וְה֗וּא כְּ֭חָתָן יֹצֵ֣א מֵחֻפָּת֑וֹ יָשִׂ֥ישׂ כְּ֝גִבּ֗וֹר לָר֥וּץ אֹֽרַח׃
Celui-ci, pareil au jeune époux sortant de sa chambre nuptiale, se fait une joie, tel un héros, de parcourir sa carrière.
Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot
Because no blessing is written for creatures? Could she have been married on the Sabbath if a blessing were written for creatures? But was it not stated7This baraita is stated in full in Berakhot 2:6 (5b 1. 7), Note 261.: “A man should not first have sexual relations8With his virgin bride. on the Sabbath, for he makes a wound.” It must follow “others”, for “others permit it.9This is part of the baraita text in Berakhot. In the Babli, Ketubot 6b, the opinion of “others” is ascribed to “the Sages” and practice is decided following them.” But “others” permit only when he is already married10Meaning the final marriage ceremony in which the bride enters her husband’s house, which consists of the recitation of the “Seven Benedictions” in the presence of at least ten witnesses (cf. Note 76) after which the couple is considered married in all respects by being alone together. This ceremony activates all monetary aspects of the marriage contract., for before he was married he had no right to what she finds, what she earns11In addition, the woman acquires the right to all services the husband is obligated to deliver in return for his acquisition of her property rights., and to dissolve her vows12Without needing her father’s consent; cf. Nedarim Chapter 11.. After he married her, he has the right to receive what she finds or earns, and to dissolve her vows. If you say so, he is like someone who acquires on the Sabbath13Which is certainly forbidden by rabbinic standards, and, in the opinion of Isaiah, by biblical standards (Is. 58:13).. Rebbi Mana said, this means that those who marry a widow14Who make the big wedding meal Friday night, to save the expenses of a separate Sabbath meal. must take her in15He must take her into his house before sunset to acquire his marital rights.
This sentence, which has no parallel in the Babli, is the source of an extensive rabbinic literature; cf. Šulḥan ‘Arukh Even Ha‘ezer 64:5. (In Tosafot, Yoma 13b, s. v. לחדא, the statement is quoted in the name of R. Ḥanina.) The question is whether the clause “to take her in”, is different from “entering the ḥuppah” used to describe the final marriage ceremony of a virgin. From Medieval times, ḥuppah denotes the canopy, open on all sides, under which the pair stands for the recitation of the “Seven Benedictions”. But there is no reason to assume that חוּפָּה originally meant anything but the totally covered bridal bedroom (Ps. 19:6), from חפה “to cover”. There is no indication here that the rules of transfer of property rights are different for marriages of virgins and widows. when it is still daytime on Friday, that he should not be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.
This sentence, which has no parallel in the Babli, is the source of an extensive rabbinic literature; cf. Šulḥan ‘Arukh Even Ha‘ezer 64:5. (In Tosafot, Yoma 13b, s. v. לחדא, the statement is quoted in the name of R. Ḥanina.) The question is whether the clause “to take her in”, is different from “entering the ḥuppah” used to describe the final marriage ceremony of a virgin. From Medieval times, ḥuppah denotes the canopy, open on all sides, under which the pair stands for the recitation of the “Seven Benedictions”. But there is no reason to assume that חוּפָּה originally meant anything but the totally covered bridal bedroom (Ps. 19:6), from חפה “to cover”. There is no indication here that the rules of transfer of property rights are different for marriages of virgins and widows. when it is still daytime on Friday, that he should not be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.