What Counts as Sex? Defining the Beginning and Completion of Intercourse in the Talmud (Yevamot 55b)
In this piece I’ll be discussing the explicit statements of named rabbis in this sugya, eliding and ignoring the interpretations and discussions of the Stam (=the talmudic redactors/editors).
There are five opinions cited in the sugya. The first is that of Shmuel. The next four are all cited in the name of R' Yoḥanan, by those transmitting his opinion from Eretz Yisrael. They all start with the same formula:
כי אתא רב פלוני,
אמר רבי יוחנן:
When Rav X came [from Eretz Yisrael]
[he said that] R' Yoḥanan said [...]
The transmitters who quote R' Yoḥanan in this way are:
Shmuel defines ha'ara'ah as mere external contact of the genitalia (referred to metaphorically / euphemistically as a 'kiss').
The other four are attributed to R' Yoḥanan, reported by different transmitters returning from Eretz Yisrael.
All four tie ha'ara'ah to hakhnasat atarah - the entry of the corona (glans) into the woman's body - with some debate over whether this act counts as initial intercourse or completion.
The sugya ties these definitions to Leviticus 20:18, where even minimal sexual contact with a menstruating woman triggers karet (divine excision).
From this, the rabbis extrapolated a general principle: minimal but meaningful sexual penetration has full legal weight across all forbidden relations.
The different definitions of ha'ara'ah (initial stage of sex) and gmar bi’ah (completion of sex)
ואיש אשר־ישכב את־אשה דוה
וגלה את־ערותה
את־מקרה הערה
והוא גלתה את־מקור דמיה
ונכרתו שניהם מקרב עמם
If a man lies (ישכב) with a woman during her menstrual condition (דוה)
and uncovers her nakedness (ערותה),
he has laid bare (הערה) her flow (מקרה - literally: “her [menstrual] source")
and she has exposed her blood flow (מקור דמיה - literally: “the source of her [menstrual] blood");
both of them shall be cut off (נכרתו) from among their people.
See Hebrew Wikipedia, איסור משכב עם נידה, section “גדרי האיסור”, my translation:
From the words "אֶת מְקֹרָהּ הֶעֱרָה" (lit. "he uncovered her source"), written in reference to one who has relations with a niddah (a menstruant woman), the Talmudic rabbis derived that not only is full intercourse prohibited with a niddah, but even one who partially inserts his organ into that of a niddah is liable for karet (divine excision).
From the case of niddah, the Sages further derived that the same applies to all other arayot (forbidden sexual relations): liability for intercourse exists even when it is performed by way of ha'ara'ah (partial penetration).
The Amoraim disputed the definition of ha'ara'ah:
According to R' Yoḥanan, only the insertion of the atara (the glans) into the woman’s organ constitutes ha'ara'ah.
However, according to Shmuel, even neshikat ha-shemesh—the mere touching of the man’s organ to the entrance of the woman’s organ—qualifies as ha'ara'ah.
Relevant technical terms:
Ha'ara'ah - העראה - initial stage of sex, partial penetration
Gmar bi’ah - גמר ביאה - completion of sex
Hakhnasat atarah - הכנסת עטרה - the insertion of the corona / glans of the male organ
Shifḥah ḥarufah - שפחה חרופה - a designated female slave (a technical status, based on the verse in Leviticus.19.20: “שפחה נחרפת לאיש” - “a female slave who has been designated for a man”)
Table visualizing the opinions of Sexual Stages in Talmudic Definitions
Timeline visualizing the opinions of Sexual Stages in Talmudic Definitions
Comparison With Ancient Roman Law and contemporary U.S. law
Ancient Roman law, particularly in the writings of jurists such as Gaius and Ulpian, defined sex (concubitus, coitus) with a focus on the completion of penetration.
In contrast to Talmudic law, Roman law did not develop a distinction between different stages of intercourse with legal implications.
Talmudic law provides an unusually detailed categorization of sexual acts, which is not paralleled in Roman law but has some resonance in contemporary U.S. law, particularly in rape statutes and civil liability cases.
Roman law maintained a simpler, penetration-based model, whereas the Talmud and U.S. legal systems developed graded distinctions with separate legal consequences.
Outline
Intro
The different definitions of ha'ara'ah (initial stage of sex) and gmar bi’ah (completion of sex)
Table visualizing the opinions of Sexual Stages in Talmudic Definitions
Timeline visualizing the opinions of Sexual Stages in Talmudic Definitions
Comparison With Ancient Roman Law and contemporary U.S. law
The Passage
Shmuel: Ha'ara'ah (initial stage of sex) is defined as a ‘kiss’ (neshika - i.e., external contact of the genitalia)
Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of R' Yoḥanan: Gmar bi’ah (completion of sex) with a designated female slave (shifḥah ḥarufah) is the insertion of the corona (hakhnasat atarah)
Rav Dimi in the name of R' Yoḥanan: Ha'ara'ah is the insertion of the corona (hakhnasat atarah)
Ravin in the name of R' Yoḥanan: Ha'ara'ah is the insertion of the corona (hakhnasat atarah)
Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda in the name of R' Yoḥanan: Ha'ara'ah is the insertion of the corona (hakhnasat atarah), while gmar bi’ah is full penetration
The Passage
Shmuel: Ha'ara'ah (initial stage of sex) is defined as a ‘kiss’ (neshika - i.e., external contact of the genitalia)
אמר שמואל:
העראה --
זו נשיקה.
משל ל:
אדם שמניח אצבעו על פיו,
אי אפשר שלא ידחוק הבשר.
The Gemara returns to the precise definition of the initial stage of sex.
Shmuel said:
The definition of the initial stage of sex --
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 sex.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of R' Yoḥanan: Gmar bi’ah (completion of sex) with a designated female slave (shifḥah ḥarufah) is the insertion of the corona (hakhnasat atarah)
כי אתא רבה בר בר חנה, אמר רבי יוחנן:
גמר ביאה בשפחה חרופה --
זו הכנסת עטרה.
[...]
When Rabba bar bar Ḥana came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that R' Yoḥanan said:
The completion of sex stated with regard to a designated maidservant --
is the insertion of the corona, and no more.
[...]
Rav Dimi in the name of R' Yoḥanan: Ha'ara'ah is the insertion of the corona (hakhnasat atarah)
כי אתא רב דימי, אמר רבי יוחנן:
העראה --
זו הכנסת עטרה.
אמרו ליה:
והא רבה בר בר חנה לא אמר הכי!
אמר להו:
או -- איהו שקראי,
או -- אנא שקרי.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said that R' Yoḥanan said:
The definition of the initial stage of sex --
is the insertion of the corona.
They said to him:
But Rabba bar bar Ḥana did not say so,
as he taught that R' Yoḥanan said that the insertion of the corona constitutes a complete act of sex and is not considered merely the initial stage of sex.
He said to them:
Either -- he lied
or -- I am lying.
There is clearly a contradiction, and one of us cited R' Yoḥanan’s opinion incorrectly.
Ravin in the name of R' Yoḥanan: Ha'ara'ah is the insertion of the corona (hakhnasat atarah)
כי אתא רבין, אמר רבי יוחנן:
העראה --
זו הכנסת עטרה.
[...]
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that R' Yoḥanan said:
The definition of the initial stage of sex --
is the insertion of the corona.
[...]
Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda in the name of R' Yoḥanan: Ha'ara'ah is the insertion of the corona (hakhnasat atarah), while gmar bi’ah is full penetration
כי אתא רב שמואל בר יהודה, אמר רבי יוחנן:
העראה --
זו הכנסת עטרה,
גמר ביאה —
גמר ביאה ממש.
מכאן ואילך —
אינו אלא נשיקה,
ופטור עליה.
[...]
When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael he reported that R' Yoḥanan said:
The definition of the initial stage of sex --
is the insertion of the corona,
whereas a complete act of sex --
is literally a complete act of sex, i.e., insertion of the male organ beyond the corona.
From this point forward --
insertion of anything less than the corona is only considered a kiss,
for which he is exempt.
[...]