Ketubot No.2: Halakhic Woman

MISHNA: In the case of a young girl whose time to see a menstrual flow, i.e., the age of puberty, has not yet arrived, and she married and engaged in intercourse and her hymen was torn, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her four nights after intercourse during which the blood is attributed to the torn hymen and she remains ritually pure. Thereafter, any blood is assumed to be menstrual blood and renders her impure. And Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals. In the case of a young woman whose time to see a menstrual flow has arrived but she has not yet begun to menstruate, and she married and engaged in intercourse and her hymen was torn, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her the first night during which the blood is attributed to the torn hymen. Thereafter, any blood is assumed to be menstrual blood. And Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the conclusion of Shabbat, and she may engage in intercourse with her husband for four nights, as it was customary for a virgin to marry on Wednesday. In the case of a young woman who saw menstrual blood before marriage while she was still in her father’s house, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her permission to engage only in relations that consummate a marriage, which are a mitzva, after which she is ritually impure due to the blood. And Beit Hillel say: The husband and wife may engage even in several acts of intercourse, as any blood seen throughout the entire night is attributed to the torn hymen. GEMARA: The mishna first addresses the case of a young girl who has not yet reached puberty. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And this halakha applies to her even if she has seen menstrual blood. He explains his reasoning: From where do I derive this? I derive it from the fact that the tanna distinguishes in the latter clause of the mishna between a young girl who has seen menstrual blood and a young girl who has not seen menstrual blood. By inference, in the first clause of the mishna the halakha is no different in this case, where the young girl has experienced menstrual bleeding, and it is no different in that case, where she has not yet experienced menstrual bleeding. This explanation of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak is also taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel say: With regard to a young girl who has not yet reached puberty, the blood she emits is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals, regardless of whether she has seen menstrual blood beforehand or whether she has not yet seen menstrual blood. § The mishna teaches that Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals. The Gemara clarifies: Until when can the blood be attributed to the torn hymen? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: All the time that she is noḥeret. Rav Yehuda continues: When I subsequently said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me: This noḥeret, I do not know what it is, nor do I know what Rav means by it. Rather, all the time that the saliva is in her mouth due to sexual intercourse, she may attribute the blood to the torn hymen. Shmuel is using a euphemism, i.e., as long as there is blood in her vagina resulting from sexual intercourse. The Gemara clarifies: This noḥeret that Rav says; what is it like? What did he mean? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: It was explained to me by Rav as follows: If the young girl stands up and sees blood, but she sits and does not see blood, it is known that the wound has not yet healed, and the blood is still attributed to the torn hymen. Similarly, if she sits on the ground and sees blood, but she sits on cushions and blankets and does not see blood, it is known that the wound has not yet healed and she may attribute the blood to the torn hymen, as the blood flows due to the strain of sitting on the ground. But if she sometimes sits on all of them, i.e., the ground, cushions, and blankets, and sees blood, and on other occasions she sits on all of them and does not see blood, it is known that the wound has healed, and this blood must now be menstrual blood. § The mishna teaches: In the case of a young woman whose time to see a menstrual flow has arrived, Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the conclusion of Shabbat and she may engage in intercourse with her husband for four nights. It was stated that there is a dispute between amora’im with regard to the following case: If she engaged in intercourse with her husband during the daytime, in addition to engaging in intercourse at night, Rav says: She has not lost her nights, and the blood is still attributed to the torn hymen for four nights. Levi says: She has lost her nights, since she has engaged in intercourse twice during the daytime and twice at night, and therefore she has already used up the equivalent of four nights. The Gemara explains: Rav says that she has not lost her nights, as we learned in the mishna that the blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the conclusion of Shabbat, and it does not limit the number of times she may engage in intercourse during that time. And Levi says: She has lost her nights, as what is the meaning of the term: Four nights, that is taught in the mishna? It means four twelve-hour periods, either days or nights. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav, why do I need the mishna to teach: Four nights? The mishna should have stated four days, which would include both days and nights. Rav would respond that the mishna teaches us proper conduct, as it is proper that intercourse should be performed only at night. The Gemara suggests: And according to the opinion of Levi, let the mishna teach only: Four nights. Why do I need the mishna to specify: Until the conclusion of Shabbat? Levi would answer that this teaches us that it is permitted to engage in intercourse for the first time on Shabbat. Since the custom was for a virgin to marry on Wednesday, which means that one of the four first nights is Shabbat, it is permitted to engage in intercourse on that night, despite the fact that it may cause her to bleed. The Gemara notes that Levi’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: It is permitted to enter into a narrow opening in a wall on Shabbat, and this is the halakha even though doing so causes pebbles to fall from the wall. Similarly, although engaging in intercourse might cause a wound and bleeding, it is permitted on Shabbat. It was stated that the amora’im engaged in a dispute: If a husband engaged in intercourse with a virgin and did not find blood, and he went back within the first four nights and again engaged in intercourse with her and this time he found blood, Rabbi Ḥanina says: The wife is ritually impure, as this is menstruation blood. And Rabbi Asi says: She is ritually pure, as it is blood from the wound resulting from the act of intercourse. Rabbi Ḥanina says: She is ritually impure, as if it is so that it is blood from her hymen, i.e., the blood of her virginity, it would have come at the outset, after the first time they engaged in intercourse. And Rabbi Asi said: She is ritually pure, as perhaps it happened for him that he engaged in intercourse like Shmuel described. As Shmuel said: I can engage in intercourse several times without the appearance of blood. In other words, I can engage in intercourse with a virgin while leaving her hymen intact. And the other Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, does not allow for that possibility, since he maintains that Shmuel is different, as his strength was great. Shmuel was particularly skilled at this, while others cannot accomplish this. § The mishna teaches the halakha of a young girl. The Gemara discusses the case of a girl who is older than twelve and a half. Rav says: The Sages give a grown woman, who engaged in intercourse on her wedding night, the entire first night, during which she may engage in intercourse with her husband several times. And this statement applies only if she did not see any blood. But if she saw blood, she has only the relations that consummate a marriage, which are a mitzva, and nothing more. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s statement from a baraita: There was an incident involving a virgin who married, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave her four nights in which to engage in intercourse within twelve months of her wedding when the blood is considered to be like blood resulting from the torn hymen. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave her all of those nights of purity in her days as a minor, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna: The Sages give her four nights, then he should have given her longer, as we learned in the mishna that according to Beit Hillel the blood may be attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals. Rather, you will say that he gave her these four nights all during her days as a young woman. Are there twelve months when one has the status of a young woman? But didn’t Shmuel say: The difference in time between becoming a young woman and becoming a grown woman is only six months? And if you would say that Shmuel is saying that it is in less than six months that there is no transition from young woman to grown woman status, but there is such a transition in more than six months, as women develop differently, that is not so, as Shmuel said: Only, which indicates that the period is neither less nor more than six months. Rather, you will suggest that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave her two days during her days as a minor, and he gave her two days during her days as a young woman. This too is difficult, as Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamya asked Rav: With regard to a young girl who married before she reached puberty, and then her time to see menstrual blood arrived while she was under the authority of her husband, what is the halakha? Does she have the four nights when the blood is considered to be from her torn hymen? And Rav said to him: All the acts of intercourse that you engage in while she is still too young are considered as only one act of intercourse, and the remainder, i.e., three more acts of intercourse, complete the total number of four nights. If so, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could not have given her two nights as a minor, since at most those acts of intercourse count as one. Rather, you will suggest that he gave her one night during her days as a minor, and two nights during her days as a young woman, and one night during her days as a grown woman. But this is also difficult: Granted, if you say that we generally give a grown woman more than one night, then one can understand why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave her one night in this case: Just as all the acts of intercourse she engaged in as a minor have the effect to deduct one night for her days as a young woman, similarly all the acts of intercourse she engaged in while a young woman have the effect to deduct one night for her days as a grown woman, leaving her with one. But if you say that we generally do not give a grown woman more than one night, then in this case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should have given her as a grown woman only the one act of relations that consummate a marriage, which are a mitzva, i.e., merely a single act of intercourse, and nothing more, as otherwise the acts of intercourse before she became a grown woman would not have affected her status. The Gemara answers: Actually, the correct explanation is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave her one night during her days as a minor and three nights during her days as a young woman. And as for the fact that she has the status of a young woman for only exactly six months, do you maintain that every three months was counted as one period of the husband’s absence, such that she had only two nights in six months? This is not the case. Rather, every two months was counted as one period, and therefore she had three nights during these six months when she could attribute the blood to her torn hymen. The Gemara relates that the Sage Minyamin Saksana was coming and walking to the place of Shmuel. He thought that he would perform an action in accordance with the opinion of Rav, in that he would permit a grown woman to attribute blood to her torn hymen for the entire first night, even though she had already seen menstrual blood before she was married. Minyamin mistakenly said to himself: Rav does not distinguish between a woman who has seen menstrual blood and a woman who has not seen menstrual blood. Before Minyamin reached Shmuel’s place, he passed away on the road, and he never completed the journey. Upon hearing this, Shmuel recited this verse about Rav: “No mishap shall befall the righteous” (Proverbs 12:21), i.e., God does not allow prohibited acts to come from the statements of the righteous. In this case, Minyamin ruled incorrectly, based on a misunderstanding of Rav’s statement. Since the Gemara cited Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamya, it cites another of his statements: Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamya said in the name of Rav: Once a person’s teeth fall out and he has difficulty eating, his food diminshes accordingly, as it is stated: “And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places” (Amos 4:6). The term “cleanness of teeth” is here a euphemism for having no teeth at all, which leads to a lack of bread. § The mishna teaches: In the case of a young woman who saw menstrual blood before marriage, while she was still in her father’s house, Beit Hillel say: They may engage in several acts of intercourse, as any bleeding throughout the entire night is attributed to the torn hymen. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a young woman who saw menstrual blood while she was still in her father’s house, Beit Hillel say: All the night is hers, and the Sages give her one complete period of time during which she may attribute all bleeding to her torn hymen. And how long is a complete period of time in this context? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explained that it is one night and half of the next day. The Gemara asks: But do we require all this time of one night and half of a day for a complete period? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: In the case of one whose winepresses or olive presses were impure and he wished to prepare his grapes and olives in a state of ritual purity, how does he act? He should rinse the planks used to press the grapes in the winepress, and the palm branches used as brooms, and the troughs,