📜 Shabbat — 13a

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The schoolchildren would organize the sections and read the book by candlelight. Apparently, it is permitted to read by candlelight on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the Tosefta is only referring to the beginning of the sections. And if you wish, say instead that children are different in this regard. Since the fear of their teacher is upon them, they will not come to adjust the wick. Even on a weekday, fear of their teacher will prevent them from tending to the lamp during their study. We learned in the mishna: Similar to this decree of Shabbat, the Sages issued a decree that the zav may not eat with his wife, the zava, even though they are both ritually impure, because by eating together they will come to excessive intimacy and become accustomed to sin. It was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Come and see to what extent ritual purity was widespread in Israel, as we did not learn: The ritually pure may not eat with the ritually impure woman; but rather, the zav may not eat with the zava, although they are both ritually impure, lest he become accustomed to sin. Needless to say, a pure and an impure person certainly would not eat together, as everyone was careful with regard to ritual purity. On a similar note, the Sages said: A zav who generally distances himself from ritual impurity, eats ritually pure food, and is careful about separating tithes, may not eat with a zav who is an am ha’aretz, who does not distance himself from ritual impurity and is not careful about separating tithes, due to the concern lest the am ha’aretz accustom him to frequently spend time with him, by means of a shared meal. The Gemara wonders: And if he accustoms him to be with him, what of it, what is the problem? Rather, say: Lest he feed him impure items. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the zav who generally distances himself from ritual impurity does not eat impure things? In his impure state, everything he touches automatically becomes impure, so why would he be concerned with regard to impure items? Abaye said: This prohibition is due to a decree issued by the Sages lest the am ha’aretz feed him food items that are not tithed. Rava said: He needn’t worry about items that are not tithed. Even if his friend was an am ha’aretz, there is a general principle in effect that most amei ha’aretz tithe their fruits. Rather, the Sages were concerned lest he become accustomed to spending time with the am ha’aretz even after the period of his impurity and he feed him impure items even during the days of his purity. An additional dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the requirement to distance oneself from prohibition and impurity: What is the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman? May she sleep with her husband in one bed while she is in her clothes and he is in his clothes? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what we learned in a mishna: The fowl is permitted to be placed together with the cheese on the table, although it may not be eaten with cheese. This is the statement of Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel say: The fowl is neither permitted to be placed together with the cheese on the table, nor may it be eaten with it. According to the opinion of Beit Hillel, which is the halakha, not only must one distance himself from the sin itself, but one must also make certain that items that are prohibited together are not placed together. The Gemara rejects this: There it is different as there are not several consciousnesses. When the fowl and the cheese are on one person’s table, he is liable to err and eat them both, as there is only one consciousness there, his. That is not the case when there are two people in one bed. In that case, there are two consciousnesses and there is no concern that they will both forget the prohibition. The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to say that where there are two or more consciousnesses it is different, as it was taught in the latter clause of that mishna, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests in one house may eat on one table this one eating meat and this one eating cheese, and they need not be concerned. The Gemara rejects this: That is not a proof. Was it not said with regard to this halakha that Rabbi Ḥanin bar Ami said that Shmuel said: They only taught that the two of them may eat on one table when they are not familiar with each other; however, if they are familiar with each other it is prohibited for them to eat on one table, as there is room for concern that due to their familiarity they will share their food and come to sin. And, if so, these too, the husband and his wife, are familiar with each other. There is room for concern that they will not keep appropriate distance, and therefore they may not sleep together in one bed even if he is wearing his clothes and she is wearing her clothes. The Gemara rejects this: How can you compare these two cases? There, in the case of meat and milk, there are two consciousnesses; however, there is no noticeable change from the norm, as the meat and the cheese are on the table without any obvious indication to remind them not to mix the food items. While, here, in the case of the menstruating woman, there are two consciousnesses and there is also a noticeable change from the norm, as it is unusual for people to sleep in their clothes. The fact that they are both dressed constitutes a change. Others cite the previous passage as proof for Rav Yosef’s opinion and then reject it and say: Come and hear, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests may eat on one table, this one eating meat and this one eating cheese. And it was stated with regard to this halakha that Rabbi Ḥanin bar Ami said that Shmuel said: They only taught that the two of them may eat on one table when they are not familiar with each other; however, if they are familiar with each other it is prohibited for them to eat on one table, as there is room for concern that due to their familiarity they will share their food and come to sin. And, if so, these too, the husband and his wife are familiar with each other. There is room for concern that they will not act with the appropriate separation, and therefore they cannot sleep together in one bed, even if he is wearing his clothes and she is wearing her clothes. The Gemara distinguishes between the cases: There, in the case of meat and cheese, although there are two consciousnesses, there is no noticeable change. The meat and the cheese are on the table with no obvious indication to remind them not to mix the food items. While here, in the case of the menstruating woman, there are two consciousnesses and there is also a noticeable change. Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from what we learned in our mishna: The zav may not eat with the zava due to concern that excessive intimacy will lead them to become accustomed to sin. Even eating together is prohibited. The Gemara answers: Here, too, although there are two consciousnesses, there is no noticeable change. Come and hear a different resolution from that which was taught in a baraita: It is stated: “And he has not eaten upon the mountains, neither has he lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither has he defiled his neighbor’s wife, neither has he come near to a woman in her impurity” (Ezekiel 18:6). This verse juxtaposes a menstruating woman to his neighbor’s wife. Just as lying together with his neighbor’s wife, even when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, is prohibited, so too, lying with his wife when she is menstruating, even when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, is prohibited. The Gemara comments: And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Pedat, as Rabbi Pedat said: The Torah only prohibited intimacy that involves engaging in prohibited sexual relations, as it is stated: “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6). The prohibition of intimacy in the Torah applies exclusively to relations, and all other kinds of intimacy that do not include actual relations are not included in the prohibition. When there is separation, they did not issue a decree. The Gemara relates that Ulla, when he would come from the house of his teacher, would kiss his sisters on their chests. And some say: On their hands. Ulla was not concerned about violating the prohibition of displaying affection toward a relative forbidden to him, as his intention was not to have relations with them. The Gemara adds that his action was in contradiction to a saying of his, as Ulla said: Even any intimacy is prohibited with a woman with whom he is forbidden to engage in sexual relations due to the reason formulated as an adage: Go around, go around, and do not approach the vineyard, they say to the nazirite. They advise the nazirite, who is forbidden to consume any product of a vine, that he should not even approach the vineyard. The same is true with regard to the prohibition of forbidden relations. According to Ulla, one must distance himself from them to whatever degree possible. The Sage in the school of Eliyahu taught a baraita that deals with this halakha: There was an incident involving one student who studied much Mishna and read much Bible, and served Torah scholars extensively, studying Torah from them, and, nevertheless, died at half his days, half his life expectancy. His wife in her bitterness would take his phylacteries and go around with them to synagogues and study halls, and she said to the Sages: It is written in the Torah: “For it is your life and the length of your days” (Deuteronomy 30:20). If so, my husband who studied much Mishna, and read much Bible,