Ketubot 5b — the Talmud in English

He should place his finger

which is pointed like a tent peg,

in his ears

and block them so that he will not hear.

And this is what Rabbi Elazar said: Why are a person's fingers shaped like tent pegs?

Before the Gemara brings the continuation of Rabbi Elazar's statement, it questions his question:

What is the reason

that Rabbi Elazar asked this? In what way are the fingers similar to tent pegs, such that Rabbi Elazar asked, “Why are a person's fingers shaped like tent pegs?”

If you say

that they are similar to tent pegs

because they are divided

from one another—that is, because the fingers are separate from one another and are not joined together as at the wrist—

there is no basis for Rabbi Elazar's question as to why they are divided.

For

each one

of the fingers

is made for its own purpose!

Each one has a separate function. Even for sacred needs connected with the Temple, we find that each finger has a special function—

as

the master said

as we learned in tractate Menahot [11a]:

The little finger—

this is the zeret,

with which the dimensions of the breastplate were measured; it was one zeret by one zeret.

The intention is half a cubit by half a cubit. The measurement was made by measuring, in an arc, the distance from the thumb to the little finger, around all the fingers while they were fully extended.

The finger next to it—

this is the kemitza,

with which the taking of a handful from the meal-offering began.

This was because kemitza was performed with three fingers—the ring finger, the middle finger, and the index finger—out of the hand's four fingers, excluding the thumb. The priest would insert his fingers into the meal-offering and fill his hand with it, covering these three fingers over his palm; what was between them was the “kemitza.”

Therefore, the finger next to the little finger is considered the boundary marking the beginning of the three fingers with which the kemitza was performed, and it itself is called “kemitza.” The thumb, however, since it is separate from these four fingers, is not considered the boundary of the kemitza on its other side.

The middle finger, the longest of all the fingers—

this is the amma.

It is called this because the “building cubit” and the “vessel cubit” were measured with it. Its measure is the length of a man's cubit, from the beginning of the wrist to the end of this finger.

The finger next to it—

this is the index finger.

With it, the priests applied the blood of the sin-offering to the horns of the altar.

The last finger—

this is the thumb!

It is also called the big toe when referring to the toe on which the blood of the sin-offering was placed for Aaron the priest and his sons when they were anointed for the priesthood. Likewise, blood from the guilt-offering of a person with tzara'at was placed on the big toe to purify him completely from the ritual impurity of his affliction and qualify him to enter the Temple.

On the basis of this question, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar was not asking why the fingers are divided.

Rather, what is the reason

that they are

sharpened,

pointed

like tent pegs?

Rabbi Elazar answered: It is so

that if a person hears something improper,

he can place his fingers in his ears.

A tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Why is

the

entire ear hard, while

the

earlobe

at the bottom of the ear

soft?

It is so

that if a person hears something improper,

he can fold

the

earlobe inward.

The Sages taught: A person should not allow his ears to hear idle matters, because

the ears are delicate, and therefore

they

are destined to be

the first of the limbs to be burned

in the fire of Gehinnom.

The Gemara now presents a question that was left unresolved in the house of study: Is it permitted to have intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat?

Perhaps they had not heard the earlier beraita [3b], which states that one does not have intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat. Alternatively, perhaps the question was whether this beraita is accepted as the halakhic ruling.

They raised the following dilemma before them: What is the law concerning having intercourse

with a virgin

for the first time on Shabbat?

The sides of the dilemma are:

Is

the blood

of the virgin that emerges during the first intercourse as a result of the breaking of the hymen considered

“stored and set aside,”

as though it were gathered and present in its place, rather than connected to the woman's body like ordinary blood? Therefore, there would be no prohibition against extracting it as an injury on Shabbat.

Or

is this blood

“firmly attached,”

connected to the woman's body like all blood, so that extracting it is prohibited as causing an injury on Shabbat?

The Gemara now continues and presents two lines of reasoning: the first follows the possibility that virgin's blood is “stored and set aside,” and the second follows the possibility that virgin's blood is “firmly attached.”

The first line of reasoning:

And if you could conclude that the blood

of a virgin is considered

“stored and set aside,”

so that there is no prohibition against extracting it as an injury—

there is still a question:

Does he need only

to

extract the

blood,

in order to establish that she is a virgin, and nothing more?

And

therefore

it is permitted

to have intercourse for the first time on Shabbat, since extracting the blood does not involve the prohibition of causing an injury, because the blood is “stored and set aside” and there is no injury here.

Or perhaps he needs to

create a

passage,

since during his first intercourse he intends to widen the woman's passage, as long as a woman has not had intercourse her passage is narrow and intercourse is uncomfortable,

and it is prohibited

to widen it on Shabbat because of the labor of “building”?

And

also

if you could conclude

that he needs only

the blood,

and does not intend to create a passage,

and the passage

that is created in her through his intercourse

comes about on its own—

there is still a question:

Is

the halakha

in accordance with

Rabbi Shimon, who said: An unintentional act is permitted,

and therefore he may have intercourse even though he thereby creates a passage, since he does not intend to create one, and Rabbi Shimon holds that performing an act without intending its prohibited result is permitted?

Or is the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who said: An unintentional act is prohibited,

and therefore it would be prohibited to have intercourse on Shabbat?

And

also

if you could conclude

that

the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that an unintentional act is prohibited—

there is still a question, because such a passage has an aspect of improvement, but it also has an aspect of damage—

and therefore the question is:

Is

it a destructive act with regard to the passage

in this case,

or is it an improving act with regard to the passage?

For on the one hand, he widens the passage and makes intercourse more comfortable, thereby performing an act of improvement in construction through his intercourse. On the other hand, a virgin is considered more valuable than a woman who has had intercourse. From this perspective, creating the passage is considered a destructive act rather than an improvement, and creating such a passage does not constitute the labor of building; therefore, it is permitted to do so on Shabbat.

The second line of reasoning:

There are those who state: And if you could conclude that the blood is firmly attached—

there is still a question:

Is it

the blood that he needs, and it is prohibited,

since he intends to extract it, and he is thereby injuring her?

Or perhaps

he needs only

his own pleasure.

And

since he does not intend to extract the blood—

it is permitted

to have intercourse.

And

nevertheless, on the other hand, also

if you could conclude

that he needs only

his own pleasure, and the blood comes about on its own,

and the injury is caused by him without intention—

there is still a question:

Is

the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who prohibits an unintentional act? Perhaps this injury is an improvement, and therefore it is prohibited for him to have intercourse on Shabbat.

Or

perhaps

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who permits an unintentional act?

And

also

if you could conclude

that

the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda,

who prohibits an unintentional act—

there is still a question: Is this extraction of blood considered

“a destructive act involving an injury,”

so that this injury should not be prohibited, because “a destructive act involving an injury” is permitted?

Or

perhaps through extracting the blood he is considered

“one who improves through an injury,”

and it is therefore prohibited according to Rabbi Yehuda?

And

also

if you could conclude

—

“one who performs a destructive act involving an injury,”

—

there is still a question, because there is a basis for prohibiting it even if he is destructive rather than improving, if we rule in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda that an unintentional act is prohibited, and in the dispute concerning a destructive act involving an injury we rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who innovates that one who performs a destructive act involving an injury is liable.

Since Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon dispute the law of “a destructive act involving an injury”—

according to Rabbi Yehuda, anyone who performs a destructive act is exempt, and even one who causes an injury is liable only if it involves an improvement, such as one who slaughters an animal, whose slaughter is not considered damage but an improvement of the animal for him. However, if a person injures another, since his intention is to injure him, the injury is considered damage rather than improvement, because his aim is to damage the other person.

Rabbi Shimon, by contrast, holds that everyone who performs a destructive act is exempt except one who causes an injury or kindles a fire.

We must now discuss one who has intercourse with a virgin and causes an injury to her [according to this line of reasoning, that the blood is firmly attached], but does not intend to injure her, because he does not need the blood; he has intercourse only for his own pleasure. Clearly, with regard to the labor of causing an injury, this is damage rather than improvement.

Thus, if we rule in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda that an unintentional act is prohibited, and in the dispute concerning a destructive act involving an injury we rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one who causes an injury is liable, it would be prohibited to have intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat, even though he does not intend to extract the blood and even though the injury he causes is damage rather than improvement.

This is the question we must examine—

Is

with regard to a destructive act

involving an injury

the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who exempts him? In that case, since the injury is damaging, it would be permitted to have intercourse on Shabbat.