Study Shevuot folio 18B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And we learned this difference in the Mishnah specifically with regard to ritual impurity in the Temple. If such a distinction were also in effect with regard to a menstruating woman, the Mishnah would mention it. Rather, one can explain: No parallel distinction is made, because the two cases are
Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, objects to what Abaye said: Did Abaye really say with regard to the Mishnah that if the man withdraws with a flaccid penis he is exempt because he is considered a victim of circumstances beyond his control? Apparently, then, we are speaking of a man who had sex with a wo
The Talmud answers: When this statement of Abaye was stated, that the man is liable to bring two sin-offerings, it was stated in general. It was not relating to the case in the Mishnah, but was an independent ruling concerning one who has sex with a woman near the expected date of her menstruation
§ R' Yonatan ben Yosei ben Lakonya asked R' Shimon ben Yosei ben Lakonya: From where in the Torah is the prohibition concerning one who has sex with a menstruating woman [nidda] derived? R' Shimon ben Yosei ben Lakonya took a clod [kala] of earth and threw it at him in reproach and said to him: Is t
The Talmud explains the intent of the question of R' Yonatan ben Yosei ben Lakonya: Rather, from where do we derive the prohibition with regard to the case in the Mishnah concerning one who was having sex with a ritually pure woman, and she experienced menstrual bleeding and said to him: I have beco