Is it forbidden or not to have relations for the first time on Shabbat? There are two different versions regarding what Rav and Shmuel held in its matter as it was known that one permitted and one forbade. If Rav holds like Rabbi Yehuda who prohibits “davar she’aino mitkaven” – doing a melacha when one was not intending to do that melacha, how does he permit (according to those who say he permits)? It must be that he holds that it is a destructive act and therefore permitted. Several sources are brought against Shmuel (who clearly holds like Rabbi Shimon that “davar she’aino mitkaven” is not forbidden) according to those who say that Shmuel forbade relations on Friday night for concern of bleeding. The first source is a Mishna in Nidda 64b that seems to indicate one could have relations on Friday night even if there is a likelihood that she may bleed from the tearing off the hymen. Rava resolves it by showing that in the case discussed, there is a decreased likelihood of bleeding as they already had relations for the first time and there is a chance she may bleed, but it is not clearly going to happen. The second question is from the groom’s exemption from shema which lasts through Saturday night in the event that they did not have relations yet. Why would one be exempt on Shabbat unless one would be able to have relations? Rava and Abaye each provide answers. A third question is asked from a case of opening up a pimple on Shabbat which is permitted – why is that not the same as tearing the hymen?
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Ketubot 6
אוֹ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
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?
(אִיתְּמַר:) בְּבֵי רַב אָמְרִי: רַב שָׁרֵי וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָסַר. בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא אָמְרִי: רַב אָסַר וּשְׁמוּאֵל שָׁרֵי. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, וְסִימָנָיךְ: אֵלּוּ מְקִילִּין לְעַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ מְקִילִּין לְעַצְמָן.
With regard to the halakha of engaging in intercourse with one’s 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’a, where Shmuel lived, they say: Rav prohibited doing so and Shmuel permitted doing so. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.
וְרַב שָׁרֵי? וְהָאָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִזְקִיָּה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: הַאי מְסוֹכַרְיָא דְּנַזְיָיתָא — אָסוּר לְהַדּוֹקַהּ בְּיוֹמָא טָבָא!
The Gemara asks: And did Rav permit engaging in intercourse in those circumstances? But didn’t Rav Shimi bar Ḥizkiyya 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.
בְּהָהוּא אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה, דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״.
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.
וְהָא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַב חָנָן בַּר אַמֵּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּלָא גַּבְרֵי, רַב אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say that Rav said with regard to unintentional acts: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav Ḥanan bar Ami said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav Ḥiyya 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’s virgin bride on Shabbat?
לְעוֹלָם רַב כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, לְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר דָּם מִיפְקָד פְּקִיד — מְקַלְקֵל הוּא אֵצֶל הַפֶּתַח. לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר דָּם חַבּוֹרֵי מִיחַבַּר — מְקַלְקֵל בְּחַבּוּרָה הוּא.
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-à-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.
מֵתִיב רַב חִסְדָּא: תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת וְנִשֵּׂאת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נוֹתְנִין לָהּ אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁתִּחְיֶה הַמַּכָּה.
Rav Ḥisda 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.
הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת וְנִשֵּׂאת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נוֹתְנִין לָהּ לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת, אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת.
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.
מַאי לָאו: דְּאִי לֹא בָּעַל, מָצֵי בָּעֵיל אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת. אָמַר רָבָא: לָא, לְבַר מִשַּׁבָּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא ״עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת״ קָתָנֵי? אֶלָּא, אָמַר רָבָא: כְּשֶׁבָּעַל.
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’t 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.
אִי כְּשֶׁבָּעַל, מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּשְׁרֵי לְמִיבְעַל בְּשַׁבָּת, כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: פִּירְצָה דְּחוּקָה מוּתָּר לִיכָּנֵס בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּשִּׁיר צְרוֹרוֹת.
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.
מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: חָתָן פָּטוּר מִקְּרִיַּת שְׁמַע לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת אִם לֹא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. מַאי לָאו, דִּטְרִיד דְּבָעֵי לְמִיבְעַל! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לָא, דִּטְרִיד דְּלָא בְּעֵיל.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וּמִשּׁוּם טִירְדָּא פָּטוּר? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, טָבְעָה סְפִינָתוֹ בַּיָּם, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּפָטוּר?! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי — וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא אָמַר רַב: אָבֵל חַיָּיב בְּכׇל הַמִּצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּתוֹרָהּ חוּץ מִן הַתְּפִילִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״פְּאֵר״!
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’t 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: “Make no mourning for the dead; bind your splendor upon yourself” (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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתָנָא חֲדָא: אִם לֹא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה בָּרִאשׁוֹן — פָּטוּר אַף בַּשֵּׁנִי, בַּשֵּׁנִי — פָּטוּר אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי.
Rather, Rava said: This matter of intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, 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.
וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי — פָּטוּר, שְׁלִישִׁי — חַיָּיב.
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.
וְאַבָּיֵי? הָתָם נָמֵי בְּטִירְדָּא פְּלִיגִי.
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’im disagree. Everyone agrees that it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat. The dispute is whether or not one’s 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?
וְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי כִּי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי. דְּתַנְיָא: הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת הַבְּתוּלָה — לֹא יִבְעוֹל בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּשַׁבָּת, וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין.
And the dispute between these tanna’im in the baraitot cited is parallel to the dispute between these tanna’im, 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.
מַאן חֲכָמִים? אָמַר רַבָּה: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין מוּתָּר.
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’s 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא כְּהַלָּלוּ בַּבְלִיִּים שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין בְּהַטָּיָיה, אֶלָּא יֵשׁ בְּקִיאִין בְּהַטָּיָיה.
Abaye said to Rabba: But doesn’t 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.
אִם כֵּן, טוֹרֶד לָמָּה? לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי. יֹאמְרוּ: בָּקִי — מוּתָּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי — אָסוּר! רוֹב בְּקִיאִין הֵן.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה שׁוֹשְׁבִינִין, לָמָּה? מַפָּה לָמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם שֶׁמָּא יִרְאֶה וִיאַבֵּד.
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan 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’s 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.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַמֵּפִיס מוּרְסָא בְּשַׁבָּת, אִם לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהּ פֶּה — חַיָּיב. וְאִם לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנָּה לֵיחָה —
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,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Raanana, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
Ketubot 6
אוֹ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
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?
(אִיתְּמַר:) בְּבֵי רַב אָמְרִי: רַב שָׁרֵי וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָסַר. בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא אָמְרִי: רַב אָסַר וּשְׁמוּאֵל שָׁרֵי. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, וְסִימָנָיךְ: אֵלּוּ מְקִילִּין לְעַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ מְקִילִּין לְעַצְמָן.
With regard to the halakha of engaging in intercourse with one’s 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’a, where Shmuel lived, they say: Rav prohibited doing so and Shmuel permitted doing so. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.
וְרַב שָׁרֵי? וְהָאָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִזְקִיָּה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: הַאי מְסוֹכַרְיָא דְּנַזְיָיתָא — אָסוּר לְהַדּוֹקַהּ בְּיוֹמָא טָבָא!
The Gemara asks: And did Rav permit engaging in intercourse in those circumstances? But didn’t Rav Shimi bar Ḥizkiyya 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.
בְּהָהוּא אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה, דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״.
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.
וְהָא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַב חָנָן בַּר אַמֵּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּלָא גַּבְרֵי, רַב אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say that Rav said with regard to unintentional acts: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav Ḥanan bar Ami said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav Ḥiyya 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’s virgin bride on Shabbat?
לְעוֹלָם רַב כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, לְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר דָּם מִיפְקָד פְּקִיד — מְקַלְקֵל הוּא אֵצֶל הַפֶּתַח. לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר דָּם חַבּוֹרֵי מִיחַבַּר — מְקַלְקֵל בְּחַבּוּרָה הוּא.
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-à-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.
מֵתִיב רַב חִסְדָּא: תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת וְנִשֵּׂאת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נוֹתְנִין לָהּ אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁתִּחְיֶה הַמַּכָּה.
Rav Ḥisda 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.
הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת וְנִשֵּׂאת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נוֹתְנִין לָהּ לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת, אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת.
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.
מַאי לָאו: דְּאִי לֹא בָּעַל, מָצֵי בָּעֵיל אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת. אָמַר רָבָא: לָא, לְבַר מִשַּׁבָּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא ״עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת״ קָתָנֵי? אֶלָּא, אָמַר רָבָא: כְּשֶׁבָּעַל.
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’t 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.
אִי כְּשֶׁבָּעַל, מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּשְׁרֵי לְמִיבְעַל בְּשַׁבָּת, כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: פִּירְצָה דְּחוּקָה מוּתָּר לִיכָּנֵס בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּשִּׁיר צְרוֹרוֹת.
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.
מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: חָתָן פָּטוּר מִקְּרִיַּת שְׁמַע לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת אִם לֹא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. מַאי לָאו, דִּטְרִיד דְּבָעֵי לְמִיבְעַל! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לָא, דִּטְרִיד דְּלָא בְּעֵיל.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וּמִשּׁוּם טִירְדָּא פָּטוּר? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, טָבְעָה סְפִינָתוֹ בַּיָּם, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּפָטוּר?! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי — וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא אָמַר רַב: אָבֵל חַיָּיב בְּכׇל הַמִּצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּתוֹרָהּ חוּץ מִן הַתְּפִילִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״פְּאֵר״!
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’t 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: “Make no mourning for the dead; bind your splendor upon yourself” (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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתָנָא חֲדָא: אִם לֹא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה בָּרִאשׁוֹן — פָּטוּר אַף בַּשֵּׁנִי, בַּשֵּׁנִי — פָּטוּר אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי.
Rather, Rava said: This matter of intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, 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.
וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי — פָּטוּר, שְׁלִישִׁי — חַיָּיב.
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.
וְאַבָּיֵי? הָתָם נָמֵי בְּטִירְדָּא פְּלִיגִי.
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’im disagree. Everyone agrees that it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat. The dispute is whether or not one’s 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?
וְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי כִּי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי. דְּתַנְיָא: הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת הַבְּתוּלָה — לֹא יִבְעוֹל בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּשַׁבָּת, וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין.
And the dispute between these tanna’im in the baraitot cited is parallel to the dispute between these tanna’im, 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.
מַאן חֲכָמִים? אָמַר רַבָּה: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין מוּתָּר.
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’s 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא כְּהַלָּלוּ בַּבְלִיִּים שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין בְּהַטָּיָיה, אֶלָּא יֵשׁ בְּקִיאִין בְּהַטָּיָיה.
Abaye said to Rabba: But doesn’t 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.
אִם כֵּן, טוֹרֶד לָמָּה? לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי. יֹאמְרוּ: בָּקִי — מוּתָּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי — אָסוּר! רוֹב בְּקִיאִין הֵן.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה שׁוֹשְׁבִינִין, לָמָּה? מַפָּה לָמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם שֶׁמָּא יִרְאֶה וִיאַבֵּד.
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan 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’s 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.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַמֵּפִיס מוּרְסָא בְּשַׁבָּת, אִם לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהּ פֶּה — חַיָּיב. וְאִם לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנָּה לֵיחָה —
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,
