Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 8, 2015 | 讬状讟 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讛

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Ketubot 6

讗讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Or, is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who ruled that one who is destructive in causing a wound on Shabbat is liable if he did so intentionally?

(讗讬转诪专) 讘讘讬 专讘 讗诪专讬 专讘 砖专讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗住专 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专讬 专讘 讗住专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讗诇讜 诪拽讬诇讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 讜讗诇讜 诪拽讬诇讬谉 诇注爪诪谉

With regard to the halakha of engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 virgin bride on Shabbat, it was stated that in the school of Rav they say: Rav permitted doing so and Shmuel prohibited doing so. In Neharde鈥檃, where Shmuel lived, they say: Rav prohibited doing so and Shmuel permitted doing so. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: And your mnemonic is: These are lenient with regard to themselves, and those are lenient with regard to themselves. Each attributes the lenient ruling to the local halakhic authority, whose ruling is binding in that locale.

讜专讘 砖专讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讗讬 诪住讜讻专讬讗 讚谞讝讬讬转讗 讗住讜专 诇讛讚讜拽讛 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗

The Gemara asks: And did Rav permit engaging in intercourse in those circumstances? But didn鈥檛 Rav Shimi bar 岣zkiyya say in the name of Rav: In the case of this cloth stopper of a barrel [nazyata], it is prohibited to insert it tightly in the spout of the barrel on a Festival, because in the process liquid will be squeezed from the cloth, and squeezing liquids is prohibited on Shabbat and Festivals. Apparently, Rav prohibits even unintentional actions.

讘讛讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转

The Gemara answers: In the case of the barrel, even Rabbi Shimon concedes, as it is Abaye and Rava who both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., a case that involves inevitable consequences like the decapitation of an animal, that the action is forbidden. Here, the liquid will inevitably be squeezed from the cloth.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘诇讗 讙讘专讬 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya bar Ashi say that Rav said with regard to unintentional acts: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav 岣nan bar Ami said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav 岣yya bar Avin taught these rulings directly, without citing additional men who transmitted them. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. How then did Rav permit intercourse with one鈥檚 virgin bride on Shabbat?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讚诐 诪讬驻拽讚 驻拽讬讚 诪拽诇拽诇 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 讛驻转讞 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讚诐 讞讘讜专讬 诪讬讞讘专 诪拽诇拽诇 讘讞讘讜专讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. According to that version that said that the blood is pooled, he is destructive vis-脿-vis the opening. According to that version that said that blood is flowing through blood vessels attached to the body, he is destructive in causing the wound, and Rabbi Yehuda concedes that it is permitted.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 转讬谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讜谞砖讗转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 讗专讘注讛 诇讬诇讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖转讞讬讛 讛诪讻讛

Rav 岣sda raised an objection from a mishna (Nidda 64b). With regard to a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived, as she has not yet reached puberty, and she married, Beit Shammai say: One gives her four nights during which she may engage in intercourse, as any blood is attributed to the ruptured hymen. Beit Hillel say: There is no limit. Rather, any blood she sees is attributed to the ruptured hymen until the wound heals.

讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讜谞砖讗转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗专讘注讛 诇讬诇讜转

If, however, her time to see the flow of menstrual blood has arrived, as she has reached the age of puberty, even if she has not yet menstruated, and she married, Beit Shammai say: One gives her the first night, during which the blood is attributed to the wound. Thereafter, the blood is presumed to be menstrual blood, and she is forbidden to her husband. Beit Hillel say: One gives her from Wednesday, the day designated for marriage of a virgin, until the conclusion of Shabbat, four nights. During that period, any blood is attributed to the wound, and she is permitted to her husband.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讬 诇讗 讘注诇 诪爪讬 讘注讬诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诇讘专 诪砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗专讘注讛 诇讬诇讜转 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻砖讘注诇

What, is it not referring to a case where if he did not yet engage in full-fledged intercourse, i.e., rupturing the hymen, with his bride, he may engage in full-fledged intercourse with her even on Shabbat? Apparently, it is permitted to engage in intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat. Rava said: No, it is referring to any other day except for Shabbat. Abaye said to him: But isn鈥檛 it taught: Until the conclusion of Shabbat, four nights? Four nights from Wednesday until the conclusion of Shabbat includes Shabbat. Rather, Rava said: It is referring to a case where he engaged in full-fledged intercourse with his bride before Shabbat. Therefore, there is no concern lest he cause a wound on Shabbat.

讗讬 讻砖讘注诇 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖专讬 诇诪讬讘注诇 讘砖讘转 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 驻讬专爪讛 讚讞讜拽讛 诪讜转专 诇讬讻谞住 讘讛 讘砖讘转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪砖讬专 爪专讜专讜转

However, if it is referring to a case where he already engaged in intercourse, what is the tanna teaching us when he says that it is permitted to have intercourse with her even on Shabbat? He teaches us that although it might cause bleeding, it is permitted to engage in intercourse on Shabbat, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: It is permitted to enter into a narrow opening in a wall on Shabbat, although doing so causes pebbles to fall from the wall. Here too, although it might cause a wound and bleeding, intercourse is permitted on Shabbat.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讞转谉 驻讟讜专 诪拽专讬转 砖诪注 诇讬诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗诐 诇讗 注砖讛 诪注砖讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讟专讬讚 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讘注诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讚讟专讬讚 讚诇讗 讘注讬诇

Rav Yosef raised an objection from a mishna (Berakhot 16a): A groom is exempt from the mitzva of reciting Shema on the first night of his marriage to a virgin on Wednesday night, until Saturday night, if he has not taken action and consummated the marriage. What, is it not that he is exempt due to the fact that he is preoccupied because he wishes to engage in intercourse with her and is concerned that he will fail to do so properly? Apparently, if he did not yet consummate the marriage, he is exempt from reciting Shema even on Shabbat, indicating that it is permitted to engage in intercourse on Shabbat. Abaye said to him: No. It can be explained that he is exempt from reciting Shema because he is preoccupied due to the fact that he did not yet engage in intercourse with her. No proof may be cited with regard to engaging in intercourse on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讟讬专讚讗 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讟讘注讛 住驻讬谞转讜 讘讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘 讘讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛转驻讬诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 驻讗专

Rava said to Abaye: And is one exempt due to preoccupation? If that is so, would one whose ship sunk at sea also be exempt? The Gemara reinforces its question: And if you would say: In fact, that is so, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba bar Zavda say that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot in the Torah except for the mitzva to don phylacteries, as the term splendor is stated with regard to phylacteries: 鈥淢ake no mourning for the dead; bind your splendor upon yourself鈥 (Ezekiel 24:17). Splendor is antithetical to mourning. If a mourner, who is clearly pained and preoccupied, is obligated to recite Shema, then certainly all others who are preoccupied due to events that transpired in the past should be obligated. If the groom is exempt, it must be due to his preoccupation with a mitzva that remains incumbent upon him to perform in the future.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讗 讞讚讗 讗诐 诇讗 注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 驻讟讜专 讗祝 讘砖谞讬 讘砖谞讬 驻讟讜专 讗祝 讘砖诇讬砖讬

Rather, Rava said: This matter of intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as one tanna taught: If he did not take action on the first night he is exempt from reciting Shema even on the second. If he failed to consummate the marriage on the second night he is exempt even on the third night, which is Shabbat evening.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 驻讟讜专 砖诇讬砖讬 讞讬讬讘

And another baraita is taught: On the first and second nights he is exempt; on the third he is obligated to recite Shema. He is obligated on the third night, even if he did not yet consummate the marriage, because the third night is Shabbat, when intercourse with his virgin wife is forbidden. The different rulings in the two baraitot indicate that there is a tannaitic dispute with regard to intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat.

讜讗讘讬讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讘讟讬专讚讗 驻诇讬讙讬

And how does Abaye respond to this proof? He says that there too, it can be explained that it is with regard to preoccupation that the tanna鈥檌m disagree. Everyone agrees that it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat. The dispute is whether or not one鈥檚 preoccupation with the fact that he has not yet performed the mitzva of consummating the marriage in the past is considered preoccupation with a mitzva, which would exempt him from reciting Shema?

讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讜谞住 讗转 讛讘转讜诇讛 诇讗 讬讘注讜诇 讘转讞诇讛 讘砖讘转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉

And the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m in the baraitot cited is parallel to the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who marries a virgin, he may not engage in intercourse with her for the first time on Shabbat, and the Rabbis permit doing so.

诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: Who are the Rabbis that permit doing so? Rabba said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: An unintentional act is permitted on Shabbat. Since one鈥檚 intention is to perform a permitted action, i.e., the consummation of the marriage, and there is no intent to perform a forbidden action, any forbidden action that may ensue is not a source of concern.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讻讛诇诇讜 讘讘诇讬讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讛讟讬讬讛 讗诇讗 讬砖 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讛讟讬讬讛

Abaye said to Rabba: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon concede that in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., inevitable consequences, one is not exempted by lack of intent. Since rupture of the hymen and the subsequent bleeding is inevitable, Rabbi Shimon would concede that intercourse with a virgin is forbidden. Rabba said to him: Unlike these Babylonians, who are not experts in diverting during intercourse and are unable to engage in intercourse without rupturing the hymen, there are those who are experts in diverting. Therefore, rupture of the hymen is not an inevitable consequence.

讗诐 讻谉 讟讜专讚 诇诪讛 诇砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讬讗诪专讜 讘拽讬 诪讜转专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讗住讜专 专讜讘 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讛谉

The Gemara asks: If so, and the groom is expert in diverting, why is there preoccupation that renders him exempt from reciting Shema? The Gemara answers: The exemption due to preoccupation is limited to one who is not expert. The Gemara asks: If so, the Sages should say explicitly: One who is expert is permitted to have intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat, and one who is not expert is prohibited from doing so. The Gemara answers: The majority of men are experts in this matter. Therefore, rupture of the hymen is not an inevitable consequence, and intercourse is permitted on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖讜砖讘讬谞讬谉 诇诪讛 诪驻讛 诇诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 砖诪讗 讬专讗讛 讜讬讗讘讚

Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: If that is so, and most people are able to engage in intercourse with a virgin without rupturing the hymen, why are groomsmen stationed to ensure that no deceit is employed by the groom with regard to the bride鈥檚 virginity? And why is a sheet necessary to determine whether there was blood? The absence of blood proves nothing if intercourse is possible without blood. Abaye said to him: There, the groomsmen and the sheet are necessary lest the groom see blood and seek to destroy it intentionally. Certainly, if he seeks to engage in intercourse and keep the hymen intact he can do so. However, if he engages in full-fledged intercourse and the hymen is ruptured, the Sages sought to ensure that the facts are clear.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛诪驻讬住 诪讜专住讗 讘砖讘转 讗诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讛 驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪诪谞讛 诇讬讞讛

Rav Ami raised an objection from a mishna (Eduyyot 2:5): With regard to one who drains an abscess on Shabbat, if his intent is to create a permanent opening so that the abscess will dry, he is liable to receive punishment for performing an action similar to the prohibited labor of building on Shabbat. However, if he created the opening to remove pus,

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 2-6 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we begin a new Masechet, we will review the concept of the Ketuva, its obligations, and its purpose. We...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 6: When the Bride Isn’t Ready for Marriage

Still fighting with the tech. So many apologies!! || A disturbing daf - where we begin our discussion with the...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Gefet 40 – When and Why Do We Marry?

The first pages of Tractate Ketubot deal with the question of when to get married. In today's Gefet we will...
WhatsApp Image 2022-07-06 at 7.23.39 PM

Introduction to Masechet Ketubot

This shiur is sponsored by Valerie Adler. "Delighted to dedicate this introduction in honor of Ayelet and Adi Libson who...

Ketubot 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 6

讗讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Or, is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who ruled that one who is destructive in causing a wound on Shabbat is liable if he did so intentionally?

(讗讬转诪专) 讘讘讬 专讘 讗诪专讬 专讘 砖专讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗住专 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专讬 专讘 讗住专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讗诇讜 诪拽讬诇讬谉 诇注爪诪谉 讜讗诇讜 诪拽讬诇讬谉 诇注爪诪谉

With regard to the halakha of engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 virgin bride on Shabbat, it was stated that in the school of Rav they say: Rav permitted doing so and Shmuel prohibited doing so. In Neharde鈥檃, where Shmuel lived, they say: Rav prohibited doing so and Shmuel permitted doing so. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: And your mnemonic is: These are lenient with regard to themselves, and those are lenient with regard to themselves. Each attributes the lenient ruling to the local halakhic authority, whose ruling is binding in that locale.

讜专讘 砖专讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讗讬 诪住讜讻专讬讗 讚谞讝讬讬转讗 讗住讜专 诇讛讚讜拽讛 讘讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗

The Gemara asks: And did Rav permit engaging in intercourse in those circumstances? But didn鈥檛 Rav Shimi bar 岣zkiyya say in the name of Rav: In the case of this cloth stopper of a barrel [nazyata], it is prohibited to insert it tightly in the spout of the barrel on a Festival, because in the process liquid will be squeezed from the cloth, and squeezing liquids is prohibited on Shabbat and Festivals. Apparently, Rav prohibits even unintentional actions.

讘讛讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转

The Gemara answers: In the case of the barrel, even Rabbi Shimon concedes, as it is Abaye and Rava who both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., a case that involves inevitable consequences like the decapitation of an animal, that the action is forbidden. Here, the liquid will inevitably be squeezed from the cloth.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘诇讗 讙讘专讬 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya bar Ashi say that Rav said with regard to unintentional acts: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav 岣nan bar Ami said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav 岣yya bar Avin taught these rulings directly, without citing additional men who transmitted them. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. How then did Rav permit intercourse with one鈥檚 virgin bride on Shabbat?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讚诐 诪讬驻拽讚 驻拽讬讚 诪拽诇拽诇 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 讛驻转讞 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讚诐 讞讘讜专讬 诪讬讞讘专 诪拽诇拽诇 讘讞讘讜专讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. According to that version that said that the blood is pooled, he is destructive vis-脿-vis the opening. According to that version that said that blood is flowing through blood vessels attached to the body, he is destructive in causing the wound, and Rabbi Yehuda concedes that it is permitted.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 转讬谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讜谞砖讗转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 讗专讘注讛 诇讬诇讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖转讞讬讛 讛诪讻讛

Rav 岣sda raised an objection from a mishna (Nidda 64b). With regard to a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived, as she has not yet reached puberty, and she married, Beit Shammai say: One gives her four nights during which she may engage in intercourse, as any blood is attributed to the ruptured hymen. Beit Hillel say: There is no limit. Rather, any blood she sees is attributed to the ruptured hymen until the wound heals.

讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讜谞砖讗转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗专讘注讛 诇讬诇讜转

If, however, her time to see the flow of menstrual blood has arrived, as she has reached the age of puberty, even if she has not yet menstruated, and she married, Beit Shammai say: One gives her the first night, during which the blood is attributed to the wound. Thereafter, the blood is presumed to be menstrual blood, and she is forbidden to her husband. Beit Hillel say: One gives her from Wednesday, the day designated for marriage of a virgin, until the conclusion of Shabbat, four nights. During that period, any blood is attributed to the wound, and she is permitted to her husband.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讬 诇讗 讘注诇 诪爪讬 讘注讬诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诇讘专 诪砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗专讘注讛 诇讬诇讜转 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻砖讘注诇

What, is it not referring to a case where if he did not yet engage in full-fledged intercourse, i.e., rupturing the hymen, with his bride, he may engage in full-fledged intercourse with her even on Shabbat? Apparently, it is permitted to engage in intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat. Rava said: No, it is referring to any other day except for Shabbat. Abaye said to him: But isn鈥檛 it taught: Until the conclusion of Shabbat, four nights? Four nights from Wednesday until the conclusion of Shabbat includes Shabbat. Rather, Rava said: It is referring to a case where he engaged in full-fledged intercourse with his bride before Shabbat. Therefore, there is no concern lest he cause a wound on Shabbat.

讗讬 讻砖讘注诇 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖专讬 诇诪讬讘注诇 讘砖讘转 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 驻讬专爪讛 讚讞讜拽讛 诪讜转专 诇讬讻谞住 讘讛 讘砖讘转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪砖讬专 爪专讜专讜转

However, if it is referring to a case where he already engaged in intercourse, what is the tanna teaching us when he says that it is permitted to have intercourse with her even on Shabbat? He teaches us that although it might cause bleeding, it is permitted to engage in intercourse on Shabbat, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: It is permitted to enter into a narrow opening in a wall on Shabbat, although doing so causes pebbles to fall from the wall. Here too, although it might cause a wound and bleeding, intercourse is permitted on Shabbat.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讞转谉 驻讟讜专 诪拽专讬转 砖诪注 诇讬诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗诐 诇讗 注砖讛 诪注砖讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讟专讬讚 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讘注诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讚讟专讬讚 讚诇讗 讘注讬诇

Rav Yosef raised an objection from a mishna (Berakhot 16a): A groom is exempt from the mitzva of reciting Shema on the first night of his marriage to a virgin on Wednesday night, until Saturday night, if he has not taken action and consummated the marriage. What, is it not that he is exempt due to the fact that he is preoccupied because he wishes to engage in intercourse with her and is concerned that he will fail to do so properly? Apparently, if he did not yet consummate the marriage, he is exempt from reciting Shema even on Shabbat, indicating that it is permitted to engage in intercourse on Shabbat. Abaye said to him: No. It can be explained that he is exempt from reciting Shema because he is preoccupied due to the fact that he did not yet engage in intercourse with her. No proof may be cited with regard to engaging in intercourse on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讟讬专讚讗 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讟讘注讛 住驻讬谞转讜 讘讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘 讘讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛转驻讬诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 驻讗专

Rava said to Abaye: And is one exempt due to preoccupation? If that is so, would one whose ship sunk at sea also be exempt? The Gemara reinforces its question: And if you would say: In fact, that is so, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba bar Zavda say that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot in the Torah except for the mitzva to don phylacteries, as the term splendor is stated with regard to phylacteries: 鈥淢ake no mourning for the dead; bind your splendor upon yourself鈥 (Ezekiel 24:17). Splendor is antithetical to mourning. If a mourner, who is clearly pained and preoccupied, is obligated to recite Shema, then certainly all others who are preoccupied due to events that transpired in the past should be obligated. If the groom is exempt, it must be due to his preoccupation with a mitzva that remains incumbent upon him to perform in the future.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讗 讞讚讗 讗诐 诇讗 注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 驻讟讜专 讗祝 讘砖谞讬 讘砖谞讬 驻讟讜专 讗祝 讘砖诇讬砖讬

Rather, Rava said: This matter of intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as one tanna taught: If he did not take action on the first night he is exempt from reciting Shema even on the second. If he failed to consummate the marriage on the second night he is exempt even on the third night, which is Shabbat evening.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 驻讟讜专 砖诇讬砖讬 讞讬讬讘

And another baraita is taught: On the first and second nights he is exempt; on the third he is obligated to recite Shema. He is obligated on the third night, even if he did not yet consummate the marriage, because the third night is Shabbat, when intercourse with his virgin wife is forbidden. The different rulings in the two baraitot indicate that there is a tannaitic dispute with regard to intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat.

讜讗讘讬讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讘讟讬专讚讗 驻诇讬讙讬

And how does Abaye respond to this proof? He says that there too, it can be explained that it is with regard to preoccupation that the tanna鈥檌m disagree. Everyone agrees that it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat. The dispute is whether or not one鈥檚 preoccupation with the fact that he has not yet performed the mitzva of consummating the marriage in the past is considered preoccupation with a mitzva, which would exempt him from reciting Shema?

讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讜谞住 讗转 讛讘转讜诇讛 诇讗 讬讘注讜诇 讘转讞诇讛 讘砖讘转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉

And the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m in the baraitot cited is parallel to the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who marries a virgin, he may not engage in intercourse with her for the first time on Shabbat, and the Rabbis permit doing so.

诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: Who are the Rabbis that permit doing so? Rabba said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: An unintentional act is permitted on Shabbat. Since one鈥檚 intention is to perform a permitted action, i.e., the consummation of the marriage, and there is no intent to perform a forbidden action, any forbidden action that may ensue is not a source of concern.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讻讛诇诇讜 讘讘诇讬讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讛讟讬讬讛 讗诇讗 讬砖 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讛讟讬讬讛

Abaye said to Rabba: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon concede that in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., inevitable consequences, one is not exempted by lack of intent. Since rupture of the hymen and the subsequent bleeding is inevitable, Rabbi Shimon would concede that intercourse with a virgin is forbidden. Rabba said to him: Unlike these Babylonians, who are not experts in diverting during intercourse and are unable to engage in intercourse without rupturing the hymen, there are those who are experts in diverting. Therefore, rupture of the hymen is not an inevitable consequence.

讗诐 讻谉 讟讜专讚 诇诪讛 诇砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讬讗诪专讜 讘拽讬 诪讜转专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讗住讜专 专讜讘 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讛谉

The Gemara asks: If so, and the groom is expert in diverting, why is there preoccupation that renders him exempt from reciting Shema? The Gemara answers: The exemption due to preoccupation is limited to one who is not expert. The Gemara asks: If so, the Sages should say explicitly: One who is expert is permitted to have intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat, and one who is not expert is prohibited from doing so. The Gemara answers: The majority of men are experts in this matter. Therefore, rupture of the hymen is not an inevitable consequence, and intercourse is permitted on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖讜砖讘讬谞讬谉 诇诪讛 诪驻讛 诇诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 砖诪讗 讬专讗讛 讜讬讗讘讚

Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: If that is so, and most people are able to engage in intercourse with a virgin without rupturing the hymen, why are groomsmen stationed to ensure that no deceit is employed by the groom with regard to the bride鈥檚 virginity? And why is a sheet necessary to determine whether there was blood? The absence of blood proves nothing if intercourse is possible without blood. Abaye said to him: There, the groomsmen and the sheet are necessary lest the groom see blood and seek to destroy it intentionally. Certainly, if he seeks to engage in intercourse and keep the hymen intact he can do so. However, if he engages in full-fledged intercourse and the hymen is ruptured, the Sages sought to ensure that the facts are clear.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛诪驻讬住 诪讜专住讗 讘砖讘转 讗诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讛 驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪诪谞讛 诇讬讞讛

Rav Ami raised an objection from a mishna (Eduyyot 2:5): With regard to one who drains an abscess on Shabbat, if his intent is to create a permanent opening so that the abscess will dry, he is liable to receive punishment for performing an action similar to the prohibited labor of building on Shabbat. However, if he created the opening to remove pus,

Scroll To Top