Talmud su Levitico 18:6

There is a story of a man who studied much Scripture and much Mishnah, and devotedly served the great Torah scholars – and yet he died in middle age. So his wife took his tefillin and went to the synagogues and study houses, and would scream and cry and say to them: My masters! It is written in your Torah (Deuteronomy 30:20), “For it is your life, and the length of your days.” But my husband studied so much Scripture, and so much Mishnah, and served the Torah scholars so devotedly – so why did he die in middle age? No one there had anything to say in response. Then one day, Elijah the prophet visited her and said: My daughter, why are you screaming and crying? She said to him: Master, my husband studied so much Scripture, and so much Mishnah, and devotedly served the Torah scholars – and yet he died in middle age. He said to her: When you were in your period [of impurity], did he come near you during the first (three) days? She said to him, “God forbid! He never touched me with even his little finger. And he would say to me, Do not even touch the dishes, lest they bring (me) to doubt [whether or not I am impure]. [Elijah continued:] And during the latter days, did he come near you? She said to him: Master, I ate with and drank with him, and slept with him in the same bed fully clothed, and yes, his flesh would touch my flesh – but we never had any intention of doing anything else. He said to her: Blessed is the Omnipresent God who killed him! For so it is written in the Torah (Leviticus 18:19), “Do not come near a woman during her period of impurity.”
It says (Leviticus 18:6), “None of you shall come near any of his own flesh.” Because of this, they said: A man should not be alone with (any) women in an inn, even with his sister or his daughter, because of what people will think. He should not chat with a woman in the marketplace, even with his own wife, let alone with another woman, because of what people will claim. A man should not follow a woman in the marketplace, not even his own wife, let alone another woman, because of what people will claim. It says here, “None of you shall come near,” and then it says further on [in the verse], “Do not come near.” Do not come near something that causes you to sin. Stay away from ugliness, and even something similar to ugliness. (Therefore) the sages said: Stay away from a minor sin, for it may bring you to a major sin. And run to [perform] a minor mitzvah (commandment), for it will bring you to [perform] a major mitzvah.
It says (Song of Songs 7:3), “Your belly is like a heap of wheat, surrounded by a hedge of lilies.” “Your belly is [like] a heap of wheat” – that refers to the congregation of Israel. “Surrounded by a hedge of lilies” – that refers to the seventy elders.
Another interpretation: “Your belly is a heap of wheat” – these are the minor, easy commandments. “Surrounded by a hedge of lilies” – when Israel performs mitzvot [commandments], they are taken into the life of the World to Come. How does this happen? When one’s wife is in her period [of impurity], and she is with him in his house, he wants to sleep with her – he wants to, but he does not. Will anyone see him, or will anyone know, or say anything to him? He is only afraid of the one who checks the immersion [at the mikveh]. You could say the same about [taking] challa [for the priests], and you could say that same about [giving] the first shearing [of wool to the priests]. These are minor, easy commandments – like lilies – but when Israel performs them, they are taken into the life of the World to Come.

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it¹⁸²This refers to the paragraph before the last, where R. Joḥanan explained that the sister had a special role in the list of incest prohibitions, to deduce that from the different levels of punishment the blanket decree of extirpation really represents separate decrees for each kind of infraction. In Sanhedrin, the name here is Joḥanan. But Ismael may be the correct attribution, since according to one opinion in the Babli, Zebaḥim 107b, this is R. Ismael’s position. S. Liebermann prefers to read “Eleazar” since the supporting argument is quoted in the latter’s name.? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation¹⁸³This answers the question. It is rather frequent to find verses containing multiple prohibitions covered by one mention of extirpation where the context makes it clear that each single infraction triggers extirpation.. What is the reason? ¹⁸⁴Ex. 30:32,33 regarding the holy oil. Only v. 33 is discussed.It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation¹⁸⁵A person who inadvertently compounds aromatic oil in the same composition as holy oil and uses it on people has to bring two sacrifices. Babli, Makkot 14b.. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females¹⁸⁶While in the punishments listed in Lev. 20 both sexes are mentioned, the prohibition in Chapter 18 are all formulated for the male, except that the mention of extirpation is formulated (18:29) for “all persons”. Since the punishment for marrying one’s sister is extirpation (20:17) for both partners, it proves that the “persons” mentioned in 18:29 are both male and female.. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near¹⁸⁷Lev. 18:6, the verse introducing incest prohibitions. While the verse starts אִישׁ אִישׁ it is agreed that the meaning is not “every man” but “every person”., equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear¹⁸⁸Since אִישׁ אִישׁ really means “every man” it needs a supporting argument.
מחוור is Babylonian spelling of Galilean מחובר “logically connected”; in the ms. it is a corrector’s change., so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity¹⁸⁹Impurity of well-being sacrifices, the only ones available to lay people, is treated at length in Lev. 7:11–27. Impurity of sacrifices available to priests is treated in Lev. 22:1–16. One should assume that a priest who inadvertently eats a combination of impure well-being and other sacrifices has to bring separate purification sacrifices; but this is not the case.? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny¹⁹⁰While misuse of all kinds of sancta is larceny, it is punishable only if the monetary value of the misuse is at least one peruṭah. Misuse of one half peruṭah’s worth of Temple donations and one half peruṭah’s worth of sacrifices is not punishable., lest one be liable for them because of mushiness¹⁹¹Sacrificing with the intent of eating of the sacrificial meat out of its time and place., leftovers¹⁹²Eating of sacrificial meat after its allotted time., and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity¹⁹³This shows that well-being and other sacrifices are equal in the hand of the Cohen, Mishnah Meˋilah 4:1. The categories of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity do not apply to monetary gifts to the Temple. Anything donated to the Temple which is not a sacrifice or a Temple vessel is sold by the Temple treasurer and thereby reverts to fully profane status.,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split¹⁹⁵Somebody committing simultaneous larceny involving gifts to the Temple and sacrifices has to atone separately for the two offenses.. Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁹⁶The Genizah text in Sanhedrin reads Ḥinena, preferable for chronological reasons. said, so it is. They split but do not combine¹⁹⁷R. Ḥanina’s statement is an assertion that the rules are different for well-being and other sacrifices. This would agree with the Babli, Meˋilah 15a, that in fact well-being and purification offerings do not combine; the contrary statement of the Mishnah is classified as a rabbinic stringency..

”The period mentioned in the Torah.” ¹⁸²In Mekhilta dR.Ismael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 259), the first opinion is attributed to Rebbi, the second to R. Joshia; the explanation attributed here to R. Eliezer ben Jacob is there in the name of R. Jonathan. In the Babli, 47b, the first opinion is attributed to R. Eleazar or R. Eliezer, the second is anonymous; the midrash of R. Eliezer ben Jacob is given in his name, 48a. Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai follows the attributions of the Yerushalmi (pp. 167–168). Some Tannaïm state¹⁸³The problem is Ex. 21:9 which states that a man who takes an additional wife may not diminish שְׁאֵר, כְּסוּת, and עֹנָה of his first wife. The meaning of כְּסוּת “garment, covering” is clear but the meaning of the other two words is a matter of controversy. שְׁאֵר means “flesh” but, as the verses quoted in support of different meanings show, it means both “meat” and “relative, one’s flesh and blood.” Note also in Accadic šērum “flesh”, š’r (of a different etymology) “to go towards; to have sexual relations”. The root שאר II has no connection with the usual שאר “to remain, be a remainder” (Arabic سار.).
The problem with עֹנָה is that the verb ענה “to humiliate, inflict pain” in sexual context always means “to rape, to have forced intercourse” but in the verse here it has a positive meaning, the intercourse to which the wife is entitled. [Note that in Arabic, عنا means both “produce plants” (said of the earth) and “to be humiliated, captive” (from this العَوَانِي “Moslem women”).] From the positive meaning of עֹנָה in the verse comes the rabbinic-modern Hebrew עוֹנָה “season”, used in the midrash of R. Eliezer ben Jacob.: שְׁאֵר that is intercourse; עוֹנָה that is food. Some Tannaïm state: עוֹנָה that is intercourse; שְׁאֵר that is food. He who said שְׁאֵר is intercourse: “No person to the שְׁאֵר of his flesh;¹⁸⁴Lev. 18:6: “No person to the שְׁאֵר of his flesh should come close, to uncover nakedness.”” עוֹנָה is food: “He fed you and made you hunger¹⁸⁵Deut. 8:3, usually translated as: “He chastised you and made you hunger before He fed you with the manna that neither you nor your fathers knew.””. He who said שְׁאֵר is food: “He let rain on them שְׁאֵר like dust¹⁸⁶Ps. 78:27.”; עוֹנָה that is intercourse, “that you should not deprive my daughters,¹⁸⁷Gen. 31:50. “That you should not deprive my daughters nor take wives in addition to my daughters.” In Gen. rabba 74(12), this verse is explained that (a) Bilha and Silpa also were Laban’s daughters from slave women and (b) that Laban made Jacob swear that he would not deprive his daughters of intercourse during their lifetime nor take additional wives after their deaths.” that refers to intercourse. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob explains the verse¹⁸⁸He denies that there is a biblical command which fixes minimal amounts of sexual attention due wives. He explains Ex. 21:9 as exhortation rather than prescription, reading “her flesh, her garment, and her season he should not diminish”., “her flesh her garment”, that her garment should fit her flesh, that he should not give a young woman clothes of an old woman nor an old woman clothes of a young one. “Her garment her season”, that he should not give summer clothing for the rainy season nor that for the rainy season in summer. From where does he get food¹⁸⁹How can he establish an obligation of the husband to feed his wife?? Since he is not permitted to withhold from her things that are not necessities of life¹⁹⁰A new garment at least twice a year., not so much more things that are necessities of life! From where does he get the obligation of periodic intercourse? Since he may not withhold from her things which do not constitute the main reason for marriage¹⁹⁰A new garment at least twice a year., so certainly he may not withhold the things which constitute the main reason for marriage!