Ketubot 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

Or the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that one who performs a destructive act in the course of a wound is liable.

According to this possibility, it is prohibited to have the initial intercourse on Shabbat if we rule, with regard to an unintended act, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

In the academy,

in the beit-midrash of

Rav, they say,

the members of the beit-midrash:

Rav permits, and Shmuel prohibits.

Whereas

in Nehardea,

the place of Shmuel,

they say: Rav prohibits, and Shmuel permits.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic is,

to know who holds that Rav permitted and Shmuel prohibited, and who holds the opposite:

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

That is to say, the members of Rav’s beit-midrash, who follow his approach, hold that Rav is the one who permits and Shmuel is the one who prohibits. Whereas the people of Nehardea, which was Shmuel’s place, hold that Shmuel is the one who permits and Rav is the one who prohibits; and they follow the lenient position, in accordance with the approach of their master, Shmuel.

The Gemara raises a difficulty according to the approach of Rav’s beit-midrash, which holds that Rav is the one who permits:

But

if

Rav permits,

did he permit having the initial intercourse on Shabbat?

For, apparently, the entire basis of the permission rests on two premises: first, that the one engaging in intercourse does not intend to cause the blood to emerge; and second, that an unintended act is permitted.

Yet we find that Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that an unintended act is prohibited, as:

Rav Shimi bar Ḥizkiya said in the name of Rav: With regard to this stopper of a winepress,

a stopper made of worn pieces of cloth, with which the opening of a beer vat is plugged—

it is prohibited to tighten it on a Festival!

One may not tighten the stopper inside the opening, since this stopper, made of worn pieces of cloth, is saturated with beer, and if one tightens it in the opening, the beer will be squeezed out of it; and it is prohibited to squeeze on a Festival, and all the more so on Shabbat].

This demonstrates that although he does not intend to squeeze out the liquid, Rav prohibited tightening the stopper.

And this demonstrates that Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to an unintended act, which is prohibited. If so, how can it be said that Rav permitted having the initial intercourse on Shabbat!?

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who permits an unintended act, and therefore he permitted having the initial intercourse on Shabbat.

However,

in that case,

with regard to squeezing the stopper without intending to squeeze it—

even Rabbi Shimon concedes

that it is prohibited, since the beer will certainly be squeezed out of the stopper.

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

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

The Gemara nevertheless raises a further difficulty, since it is impossible to answer that Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to an unintended act, as we find that Rav holds that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda:

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

with regard to an unintended act is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

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

And

if

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin taught it,

teaching the dispute between Rav and Shmuel in its own right,

“without names”,

meaning that he did not mention the names of the amoraim who stated this in the name of Rav and in the name of Shmuel, but stated it directly in their names:

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

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

Therefore, the Gemara retracts its assumption that Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon and offers another answer:

Actually, Rav—

holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that an unintended act is prohibited.

And this is how Rav’s permission to have the initial intercourse on Shabbat is to be explained:

According to that formulation,

according to the first approach above,

which says: “The blood is stored”,

and the only issue concerning the prohibition of intercourse on Shabbat is the construction of the opening—

one can answer that Rav held that one who has intercourse with a virgin does not improve the opening; rather,

he performs a destructive act with regard to the opening.

This is because a virgin is considered superior to a woman who has already had intercourse, and one who performs a destructive act in the course of construction is not liable.

Whereas

according to that formulation,

according to the second approach,

which says: “The blood is attached”,

and there is a prohibition against causing a wound by extracting it, despite the fact that he does not intend to extract the blood—

one can answer that Rav held that since

it is a destructive act in the course of a wound,

as the extraction of the blood is destructive for him, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to a destructive act in the course of a wound: its status 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 the initial intercourse on Shabbat, from the Mishna in tractate Nida [64b]:

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

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

c. According to the law of the Mishna, virginity blood does not prohibit her at all. However, our Sages subsequently convened and decreed that virginity blood should also render her impure. Therefore, the groom has the intercourse of mitzva and then separates from her, and she is prohibited to him until she immerses and becomes pure in accordance with the law of a menstruant [tractate Nida 65b].

d. Since according to the law of the Mishna virginity blood does not prohibit her at all, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed as to how long the blood a woman sees during her initial acts of intercourse is considered virginity blood, originating from the wound created when the hymen was broken, and there is no concern that it may be menstrual blood emerging from the uterus.

e. It is explained in tractate Nida that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerns the four periods in a woman’s life with regard to seeing blood.

The first two periods are explained here.

A young girl,

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

who has not yet reached the time to see

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

and she marries—

Beit Shammai say: She is given four nights

for intercourse, even though she continues to see blood, since during the first four nights it may be assumed that the wound has not yet healed and that the blood is virginity blood, rather than menstrual blood coming from the uterus.

And Beit Hillel say:

She may continue to have intercourse with him [since she is a minor who has not yet reached the time to see], and the blood may be attributed to virginity blood—

until the

healing of

the wound

is complete.

That is, until there is one occasion on which she has intercourse and does not see blood, demonstrating that the wound has healed. Therefore, the blood she sees during a subsequent act of intercourse is menstrual blood.

The second period concerning which Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree is:

She has reached the time to see,

meaning that she is of the age of adolescence, when it is appropriate for her to see menstrual blood, but she has not yet seen menstrual blood while in her father’s home,

and she marries—

Beit Shammai say: She is given

all of the

first night,

and all the blood she sees during all her acts of intercourse on that 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,

and this includes the conclusion itself.

It follows that she may have intercourse despite seeing blood from the night ushering in Thursday until the conclusion of Shabbat—

four nights.