## Yevamot Daf 55b

###### Yevamot 55b:1
[Yevamot 55b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:1)

אָתְיָא ״בִּיאָה״ ״בִּיאָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is derived** from a verbal analogy between the terms **entering** and **entering.** The verse states in the context of a prohibition: “A *mamzer* shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3), and in the context of a prohibition derived from a positive mitzva: “The children that are born to them of the third generation may enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:9). Consequently, these types of prohibitions are equated.


###### Yevamot 55b:2
[Yevamot 55b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:2)

יְבָמָה לַשּׁוּק, מְנָלַן? אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָאו — לָאו, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר עֲשֵׂה — עֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses another question: **From where do we** derive that the initial stage of intercourse is considered sexual intercourse with regard to the prohibition against a ***yevama*** having intercourse with a man from **the general public?** The Gemara answers that there is no need for an independent source in this case: **If** you are asking **according to the one who said** that this is an ordinary **prohibition,** it is **a prohibition** like any other. **If** you are asking **according to the one who said** that this is **a positive mitzva,** it is **a positive mitzva** like any other.


###### Yevamot 55b:3
[Yevamot 55b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:3)

אֶלָּא: יְבָמָה לְיָבָם מְנָלַן? אָתְיָא ״בִּיאָה״ ״בִּיאָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the question is as follows: **From where do we** derive that a ***yevama*** is acquired by her ***yavam*** via the initial stage of intercourse? The Gemara answers: **It is derived** from a verbal analogy between the **words entering** and **entering.** This verb is used with regard to ordinary Torah prohibitions, as mentioned above, and also with regard to levirate marriage, in the verse “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5).


###### Yevamot 55b:4
[Yevamot 55b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:4)

אִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ מְנָלַן? אָתְיָא ״קִיחָה״ ״קִיחָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **From where do we** derive that **a woman** is betrothed **to her husband** through the initial stage of intercourse? The Gemara answers: **It is derived** from a verbal analogy between the words **taking** and **taking.** With regard to betrothal, the verse states: “When a man takes a wife and marries her” (Deuteronomy 24:1). This verb is also used with regard to forbidden intercourse, as in the verse: “And if a man shall take his sister” (Leviticus 20:17).


###### Yevamot 55b:5
[Yevamot 55b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה, ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ בְּסוֹטָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava said:** Now that it has been established that the initial stage of intercourse is considered an act of sexual intercourse, **why do I** need the expression **“cohabitation with seed”** (Leviticus 19:20) **that the Merciful One writes with regard to a designated maidservant;** the expression **“cohabitation with seed”** (Leviticus 18:20) written **with regard to a married woman;** and the expression **“cohabitation with seed”** (Numbers 5:13) written with regard to **a *sota*?**


###### Yevamot 55b:6
[Yevamot 55b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:6)

דְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה — כְּדַאֲמַרַן. דְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ פְּרָט לִמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that the expression is necessary with regard to **a designated maidservant as we said** above (55a), because it indicates that one is liable to receive punishment only for a complete act of intercourse with a designated maidservant but not for the initial stage of intercourse. With regard to **a married woman,** the word seed **excludes one who has intercourse** with a **dead** organ, i.e., one that is not erect, as this cannot lead to childbirth.


###### Yevamot 55b:7
[Yevamot 55b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:7)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְשַׁמֵּשׁ מֵת בַּעֲרָיוֹת פָּטוּר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַיָּיב, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא: פְּרָט לִמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מֵתָה. דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא [הוֹאִיל] לְאַחַר מִיתָה נָמֵי אִיקְּרַי ״שְׁאֵרוֹ״, אֵימָא לִיחַיַּיב עֲלַהּ בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this resolution: **This** works out **well according to the one who said** that one who **has intercourse** while his organ is **dead** with **those with whom relations are forbidden, is exempt,** as this is not considered an act of intercourse. **However, according to the one who said** that **he is liable, what is there to say? Rather,** according to this opinion, the verse **excludes one who has intercourse with a dead** woman. **As** it might **enter your mind to say: Since after death** she **is also called** her husband’s **kin, say that** one who had intercourse with her **should be liable** to receive punishment for committing adultery **with a married woman.** It therefore **teaches us** that intercourse with a dead woman is not considered intercourse at all.


###### Yevamot 55b:8
[Yevamot 55b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:8)

דְּסוֹטָה לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״, פְּרָט לְדָבָר אַחֵר. מַאי ״דָּבָר אַחֵר״? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: פְּרָט לְשֶׁקִּינֵּא לָהּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: ״מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה״ כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara addresses the third case: **Why do I need** the expression cohabitation with seed in the context of **a *sota*?** It is needed **for that which is taught** in a *baraita*, that the expression **a cohabitation with seed excludes something else.** The Gemara asks: **What is** this **something else? Rav Sheshet said: It excludes** a case **where** the husband **was jealous with regard to her** and warned her not to seclude herself and have **atypical,** i.e., anal, sexual intercourse with another man. **Rava** objected to this explanation and **said to him: It is written: “The cohabitations of a woman”** (Leviticus 18:22), indicating that there are two types of intercourse with a woman, and the same *halakha* applies to both.


###### Yevamot 55b:9
[Yevamot 55b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:9)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: פְּרָט לְשֶׁקִּינֵּא לָהּ דֶּרֶךְ אֵבָרִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: פְּרִיצוּתָא אֲסַר רַחֲמָנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** It **excludes** a situation **where** the husband **was jealous with regard to her** and warned her not to seclude herself with another man and engage in intimate contact **by way of** other **limbs.** The verse indicates that the wife does not become prohibited to her husband if she secludes herself with the man after this warning. **Abaye said to him:** Does **the Merciful One prohibit** a woman to her husband due merely to **licentious** behavior without sexual intercourse? Since this behavior would not render a woman prohibited to her husband, it is obvious that a warning that explicitly mentions this behavior is insufficient to cause the woman to become a *sota* if she then secludes herself with the man.


###### Yevamot 55b:10
[Yevamot 55b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:10)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: פְּרָט לְשֶׁקִּינֵּא לָהּ בִּנְשִׁיקָה. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַעֲרָאָה זוֹ הַכְנָסַת עֲטָרָה. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זוֹ נְשִׁיקָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said: It excludes** a case **where** he **was jealous with regard to her** and warned her not to seclude herself with another man and **kiss,** i.e., have external contact of the sexual organs. The Gemara asks: **This** works out **well according to the one who said** that the definition of **the initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona;** therefore, mere external contact is not considered sexual intercourse. **However, according to the one who said** that the definition of the initial stage of intercourse is a **kiss, what is there to say?**


###### Yevamot 55b:11
[Yevamot 55b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:11)

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם לְשֶׁקִּינֵּא לָהּ דֶּרֶךְ אֵבָרִים, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: בִּקְפֵידָא דְבַעַל תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא קָא קָפֵיד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the expression: Something else, in the *baraita*, is **actually** referring to a case **where** the husband **was jealous with regard to her** and warned her not to seclude herself with another man and engage in intimate contact **by way of** other **limbs. And it is necessary** to state that the woman does not become prohibited to her husband as a *sota* in this case, as **it might enter your mind to say that the Merciful One made** this *halakha* **dependent on the husband’s objection,** as it is his decision to warn his wife, **and** since **he objects** to contact of this nature, she becomes a *sota* if she secludes herself after this warning. The Torah therefore **teaches us** that this is not considered a warning.


###### Yevamot 55b:12
[Yevamot 55b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:12)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַעֲרָאָה זוֹ נְשִׁיקָה. מָשָׁל לְאָדָם שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ אֶצְבָּעוֹ עַל פִּיו, אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִדְחוֹק הַבָּשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the precise definition of the initial stage of intercourse. **Shmuel said:** The definition of **the initial stage of intercourse is a kiss,** i.e., external contact of the sexual organs. Shmuel explains: This is **comparable to a person who places his finger on his mouth;** it is **impossible that he not press the flesh** of his lips. Similarly, when there is contact of the sexual organs, there will certainly be at least a small amount of penetration, and this is considered an act of sexual intercourse.


###### Yevamot 55b:13
[Yevamot 55b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:13)

כִּי אֲתָא רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גְּמַר בִּיאָה בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה זוֹ הַכְנָסַת עֲטָרָה. מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״, אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל בִּיאַת הַמֵּירוּק. מַאי לָאו — מֵירוּק גִּיד?! לָא, מֵירוּק עֲטָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Rabba bar bar Ḥana came** from Eretz Yisrael, **he said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** said: **The completion of intercourse** stated **with regard to a designated maidservant is the insertion of the corona,** and no more. **Rav Sheshet raised an objection** based upon the following *baraita*: The phrase **cohabitation with seed** indicates that **one is liable** to receive punishment **only for a complete** act of **sexual intercourse. What, does** this **not** refer to the **complete** insertion of the **member?** The Gemara responds: **No,** it is possible that it is referring to the **complete** insertion of the **corona.**


###### Yevamot 55b:14
[Yevamot 55b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:14)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַעֲרָאָה זוֹ הַכְנָסַת עֲטָרָה. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וְהָא רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה לָא אָמַר הָכִי! אֲמַר לְהוּ: אוֹ אִיהוּ שַׁקְרַאי אוֹ אֲנָא שַׁקְרַי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael **he said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** said: The definition of **the initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona. They said to him: But Rabba bar bar Ḥana did not say so,** as he taught that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the insertion of the corona constitutes a complete act of sexual intercourse and is not considered merely the initial stage of intercourse. **He said to them: Either he lied or I am lying.** There is clearly a contradiction, and one of us cited Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion incorrectly.


###### Yevamot 55b:15
[Yevamot 55b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:15)

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַעֲרָאָה זוֹ הַכְנָסַת עֲטָרָה. אַדְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה וַדַּאי פְּלִיג. אַדִּשְׁמוּאֵל מִי לֵימָא פְּלִיג?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael **he said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** said: The definition of **the initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona.** The Gemara comments: He **certainly disagrees with Rabba bar bar Ḥana,** who cited Rabbi Yoḥanan as stating that insertion of the corona constitutes a complete act of sexual intercourse. **Shall we say that he** also **disagrees with Shmuel,** who defined the initial stage of intercourse as external contact of the sexual organs?


###### Yevamot 55b:16
[Yevamot 55b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:16)

לֹא, מִנְּשִׁיקָה וְעַד הַכְנָסַת עֲטָרָה — הַעֲרָאָה קָרֵי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No;** it is possible that there is no dispute between them, and Ravin said that Rabbi Yoḥanan **calls** the entire process **from a kiss until the insertion of the corona the initial stage of intercourse,** while anything beyond that point is a complete act of sexual intercourse.


###### Yevamot 55b:17
[Yevamot 55b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55b:17)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַעֲרָאָה זוֹ הַכְנָסַת עֲטָרָה, גְּמַר בִּיאָה — גְּמַר בִּיאָה מַמָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came** from Eretz Yisrael he reported that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The definition of **the initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona,** whereas **a complete** act of **sexual intercourse is literally a complete** act of **sexual intercourse,** i.e., insertion of the male organ beyond the corona.