Ketubot 4b — the Talmud in English

And we answer: The beraita, which states, “And likewise, one whose wife became a menstruant,” does not intend thereby to equate the manner in which the two laws were stated. Rather, its entire intention is to say that in both cases it is possible that sleeping together is forbidden; but the manner in which it is forbidden for a mourner to sleep with his wife differs from the manner in which it is forbidden for one whose wife became a menstruant to sleep with her.

And the tan­nnay of the beraita—

hachi ka’amar:

And likewise, one whose wife became a menstruant, and he did not have intercourse with her—

he sleeps among the men, and his wife sleeps among the women.

But if he had already had intercourse with her, he is permitted to sleep with her, because the Sages did not fear that he might come to stumble in the severe prohibition of a menstruant through a second intercourse. But regarding the prohibition of intercourse during mourning, which is a lighter prohibition, the Sages feared that he might return and have intercourse with her a second time during the mourning. Therefore, the Sages forbade him to sleep with her even though he had already had intercourse with her before the burial of the deceased.

And we raise an objection:

leimra,

do you mean to say in this answer

that mourning is lighter for him,

that it is easier in his eyes to transgress the prohibition of intercourse during mourning than

than

to transgress the prohibition of

menstruation, and therefore they were stricter regarding mourning than regarding menstruation and forbade him to sleep with her during the days of mourning even after he had had intercourse with her the first time?

And therefore they were more stringent regarding mourning than regarding menstruation, prohibiting him from sleeping with her during mourning even after he had had intercourse with her once?

But Rabbi Yitzchak bar Hanina said that Rav Huna said: All the labors that a woman performs for her husband—

even while she is

a menstruant

she

performs

them

for her husband.

Except for

labors whose performance involves conduct of closeness and affection, because there is concern that from the closeness and affection they may come to a prohibition, such as

pouring [

bringing]

the cup

to her husband,

and making the bed

by spreading the sheet before him,

and washing his face, his hands, and his feet,

by preparing the water, even if she does not touch him.

Whereas regarding mourning it was taught: Even though they said

the Sages that

a person is not permitted to compel his

mourning wife to adorn herself, such as

to be one who applies blue makeup

to her eyes, which is the application of blue color around the eyes in order to beautify them,

and to be one who applies facial makeup,

to redden her face by means of red color.

And this means that he cannot obligate her to beautify herself before him.

In truth,

but nevertheless

they said

the Sages that during her mourning she performs for him even the labors that a woman performs for her husband which involve closeness and affection toward him, despite the fact that intercourse is forbidden to her because of the mourning.

And she

pours his cup and makes his bed,

and washes his face, his hands, and his feet!

And it is proven that the Sages were lenient regarding the conduct of a woman with her husband during mourning more than during the time when she is a menstruant. Yet Rava said that the prohibition of a menstruant is more severe in people’s eyes than mourning, and therefore it is possible to be lenient and permit him to sleep with her after the first intercourse, but not in mourning.

And we answer: In truth, the laws of mourning are lighter in the husband’s eyes, and we must fear that he will transgress them more than he will transgress the laws of menstruation.

And nevertheless

this is not difficult—

a contradiction between the statements of the beraitot:

Here,

in the beraita that is stringent regarding mourning, according to Rava, and says that he should not sleep with her during mourning even if he had already had intercourse, it is speaking

of his mourning,

when the groom’s father died. The Sages feared that his inclination might overpower him and he might have intercourse with her a second time. For the prohibition of mourning is lighter in his eyes than the prohibition of menstruation, regarding which the Sages did not fear this, and permitted him to sleep with her if he had already had intercourse with her once.

Here,

in the beraita that is lenient regarding mourning and permits a woman during her mourning to perform for her husband acts of affection that she is forbidden to perform during the time when she is a menstruant, it is speaking

of her mourning.

For since she is the mourner, she will prevent him from having intercourse with her, and a woman’s inclination does not overpower her as a man’s inclination does.

And the beginning of the second beraita proves that it is speaking of a case in which the woman is the mourner and not the husband, for we learned at its beginning the law that the husband is not permitted to compel his wife to adorn herself during her mourning.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty: How can it be said that the first beraita, which is stringent regarding mourning, speaks of the husband’s mourning and not of the woman’s mourning?

But “

the father of the groom died,

or the mother of the bride,”

it teaches

in it!

And it is proven that even when the woman is the mourner, the Sages also feared that she might not withstand her inclination and might have intercourse a second time during her mourning. Therefore, they forbade her to sleep during her mourning together with her husband, even after she had already had intercourse with him once.

And we answer:

When it teaches “

the mother of the bride died”—

it refers to the rest, regarding the other laws explained in the beraita, and not regarding the prohibition against sleeping together even after the first intercourse; that law was stated only when the groom is the mourner, and not when the bride is the mourner.

involving the other laws stated in the beraita, and not to the prohibition against sleeping together even after the first intercourse. That law was stated only when the groom is the mourner, and not when the bride is the mourner.

And the Gemara wonders:

And does it differ,

is it possible to distinguish

between his mourning

of him,

and her mourning

of her, regarding sleeping together during the days of mourning?

But was it not taught: When one’s father-in-law or mother-in-law died—

he cannot compel his wife to be one who applies blue makeup and to be one who applies facial makeup.

Rather, he compels—

he turns over

his bed

in the manner of mourners, who turn over their beds,

and conducts

together

mourning with her.

And likewise, when her father-in-law or mother-in-law died—

she is not permitted to be one who applies blue makeup or to be one who applies facial makeup

during the seven days,

rather, she turns over her bed and conducts

together

mourning with him!

And since this beraita does not mention that during his mourning he sleeps among the men, it is proven that there is no difference between his mourning and her mourning, and in both cases they were not forbidden to sleep together.

And we answer:

Teach,

you must also emend the wording in this beraita

to refer to his mourning, as follows:

as follows:

He sleeps among the men, and his wife sleeps among the women.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty: How is it possible to emend the beraita in such a manner,

for “and likewise

she, when her father-in-law died,”

it teaches

in it, implying that the husband’s mourning and the woman’s mourning are equal!

And we answer:

When it teaches “and likewise,” which implies equality—

“and likewise,” implying equality, it refers to

regarding applying blue makeup and applying facial makeup,

for in both cases she is forbidden to adorn herself; but regarding sleeping together, their laws differ.

But the Gemara still raises a difficulty:

But “

and likewise, when her father-in-law died, she conducts

with him

mourning,”

it teaches.

Is it not so,

that the intention of the beraita when it says “and she conducts with him” is to say that even if the husband is the mourner, and she is the one who conducts mourning with him, she is permitted to be

with him in the bed,

to sleep together with him in one bed, or in one room, without concern that the husband will stumble and have intercourse with her!

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

the intention of the beraita is not that she is permitted to sleep “with him in the bed,” but rather to say that she is obligated to conduct mourning with him only when she is

“with him in the house.”

And as Rav said to Hiyya his son,

as Rav said to his son Hiyya when his father-in-law, his wife’s father, died:

In her presence,

in the presence of your wife—that is, when you are with her in the house—

conduct

together with her

the mourning.

But

when not in her presence,

when not in her presence—

do not conduct

you do not need to conduct

the mourning.

Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing,

how can you compare

the mourning here,

in which they permitted the groom and bride to postpone the seven days of feasting until after the seven days of mourning,

to ordinary mourning

described in the beraita that the Gemara has just cited?

For

ordinary mourning is severe,

its matter is severe for mourners,

and they will not come to treat it lightly.

But

the mourning here,

of the groom and bride,

since the Sages were lenient

in postponing the seven days of mourning until after the seven days of feasting, we must fear that they

will come

to come

to treat it lightly.

The Gemara explains:

What leniency, what is the leniency that we find in the mourning of the groom and bride, because of which we must fear that they will come to be lenient in it if we permit them to sleep together?

If you say

If you say, if it is said that it is because

the beraita teaches:

it teaches: He has intercourse with the intercourse of the mitzva

before the burial,

and withdraws, and there is a leniency in the laws of mourning in the intercourse of the mitzva.

and this represents a leniency in the laws of mourning—

This is not a leniency in mourning. For

there,

he is permitted to have intercourse while he is an onen

because the obligation of

the mitzva of

mourning has not yet taken effect upon him.

If according to Rabbi Eliezer—

mourning does not take effect upon him

until the deceased leaves

the

house doorway.

If according to Rabbi Yehoshua—

mourning does not take effect upon him

until the covering is closed,

when the cover is placed upon the coffin of the deceased!

Rather,

the leniency is in that

it teaches: He observes the seven days of feasting

first,

and

only

afterward he observes the seven days of mourning.

The Master said

in the beraita:

In either case,

whether the father of the groom or the mother of the bride died, or not,

he should not have intercourse

the intercourse of the mitzva

on the eve of [

the night of]

Shabbat, nor on the conclusion of Shabbat.

And we considered it:

Granted, on the eve of Shabbat,

he does not have intercourse

because

he makes in her

a wound,

extracting blood when breaking her hymen, and he is liable for extracting it under the labor of “taking a life,” as will be explained in the Gemara below.

But on the conclusion of Shabbat—

why,

why

not

should he have intercourse?

Rabbi Zeira said: