נדה טז

נדה טז

כְּמִין נֵפֶל.

that she cast an item similar to a non-viable newborn into a pit. Perhaps it was not a non-viable newborn; it might simply have been congealed blood, which does not transmit impurity. Therefore, this is a conflict between uncertainty and uncertainty. It is unclear whether there was anything in the pit that could have rendered the priest ritually impure, and even if there was, it might already have been dragged away.

וְהָא ״לֵידַע אִם זָכָר אִם נְקֵבָה״ קָתָנֵי!

The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught in the baraita: And a priest came and looked into the pit to ascertain whether it was male or whether it was female? This indicates that the only uncertainty was with regard to its sex; it was certainly a non-viable newborn.

הָכִי קָאָמַר: וּבָא כֹּהֵן וְהֵצִיץ בּוֹ, לֵידַע אִם נֵפֶל הִפִּילָה אִם רוּחַ הִפִּילָה, וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר נֵפֶל הִפִּילָה — לֵידַע אִם זָכָר אִם נְקֵבָה.

The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita is saying: And a priest came and glanced at the baby to ascertain whether the woman discharged a non-viable newborn, or whether she discharged an amorphous mass. And if you say that she discharged a non-viable newborn, he sought to ascertain whether it was male or whether it was female.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, כֵּיוָן דְּחוּלְדָּה וּבַרְדְּלָס מְצוּיִים שָׁם — וַדַּאי גְּרָרוּהוּ.

And if you wish, say instead that this was not a conflict between certainty and uncertainty; rather, it was between two certainties. Since martens and hyenas are common there, they certainly dragged it away immediately. Consequently, the ruling in this case does not contradict the principle that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב נַחְמָן: וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אוֹ דְרַבָּנַן?

§ The Gemara returns to the issue of a woman’s examination at the projected time of her period. The Sages asked Rav Naḥman: Does the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods, and in turn the obligation for her to perform an examination at that time, apply by Torah law? If so, if a woman did not examine herself she is ritually impure, even if she later examined herself and did not find any blood, as it is assumed that she emitted blood without her seeing it. Or perhaps the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods, and in turn the obligation for her to perform an examination at that time, applies by rabbinic law? If so, a woman who did not examine herself at the time and did not sense the emission of blood can still examine herself after that time and would be ritually pure.

אֲמַר לְהוּ מִדְּאָמַר הוּנָא חַבְרִין מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת, וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, וּלְבַסּוֹף רָאֲתָה — חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוִסְתָּהּ, וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לִרְאִיָּיתָהּ. אַלְמָא וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

Rav Naḥman said to them: A resolution can be found for your dilemma from that which Huna our colleague said in the name of Rav: With regard to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, and the projected time of her period arrived and she did not examine herself, and ultimately, when she did examine herself, she saw blood, the halakha is that she must be concerned for ritual impurity from the projected time of her period and that therefore any pure items she touched since then are impure. And additionally, she must be concerned for ritual impurity with regard to the twenty-four hours prior to her seeing the blood, and any items she touched during those twenty-four hours are impure, even if she saw the blood a short while after the projected time of her period. Evidently, the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, which is why the halakha is stringent.

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: טַעְמָא דְּרָאֲתָה, הָא לֹא רָאֲתָה — אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין, אַלְמָא וְסָתוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן.

There are those who say that this is what Rav Naḥman said to the other Sages: The reason for Rav’s ruling that pure items she touched are retroactively considered impure is that she ultimately saw blood, from which it may be inferred that if she did not see blood, one is not concerned about the status of pure items that she touched from the projected time of her period, despite the fact that she neglected to examine herself at the time. Evidently, the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law.

אִיתְּמַר: אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת, וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, וּלְבַסּוֹף בָּדְקָה — אָמַר רַב: בָּדְקָה וּמָצָאת טְמֵאָה — טְמֵאָה, טְהוֹרָה — טְהוֹרָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בָּדְקָה וּמָצָאת טְהוֹרָה נָמֵי טְמֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹרַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ בָּא.

§ Since the Gemara mentioned Rav’s ruling it cites the dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to this halakha. It was stated that these amora’im disagree about a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, and the projected time of her period arrived and she did not examine herself, and ultimately she examined herself. Rav says: If she examined herself at this later time and found that she was ritually impure, she is impure; and if she found that she was pure, she is pure. And Shmuel says: Even if she later examined herself and found that she was pure, she is impure. This is because the manner of women, i.e., a women’s menstrual period, comes at its usual time.

לֵימָא, בִּוְסָתוֹת קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמָר סָבַר דְּרַבָּנַן.

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the concern for impurity of women at the pro-jected time of their periods? As one Sage, Shmuel, who rules that the woman is impure in both cases, holds that this concern for impurity applies by Torah law, and one Sage, Rav, who says that if her subsequent examination came out clean then she remains pure, holds that this concern for impurity applies by rabbinic law.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, כָּאן — שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כְּשִׁיעוּר וֶסֶת, כָּאן — שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כְּשִׁיעוּר וֶסֶת.

Rabbi Zeira says: It is possible that everyone, even Rav, agrees that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, and the reason Rav deems the woman pure in this case is that here it is a situation where she examined herself within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, i.e., very close to the projected time of her period, and therefore it is assumed that if there was blood at the projected time of her period she would have seen it upon this examination. By contrast, there, in other cases of subsequent examinations, she did not examine herself within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation.

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: בִּוְסָתוֹת גּוּפַיְיהוּ קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמַר סָבַר: וְסָתוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Actually, Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the matter of the projected time of their periods itself, as one Sage, Shmuel, holds that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, and one Sage, Rav, holds that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּתַנָּאֵי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: טְמֵאָה נִדָּה.

The Gemara continues to discuss this dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Rav Sheshet says: This disagreement between Rav and Shmuel is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im: Rabbi Eliezer says that a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle but who did not examine herself at the projected time of her period is ritually impure as a menstruating woman, which indicates that in his opinion the examination at the projected time of a woman’s period applies by Torah law.

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: תִּבָּדֵק, וְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי כִּי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: טְמֵאָה נִדָּה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: תִּבָּדֵק.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says that she should be examined now, despite the elapsed time, and if the examination came out clean she is pure retroactively as well. Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that this examination applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara adds: And the dispute of these tanna’im is parallel to the dispute of those tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: She is ritually impure as a menstruating woman, and the Rabbis say: She should be examined now.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁחֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַדָּמִים. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא חֲרָדָה, הָא לֵיכָּא חֲרָדָה — טְמֵאָה, אַלְמָא וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

Abaye said: We, too, learn likewise in a mishna, as we learned in a mishna (39a): Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding from danger, and the projected time of her period arrived and she did not examine herself, nevertheless she is ritually pure, as it may be assumed that she did not experience bleeding because fear dispels the flow of menstrual blood, and therefore there is no concern that she might have emitted blood without sensing it. By inference, the reason she is pure is that there is fear of danger; but if there is no fear upon this woman, she is impure. Evidently, Rabbi Meir maintains that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law.

לֵימָא הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי בְּהָא נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: הָרוֹאָה דָּם מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה, אֲפִילּוּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ — טְהוֹרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

The Gemara further suggests: Shall we say that these following tanna’im also disagree with regard to this matter of whether the examination at the projected time of a woman’s period is required by Torah law? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who sees blood due to a wound in her pubic area, even if she saw the blood during the days of her menstruation, including the projected time of her period, she is pure, as it is assumed that the blood came from the wound; this is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת — חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוִסְתָּהּ.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that if the woman does not have a fixed menstrual cycle then the blood can be attributed to the wound. But if she has a fixed menstrual cycle, and she saw blood on the projected day of her period, even if the blood was from the wound she must be concerned that blood from her period might be mixed with this blood from the wound, and must therefore observe impurity status.

מַאי לַָאו, בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמַר סָבַר וְסָתוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן?

The Gemara clarifies its suggestion: What, is it not the case that these Sages disagree with regard to this matter, i.e., that one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, and though she can examine herself and ascertain that she is pure, if she did not she is presumed impure, and therefore he is stringent in the case of a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle; and one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law, and consequently he rules leniently even with regard to a woman who has a fixed cycle?

אָמַר רָבִינָא: לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא וְסָתוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן, וְהָכָא בְּמָקוֹר מְקוֹמוֹ טָמֵא קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

Ravina says: No; they do not necessarily disagree with regard to this point, as it is possible that everyone, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, agrees that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law, and here they disagree as to whether the location of a woman’s source, i.e., her uterus, is impure, and therefore any blood that passes through there is impure, even if it is blood from a wound.

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: אִשָּׁה טְהוֹרָה וְדָם טָמֵא, דְּקָאָתֵי דֶּרֶךְ מָקוֹר.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the woman herself is pure from the seven-day impurity status of a menstruating woman, as the requirement of an examination upon the projected time of her period applies by rabbinic law, but the blood is impure, even if it is from a wound, as it came through her source, and was thereby rendered impure. Consequently, the blood renders the woman impure until the evening.

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי: אִי חָיְישַׁתְּ לְוֶסֶת, אִשָּׁה נָמֵי טְמֵאָה, וְאִי לָא חָיְישַׁתְּ לְוֶסֶת, מָקוֹר מְקוֹמוֹ טָהוֹר הוּא.

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: If you are concerned due to the possibility that this is blood of her menstrual period, then the woman should also be impure as a menstruating woman. And if you are not concerned due to the possibility that this is blood of her menstrual period, then her source does not transmit impurity to the blood that passes through its location, as that blood is pure.

מַתְנִי’ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עֵדִים עַל כׇּל תַּשְׁמִישׁ וְתַשְׁמִישׁ, אוֹ תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: דַּיָּהּ בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה.

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A woman is required to examine herself with two cloths, once before and once after each and every act of intercourse in which she engages throughout the night, and she must inspect them for blood the following morning, or she must engage in intercourse by the light of a lamp and inspect the cloths before and after each act of intercourse. Beit Hillel say: She is not required to examine herself between each act of intercourse. Rather, 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.

גְּמָ’ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר הֲרֵי זֶה מְגוּנֶּה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עֵדִים עַל כׇּל תַּשְׁמִישׁ, אוֹ תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: דַּיָּהּ בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה.

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.

תַּנְיָא: אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, לֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא תִּרְאֶה טִיפַּת דָּם כְּחַרְדָּל בְּבִיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, וּתְחַפֶּנָּה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בְּבִיאָה שְׁנִיָּה.

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.

אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל: אַף לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, לֵיחוּשׁ עַד שֶׁהָרוֹק בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּה, שֶׁמָּא נִימּוֹק וְהוֹלֵךְ לוֹ.

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.

אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה נִימּוֹק פַּעַם אַחַת, לְנִימּוֹק שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים.

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.

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: רַבִּי, כַּמָּה הֶאֱרַכְתָּ עָלֵינוּ! אָמַר לָהֶם: מוּטָב שֶׁאַאֲרִיךְ עֲלֵיכֶם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּאֲרִיכוּ יְמֵיכֶם לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.

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].

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מִדִּבְרֵי כּוּלָּם נִלְמַד, בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ — לֹא יִבְעוֹל וְיִשְׁנֶה.

§ 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.

רָבָא אָמַר: בּוֹעֵל וְשׁוֹנָה, כִּי תַנְיָא הַהִיא — לִטְהָרוֹת.

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.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — לִטְהָרוֹת, אֲבָל לְבַעְלָהּ — מוּתֶּרֶת. וּבַמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה, אֲבָל הִנִּיחָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת טְמֵאָה — לְעוֹלָם הִיא בְּחֶזְקָתָהּ, עַד שֶׁתֹּאמַר לוֹ ״טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי, אָמַר רַב: בָּדְקָה בְּעֵד וְאָבַד — אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַד שֶׁתִּבְדּוֹק. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אִילָא: אִילּוּ אִיתֵאּ — מִי לָא מְשַׁמְּשָׁה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא יָדְעָה? הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ!

§ 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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: זוֹ מוֹכִיחָהּ קַיָּים, וְזוֹ אֵין מוֹכִיחָהּ קַיָּים.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָסוּר לָאָדָם שֶׁיְּשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ בַּיּוֹם. אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: מַאי קְרָא? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יֹאבַד יוֹם אִוָּלֶד בּוֹ וְהַלַּיְלָה אָמַר הוֹרָה גָבֶר״ — לַיְלָה נִיתַּן לְהֵרָיוֹן, וְיוֹם לֹא נִיתַּן לְהֵרָיוֹן. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״בּוֹזֵה דְרָכָיו יָמוּת״.

§ 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.

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, הַאי קְרָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי דָּרֵישׁ בֵּיהּ? מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְדָרֵישׁ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא, דְּדָרֵישׁ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: אוֹתוֹ מַלְאָךְ הַמְמוּנֶּה עַל הַהֵרָיוֹן ״לַיְלָה״ שְׁמוֹ, וְנוֹטֵל טִפָּה וּמַעֲמִידָהּ לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְאוֹמֵר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, טִפָּה זוֹ מָה תְּהֵא עָלֶיהָ? גִּבּוֹר אוֹ חַלָּשׁ? חָכָם אוֹ טִיפֵּשׁ? עָשִׁיר אוֹ עָנִי?

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?

וְאִילּוּ רָשָׁע אוֹ צַדִּיק לָא קָאָמַר, כִּדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַכֹּל בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, חוּץ מִיִּרְאַת שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל מָה ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ שׁוֹאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ כִּי אִם לְיִרְאָה וְגוֹ׳״.

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.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״גֶּבֶר הוֹרָה״, מַאי ״הוֹרָה גֶּבֶר״? לַיְלָה נִיתַּן לְהֵרָיוֹן, וְיוֹם לֹא נִיתַּן לְהֵרָיוֹן.

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.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הַאי קְרָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מַאי דָּרֵישׁ בֵּיהּ? מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְדִכְתִיב בְּסֵפֶר בֶּן סִירָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׂנֵאתִי וְאַרְבָּעָה לֹא אָהַבְתִּי — שַׂר הַנִּרְגָּל בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתָּאוֹת, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ: ״שַׂר הַנִּרְגָּן״, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: ״שַׂר הַנִּרְגָּז״.

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.

וְהַמּוֹשִׁיב שַׁבָּת בִּמְרוֹמֵי קֶרֶת, וְהָאוֹחֵז בָּאַמָּה וּמַשְׁתִּין מַיִם, וְהַנִּכְנָס לְבֵית חֲבֵירוֹ פִּתְאוֹם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וַאֲפִילּוּ לְבֵיתוֹ.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׂוֹנְאָן, וַאֲנִי אֵינִי אוֹהֲבָן — הַנִּכְנָס לְבֵיתוֹ פִּתְאוֹם, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְבֵית חֲבֵירוֹ, וְהָאוֹחֵז בָּאַמָּה וּמַשְׁתִּין מַיִם,

The Gemara cites a similar saying. 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;