Ketubot 6a — the Talmud in English

Or the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon:

that one who performs a destructive act in a labor involving a wound is liable.

And according to this possibility, it is forbidden to have intercourse for the first time on Shabbat, if we rule in the matter of an unintended act in accordance with Rabbi Judah.

In the academy,

in the beit-midrash of

Rav, they said,

the people of the beit-midrash:

Rav permits, and Shmuel forbids.

But

in Nehardea,

in Shmuel's place,

they said: Rav forbids, and Shmuel permits.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your sign is,

in order to know who are those who hold that Rav permitted and Shmuel forbade, and who are those who hold the opposite—

These are lenient for themselves, and those are lenient for themselves.

That is to say, the people of Rav's beit-midrash, who follow his position, hold that Rav is the one who permits and Shmuel is the one who forbids. But the people of Nehardea, which is Shmuel's place, hold that Shmuel is the one who permits and Rav is the one who forbids, and they follow the lenient position, according to the approach of Shmuel, their master.

And the Gemara is astonished at the position of Rav's beit-midrash, who hold that Rav is the one who permits:

But

if

Rav permits,

did he permit having intercourse for the first time on Shabbat?

But seemingly, the entire permission is built on two foundations: the first, that the one having intercourse does not intend to cause the blood to emerge; and the second, that an “unintended act” is permitted.

Yet we find that Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Judah, that an “unintended act is forbidden,” as—

Rav Shimi bar Ḥizkiya said in the name of Rav: This stopper of the winepress,

a stopper made from worn-out garments, with which they seal the opening of a beer vat—

it is forbidden to tighten it on a Festival!

One may not tighten the stopper inside the opening, since this stopper, made from worn-out garments, is saturated with beer, and if he tightens the stopper in the opening, the beer will be squeezed out of it, and it is forbidden to squeeze on a Festival [and all the more so on Shabbat].

And it is proven that although he does not intend to squeeze, Rav forbade tightening the stopper.

And it is proven that Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Judah regarding an unintended act, that it is forbidden. And likewise, how is it possible to say that Rav permitted having intercourse for the first time on Shabbat!?

And the Gemara answers: In fact, Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, that an unintended act is permitted, and therefore he permitted having intercourse for the first time on Shabbat.

Rather,

in that case,

in the squeezing of the stopper without the intention to squeeze—

even Rabbi Shimon concedes

that it is forbidden, since the beer will certainly be squeezed from the stopper.

For Abaye and Rava both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes in a “cut off its head, and will it not die”,

that one is liable for it, even if he did not intend to perform it.

But the Gemara still asks, since it is impossible to answer that Rav holds that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon regarding an unintended act, for we have found that Rav holds that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah—

But Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The halakha

regarding an unintended act is

in accordance with Rabbi Judah.

And Rav Ḥanan bar Ami said that Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

And

if

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin taught it,

he taught the dispute of Rav and Shmuel in itself,

without names,

that is, he did not cite the names of amoraim who say this in the name of Rav and in the name of Shmuel, but said it directly in their names—

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah.

And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

And therefore the Gemara retracts the assumption that Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, and offers another answer—

In fact, Rav—

holds in accordance with Rabbi Judah, that an unintended act is forbidden.

who says that an unintended act is forbidden.

And this is how Rav's permission to have intercourse for the first time on Shabbat is to be explained:

According to this formulation,

according to the first line of reasoning above,

which says, “The blood is stored”,

and the entire discussion of the prohibition of intercourse on Shabbat is only on account of building the opening—

it is possible to answer that Rav held that one who has intercourse with a virgin does not repair the opening, but

he performs a destructive act with regard to the opening.

For a virgin is more valuable than a woman who has had intercourse, and one who performs a destructive act in the labor of building is not liable.

But

according to this formulation,

according to the second line of reasoning,

which says, “The blood is attached”,

and there is a prohibition of wounding in bringing it out, despite the fact that he does not intend to bring out the blood—

it is possible to answer that Rav held, since

“he performs a destructive act in a wound”,

for the bringing out of the blood is a destructive act for him, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah regarding one who performs a destructive act in a wound, whose law is like that of other destructive acts, and he is exempt.

Rav Ḥisda raised an objection

against those who hold that one may not have intercourse for the first time on Shabbat, from the Mishna in tractate Niddah [page 64b]:

a. A woman becomes impure with the impurity of a menstruant when she sees blood that emerges from the source of her blood [from the womb].

b. A virgin who has had intercourse and saw virginity blood does not become impure with the impurity of a menstruant by Torah law, since this is not blood that emerges from the source of her blood, but rather it is “blood of a wound,” which emerges as a result of the breaking of the virginity.

c. By the law of the Mishna, virginity blood does not prohibit her at all; rather, our Sages later returned, convened, and decreed that virginity blood should also render her impure, and therefore the groom has intercourse as a mitzva and withdraws, and she is forbidden to him until she immerses and becomes pure according to the law of a menstruant [tractate Niddah 65b].

d. Since by the law of the Mishna virginity blood does not prohibit her at all, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed until when the blood that a woman sees during her initial acts of intercourse is considered virginity blood, coming from the wound created at the time of the breaking of the virginity, and there is no concern that perhaps it is menstrual blood emerging from the womb.

e. In tractate Niddah it is explained that the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerns four periods of time of a woman regarding seeing blood.

And the first two periods of time are explained here.

a young girl,

every minor who has not reached the age of twelve years and one day is called for this purpose “a young girl,”

whose time to see

menstrual blood has not arrived, for ordinarily minors do not see menstrual blood before they reach the age of twelve years and one day,

and she marries—

Beit Shammai say: They give her four nights

for intercourse, despite the fact that she continues to see blood, since during the first four nights it is to be attributed to the fact that the wound has not yet healed, and the blood is virginity blood, and not menstrual blood coming from the womb.

And Beit Hillel say:

It is permitted to continue having intercourse with her [since she is a minor whose time to see has not arrived], and it is possible to attribute the blood to virginity blood—

until the

healing of

the wound.

is complete.

That is, until there is one time that he has intercourse with her and she does not see blood during it, for then there is proof that the wound has healed, and therefore the blood that she sees in intercourse afterward is menstrual blood.

And the second period of time over which Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed is:

her time to see has arrived,

for she is at the age of adolescence, at which it is appropriate for her to see menstrual blood, but she has still not seen menstrual blood while she was in her father's house,

and she marries—

Beit Shammai say: They give her

all of the

first night,

and all the blood that she sees during all her acts of intercourse on this night is to be attributed to virginity blood, and no more!

And

if

Beit Hillel say:

Her blood is to be considered virginity blood

until the conclusion of Shabbat,

including the conclusion itself.

And it follows that she can have intercourse despite seeing blood, from the beginning of Thursday night until the conclusion of Shabbat—

four nights.