Introduction
Today’s section begins to cite traditions that will answer the question asked at the end of last week’s daf—is it permitted to have sex with a virgin on Shabbat?
The amoraim Rav and Shmuel debate whether it is permitted. Curiously (or perhaps not so curiously) every school wants to say that their rabbi, be it Rav or Shmuel, is the lenient one. This is noted explicitly by R. Nahman b. Yitzchak, who says that if you can’t remember which bet midrash teaches the debate which way, you can remember that everyone is lenient on themselves. Seems that no one really wanted to deny sex with a virgin on Shabbat.
The Talmud initially raises a difficulty on the version of the dispute which reads that Rav is the stringent amora, forbidding sex with a virgin on Shabbat. There is another tradition where Rav states that it is forbidden to squeeze back in a stopper into a brewing vat on Yom Tov, the festival. This is because by doing so he will inevitably squeeze some beer out of the cloth stopper, and squeezing liquids out of something is prohibited on Shabbat/Yom Tov. Now this is true even though his intention was not to squeeze out the liquid. His intention was to put the stopper back into the brewing vat. This implies that Rav rules like R. Judah—even though someone’s intention was to perform a permitted act, if in doing so he performs a forbidden act, it is prohibited. So if Rav rules like R. Judah how can he allow sex with a virgin on Shabbat, since this will cause a wound?
The resolution is that in the case of putting the stopper into the brewing vat, even R. Shimon, the lenient sage, would prohibit because it is a case where the prohibited work, squeezing, will certainly be performed. This is called by the Talmud a case of “if he cuts off its head, will it not die.” According to Rashi this refers to a case where someone wants to give his son the head of a bird to play with as a toy (they did not have ipads back then). He does not want to kill the bird, just give its head to his son to play with as a toy. But obviously, he cannot give the head to the child without killing the bird, which is prohibited on Shabbat. So he cannot claim that cutting the head off is permitted because it was not his intention that the bird die. This rule teaches that while R. Shimon generally permits someone to perform an action if his intent was not to perform the prohibited labor, if the prohibited labor is certain to occur, even R. Shimon prohibits.
In sum, Rav can logically prohibit putting back the beer vat plug on Shabbat, but still allow one to have first time sex on Shabbat. Evidently, the wound is not certain.
In these traditions a few amoraim relate that in general Rav holds like R. Judah—even when it is not one’s intention to perform the forbidden labor, the act is still prohibited. So how can the earlier amoraim hold that Rav was lenient in the case of sex on Shabbat with a virgin? The same is true with Shmuel—he usually rules like R. Shimon, that if one’s intent is not to perform the forbidden labor, the act is permitted. So how can he rule that sex on Shabbat with a virgin is prohibited?
Even if Rav holds like R. Judah, he still can allow sex with a virgin on Shabbat because no matter how we explain, the labor is one of damaging. It is not a constructive act, and therefore R. Judah permits it. The explanation refers to the question found in yesterday’s section. If we say that the blood is stored in the womb and he is making an opening, then this opening may still be considered damaging and not constructive. And if he holds that the blood is the result of a wound, the act can still be deemed destructive. In either case it is a wound.
Introduction
We continue to discuss sex with a virgin on Shabbat. I want to reiterate that I realize that these discussions are uncomfortable for some people, but that I adopt a clinical approach to their analysis. I neither condemn practices mentioned in them (I think they were often the norms of the time) nor do I suggest that they should be norms for our times.
This source is Mishnah Niddah 10:1. The Mishnah is concerned with differentiating between menstrual blood and virginal blood. If the wife menstruates, she and her husband may no longer have sex. But virginal blood does not cause sex to be prohibited. The determination hinges on whether she is old enough to menstruate. If she is, then a longer period is given during which we assume the blood is virginal. For instance, if she is too young to menstruate, Bet Hillel says that we assume that any blood is virginal until she heals from the original would caused during sex. But Bet Shammai says we can assume that the blood is virginal for only four nights.
The key to the difficulty raised by R. Hisda is the second clause. If she has reached the age of menstruation he is allowed to assume the blood is virginal for the first four nights. To R. Hisda this means that even if he had not yet had sex with her, he still may do so for all of the first four nights after they were wed on Wednesday, including Shabbat. This is proof that sex with a virgin is permitted on Shabbat.