection: How did Rava say that Tamar became pregnant through Judah’s first intercourse?

But

behold,

Er and Onan existed,

for she had been married to them before Judah came upon her!?

And we answer:

Er and Onan—

they had intercourse in an unnatural manner,

for they came upon her not in the place of intercourse.

He raises an objection: For all twenty-four months

during which a woman nurses her son, and there is danger to the fetus if his mother becomes pregnant, for her milk will become spoiled and he will have nothing to nurse—her husband is permitted to come upon her in such a manner that he

plows inside and emits

the semen

outside,

so that she will not become pregnant,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

The Sages said to him

:

These

acts of this sort

are nothing other than like the act of Er and Onan!

And it is thereby demonstrated that Er and Onan came upon her in the manner of intercourse, but in the end they destroyed their semen upon the ground. How, then, did Rava say that Judah came upon Tamar in a first intercourse, and how did he raise an objection to Rav Naḥman, according to Rav Naḥman, as to how she became pregnant through it!?

And we answer: What the Sages said—that one who does this conducts himself like the act of Er and Onan—does not mean that he does precisely as they themselves did.

Rather,

like the act of Er and Onan, but not like the act of Er and Onan!

Like the act of Er and Onan—

as it is written

Genesis 38:

“And it was, when he came to his brother’s wife, that he destroyed upon the ground”

But not like the act of Er and Onan—

for there,

they came upon her

in an unnatural manner,

and thereby there was the destruction of their semen, and for this Scripture called it, “And he destroyed upon the ground.”

And

if

here,

in the case of the nursing woman, according to Rabbi Eliezer, he came upon her

in the manner of intercourse,

but he destroys his semen upon the ground.

And we inquire about it:

Granted, as for Onan,

we know that he acted thus,

for it is written concerning him, “And he destroyed upon the ground.”

But Er—

from where do we know

that he too acted thus?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: For it is written

Genesis 38:

“And He put him to death as well.”

Scripture teaches

that he too was in the same

cause of

death, and died.

Granted, as for Onan,

he did this

because

he thought that

“the semen would not be his”,

but it would be in the name of his brother Er, since Onan performed levirate marriage with her after the death of his brother Er.

But Er—

what was the reason that he acted thus?

So that she would not become pregnant and her beauty would fade.

The Sages taught

: It is written in the section of the impurity of a man who lies with a woman, through which the man and the woman become impure:

“And a woman with whom

he

a man lies with an emission of semen, and they shall bathe in water.”

The word “he” is a limitation, and it comes to say—

to exclude a bride,

who is penetrated in a first intercourse, so that she does not become impure through the intercourse,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

And as the Gemara will explain below.

And the Sages say: “He, an emission of semen”—

“he, an emission of semen”

to exclude one who

came upon her

in an unnatural manner,

not in the place of intercourse.

He said to him,

wondering and asking,

Huna, the son

of

Rav Naḥman, to Rav Naḥman:

Shall we say

that

Rabbi Judah holds: The Torah took pity on a bride’s ornaments,

on the rouge and the eye-black that she applies to her face, so that they should not come off her during immersion in water!?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman to his son: Rabbi Judah’s reason is

because a woman does not become pregnant through a first intercourse,

because the place is not open when he comes upon her the first time.

And therefore this intercourse does not render the bride impure, even though the husband emitted semen, and even though it was in the place of intercourse, which is a place fit for insemination through a second intercourse, when the opening will be open.

For the Torah excluded her, so that she does not become impure because this is a first intercourse, through which she is not fit to become pregnant, since the opening is not open then and it is not an intercourse fit for insemination.

And also the husband’s emission of semen that touches her does not render her impure, since this is “contact in a concealed place,” for a person becomes impure through “impurity of contact,” by touching impurity, only when he touches the impurity with his hands or with the outer side of his body, but not when the contact was in a “concealed place,” in the inner part of the body, hidden from the eye of observers.

And the Gemara explains:

In what do they disagree,

the Sages and Rabbi Judah?

The Sages hold,

that this is the limitation of the verse:

“An emission of semen”—

to exclude the initial penetration,

the beginning of intercourse, through which she is not fit for insemination.

“He”—

to exclude one who

has intercourse

in an unnatural manner,

not in the place of intercourse.

And Rabbi Judah holds: An unnatural manner and initial penetration,

both of them

are derived from “an emission of semen.”

“He”—

to exclude a bride.

When Ravin came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: Any

woman

who remained after

her husband died or divorced her

for ten years, and married,

will no longer give birth.

Rav Naḥman said: They taught this only when she had no intention of marrying, but when she had the intention of marrying—

she becomes pregnant.

Rava said to

his wife, who was

the daughter of Rav Ḥisda,

and whom he married after she had remained ten years after the death of her first husband, Rami bar Ḥama, and who became pregnant by Rava:

The Sages are gossiping about you,

how did you give birth after waiting ten years following your first husband’s death!?

She said to him: I,

before ten years had passed,

had my mind set on you.

And therefore I became pregnant even after ten years.

There was an incident involving

a certain

woman

who came before Rav Yosef.

She said to him: Rabbi, I remained after my husband for ten years, and I gave birth!

Rav Yosef said to her,

:

My daughter, do not cast aspersion on the words of the Sages!

She said to him,

she acknowledged to him:

I was penetrated by a gentile

during this period!

Shmuel said: And all of them,

all women who are penetrated

must wait

before marrying after their intercourse

three months,

in order to distinguish between the semen of the first husband and the semen of the second husband; and the Sages included in their decree all Jewish women, even minors who do not give birth.

Except for a minor female convert and a minor freedwoman,

for the Sages did not decree concerning her that she must wait.

But a minor Jewish girl—

must wait three months.

And with regard to what

did they decree concerning Jewish minors?

If

they decreed concerning minors who leave their husbands

through refusal,

but Shmuel said that she who refuses does not require

waiting, since they did not decree concerning her.

And if

it is concerning minors who were married by their fathers according to Torah law, who leave

through a bill of divorce—

has he not already said

before

this once!

For Shmuel said: If she refused him—

she does not need to wait three months.

But if he

gave her a bill of divorce—

she must wait three months!

Rather,

Shmuel said this, that minors who are Jewish women must wait, but not a female convert, concerning minors who are penetrated

in promiscuity.