Ketubot 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

And Rav Ḥisda proves:

What, is it not

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

for if he did not have intercourse

with her fully on Thursday night and Friday night, but merely initiated intercourse with her, performing the beginning of intercourse [and the blood he draws is blood of virginity with all his acts of initial intercourse]—

he could have intercourse even on Shabbat!

And the Mishna comes to permit intercourse even on Shabbat.

And if so, this presents a difficulty to those who hold that one may not 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 extending for four nights from the marriage,

apart from Shabbat,

excluding Shabbat night, when it is forbidden for him to have intercourse.

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

four nights”!

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

Rather, Rava said,

in order to resolve Rav Ḥisda’s difficulty:

This Mishna is speaking

when he had intercourse

with her fully on weekdays before Shabbat, and therefore he is not considered as one having initial intercourse on Shabbat.

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

And we challenge this:

If

the Mishna is speaking

when he had intercourse

fully before Shabbat,

what

does it teach us

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

And we answer:

It teaches us

that the tanna

permits

him

to have intercourse on Shabbat,

even though, after the full intercourse he had on weekdays, there is still a possibility that she may be injured and blood may emerge.

But he need not be concerned about this—

in accordance with the statement of Shmuel.

For Shmuel said: A narrow breach

in a stone wall,

one may enter through it on Shabbat, even though it causes pebbles to fall,

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

The same law applies: he is permitted to have intercourse, and need not be concerned about the possibility that she may still be in a condition in which blood could emerge during intercourse.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

from another Mishna, according to those who hold that one may not have initial intercourse on Shabbat, based on what we learned in tractate Berakhot [16a]:

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

and likewise for four nights,

until the conclusion of Shabbat—

if he has not performed the act.

And Rav Yosef infers:

What, is it not

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

because he is preoccupied

with fulfilling a mitzva,

as he wishes to have intercourse

the intercourse of the mitzva, and one who is occupied with one mitzva is exempt from performing another mitzva?

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

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

No.

The Mishna did not exempt him from reciting the Shema because he is preoccupied with fulfilling a mitzva. Rather, it is because

he is preoccupied

and distressed

because he cannot

have intercourse

now,

on Shabbat night, 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

is it the case that

because of preoccupation

with distress one is

exempt

from reciting the Shema?

If that is so,

according to your statement, one whose

ship sank at sea,

and who is preoccupied with his distress over the loss of his property—

is he likewise exempt

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

And if you would say, it is indeed so,

that any preoccupation caused by distress exempts him from reciting the Shema,

this cannot be said. For—

Did Rabbi Abba bar Zavda not say that Rav said: A mourner,

although he is preoccupied with his distress,

is obligated

to him

in

the fulfillment of

all the mitzvot stated in the Torah, except for

putting on

tefillin,

from putting them on, since

it is stated concerning them [Ezekiel 24]:

“Splendor”?

“Splendor”—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. But you shall neither mourn nor weep, and your tears shall not flow. Sigh in silence, for the dead. But do not perform mourning rites. Bind your splendor upon yourself.”

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

The Gemara proves from the fact that Ezekiel was given a special command to put on tefillin during his mourning that other mourners do not put on tefillin.

Rather, Rava said:

One cannot explain 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, since preoccupation that does not concern the fulfillment of a mitzva does not exempt one from fulfilling a mitzva.

It must therefore be that the groom is exempt from reciting the Shema on Shabbat night because of his preoccupation with the mitzva of the intercourse of the mitzva.

And the fact that some authority prohibited initial intercourse on Shabbat presents no difficulty from this Mishna, since according to him, intercourse of the mitzva on Shabbat is a dispute among

tannaitic authorities

as to whether it is permitted or prohibited.

And he follows the view of the tanna who prohibits it, whereas this Mishna follows the view of the tanna who permits it.

For it was taught in one beraita: If the groom did not perform the act

on

the

fifth

night,

Thursday night—he is

exempt

from reciting the Shema

also on the

second

night,

Friday night.

And if he did not perform the act

on the second,

Friday night—

he is exempt

from reciting the Shema

also on the

third

night,

which is Shabbat night.

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

And it was taught in another beraita: On the

first and

second nights he is

exempt

from reciting the Shema. But on the

third night,

which is Shabbat night, he is

obligated

to recite the Shema.

This is because, according to this tanna, one does not have initial intercourse on Shabbat, and he is not preoccupied at that time with the intercourse of the mitzva.

If that is so, Abaye’s view must be explained as follows. He established even the Mishna in tractate Berakhot, which exempts a groom from reciting the Shema on Shabbat, as following the view that a groom cannot have initial intercourse on Shabbat. 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 between the tannaitic authorities as to whether the groom recites the Shema on Shabbat?

For it apparently follows that their dispute concerns whether one is permitted to have intercourse on Shabbat, and the one who exempts him from reciting the Shema on Shabbat holds that initial intercourse is permitted on Shabbat, and therefore he is exempt under the principle that one preoccupied with a mitzva is exempt. Whereas the one who obligates him to recite the Shema holds that one cannot have initial intercourse on Shabbat.

And Abaye

held—

There too,

the two tannaitic authorities who dispute whether the groom recites the Shema on Shabbat did not disagree over whether one has initial intercourse on Shabbat, because according to everyone he does not have intercourse.

Rather,

they dispute

concerning preoccupation with the distress caused by being unable to fulfill a mitzva.

They disagree.

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

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

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

The Gemara continues to explain Rava’s statement, that the two beraitot that disagree over whether a groom recites the Shema on Shabbat reflect a dispute among tannaitic authorities as to whether initial intercourse is permitted on Shabbat—

And these tannaitic authorities

of the two beraitot, who disagree concerning a groom’s recitation of the Shema on Shabbat, and according to Rava whose dispute concerns whether initial intercourse is permitted on Shabbat—

are like those tannaitic authorities!

That is, their dispute is like the dispute between the tannaitic authorities found in the following beraita:

For it was taught: One who marries a virgin—

may not have initial intercourse on Shabbat.

But the Sages permit it.

And we raised a question concerning this:

Who are “the Sages”?

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

that one does not intend

to perform is permitted.”

Abaye said to him: But Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of an inevitable result that will certainly occur!

And here it is an inevitable result that he will injure her.

Rabba said to him

: This beraita is

not like those Babylonians,

like the people of Babylonia,

who are not skilled

in having intercourse

by angling

to the side, which is a mild form of intercourse that does not cause blood to emerge, since it does not reach the place of the virginity at all.

Rather, there are

people who are

skilled in angling,

and in their case it is not an inevitable result that blood will emerge.

Abaye wondered:

If so,

if there are people skilled in intercourse by angling, which is a mild form of intercourse that does not reach the place of the virginity—

what preoccupies

him through the intercourse of the mitzva, on account of which the groom is exempt from reciting the Shema—

why!?

All that preoccupies him is full intercourse, which removes the virginity!

Rabba said to him: The preoccupation applies

to

one

who is not skilled

in angling.

Abaye wondered about this: If so, if the basis of the permission to have initial intercourse on Shabbat is the existence of people skilled in angling,

the Sages should say

: Whoever is

skilled

in angling

is permitted

to have initial intercourse on Shabbat, whereas one who

is not skilled

in angling

is prohibited

from having intercourse, because for him the emergence of blood is considered an inevitable result.

Rabba said to him:

Most

people

are skilled

in angling, and therefore, presumably, it is not an inevitable result that blood will emerge during his intercourse.

Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: If that is so,

since Rabba has informed us that people are skilled in angling and can have intercourse without causing blood to emerge—

why are there attendants [

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

why!?

What benefit is there in appointing them, once he can have intercourse by angling and avoid causing blood to emerge? If so, the absence of blood provides no proof that she is not a virgin.

And likewise,

the cloth

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

why!?

Even if no blood is found, this is no proof that she is not a virgin, since perhaps he had intercourse with her by angling!

He said to him,

Abaye:

There,

they appoint attendants and spread a cloth because

perhaps

the groom will have full intercourse, not by angling, and

he will see

blood,

and destroy

it deliberately in order to bring a false claim against her that she is not a virgin. To prevent this, they appoint attendants and spread a cloth. If he has intercourse by angling and therefore no blood is found, the woman can claim that she is still a virgin, since he had intercourse with her by angling.

Rabbi Ami raised an objection

from another Mishna against the view of those who hold that one may not have initial intercourse on Shabbat, as we learned in the Mishna in tractate Eduyot [chapter 2, mishna 5]:

One who opens,

one who presses a place of pus on the human body and thereby opens it,

an abscess [

a place on the human body filled with pus]

on Shabbat—

if

when he pressed it he intended to open the pus in order

to make an opening for it,

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

liable

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

But if

his sole intention in opening the abscess was to

remove pus from it—

to extract fluid from it—