Ketubot 5bכתובות ה׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Ketubot 5b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
5bה׳ ב

יניח אצבעו באזניו והיינו דאמר ר' אלעזר מפני מה אצבעותיו של אדם דומות ליתידות מאי טעמא אילימא משום דמחלקן כל חדא וחדא למילתיה עבידא דאמר מר זו זרת זו קמיצה זו אמה זו אצבע זה גודל

he should place his finger, which is shaped like a peg, into his ears. And that is what Rabbi Elazar said: Why are the fingers of a person similar to pegs? The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Elazar said that fingers are like pegs? If we say that it is due to the fact that they are discrete from each other, each and every finger was designated for its own discrete, sacred matter, as the Master said: This small finger is for measuring a span, the distance between the little finger to the tip of the thumb used in measuring the breastplate of the High Priest; this next finger is used for taking a fistful of the meal-offering; this middle finger is used for measuring a cubit, the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger; this one next to the thumb is the finger used to sprinkle the blood of offerings on the altar; this is the thumb, on which the blood and oil is placed in the purification ritual of a leper.

אלא מה טעם משופות כיתידות שאם ישמע אדם דבר שאינו הגון יניח אצבעותיו באזניו תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מפני מה אוזן כולה קשה והאליה רכה שאם ישמע אדם דבר שאינו הגון יכוף אליה לתוכה ת"ר אל ישמיע אדם לאזניו דברים בטלים מפני שהן נכוות תחלה לאיברים

Rather, the question is: What is the reason that they are pointed like pegs? It is so that if a person hears an inappropriate matter, he will place his fingers in his ears. Similarly, a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Why is the entire ear hard and the earlobe soft? It is so that if a person hears an inappropriate matter, he will bend his earlobe into his ear to seal it. The Sages taught: A person should not allow his ears to hear idle matters. Because of the fact that ears are very sensitive and are the first of the limbs burned, one should make certain not to expose them to anything problematic.

איבעיא להו מהו לבעול בתחלה בשבת דם מיפקד פקיד או חבורי מיחבר

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to engaging in intercourse with one’s virgin bride for the first time on Shabbat? The dilemma is with regard to the nature of the blood that emerges as a result of the piercing of the hymen. Is it that the blood is pooled, and it is released once the hymen is pierced, so that no prohibition is violated? Or, is the blood flowing through vessels attached to the body, and it emerges as a result of a wound, so that he does violate a prohibition?

ואם תימצי לומר דם מיפקד פקיד לדם הוא צריך ושרי או דלמא לפתח הוא צריך ואסיר

And if you say that it is pooled and the intercourse does not cause a wound, there is an additional dilemma: Does the husband require the blood to flow, and that is his objective in performing the act, in which case it is permitted? Or, perhaps he requires the opening caused by the rupture of the hymen, and creating that opening is prohibited on Shabbat.

ואם תימצי לומר לדם הוא צריך ופתח ממילא קאתי הלכה כר"ש דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר או הלכה כרבי יהודה דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין אסור

And if you say that he requires the blood, and the opening comes about incidentally as an unintended consequence, is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: An unintentional act, i.e., a permitted action from which a forbidden labor inadvertently ensued, is permitted? Or, is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: An unintentional act is forbidden?

ואם תימצי לומר הלכה כר' יהודה מקלקל הוא אצל הפתח או מתקן הוא אצל הפתח

And even if you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this regard, is this a destructive action vis-à-vis the opening, and is it consequently permitted on Shabbat because only constructive actions are forbidden? Or, perhaps it is a constructive action vis-à-vis the opening.

איכא דאמרי ואם תימצי לומר דם חבורי מיחבר לדם הוא צריך ואסור או דלמא להנאת עצמו הוא צריך ושרי

Some say that the series of dilemmas is as follows: And if you say that the blood is flowing through vessels attached to the body and emerges as a result of a wound, does the husband require the blood, and engaging in intercourse is consequently prohibited, as his intent is to cause the wound? Or, perhaps he requires the act of intercourse solely for his own pleasure, and it is permitted.

ואם תימצי לומר להנאת עצמו הוא צריך ודם ממילא קאתי הלכה כרבי יהודה או הלכה כר"ש

And if you say that he requires the act of intercourse solely for his own pleasure, and the blood comes incidentally, as it was not his intent to draw blood, is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to an unintentional act, or is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

ואם תימצי לומר הלכה כר' יהודה מקלקל בחבורה או מתקן בחבורה הוא

And if you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and unintentional acts are forbidden, is one destructive in causing the wound or constructive in causing the wound?

ואם תימצי לומר מקלקל בחבורה הוא במקלקל הלכה כרבי יהודה

And if you say that he is destructive in causing the wound, in cases involving destructive acts is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who rules that one who performs any destructive act on Shabbat is exempt, even if he did so intentionally?