Ketubot 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

he should place his finger

which is pointed like a peg

in his ears

and block them so as not to hear.

And this is what Rabbi Elazar said: Why are a person's fingers similar to pegs?

Before the Gemara cites the continuation of Rabbi Elazar's statement, it wonders about his question:

What is the reason

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

If you say

that they are similar to pegs

because they are divided

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

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

For

each and every one

of the fingers

is designated for its own function!

Each one has a distinct purpose of its own, and even with regard to sacred matters connected with the Temple, we find that each one has a particular 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 hoshen were measured, for its dimensions were a zeret by a zeret.

The reference is to half a cubit by half a cubit. The measurement was made by measuring the distance between the thumb and the little finger in an arc, around all the fingers, with all the fingers extended.

The finger adjacent to it—

this is the kemitza

with which they began taking the kemitza of the meal-offering.

Since the kemitza was performed with three fingers—the ring finger, middle finger, and index finger—out of the hand's four fingers, excluding the thumb, the koen would insert his fingers into the meal-offering and fill his hand with it, and cover these three fingers with the palm of his hand. What was contained within them was the “kemitza.”

Therefore, the finger adjacent 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, which is the longest of all the fingers—

this is the amma.

It is called this because the “cubit of building” and the “cubit of vessels” were measured with it; its measure is the measure of a person's cubit, from the beginning of the wrist to the end of this finger.

The finger adjacent to it—

this is the index finger.

With it the kohanim applied the blood of the sin-offering to the corners of the altar.

And the final finger—

this is the thumb!

It is also called the bohen. The blood of the sin-offering of Aharon the koen and his sons was placed upon it when they were anointed for the priesthood. Likewise, the blood of the guilt-offering of a metzora was placed upon the bohen in order to purify him completely from the ritual impurity of his affliction and qualify him to enter the Temple.

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

Rather, what is the reason

they are

sharpened

pointed

like pegs?

Rabbi Elazar answered this: So that

if a person hears an improper statement—

he should place his fingers in his ears.

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael said: Why is

the

entire ear hard, while

the

lobe

at the bottom of the ear is

soft?

So that

if a person hears an improper statement—

he can bend

the

lobe into it.

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

the ears are delicate; therefore

they

are destined to be

the first of the limbs to be burned

by the fire of Gehinnom.

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

It is possible that they had not heard the earlier beraita [3b], which states that one does not have intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat. Alternatively, the question may have been whether this beraita is established as halakha.

They raised a dilemma before them: What is the ruling with regard to having intercourse

with a virgin

for the first time on Shabbat?

Two prohibitions of Shabbat labors may be involved in intercourse with a virgin: the drawing of blood, which is forbidden because of "taking a soul" [and according to the Rambam because of "tearing apart"], and the opening of the woman's orifice, which is prohibited under the labor of "building." The support for considering making an opening in a person's body as the labor of building is from the verse "and He built the rib," said concerning Eve. The early authorities debated the nature of the labor of drawing blood: whether it is because of weakening the person or the creature from whom blood is drawn, or because of taking the soul in the blood that issues itself; see Tosafot s.v. "blood mifaked pakid." And Rashi's phrasing several times in the ensuing discussion is that the prohibition is because of "making a wound," which somewhat implies that the prohibition is in injuring the person.

The two sides of the dilemma are:

Is

the blood

of virginity that emerges during the first intercourse as a result of the rupture of the hymen considered

“deposited,”

as though it were gathered and standing in its place, and not attached to the woman's body like ordinary blood, so that extracting it is not prohibited as wounding on Shabbat?

Or

is this blood

“attached,”

meaning that it is attached to the woman's body like all blood, and extracting it is prohibited as wounding on Shabbat?

The Gemara now continues and presents two lines of reasoning: the first according to the possibility that the blood of virginity is “deposited,” and the second according to the possibility that it is “attached.”

The first line of reasoning:

And if you should say that the blood

of virginity is considered

“deposited,”

and extracting it is not prohibited as wounding—

there is still a dilemma:

Is he concerned only

with

extracting the

blood,

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

and

therefore

it is permitted

to have intercourse for the first time on Shabbat, since there is no prohibition of wounding through the extraction of the blood, as the blood is “deposited” and there is no wounding here?

Or perhaps he is concerned with

creating

an opening,

meaning that in his first intercourse he intends to widen the woman's passage, since before a woman has had intercourse her passage is narrow and intercourse is not easy,

and it is prohibited

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

And

even

if you should say

that he is concerned only

with the blood,

and does not intend to create an opening,

and the opening

that is created in her through his intercourse

comes on its own—

there is still a dilemma:

Is

the halakha

in accordance with

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

and therefore it is permitted for him to have intercourse even though he thereby creates an opening, since he does not intend to create an opening, and Rabbi Shimon maintains that it is permitted to perform an act whose result one does not intend?

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 should say

that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who maintains that an unintentional act is prohibited—

there is still a dilemma, because such an opening has an aspect of improvement, but also an aspect of damage—

and therefore there is still a dilemma:

Is

it destructive with regard to this opening

in this case,

or is it constructive with regard to the opening?

For although, on the one hand, he widens the opening and makes it convenient for intercourse, thereby performing through his intercourse an act of constructive building, on the other hand, a virgin is considered more desirable than a woman who has had intercourse. In that respect, creating the opening is considered a destructive act rather than a constructive one, and creating such an opening is not a form of the labor of building, so it is permitted to create it on Shabbat.

The second line of reasoning:

Some say: And if you should say that the blood is attached—

there is still a dilemma:

Is

he concerned with the blood, and it is prohibited,

since he intends to extract it, and he is therefore wounding her?

Or perhaps

he is concerned only

with his own pleasure.

And

since he does not intend to extract the blood,

it is permitted

to have intercourse.

And

however, on the other hand, even

if you should say

that he is concerned only

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

and the wounding is performed by him without intention—

there is still a dilemma:

Is

the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who prohibits an unintentional act, and perhaps this wounding is constructive, 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 should say

that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who prohibits an unintentional act—

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

“destructive wounding,”

so that this wounding should not be prohibited, because “destructive wounding” is permitted?

Or

perhaps through extracting the blood he is considered

“constructively wounding,”

and it is therefore prohibited according to Rabbi Yehuda?

And

also

if you should say

that he is considered

“destructively wounding,”

—

there is still a dilemma, because there is a basis for prohibiting it even if he is destructive rather than constructive, if we rule in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda that an unintentional act is prohibited, and rule with regard to destructive wounding in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who innovates that one is liable for destructive wounding.

Since Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree concerning the law of “destructive wounding”—

according to Rabbi Yehuda, all destructive acts are exempt, and even one who wounds is liable only if the wounding involves a repair, such as one who slaughters an animal, whose slaughter is not considered damage but a repair of the animal for his benefit. But when a person wounds another, since his intention is to wound him, the wounding is not considered a repair but damage, since this is his aim: to damage the other person.

Rabbi Shimon, by contrast, maintains that all destructive acts are exempt except for wounding and kindling.

We must now consider one who has intercourse with a virgin and wounds her [according to this line of reasoning, that the blood is attached], but does not intend to wound her, because he is not concerned with the blood; he has intercourse only for his own pleasure. It is clear that with regard to the labor of wounding, this is damage and not a repair.

Thus, if we rule in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda that an unintentional act is prohibited, and in the dispute concerning destructive wounding we rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that one is liable for wounding, it would be prohibited to have intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat, despite the fact that he does not intend to extract the blood and despite the fact that the wounding he causes is destructive rather than constructive.

And this is the question we must consider—

whether

with regard to destructive

wounding

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who exempts one from liability, so that here, since the wounding is destructive, it would be permitted to have intercourse on Shabbat.