GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Beit Shammai it is permitted to engage in intercourse by the light of a lamp. In this regard, the Sages taught in a baraita:
Even though the Sages said with regard to one who engages in intercourse by the light of a lamp, that this is disgraceful, Beit Shammai say: A woman is required to examine herself with two cloths, once before and once after each act of intercourse, or she must engage in intercourse by the light of a lamp. And Beit Hillel say: It is sufficient for her to examine herself with two cloths throughout the night, once before the first act of intercourse and once after the final act of intercourse.
It is taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: According to your statement that a woman may engage in intercourse several times in one night without an examination between each act of intercourse, let us be concerned lest she will see, i. e., emit, a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed during the first act of intercourse, and will thereby become impure, and semen from the second act of intercourse will cover it. Since the examination after the last act of intercourse will not reveal the drop of blood, the woman will erroneously think she is pure.
אמרו להם בית הלל אף לדבריכם ליחוש עד שהרוק בתוך הפה שמא נימוק והולך לו
Beit Hillel said to them in response: Even according to your statement, let us be concerned that while the saliva was still in the mouth, i. e., while the blood was in her vagina, perhaps it was squashed and disappeared. Even if she examines herself after each act of intercourse, as mandated by Beit Shammai, it is possible that the semen of that act covered the blood, and it will not be revealed by the examination.
אמרו להם לפי שאינו דומה נימוק פעם אחת לנימוק שתי פעמים
Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: One cannot compare the two situations, as a squashed drop of blood after the woman has engaged in intercourse once is not similar to a squashed drop of blood after the woman has engaged in intercourse twice, and therefore our concern is more reasonable.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua said: I see as correct the statement of Beit Shammai in this case. His students said to him: Our teacher, how you have weighed [he’erakhta] us down with this stringent ruling. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: It is preferable that I weigh you down in this world, so that you do not sin by engaging in prohibited intercourse, i. e., so that your days in the World -to- Come will be lengthened [sheya’arikhu].
אמר רבי זירא מדברי כולם נלמד בעל נפש לא יבעול וישנה
§ Rabbi Zeira says: From the statements of all of them, i. e., both Beit Shammai, who permit engaging in intercourse a second time only after an examination, and Beit Hillel, who rule that the second examination must be performed only after the final act of intercourse of the night, we can learn that their dispute relates only to that which is permitted after the fact. But a pious person [ba’al nefesh] should not engage in intercourse and repeat his act without an examination between each act.
רבא אמר בועל ושונה כי תניא ההיא לטהרות
Rava says: Even a pious person may engage in intercourse and repeat the act without an examination in between, as when that baraita is taught, it is referring to a woman who handles pure items. But with regard to intercourse with her husband, there is no cause for concern.
תניא נמי הכי במה דברים אמורים לטהרות אבל לבעלה מותרת ובמה דברים אמורים שהניחה בחזקת טהרה אבל הניחה בחזקת טמאה לעולם היא בחזקתה עד שתאמר לו טהורה אני
This opinion is also taught in a baraita:
In what case is this statement said, i. e., that a woman must examine herself before and after every act of intercourse according to Beit Shammai, or before the first act and after the last act, according to Beit Hillel? It was said with regard to a woman who handles pure items; but a woman is permitted to her husband even without any examination, and he is not required to ask her if she is pure. But in what case is this lenient statement said? When her husband traveled and left her with the presumptive status of ritual purity. But if he left her with the presumptive status of ritual impurity, she remains forever in her presumptive status of impurity until she says to him: I am pure.
§ Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Rav says: If a woman examined herself at night with a cloth, and the cloth was then immediately lost, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse again until she examines herself with another cloth, as perhaps there was blood on the cloth that was lost. Rabbi Ila objects to this: If this cloth were intact, i. e., if it were not lost, couldn’t this woman engage in intercourse with her husband that night, on the basis that she will examine the cloth only the following day, and isn’t this the halakha even though she does not know at the time of intercourse whether there is blood on the cloth? Now too, although the cloth is lost, let her engage in intercourse with her husband.
אמר ליה רבא זו מוכיחה קיים וזו אין מוכיחה קיים
Rava said to him: There is a difference between the two cases, as when the cloth is intact, this woman’s proof exists, and if she discovers on the following day that she was impure they will be obligated to bring sin offerings for engaging in intercourse in a state of ritual impurity. But with regard to that woman who lost her cloth, her proof does not exist, and therefore they will never know if they require atonement.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is prohibited for a person to engage in intercourse by day. Rav Hamnuna says: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is stated: “ Let the day perish on which I was born, and the night on which it was said: Conceived is a man-child” (Job 3:3). It is derived from here that nighttime is meant for conception, but daytime is not meant for conception. Reish Lakish says that the proof is from here: “ But he who despises his ways shall die” (Proverbs 19:16). One might see something unpleasing in his wife in the daylight and come to despise her.
וריש לקיש האי קרא דרבי יוחנן מאי דריש ביה מבעי ליה לכדדריש רבי חנינא בר פפא דדריש רבי חנינא בר פפא אותו מלאך הממונה על ההריון לילה שמו ונוטל טפה ומעמידה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא ואומר לפניו רבונו של עולם טפה זו מה תהא עליה גבור או חלש חכם או טיפש עשיר או עני
The Gemara asks: And how does Reish Lakish interpret this verse cited by Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers that he requires that verse for that which Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa taught. As Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa interpreted that verse in the following manner: That angel that is appointed over conception is called: Night. And that angel takes the drop of semen from which a person will be formed and presents it before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and says before Him: Master of the Universe, what will be of this drop? Will the person fashioned from it be mighty or weak? Will he be clever or stupid? Will he be wealthy or poor?
The Gemara notes: But this angel does not say: Will he be wicked or righteous? This is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina said: Everything is in the hand of Heaven, except for fear of Heaven. People have free will to serve God or not, as it is stated: “ And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you other than to fear the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 10:12). The fact that God asks of the Jewish people to fear Him indicates that it is a person’s choice to do so.
ורבי יוחנן אם כן נכתוב קרא גבר הורה מאי הורה גבר לילה ניתן להריון ויום לא ניתן להריון
The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Yoḥanan derives two halakhot from the verse“ and the night on which it was said: Conceived is a man-child, ” as he holds as follows: If so, i. e., if it is referring only to the statement of the angel, let the verse write: And the night that said: A man-child is conceived. What is the meaning of:“ Conceived is a man-child”? It is derived from the juxtaposition of the word“ night” and the word“ conceived” that nighttime is meant for conception but daytime is not meant for conception.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, how does he interpret that verse cited by Reish Lakish? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan requires that verse: “ But he who despises his ways shall die, ” to teach that which is written in the book of ben Sira: Three people I have hated, and a fourth I have not loved: A minister who frequents [hanirgal] drinking houses, as he disgraces himself and leads himself to ruin and death; and some say a different version of the text: A minister who chats [hanirgan] in drinking houses; and some say a third version: A minister who is short-tempered [hanirgaz] when in drinking houses.
והמושיב שבת במרומי קרת והאוחז באמה ומשתין מים והנכנס לבית חבירו פתאום אמר רבי יוחנן ואפילו לביתו
That is the first that he hated. And the others are one who dwells at the highest point of the city, where everyone sees him; and one who holds his penis and urinates. And the fourth, whom he has not loved, is one who enters the house of another suddenly, without warning. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And this includes even one who comes into his own house without prior warning, as the members of his household might be engaged in private activities.
אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחאי ארבעה דברים הקדוש ברוך הוא שונאן ואני איני אוהבן הנכנס לביתו פתאום ואין צריך לומר לבית חבירו והאוחז באמה ומשתין מים
The Gemara cites a similar say ing. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Four matters the Holy One, Blessed be He, hates, and I do not love them, and they are: One who enters his house suddenly, and needless to say one who suddenly enters the house of another; and one who holds his penis and urinates;