Ketubot 6b:12כתובות ו׳ ב:יב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Ketubot 6b:12'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
6bו׳ ב

מאי לאו דאי לא בעל מצי בעיל אפילו בשבת אמר רבא לא לבר משבת אמר ליה אביי והא עד מוצאי שבת ארבעה לילות קתני אלא אמר רבא כשבעל

What, is it not referring to a case where if he did not yet engage in full-fledged intercourse, i.e., rupturing the hymen, with his bride, he may engage in full-fledged intercourse with her even on Shabbat? Apparently, it is permitted to engage in intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat. Rava said: No, it is referring to any other day except for Shabbat. Abaye said to him: But isn’t it taught: Until the conclusion of Shabbat, four nights? Four nights from Wednesday until the conclusion of Shabbat includes Shabbat. Rather, Rava said: It is referring to a case where he engaged in full-fledged intercourse with his bride before Shabbat. Therefore, there is no concern lest he cause a wound on Shabbat.

אי כשבעל מאי קמ"ל קמ"ל דשרי למיבעל בשבת כדשמואל דאמר שמואל פירצה דחוקה מותר ליכנס בה בשבת ואע"פ שמשיר צרורות

However, if it is referring to a case where he already engaged in intercourse, what is the tanna teaching us when he says that it is permitted to have intercourse with her even on Shabbat? He teaches us that although it might cause bleeding, it is permitted to engage in intercourse on Shabbat, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: It is permitted to enter into a narrow opening in a wall on Shabbat, although doing so causes pebbles to fall from the wall. Here too, although it might cause a wound and bleeding, intercourse is permitted on Shabbat.

מתיב רב יוסף חתן פטור מקרית שמע לילה הראשון עד מוצאי שבת אם לא עשה מעשה מאי לאו דטריד דבעי למיבעל אמר ליה אביי לא דטריד דלא בעיל

Rav Yosef raised an objection from a mishna (Berakhot 16a): A groom is exempt from the mitzva of reciting Shema on the first night of his marriage to a virgin on Wednesday night, until Saturday night, if he has not taken action and consummated the marriage. What, is it not that he is exempt due to the fact that he is preoccupied because he wishes to engage in intercourse with her and is concerned that he will fail to do so properly? Apparently, if he did not yet consummate the marriage, he is exempt from reciting Shema even on Shabbat, indicating that it is permitted to engage in intercourse on Shabbat. Abaye said to him: No. It can be explained that he is exempt from reciting Shema because he is preoccupied due to the fact that he did not yet engage in intercourse with her. No proof may be cited with regard to engaging in intercourse on Shabbat.

אמר ליה רבא ומשום טירדא פטור אלא מעתה טבעה ספינתו בים הכי נמי דפטור וכי תימא ה"נ והאמר רבי אבא בר זבדא אמר רב אבל חייב בכל המצות האמורות בתורה חוץ מן התפילין שנא' בהן (יחזקאל כד, יז) פאר

Rava said to Abaye: And is one exempt due to preoccupation? If that is so, would one whose ship sunk at sea also be exempt? The Gemara reinforces its question: And if you would say: In fact, that is so, didn’t Rabbi Abba bar Zavda say that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot in the Torah except for the mitzva to don phylacteries, as the term splendor is stated with regard to phylacteries: “Make no mourning for the dead; bind your splendor upon yourself” (Ezekiel 24:17). Splendor is antithetical to mourning. If a mourner, who is clearly pained and preoccupied, is obligated to recite Shema, then certainly all others who are preoccupied due to events that transpired in the past should be obligated. If the groom is exempt, it must be due to his preoccupation with a mitzva that remains incumbent upon him to perform in the future.

אלא אמר רבא תנאי היא דתנא חדא אם לא עשה מעשה בראשון פטור אף בשני בשני פטור אף בשלישי

Rather, Rava said: This matter of intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as one tanna taught: If he did not take action on the first night he is exempt from reciting Shema even on the second. If he failed to consummate the marriage on the second night he is exempt even on the third night, which is Shabbat evening.

ותניא אידך ראשון ושני פטור שלישי חייב

And another baraita is taught: On the first and second nights he is exempt; on the third he is obligated to recite Shema. He is obligated on the third night, even if he did not yet consummate the marriage, because the third night is Shabbat, when intercourse with his virgin wife is forbidden. The different rulings in the two baraitot indicate that there is a tannaitic dispute with regard to intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat.

ואביי התם נמי בטירדא פליגי

And how does Abaye respond to this proof? He says that there too, it can be explained that it is with regard to preoccupation that the tanna’im disagree. Everyone agrees that it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat. The dispute is whether or not one’s preoccupation with the fact that he has not yet performed the mitzva of consummating the marriage in the past is considered preoccupation with a mitzva, which would exempt him from reciting Shema?

והני תנאי כי הני תנאי דתניא הכונס את הבתולה לא יבעול בתחלה בשבת וחכמים מתירין

And the dispute between these tanna’im in the baraitot cited is parallel to the dispute between these tanna’im, as it is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who marries a virgin, he may not engage in intercourse with her for the first time on Shabbat, and the Rabbis permit doing so.

מאן חכמים אמר רבה רבי שמעון היא דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר

The Gemara asks: Who are the Rabbis that permit doing so? Rabba said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: An unintentional act is permitted on Shabbat. Since one’s intention is to perform a permitted action, i.e., the consummation of the marriage, and there is no intent to perform a forbidden action, any forbidden action that may ensue is not a source of concern.

אמר ליה אביי והא מודה ר' שמעון בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות אמר ליה לא כהללו בבליים שאין בקיאין בהטייה אלא יש בקיאין בהטייה

Abaye said to Rabba: But doesn’t Rabbi Shimon concede that in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., inevitable consequences, one is not exempted by lack of intent. Since rupture of the hymen and the subsequent bleeding is inevitable, Rabbi Shimon would concede that intercourse with a virgin is forbidden. Rabba said to him: Unlike these Babylonians, who are not experts in diverting during intercourse and are unable to engage in intercourse without rupturing the hymen, there are those who are experts in diverting. Therefore, rupture of the hymen is not an inevitable consequence.

א"כ טורד למה לשאינו בקי יאמרו בקי מותר שאינו בקי אסור רוב בקיאין הן

The Gemara asks: If so, and the groom is expert in diverting, why is there preoccupation that renders him exempt from reciting Shema? The Gemara answers: The exemption due to preoccupation is limited to one who is not expert. The Gemara asks: If so, the Sages should say explicitly: One who is expert is permitted to have intercourse with a virgin on Shabbat, and one who is not expert is prohibited from doing so. The Gemara answers: The majority of men are experts in this matter. Therefore, rupture of the hymen is not an inevitable consequence, and intercourse is permitted on Shabbat.

אמר ליה רבא בר רב חנן לאביי אלא מעתה שושבינין למה מפה למה א"ל התם שמא יראה ויאבד

Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: If that is so, and most people are able to engage in intercourse with a virgin without rupturing the hymen, why are groomsmen stationed to ensure that no deceit is employed by the groom with regard to the bride’s virginity? And why is a sheet necessary to determine whether there was blood? The absence of blood proves nothing if intercourse is possible without blood. Abaye said to him: There, the groomsmen and the sheet are necessary lest the groom see blood and seek to destroy it intentionally. Certainly, if he seeks to engage in intercourse and keep the hymen intact he can do so. However, if he engages in full-fledged intercourse and the hymen is ruptured, the Sages sought to ensure that the facts are clear.

מתיב רבי אמי המפיס מורסא בשבת אם לעשות לה פה חייב ואם להוציא ממנה ליחה

Rav Ami raised an objection from a mishna (Eduyyot 2:5): With regard to one who drains an abscess on Shabbat, if his intent is to create a permanent opening so that the abscess will dry, he is liable to receive punishment for performing an action similar to the prohibited labor of building on Shabbat. However, if he created the opening to remove pus,