📜 Ketoubot — 4b

This is what the tanna is saying: And likewise, with regard to a groom whose wife began to menstruate, and he had not yet engaged in intercourse with her, he sleeps among the men, and his wife sleeps among the women. However, in the case of a mourner, even if they already engaged in sexual relations, he sleeps among the men and she sleeps among the women. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the prohibition against relations during mourning is more lenient in his opinion than the prohibition against relations with a menstruating woman? That is apparently the case, as after engaging in the initial intercourse, he may enter into seclusion with his menstruating wife but not with his wife when either of them is in mourning. The Gemara continues: But didn’t Rav Yitzḥak bar Ḥanina say that Rav Huna said: All tasks that a woman typically performs for her husband, a menstruating woman performs for her husband, except for pouring his drink into the cup; arranging his bed; and washing his face, hands, and feet, as these actions are particularly intimate. Whereas with regard to mourning, it is taught in a baraita: Although they said that a man may not compel his mourning wife, to paint her eyes blue or to rouge [pokeset] her face, in truth they said that she may pour his drink into the cup; arrange his bed; and wash his face, hands, and feet. Apparently, the concern lest they come to engage in relations while in mourning is less pressing than the concern while she is menstruating. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where the Sages required them to sleep apart, it is in a case of the husband’s mourning; there, where the Sages allowed her to pour his drink and perform other intimate activities, it is in a case of the wife’s mourning. The prohibition against relations when one is mourning is not perceived to be as severe as the prohibition against relations with a menstruating woman. However, when his wife is mourning, even were he unable to restrain himself, his wife would not be complicit. Therefore, the Sages did not restrict their interaction. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in that baraita: The father of the groom and the mother of the bride? This indicates that it makes no difference which of them was in mourning. When the tanna teaches that there is no distinction between which of them was in mourning, it was concerning the rest of the mourning practices cited there, not with regard to prohibiting their seclusion. The Gemara asks: And do the Sages distinguish between his mourning and her mourning? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one whose father-in-law or mother-in-law died, he may not compel his wife to paint her eyes blue or to rouge her face. Rather, he overturns his bed, as was the practice among mourners, and observes the mourning period with her. And likewise, if a wife’s father-in-law or mother-in-law dies, she is not allowed to paint her eyes blue or to rouge her face. Rather, she overturns her bed and observes the mourning period with him. There is no mention in the context of his mourning that he must not be alone with his wife. The Gemara emends the baraita. Teach with regard to his mourning: He sleeps among the men and his wife sleeps among the women. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the tanna teach: And likewise? This indicates that there is no difference between the two cases. The Gemara answers: When the tanna teaches that there is no distinction between which of them is mourning, it is with regard to painting and rouge. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the tanna teach: With him? What, does it not mean with him together in bed, and there is no concern that it will lead to sexual relations? No, it means with him at home, and it is as that which Rav said to Ḥiyya, his son, when his wife’s father died: Before her, observe mourning practices; not before her, do not observe mourning practices. Understood in this context, the term: With him, means in his presence. Rav Ashi said that the question was based on a mistaken premise: Can you compare the mourning here with mourning in general? Mourning in general is stringent, and one will not come to take it lightly. However, with regard to mourning here, immediately following the wedding, since the Sages were lenient, one will come to take it lightly. What leniency did the Sages enact in this case? If we say it is that which the tanna teaches: The groom engages in the initial intercourse with the bride to fulfill the mitzva and then he withdraws from his wife, then there, where the corpse is placed into a room in the house, it is due to the fact that mourning has not yet taken effect upon him. Consequently, there is no leniency with regard to mourning practices. If it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, mourning does not take effect until the corpse emerges from the entrance of the house for burial. If it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, mourning does not take effect until the covering of the grave is sealed. Rather, the leniency is that which the tanna teaches: And the groom then observes the seven days of feast following the wedding, and thereafter he observes the seven days of mourning. Since the Sages were lenient and allowed him to observe the wedding feast, despite the fact that he is a mourner, they prohibited his being alone with his wife so he would be less likely to practice additional leniencies in his mourning. § The Master said in the baraita: In any event, the groom may not engage in intercourse with his virgin bride, neither on Shabbat evening, nor at the conclusion of Shabbat. Granted, on Shabbat evening he may not engage in intercourse due to the prohibition against inflicting a wound on Shabbat. However, at the conclusion of Shabbat, why may he not engage in intercourse with his virgin bride? Rabbi Zeira said: