Ketubot 6b — the Talmud in English

And Rav Hisda proves:

What, is it not

the intention of the Mishna to say that they give her four nights, which include the night of Shabbat,

for if he did not have intercourse

with her with complete intercourse on the eve of Thursday and on the eve of Friday, but only made an initial penetration in her, so that he performed the beginning of intercourse [and the blood that he brings out is the blood of virginity in all his initial penetrations]—

he could have intercourse even on Shabbat!

And the Mishna came to permit intercourse even on Shabbat.

And if so, this presents a difficulty from here to those who hold that it is forbidden to have initial intercourse on Shabbat.

Rava said: No

this is not the intention of the Mishna. Rather, its meaning is that they give her a period of time extending for four nights from the marriage,

apart from Shabbat

apart from the night of Shabbat, when it is forbidden for him to have intercourse.

Abaye said to him: But it teaches, “until the conclusion of Shabbat—

four nights”!

And it implies that on each of the four nights he is permitted to have intercourse with her, even on the night of Shabbat.

Rather, Rava said

in order to answer Rav Hisda’s difficulty:

This Mishna is speaking

when he had intercourse

with her with complete intercourse on weekdays before Shabbat, and then he is not considered one who has initial intercourse on Shabbat.

And the entire novelty of the Mishna concerns only the ritual purity of the blood: during four nights the blood is considered pure blood of virginity, and she does not become forbidden because of it to her husband as she would by menstrual blood.

And we refute:

If

the Mishna is speaking

when he had intercourse

with complete intercourse before Shabbat—

what does

it teach us

the tanna in this Mishna by saying “until the conclusion of Shabbat”? For the tanna should have said, “They give her four nights,” and no more.

And we answer:

It teaches us

the tanna

that he permits

that it is permitted for him

to have intercourse on Shabbat

even though after the complete intercourse that he had on weekdays there still remains a possibility that an injury will occur through the release of blood.

But he need not be concerned about this—

as stated by Shmuel.

For Shmuel said: A narrow breach

in a stone wall,

it is permitted to enter through it on Shabbat, even though he dislodges pebbles

of earth and stones from the wall, and he need not be concerned on account of repairing the wall or on account of demolishing it.

And likewise, it is permitted for him to have intercourse, and he need not be concerned about the uncertainty lest there still be a possibility that he will cause blood to emerge from her through his intercourse.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

from another Mishna, according to the view of those who hold that it is forbidden to have initial intercourse on Shabbat, from that which we learned in the tractate Berakhot [16a]:

A groom is exempt from reciting the Shema on the first night

and likewise during four nights,

until the conclusion of Shabbat—

if he has not performed the act.

And Rav Yosef deduces:

What, is it not

the Mishna speaking of exempting the groom from reciting the Shema even on the night of Shabbat, if he has still not performed the act with her,

because he is preoccupied

the groom with the fulfillment of a mitzva,

for he wishes to have intercourse

the intercourse of the mitzva, and one occupied with a mitzva is exempt from performing another mitzva!

And it proves that even on the night of Shabbat he is permitted to have initial intercourse, even if he had not previously had complete intercourse.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

No

the Mishna exempted him from reciting the Shema not because he is preoccupied with the fulfillment of a mitzva. Rather, it is because

he is preoccupied

he is distressed over the fact

that he cannot

now

have intercourse

on the night of Shabbat, because of the prohibition against having initial intercourse on Shabbat; and because he is preoccupied with his distress, he is exempt from reciting the Shema.

Rava said to Abaye

:

And

why,

because of preoccupation

with distress

is he exempt

from reciting the Shema?

But if that is so

according to your words, one whose

ship sank in the sea

and he is preoccupied with his distress over the loss of his money—

is he likewise exempt

from reciting the Shema because he is preoccupied with his distress!?

And if you would say, so too

that every preoccupation with distress exempts him from reciting the Shema,

it is impossible to say this. For—

Did Rabbi Abba bar Zavda not say in the name of Rav: A mourner

despite being preoccupied with his distress,

is obligated

he

in

the fulfillment of

all the mitzvot stated in the Torah, except for

putting on

the phylacteries

, from putting them on he is exempt, since

it is said concerning them

[Ezekiel 24],

“splendor”!

For the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Ezekiel: “Son of man, behold, I am taking from you the delight of your eyes through a plague. You shall neither mourn nor weep, and your tears shall not come. Sigh in silence, for the dead. But you shall not perform mourning. Your splendor shall be bound upon you.”

And the Gemara proves [in the tractate Berakhot 11a and in the tractate Sukkah 25b] from the fact that Ezekiel was commanded with a special command to put on phylacteries in his mourning—that other mourners do not put on phylacteries.

Rather, Rava said:

It cannot be answered that the groom is exempt from reciting the Shema on Shabbat because he is preoccupied with his distress over being unable to have intercourse on Shabbat, for preoccupation that does not concern the performance of a mitzva does not exempt one from fulfilling a mitzva.

Necessarily, the groom is exempt from reciting the Shema on the night of Shabbat because of his preoccupation with the mitzva of the intercourse of the mitzva.

And as for the one who prohibited initial intercourse on Shabbat, there is no difficulty against him from this Mishna, since according to his view, intercourse of the mitzva on Shabbat is a dispute

of the tannaim

whether it is permitted or forbidden.

And he holds in accordance with the view of the tanna who forbids it, whereas this Mishna follows the view of the tanna who permits it.

For it was taught in one [beraita]: If he did not perform the act

the groom

on

the fifth

night

the eve of Thursday—

he is exempt

from reciting the Shema

also on

the sixth

night

, the eve of Friday.

And if he did not perform the act

on the second

, the eve of Friday—

he is exempt

from reciting the Shema

also on

the seventh

night

, which is the night of Shabbat.

And his exemption is because he is preoccupied with the mitzva of the intercourse of the mitzva; and this is also the method of the tanna in the Mishna in the tractate Berakhot, which exempts the groom from reciting the Shema even on Shabbat.

And it was taught in another [beraita]: The

night

first and second—

he is exempt

from reciting the Shema. But on the

third

night, which is the night of Shabbat—

he is obligated

to recite the Shema.

Because according to this tanna, one does not have initial intercourse on Shabbat, and he is not then preoccupied with the intercourse of the mitzva.

But if that is so, one must explain Abaye’s method. For he established even the Mishna in the tractate Berakhot, which exempts the groom from reciting the Shema on Shabbat, as holding that a groom cannot have initial intercourse on Shabbat. And his entire exemption is only because of his distress over being unable to have intercourse on Shabbat—

and if so, how will he explain the dispute of the tannaim whether the groom recites the Shema on Shabbat?

For apparently it is proven that their dispute is whether it is permitted to have intercourse on Shabbat or not; and the one who exempts him from reciting the Shema on Shabbat holds that it is permitted to have initial intercourse on Shabbat, and therefore he is exempt under the rule of one preoccupied with a mitzva. Whereas the one who obligates him to recite the Shema holds that it is impossible to have initial intercourse on Shabbat.

And Abaye

held—

There too

, the two tannaim who dispute whether the groom recites the Shema on Shabbat did not dispute over the question of whether one has initial intercourse on Shabbat, for according to everyone he does not have intercourse.

Rather, they

dispute over the preoccupation

of distress over the inability to fulfill a mitzva

they dispute.

The one who obligates him to recite the Shema holds that only preoccupation with a mitzva exempts one, but not preoccupation over the inability to fulfill a mitzva.

Whereas the one who exempts him holds that even preoccupation and distress over the inability to fulfill a mitzva exempt one from reciting the Shema.

And this is not similar to distress over an optional matter, which does not exempt one from reciting the Shema.

And the Gemara continues explaining Rava’s words, who holds that the two beraitot that dispute whether the groom recites the Shema on Shabbat constitute a dispute of tannaim concerning the question of whether it is permitted to have initial intercourse on Shabbat—

And these tannaim

of the two beraitot, who disputed concerning the groom’s recitation of the Shema on Shabbat, and according to Rava this is the dispute concerning the permission for initial intercourse on Shabbat—

are like those tannaim!

That is, their dispute is like the dispute of the tannaim that we find in the following beraita:

For it was taught: One who marries a virgin—

may not have initial intercourse on Shabbat.

And the Sages permit it.

And we inquired about it:

Who are the “Sages”?

Rabba said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who said, “An act

that one does not intend—

is permitted.”

Abaye said to him: But Rabbi Shimon admits in the case of a pasik reisha, “and shall he not die”!

And here this is a pasik reisha, that he will cause an injury in her.

He said to him

Rabba: This beraita is

not like those Babylonians

like the people of Babylonia

who are not expert

in having intercourse

through tilting

to the side, which is easy intercourse that does not release blood, since it does not reach the place of the virginity at all.

Rather, there are

people who

are expert in tilting

, and in that case it is not a pasik reisha that blood will emerge.

And Abaye wondered:

If so

, that there are experts in intercourse through tilting, which is easy intercourse that does not reach the place of the virginity—

the preoccupation

with the intercourse of the mitzva, because of which the groom is exempt from reciting the Shema—

why!?

For all his preoccupation is only with complete intercourse, which removes the virginity!

Rabba said to him: The one who is preoccupied is

the

one who

is not expert

in tilting.

And Abaye wondered about this: If so, that the basis of the permission to have initial intercourse on Shabbat is because of those who are expert in tilting,

let the Sages say

: One who is

expert

in tilting

is permitted

to have initial intercourse on Shabbat, whereas one who

is not expert

in tilting

is forbidden

to have intercourse, because for him the release of blood is considered a pasik reisha.

Rabba said to him:

Most

people

are expert

in tilting, and therefore, ordinarily, it is not a pasik reisha that intercourse will involve the release of blood.

Rava bar Rav Hanan said to Abaye: But if that is so

, since Rabba taught us that people are expert in tilting and can have intercourse without releasing blood—

why are there groomsmen

[who would appoint one witness for the groom and one witness for the bride in order to observe them afterward, so that they would not act deceitfully concerning the claim of virginity]—

why!?

What benefit is there in appointing them, after all, since he can have intercourse through tilting and refrain from releasing blood? And if so, there is no proof at all from the failure to find blood that she is not a virgin?

And likewise,

the cloth

that they would customarily spread beneath them at the time of the intercourse of the mitzva in order to examine whether she is a virgin by the presence of blood on the cloth—

why!?

For even if the blood is not found, this is no proof that she is not a virgin, because perhaps he had intercourse with her through tilting!

He said to him

Abaye:

There

, they appoint groomsmen and spread a cloth because

perhaps

the groom will have complete intercourse, not through tilting, and

will see

blood,

and will destroy

it with his hands in order to bring a false accusation against her that she is not a virgin; and in order to prevent this, they appoint groomsmen and spread a cloth. And if he has intercourse through tilting, and therefore blood is not found, the woman can claim that she is still a virgin, since he had intercourse with her through tilting.

Rabbi Ami raised an objection

from another Mishna against the method of those who hold that it is forbidden to have initial intercourse on Shabbat, for thus we learned in the Mishna in the tractate Eduyot [chapter 2, Mishna 5]:

One who opens

, one who presses on a place of pus in a person’s body and thereby opens a

boil

[a place filled with pus in a person’s body]

on Shabbat—

If

he intended through his pressing to open the pus in order

to make an opening for it

, so that this opening will remain properly open afterward, he is

liable

for making an opening, which is the labor of “building.”

And if

his entire intention in opening the

boil was only in order

to extract fluid from it—