The gemara always prefers a Torah source over that of Nach. If so, why did it choose as its proof that Achilah refers to Tashmish from Mishlei 30 instead of the Pasuk by Yosef in Bereishis 39:6 as Rashi understands it?

DANIEL GRAY, Toronto Canada

1) This question is asked by the Ya'avetz, printed at the back of the Gemara.

He answers that Mishlei 30:20 refers explicitly to an adulterous woman so it is as if the word "Achlah" means explicitly Tashmish. This is not a Derashah but is Peshat.

The Ya'avetz writes that it is also clear that Bereshis 39:6 means Tashmish, as Bereshis 39:9 also indicates; nevertheless, this is not quite explicit so the Gemara preferred to cite Mishlei 30:20 which is explicit.I can give a very simplistic reply, according to the Poshut Pshat.

The Mishnah 64b states that she eats with him every Friday night, in the feminine form. Therefore Gemara 65b cites Mishlei 30:20 which is in the female form; "she ate"; rather than Bereshis 30:6; "he eats"; which is in the masculine form.

2) I can give a very simplistic reply, according to the Pashut Peshat.

The Mishnah (64b) states that she eats with him every Friday night, in the feminine form. Therefore, the Gemara (65b) cites Mishlei 30:20 which is in the female form, "she ate," rather than Bereshis 30:6, "he eats," which is in the masculine form.

3) I am now going to try, bs'd, to offer a bigger Chidush to answer this question, based on the Gemara in Bava Kama 2b. The Gemara there cites a verse in Melachim 2:22 to prove that Negichah is done with Keren. The Gemara states that this is not considered that we learning a Halachah from the Nevi'im or Kesuvim (which we do not usually do, since we only learn Halachos from the Chumash) because this is merely a "Giluy Milsa" that Negichah is done with the Keren.

4) The Maharitz Chayos there writes that this means that we are not learning Halachos from Navi. All we are learning is how the word Negichah is used by the Torah and what it represents. We can say that the Gemara is learning the translation of the word Negichah from the way it is used in Navi. It is acceptable to learn the translation from Nach and this is not considered as learning a Halachah from Nach.

5) If we now go to Sanhedrin 76a, we learn that Abaye said that even though it does not say explicitly in the Torah that there is a punishment for Bi'ah with one's daughter, this is derived from a Kal va'Chomer. Since the Torah states explicitly that there is a punishment for Bi'ah with the granddaughter, we can learn from a Kal va'Chomer that there is a punishment for Bi'ah with the daughter. The Gemara states that this is not considered that a punishment is being administered on the basis of a Din, a Sevara, because it is merely a Giluy Milsa that there is a punishment for Bi'ah with the daughter.

6) There seems to be a proof from this Gemara that a Giluy Milsa means that the Halachah is considered as stated explicitly in the Torah (see Sanhedri Ketanah and Pose'ach Sha'ar to Sanhedrin 76a).

7) Now, back to Kesubos 65a: The Mishnah 64b states that she is "Ocheles" with him every Friday night. Rav Ashi on 65b explains that this means Tashmish. Rav Ashi is teaching us that the translation of the word "Ocheles" can be Tashmish. This means that since Mishlei 30:20 says that Achilah is Tashmish and this is merely a translation, it follows that it is a Giluy Milsa so it is considered that it is stated explicitly in the Torah that Achilah is Tashmish.

8) Therefore, it does not matter if the Gemara 65b cites Mishlei 30:20 or Bereshis 36:9, because Mishlei 30:20 is also considered as Mefurash b'Torah.

9) I must say that I got the idea for my short second reply above (in #2) from something written by the Maharal of Prague, in his Sefer Nesivos Olam, in Nesiv ha'Avodah, chapter 16, DH b'Maseches Sotah. (This is also cited in Chidushei Agados of the Maharal to Sotah 4b and Berachos 53b.)

He writes: "You should know that Tashmish is called Achilah both for a woman and for a man. For a woman it is called Achilah as stated in Mishlei 30:20, and for a man it is called Achilah as stated in Bereishis 39:3.

The Maharal seems to be hinting that there is a difference between a woman and a man in the way that Tashmish is called Achilah. We can say that this is why there is a separate verse for women and a separate verse for men. This also explains why the Gemara brings the verse relevant to women when discussing a Mishnah about the rights of women in marriage.

10) I want, bs'd, to try to commect this with something writen by the Tosfos Yom Tov (who was a Talmid of the Maharal of Prague). In Yevamos 4:11, the Tosfos Yom Tov cites the Mishnah (Yevamos 111b) and Rashi (DH l'Achar) that when a couple live together we assume that the husband does not go 30 days without having relations with his wife. The Tosfos Yom Tov writes that the same applies to a woman. If a man is maried to more than one woman, he must ensure that each wife receives her Onah at least once a month. It is considered an unacceptable Tza'ar if a wife does not have relations with this frequency.

11) We see from the Tosfos Yom Tov that one can learn Halachos of Tashmish for a woman from the Halachos for a man. Now I want to suggest, bs'd, that a woman may in fact have a greater need than a man, as is implied by the Gemara in Yevamos 113a which tells us that a woman wants to marry more than a man wants to marry. The Korban ha'Eidah on Talmud Yerushalmi Taanis 1:3 (page 8 of the standard edtion, DH veha'Tachtonim Nekeivos) writes that a woman's desire is greater as we see from the above Gemara in Yevamos 113b. This can explain why Kesuvos 65b cites the verse connected to the Tashmish of a Nekeivah.

12) Here are other sources for the connection between Achilah and Tashmish:

a) One of the remarkable things about the Hebrew language is the connection between different, but similar, words, where it often turns out that the two words are related. For example, the words "Zonah" and "Mezonos": I once saw an explanation that the Zonah does what she does in order to earn food to eat. However, after learning this Sugya we can see, bs'd, that it is deeper than that.

b) The Maharal of Prague (that I cited above) writes that the word "Achilah" is used for anything that a person receives. The woman certainly receives the man and the man receives the woman. This also may give us an answer as to why Kesuvos 65b cites the verse for Achilah connected with the woman -- since she is the chief recipient.

c) In fact, there is a verse in Mishlei 6:26 which compares Tashmish to Achilah: "For on account of a Zonah a man is brought to a loaf of bread." We see that if someone obtains Tashmish in a forbidden way, then as a punishment he will lose his food, as the Gemara in Sotah 4b states, "Anyone who has relations with a Zonah woman will, in the end, have to request a loaf of bread." (See also Tosfos to Gitin 6b, DH Zevuv.)

d) Again, since the stress in the above sources is on the woman, we have an explanation for why Kesubos 65b cites the verse from Mishlei about the woman, rather than the verse from Chumash. (See also Rashi to Kesubos 13a, DH Ochlah.)

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom