Ketubot 4b (ד:) — the Talmud in English

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

And the tanna of the baraita

states as follows:

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

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 suspect that he might stumble and violate the severe prohibition of a menstruant through a second act of intercourse. However, with regard to intercourse during mourning, which is a less severe prohibition, the Sages were concerned that he might have intercourse with her again during the mourning period. Therefore, the Sages prohibited him from sleeping with her even though he had had intercourse with her before the burial of the deceased.

And we raise an objection:

Does this mean—

do you intend to say in this answer—

that mourning is lenient for him,

that it is easier in his eyes to violate the prohibition against intercourse during mourning than

to

violate the prohibition of

a menstruant,

and therefore they were more stringent with regard to mourning than with regard to menstruation, prohibiting him from sleeping with her during the mourning period even after he had had intercourse with her for the first time?

But didn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Ḥanina say that Rav Huna said: All the tasks that a woman performs for her husband—

even when she is

a menstruant—

she

performs

them

for her husband.

Except for

tasks whose performance entails conduct expressing closeness and affection, since there is concern that the closeness and affection may lead them to violate the prohibition, such as

pouring

[handing]

the cup

to her husband,

making the bed

by spreading the sheet before him, and

washing his face, hands, and feet,

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

Whereas with regard to mourning, it was taught in a baraita: Even though they said

that the Sages

do not permit a man to compel his mourning wife to

adorn herself, such as

to apply blue makeup

to her eyes, meaning to apply blue-colored makeup around the eyes to beautify them,

or to apply facial makeup,

to redden her face with red makeup.

That is, he cannot compel her to beautify herself before him.

In truth,

nevertheless

the Sages said

that during her mourning period she performs for him even those tasks that a woman performs for her husband which entail closeness and affection toward him, despite the fact that intercourse is prohibited to her because of the mourning.

And she

pours his cup and makes his bed,

and washes his face, hands, and feet!

And it is evident that the Sages were more lenient regarding the conduct of a woman with her husband during mourning than when she is a menstruant. Yet Rava said that the prohibition of a menstruant is considered more severe by people than mourning, and therefore it is possible to be lenient and allow him to sleep with her after the first act of intercourse, whereas this is not permitted during mourning.

And we answer: In fact, the laws of mourning are considered lenient by the husband, and we must be concerned that he will transgress them more readily than he will transgress the laws of menstruation.

Nevertheless,

there is no difficulty—

there is no contradiction between the statements of the baraitot:

Here,

in the baraita that is stringent with regard to mourning, according to Rava, stating that he may not sleep with her during mourning even if he had already had intercourse, it is referring to

his mourning,

where the groom’s father died. The Sages were concerned that his inclination might overcome him and he might have intercourse with her a second time. For the prohibition of mourning is more lenient in his eyes than the prohibition of menstruation; with regard to the latter, the Sages were not concerned, and permitted him to sleep with her if he had already had intercourse with her once.

Here,

in the baraita that is lenient with regard to mourning, permitting a woman during her mourning period to perform for her husband acts of affection that she is forbidden to perform when she is a menstruant, it is referring to

her mourning.

Since she is the mourner, she will refrain from having intercourse with him, and a woman’s inclination does not overcome her to the same degree as a man’s inclination overcomes him.

The beginning of the second baraita proves that it is referring to a case in which the woman is the mourner and not the husband, since at its beginning we learned the halakha that the husband may not compel his wife to beautify herself during her mourning period.

But the Gemara asks: How can it be said that the first baraita, which is stringent with regard to mourning, is referring to the husband’s mourning and not to the woman’s mourning?

But it

“states:

the groom’s father or the bride’s mother”

died”

in it!

And it is evident that even when the woman is the mourner, the Sages were concerned that she might not withstand her inclination and might have intercourse a second time during her mourning period. Therefore, they prohibited her from sleeping during her mourning period together with her husband, even after she had already had intercourse with him once.

And we answer:

When it states, “

the bride’s mother died,”

it refers to the other matters,

the other laws explained in the baraita, and not to the prohibition against sleeping together even after the first act of intercourse. That halakha was stated only when the groom is the mourner, and not when the bride is the mourner.

The Gemara is astonished:

Is it different—

is it possible to distinguish

between his mourning,

his,

and her mourning,

hers, with regard to sleeping together during the mourning period?

But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: If his father-in-law or mother-in-law died—

he may not compel his wife to apply blue makeup or to apply facial makeup?

Rather, he compels

that is, he turns over

his bed

as mourners turn over their beds,

and conducts

together

with her the practices of mourning.

And similarly, if her father-in-law or mother-in-law died—

she may not apply blue makeup or apply facial makeup

during the seven-day mourning period;

rather, she turns over her bed and conducts

together

with him the practices of mourning!

And since this baraita does not mention that, in his mourning, he sleeps among the men, it is evident that there is no difference between his mourning and her mourning, and in both cases they were not prohibited from sleeping together.

And we answer:

Teach—

you should also emend the wording of this baraita to read

“his mourning,”

as follows:

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

The Gemara asks: How is it possible to introduce such a distinction into the baraita?

But “and likewise

if her father-in-law died”

it states

in it, implying that the husband’s mourning and the wife’s mourning are the same!

And we answer:

When it states “likewise,” implying equality, it refers

to the meaning “likewise”

with regard to applying makeup and facial cosmetics: In both cases she is forbidden to beautify herself. But with regard to sleeping together, their laws differ.

Yet the Gemara continues to ask:

But “And likewise, if her father-in-law died, she observes

mourning

with him”

it states

in it

!

Is it not so

that the intent of the baraita when it says “and she observes mourning with him” is to say that even if the husband is the mourner, and she is the one who observes 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 might stumble and have intercourse with her!

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 baraita does not mean that she is permitted to sleep “with him in the bed.” Rather, it means that she is obligated to observe mourning with him only when she is

“with him in the house.”

As Rav said to his son Ḥiyya,

just as Rav said to his son Ḥiyya 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—

observe

together with her

the mourning practices.

But

when not in her presence,

when she is not present,

do not observe

you need not observe

the mourning.

Rav Ashi said: How can you compare

how can you liken

the mourning here,

in which they permitted the bride and groom to precede the seven days of the wedding celebration to the seven days of mourning,

to ordinary mourning,

which is discussed in the baraita that the Gemara has just cited?

For

ordinary mourning is stringent,

its character is severe for mourners,

and they will not come to treat it lightly.

But

the mourning here,

of the bride and groom,

since the Sages were lenient

in postponing the seven days of mourning until after the seven days of the wedding celebration, we must be concerned that they

will come

to

treat it lightly.

The Gemara explains:

What leniency

is found in the mourning of a bride and groom, because of which we must be concerned that they will come to be lenient with it if we permit them to sleep together?

If you say

that it is because

it states: He has the first act of mitzva intercourse

before the burial,

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

This is not a leniency with regard to mourning. For

there,

in that case,

he is permitted to have intercourse while he is an onen,

because the mitzva of

mourning

has not yet taken effect upon him.

According to Rabbi Eliezer—

mourning does not take effect upon him

until the deceased exits

the

house’s doorway.

According to Rabbi Yehoshua—

mourning does not take effect upon him

until the covering is closed,

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

Rather,

the leniency is that

it states: He observes the seven days of the wedding celebration

first,

and

only

afterward he observes the seven days of mourning.

The Master said

in the baraita:

In either case,

whether the groom’s father or the bride’s mother died or not,

he may not have

the first act of mitzva intercourse

on the eve

[the night]

of Shabbat, nor on Saturday night.

And we analyze it:

Granted, on the eve of Shabbat,

he does not have intercourse

because

he causes

a wound

by releasing blood when he breaks the hymen, and he is liable for releasing it under the labor of “taking a life,” as the Gemara will explain below.

But on Saturday night—

why

why

does he not

have intercourse?

Rabbi Zeira said: