## Ketubot Daf 6b

###### Ketubot 6b:1
[Ketubot 6b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:1)

מַאי לָאו: דְּאִי לֹא בָּעַל, מָצֵי בָּעֵיל אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת. אָמַר רָבָא: לָא, לְבַר מִשַּׁבָּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא ״עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת״ קָתָנֵי? אֶלָּא, אָמַר רָבָא: כְּשֶׁבָּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 6b:2
[Ketubot 6b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:2)

אִי כְּשֶׁבָּעַל, מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּשְׁרֵי לְמִיבְעַל בְּשַׁבָּת, כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: פִּירְצָה דְּחוּקָה מוּתָּר לִיכָּנֵס בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּשִּׁיר צְרוֹרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Ketubot 6b:3
[Ketubot 6b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:3)

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: חָתָן פָּטוּר מִקְּרִיַּת שְׁמַע לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת אִם לֹא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. מַאי לָאו, דִּטְרִיד דְּבָעֵי לְמִיבְעַל! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לָא, דִּטְרִיד דְּלָא בְּעֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 6b:4
[Ketubot 6b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וּמִשּׁוּם טִירְדָּא פָּטוּר? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, טָבְעָה סְפִינָתוֹ בַּיָּם, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּפָטוּר?! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי — וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא אָמַר רַב: אָבֵל חַיָּיב בְּכׇל הַמִּצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּתוֹרָהּ חוּץ מִן הַתְּפִילִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״פְּאֵר״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 6b:5
[Ketubot 6b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתָנָא חֲדָא: אִם לֹא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה בָּרִאשׁוֹן — פָּטוּר אַף בַּשֵּׁנִי, בַּשֵּׁנִי — פָּטוּר אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 6b:6
[Ketubot 6b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:6)

וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי — פָּטוּר, שְׁלִישִׁי — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 6b:7
[Ketubot 6b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:7)

וְאַבָּיֵי? הָתָם נָמֵי בְּטִירְדָּא פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*?


###### Ketubot 6b:8
[Ketubot 6b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:8)

וְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי כִּי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי. דְּתַנְיָא: הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת הַבְּתוּלָה — לֹא יִבְעוֹל בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּשַׁבָּת, וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 6b:9
[Ketubot 6b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:9)

מַאן חֲכָמִים? אָמַר רַבָּה: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Ketubot 6b:10
[Ketubot 6b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא כְּהַלָּלוּ בַּבְלִיִּים שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין בְּהַטָּיָיה, אֶלָּא יֵשׁ בְּקִיאִין בְּהַטָּיָיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 6b:11
[Ketubot 6b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:11)

אִם כֵּן, טוֹרֶד לָמָּה? לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי. יֹאמְרוּ: בָּקִי — מוּתָּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי — אָסוּר! רוֹב בְּקִיאִין הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Ketubot 6b:12
[Ketubot 6b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה שׁוֹשְׁבִינִין, לָמָּה? מַפָּה לָמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם שֶׁמָּא יִרְאֶה וִיאַבֵּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 6b:13
[Ketubot 6b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/6b:13)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַמֵּפִיס מוּרְסָא בְּשַׁבָּת, אִם לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהּ פֶּה — חַיָּיב. וְאִם לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנָּה לֵיחָה —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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,**