Yevamot 55b — the Talmud in English

It is derived

the law of initial penetration with those subject to positive commandments from those subject to prohibitions, in which initial penetration was included, by means of a

gzera shava: “intercourse, intercourse”. [

It is written concerning those subject to positive commandments: “Children who shall be born to them, the third generation

shall enter

the congregation of the Lord.”

And it is written concerning those subject to prohibitions: “A bastard shall not

enter

the congregation of the Lord.” ]

And the Gemara continues to explain:

a levirate widow forbidden to a stranger [

a levirate widow who is bound to the yavam and is forbidden to have intercourse with a foreign man ]—

from where

do we know that she is forbidden even through mere initial penetration?

And the Gemara wonders about the question: Why must we seek a source in Scripture from which to learn that a levirate widow forbidden to a stranger is forbidden even through initial penetration? Is it not the case that:

If according to the one who says

that a levirate widow forbidden to a stranger is forbidden to have intercourse with a stranger by a

prohibition,

as it is written: “The wife of the dead man shall not be outside to a foreign man”—this is a

prohibition, and we have already learned the prohibition of initial penetration concerning those subject to prohibitions.

and we have already learned that mere initial penetration is prohibited in cases involving prohibitions.

If according to the one who says

that she is forbidden to a stranger by a

positive commandment,

as it is written: “The yevama shall come upon him”—a yevama, but not a stranger; and a prohibition that is inferred from a positive commandment is a “positive commandment” — this is a prohibition of a

positive commandment, and we have already learned the prohibition of initial penetration concerning those subject to positive commandments.

and we have already learned that mere initial penetration is prohibited in cases involving positive commands.

Rather,

this is what we are saying:

A yevama

who is acquired

by the yavam

through intercourse—

from where

do we know that she is acquired even through mere initial penetration?

It is derived

that the acquisition through the yavam’s initial penetration of his yevama is derived by means of a

gzera shava: “intercourse, intercourse”

from those subject to prohibitions, in which initial penetration was included. [

As it is written: “The yevama

shall come

upon him,” and it is written: “A bastard shall not

come

in.” ]

And the Gemara continues to explain the laws of initial penetration:

A woman

who is acquired

by her husband

through betrothal by intercourse—

from where

do we know that she is acquired by her husband through mere initial penetration when he betroths her through intercourse?

It is derived

that a woman’s acquisition by her husband through initial penetration is derived by means of a

gzera shava: “take, take.” [

It is written: “When a man

takes

a woman and engages in intercourse with her,” from which we learn betrothal through intercourse with a woman. And it is written: “A man who

takes his sister,” who is among those subject to excision, in which initial penetration was included. ]

Rava said:

It is written concerning a betrothed maidservant: “And a man, if he lies with a woman, ‘a lying of seed,’ and she is a maidservant betrothed to a man.”

And it is written concerning a married woman: “And to the wife of your fellow you shall not give your lying, ‘for seed,’ to defile yourself through her.”

And it is written concerning a sota: “If any man’s wife goes astray and commits treachery against him, and a man lies with her, ‘a lying of seed’” [that is, it is uncertain whether a man lay with her with a lying of seed], “and it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she was concealed” [she was secluded with another man, and therefore it is uncertain whether] “and she was defiled” [it is possible that she was defiled; and the Sages expounded: she is impure from the time of seclusion to her husband, and he is forbidden to her].

And Rava explains:

Why do I need

what

the Merciful One wrote: “And a man, if he lies with a woman,

‘a lying of seed’ with a betrothed maidservant,”

a lying of seed,” concerning a designated maidservant?

and why do I need that He wrote:

“a lying of seed” [“You shall not give your lying for seed”]

concerning a married woman, and why do I need that He wrote: “And a man lies with her,

and why do I need what He wrote: “And a man lies with her,

‘a lying of seed’ concerning a sota?”

“A lying of seed”

concerning a betrothed maidservant,

the Merciful One wrote it in order to teach us

as we said,

namely, that one is liable for her only for completion of intercourse.

And “a lying of seed”

concerning a married woman,

the Merciful One wrote it in order to teach:

to exclude one who has intercourse

with a married woman with a

dead organ [

without an erection ], who is not liable for her, since he does not emit seed.

And we challenge this:

This works according to the one who says that one who has intercourse with a dead organ in forbidden sexual relations is exempt,

for it is indeed possible to say that the verse came to exclude one who has intercourse with a dead organ with a married woman.

But according to the one who says

that even one who has intercourse with a dead organ in forbidden sexual relations is

liable—

What is there to say?

What does “a lying of seed,” stated concerning a married woman, come to exclude?

Rather, “a lying of seed” stated concerning a married woman was written in order to teach us:

to exclude one who has intercourse

with a married woman when she is

dead,

who is not liable for her, since she does not emit seed.

And the Torah needed to exclude a married woman who died from the prohibition of a married woman. Since

it might enter your mind: since after [Rashi’s version]

(this is Rashi’s version)

death as well she is called “his kin,”

as it is written concerning the commandment prohibiting a priest from becoming impure through the dead: “He shall not become impure for a person among his people, except for his close relative who is near to him.” And we say: “His close relative” — this is his wife.

And therefore it might enter one’s mind that

he should be liable for her

as well, one who has intercourse with her after death,

with

the liability of one who has intercourse with a

married woman.

It teaches us

that one is not liable for a dead woman on account of a married woman.

We further explain: “A lying of seed,”

which

is written concerning a

sota—

why do I need it?

As it is taught in a beraita: “‘A lying of seed’—to exclude another matter.”

And we explain:

What is “another matter”?

Rav Sheshet said: To exclude one whom he warned

not to have intercourse

unnaturally,

for this is not a warning that makes her forbidden to him and makes her drink, even if she was secluded.

He said

and objected

to him, Rava,

to Rav Sheshet: But

“the lyings of a woman” [

two lyings are implied: naturally and unnaturally ]

is written. And Scripture compared them to one another for every law; how then can you say that the verse came to exclude unnatural intercourse in the case of a sota?!

Rather, Rava said: To exclude one whom he warned concerning contact through the limbs [squeezing the breasts and rubbing externally with the other limbs, Rashi].

pressing the breasts and rubbing externally with the other limbs, Rashi).

He said

and objected

to him, Abaye:

Would we say that even if the woman behaved in a manner of

licentiousness [

mere licentiousness ],

the Merciful One forbade

her to him, to the extent that the Torah had to exclude this explicitly?!

Rather, Abaye said: To exclude one whom he warned concerning “kissing,”

and as will be explained, she does not become forbidden to him through this, and she does not drink.

And we refute:

This works according to the one who says that initial penetration

which was included everywhere, and likewise in the case of a sota to make her forbidden to him—

is the insertion of the corona

of the organ, which is the thickened part of the flesh; it is then understandable that the verse came to exclude “kissing,” which is only contact of the organ with that place.

But according to the one who says

that initial penetration, which was included everywhere,

is kissing—

what is there to say?

And we explain:

Rather, always, the reason the Torah stated “a lying of seed” concerning a sota was to exclude

one whom he warned concerning contact through the limbs,

so that she does not become forbidden to him.

And

as for what you challenged—would the Merciful One forbid his wife to him because of licentiousness?—do not challenge this, for indeed

it was necessary

for the verse to exclude a warning concerning contact through the limbs, through which she does not become forbidden to him, because:

It might enter your mind

that the woman’s prohibition is

made dependent by the Merciful One on the husband’s insistence,

and he insists

even concerning contact through the limbs.

Therefore

it teaches us

the verse that if he warned her concerning contact through the limbs, she does not become forbidden to him.

Shmuel said: Initial penetration

stated everywhere

is kissing

of the organ with that place. And it is considered intercourse, because

it is analogous to a person who places his finger on his mouth—

it is impossible that he will not press the flesh,

and some of the flesh of the finger will enter the mouth.

And here too, with the kissing of the organ at that place, the organ presses the flesh, and there is intercourse.

When Rabba bar bar Ḥana came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Completion of intercourse with a betrothed maidservant [

for whom one is liable only for completion of intercourse, as explained above ]—

this is the insertion of the corona!

The corona is the head of the organ, and it is not part of the organ itself, but flesh.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection

from a beraita against what Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the insertion of the corona is the completion of intercourse stated concerning a betrothed maidservant—

as it is taught:

“A lying of seed”

stated concerning a betrothed maidservant comes to teach that

one is liable only for intercourse of rubbing [

“rubbing” is an expression of completion; that is, complete intercourse, with the entire organ entering ], through which he emits seed —

And Rav Sheshet infers:

Is it not

the intention of the beraita that one is liable only for intercourse of “rubbing,” meaning that one needs

rubbing of the organ,

that is, its complete insertion?

And it is proven that insertion of the corona is insufficient with a betrothed maidservant, but one must insert the entire organ—and this is a difficulty against Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan!?

And we answer:

No,

the beraita did not mean rubbing of the organ, but

rubbing of the

the

corona,

for the mere insertion of the corona is considered completion of intercourse.

When Rav Dimi came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: Initial penetration—

this is the insertion of the corona!

And since the insertion of the corona is considered only the beginning of intercourse [“initial penetration”], it follows that completion of intercourse with a betrothed maidservant is intercourse of rubbing of the organ.

They said to him: But Rabba bar bar Ḥana

in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan

did not say so,

for he said that the insertion of the corona is considered completion of intercourse, and it consequently follows that initial penetration is kissing?!

Rav Dimi said to them:

Either he is the liar, or I am the liar

Either he is a liar, or I am a liar [

either I am lying or he is lying ].

When Ravin came, he said

also in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

in accordance with the words of Rav Dimi, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Initial penetration—

this is the insertion of the corona.

And the Gemara explains: Ravin [in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan]

certainly disputes Rabba bar bar Ḥana [

in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ]—

he certainly disputes him!

For Ravin holds that initial penetration is the insertion of the corona, and necessarily completion of intercourse is more than the insertion of the corona. But Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that completion of intercourse is the insertion of the corona.

However,

with regard to Shmuel—

who said that initial penetration is kissing—

shall we say that Ravin disputes him

? Is it necessary to say that Ravin, who says in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that initial penetration is the insertion of the corona, disputes Shmuel, who says that initial penetration is kissing? One can say: One stated one matter and the other stated one matter, and they do not dispute, as he explains and proceeds.

And we explain:

No,

it is not necessary that they dispute. One can say:

From kissing until the insertion of the corona—

he calls it “initial penetration.”

That is, Shmuel, who said, “Initial penetration is kissing,” stated the least degree of entry, to say that even this is called “initial penetration.”

Whereas Ravin, who said, “Initial penetration is the insertion of the corona,” stated the greatest degree of entry that is still called initial penetration and not completion of intercourse.

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Initial penetration—

this is the insertion of the corona.

Completion of intercourse—

actual completion of intercourse.