Yichud & Beilas Mitzvah on Friday night:[1]

The following Halacha relates primarily to Friday weddings, and as to whether it is permitted for the couple to have Yichud or relations for the first time [i.e. Beilas Mitzvah] on Shabbos. This Halacha is also applicable to a case that the couple got married on Thursday night, or any previous night and have yet to consummate the marriage or to have Yichud, in which the question rises as to whether relations or Yichud is permitted on Friday night for the first time.

 

A. Having relations with a Besula/virgin for the first time on Shabbos:[2]

Relations on Shabbos if proper Yichud took place before Shabbos: It is permitted [for a Chasan and Kallah] to [even] initially have relations for the first time on Shabbos [or Yom Tov], even if she is a virgin, [and so is the widespread custom, which was done by Tzaddikim and Chassidim, and one should not be stringent against doing so[3]]. [Indeed, the wedding of Yaakov and Leah was on Friday and Yaakov had relations with her for the first time on Friday night.[4] It is permitted to have relations on Friday night whether it is their first time, and she is a virgin, or it is their second or third time, but the hymen has still not been fully broken.[5]] It does not contain any of the following prohibitions:

1. Pain:[6] Having intercourse with a virgin on Shabbos does not contain a prohibition due to the pain [that is caused to her] on Shabbos with her first intercourse.
2. Causing injury:[7] Likewise, there is no prohibition of [causing an] injury with the fact that it extracts blood, being that the blood of the hymen is not absorbed within the walls of the of the womb but is rather gathered there, like it is guarded and hidden within a vessel, and [the intercourse] is [similar] to [merely] opening the vessel in order so the blood leaves.
3. Making an opening:[8] Likewise, there is no prohibition involved in him making an opening in the woman’s body being that it is an action not needed for the sake of its body [i.e. Melacha Sheiyno Tzericha Legufo], as one has no need for this opening that it be open, as a virgin is more desirable for him. [Furthermore] even according to those who rule that even an action that is not done for the use of its body one is liable for, nevertheless [here it is permitted as]  one is destroying, as a virgin is of more prestige then is one who already had relations, and all those who destroy are exempt. Now, although initially it is Rabbinically forbidden to [do an action on Shabbos] even if it is not done for the need of the body of the object, and one is destroying, nevertheless in a situation which involves a Mitzvah the Sages did not decree [against doing these forms of actions]. Furthermore, that the prohibitions to open an opening is because of fixing a vessel, as will be explained in chapter 328 [Halacha 32[9]], and when one does not have a use for this opening, it is not a fixing at all, and one has not done anything, as explained there [in 328/32[10]].

If Yichud did not take place before Shabbos:[11] The above allowance to have relations with one’s Kallah for the first time on Shabbos only applies if a full Yichud has taken place anytime after the Chupa, before Shabbos or Yom Tov. If, however, a full Yichud has not yet taken place after the Chuppah, before Shabbos or Yom Tov [such as if the wedding was on Friday afternoon and there was no Yichud room], then it is forbidden for them to even have Yichud on Shabbos or Yom Tov, and certainly they may not have marital relations.[12] For this reason, it is proper to verify that a newly married couple has full Yichud prior to Shabbos or Yom Tov in order to avoid the above prohibitions. If this was not done, then the Chasan and Kalah are to have a person present[13] throughout Shabbos to prevent them from having Yichud. [Likewise, if the Kalah had a Chuppas Nida and her Mikveh night fell on Friday night, then she may not have relations that night and is thus not to immerse.[14] However, some Poskim[15] are lenient in this matter, and permit having relations that night, and so is the widespread custom.[16] Furthermore, some Poskim[17] rule that even if we rule that she may not have relations that night, she may nevertheless immerse in order to be permitted to her husband for other matters of closeness, such as hugging and kissing.]

Summary-Having relations for first time on Friday night [includes Q&A]: It is permitted to have relations with a Beusla on Shabbos so long as full and proper Yichud has taken place before Shabbos [i.e. excluding Chuppas Niddah whose 7th day is on Friday and late Friday wedding without time for Yichud]. Nonetheless, one is to beware to designate a special towel to wipe up the blood on Shabbos, or alternatively use tissues or napkins to wipe the blood. Q&A May one use a cloth to clean or catch the blood?[18] Although it is permitted to have marital relations for the first time on Friday night, even if she is a Besula, nevertheless, one must be careful not to use an undesignated towel or other undesignated cloth to clean the blood.[19] This applies irrelevant of color, whether the cloth is white or red.[20] Rather, one is to use a towel that is designated for this purpose.[21] One may also use tissues or napkins for this purpose.[22] One may not use the sheets to clean the blood. Must the couple place a designated towel under her during the intercourse, to prevent the blood from hitting the sheet?[23] No. They may use regular sheets.

B. Having relations with a non-Besula [i.e. widow, divorcee, Beula/non-virgin] for the first time on Shabbos:[24]

One who married a widow [or a divorcee[25], or a woman who is not a Besula[26]] may not consummate his first marital relations with her neither on Shabbos, or Yom Tov. [27] It is proper to be stringent in this even if they already had full Yichud[28] prior to Shabbos or Yom Tov.[29] [This especially applies regarding a widow, in which there is danger involved to have relations with her for the first time on Shabbos.[30]] It is forbidden according to all to do so if no complete Yichud took place before Shabbos.[31] For this reason, if her Mikveh night falls out on Friday night, she may not immerse.[32]

_________________________________________________________________________

[1] Admur 280:3

[2] Admur ibid; Michaber 280:2; E.H. 63:1; Beis Shmuel 64:4; Rambam Shabbos 30:14; Kesubos 7a; Taz 280:2 that there is no custom to be stringent and many Chassidim and Geonei Olam have done so; Olas Shabbos 280:2 that one should not be stringent not to do so; Tosefes Shabbos 280:3; M”B 280; Kaf Hachaim 280:6; Nimukei Orach Chaim 280:1; Minchas Elazar 3:45 that so is the custom; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 280:6

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that one is to avoid having relations with a virgin on Shabbos. [Bach 280 that so is custom in his provinces; Shelah Shaar Osiyos Kuf, brought and negated in Taz 280:2; Possible understanding of Maharam Melublin 53, brought in Shach Y.D. 197:3, that the custom is not to have the first relations on Friday night; Ashel Avraham Butchach 339 that so is the custom] Practically, however, we do not rule like this opinion, and it remains permitted to have relations with a Besula on Shabbos even in such communities, and so was the practice of Gedolei Yisrael, and one who is stringent is doing a strange act. [Taz 280:2; Olas Tamid 281:2 that being stringent can lead to Zera Levatala; Tosefes Shabbos 280:3; Yalkut Chadash “Shabbos” writes that Yaakov consummated the marriage with Leah on Friday night; Kaf Hachaim 280:6 that so is custom in Jerusalem to get married on Erev Shabbos and have relations on Friday night]

[3] Taz ibid; Olas Shabbos ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid; Minchas Elazar ibid; Nimukei Orach Chaim ibid that so was done specifically by the students of the Baal Shem Tov to marry off their offspring’s on Friday and have the Beilas Mitzvah take place on Shabbos

[4] Yalkut Chadash Erech Shabbos 47, brought in Kaf Hachaim 280:6

[5] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[6] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid

[7] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Kesubos 5b and Rashi there and 133b; See Admur 328:33

[8] Admur ibid; See Tosafus Kesubos 6b

[9] There it is explained that it is forbidden to puncture a pimple for the purpose of making a hole so air enters it and heals.

[10] There it is explained that it is permitted to puncture a pimple in order to release puss as one has no intet to allow the air to come in and it is thus not considered fixing.

[11] Admur 339:8; M”A 339:11; Masas Binyamon 90; Beis Shmuel E.H. 64:5; Elya Raba 339:4; Beis Meir E.H. 61; Poskim in Pischeiy Teshuvah E.H. 61:10; Ashel Avraham Butchach 339; Ani Ben Pachma 15 in name of Toras Chesed of Lublin; M”B 280:4; 339:32 [regarding Lechatchila, and in name of many Achronim]; Michaber and Nosei Keilim on E.H. 61:2; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 339:8 and footnote 118

Background: There are two stages of acquisition that take place in each marriage. The first is called “Kedushin” while the second “Nesuin.” Keddushin formally consecrates the marriage, bonding the wife to the husband to the point that she is now forbidden to be with any other man. Nevertheless, she is still not considered the husbands fully fledged wife regarding certain marriage rights which she receives and gives in a marriage. Nessuin finalizes the matrimony, making the marriage effective in all its legal bounds of rights for each partner. Regarding what constitutes Nessuin there is a differentiation between a widow and a non-widow. For a non-widow Chuppah alone constitutes Nessuin. However, by a widow, Chuppah alone does not constitute Nessuin. [Michaber Even Haezer 64:5] Regarding the definition of Chuppah there is a dispute.  Some define Chuppah to mean the wedding canopy, while others define Chuppah as Yichud. [see Even Haezer 55:1-2] This leads to two opinions regarding what constitutes Nessuin by a non-widow and what constitutes Nessuin by a widow.

Non-widow: According to one opinion the wedding canopy constitutes Nessuin, while according to another opinion it is only Yichud which is fit for marital relations which constitutes Nessuin.

Widow: According to the latter opinion only marital relations constitutes Nessuin for a widow, while according to the former opinion even a private audience which is fit for marital relations, called Yichud, constitutes Nessuin. This dispute is based on the previous argument regarding the proper definition of “Chuppah”. Those who define Chuppah to mean the wedding canopy claim that for a widow in which Chuppah is invalid, Yichud is valid. However, those who define Chuppah as Yichud claim that for a widow in which Chuppah is invalid, only marital relations is valid.

The above dispute leads to a dispute in regard to if one may have a private audience or marital relations for the first time with one’s wife on Shabbos or Yom Tov. As according to all, one may not do Nessuin on Shabbos or Yom Tov due to that it makes an acquisition.

The Final Ruling: Admur rules that one is to be stringent like all opinions as will be explained below in the relevant scenarios.

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that if the Chuppah took place before Shabbos, then Bedieved even if Yichud was not done before Shabbos, they may have relations for the first time at night. [Possible implication of Rama Y.D. 197:2; Possible implication of Shach Y.D. 197:3 in name of Maharam Melublin 53 that from the letter of the law it is allowed and it’s just a custom not to do so; Pischeiy Teshuvah E.H. 64:10 in name of Sefer Hamakneh; Mishneh Berurah 339:32 regarding Bedieved; Tehila Ledavid 339:7; Ani Ben Pachma 15; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 70 in name of Tzemach Tzedek E.H. 1:114; Kaf Hachaim 280:8; Taharas Yisrael 192:8; Yabia Omer E.H. 5:9; Divrei Taharah 194:4 in name of Rav Moshe Halbershtam; Conclusion of Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[12] The reason: This is in order to suspect for the latter opinion mentioned above that only Yichud which is fit for relations constitutes Chupa for a Besula, and is hence forbidden to do on Shabbos for the first time due to the prohibition of making

[13] It is implied from Admur’s words “they are not to have a complete Yichud the entire Shabbos” that any person may be present in this case, and not specifically a Shomer, and certainly there is no need for two Shomrim, as so long as they don’t have a form of Yichud which is fit for relations there is no acquisition, even if they are having the Halachicly defined state of Yichud. Vetzaruch Iyun. See also Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 66 who comes to a similar conclusion

[14] Beis Shmuel E.H. ibid; So applies according to Admur and all Poskim ibid in first footnote who prohibit relations on Friday night if Yichud had not taken place, and so rules Admur ibid and Rama Y.D. 97:2 explicitly regarding an Almana that she may not immerse on Friday night, and so writes Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid in their opinion; Maharam Melublin 53, brought in Shach Y.D. 197:3, however rules that although the custom is to delay the relations until Motzei Shabbos, she may nevertheless immerse on Friday night, as will be brought next

[15] Possible implication of Rama Y.D. 197:2 who only prohibits with Almana; Pischeiy Teshuvah E.H. 64:10 in name of Sefer Hamakneh that it is Mutar Bedieved, and at the very best they could stipulate on the intercourse that it is not Koneh anything; Tehila Ledavid 339:7; Mishneh Berurah 339:32; Ani Ben Pachma 15; See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 70 in name of Tzemach Tzedek E.H. 1:114 [that when father has intent to be Mkaneh, then all agree that taking into home is Koneh even without Yichud Harauiy Lebiyah]

[16] Taharas Yisrael 192:8; Yabia Omer E.H. 5:9; Divrei Taharah 194:4 in name of Rav Moshe Halbershtam; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[17] Shach Y.D. 197:3 in name of Maharam Melublin 53 [however, to note that he is seemingly going according to the custom to not have relations with a Besula on Friday night, irrelevant of whether Yichud already took place, as writes Bach 280, however according to the approach that if Yichud did not take place relations is forbidden due to Kinyan, then seemingly this is no different than the ruling of the Rama Y.D. 197:2, Admur ibid, and Taz Y.D. 197:6 who prohibit an Almana from immersing on Friday night due to the prohibition of Kinyan, and so concludes the Shach and Maharam ibid regarding an Almana. However, perhaps one can argue that since by a Beusla the prohibition of relations is a mere stringency, one may therefore be lenient. However, in truth the Taz ibid extended the prohibition to even immerse even in a case where Yichud was done with the Almana before Shabbos, and hence there is room to learn that the same prohibition should apply to a Besula if Yichud was not done. Vetzarcuh Iyun! 

[18] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 280:6; 328:48; Tzitz Eliezer 18:14; SSH”K 14:19; Piskeiy Teshuvos 320:11; Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 3 20:20 [p. 295]; Tahara Kehalacha 10:28 and chapter 15 p. 506

[19] See 1^st and main opinion in Admur 320:27; Stam opinion in 328:53; “Yeish Mi Sheomer” in Michaber 320:20; 328:48; Shibulei Haleket 86; Yireim 274; Rokeiach 70; Kol Bo 31; Maharam Rikanti 123; M”A 320:25; 328:52; M”B 320:57; Rav Massas, brought in Tzitz Eliezer ibid, that certainly it is forbidden to wipe the Dam Besulin with a cloth on Shabbos

The reason: Although when doing so one [has no intention to dye, but] is actually ruining the cloth, and whenever one does an action on Shabbos in a way of damage he has not Biblically transgressed, nevertheless it is forbidden to be done Rabbinically. [Admur ibid]

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that it is permitted to wipe the blood on Shabbos being that [wiping ones dirty hands on the cloth] is only a form of dirtying it [rather than dyeing it], and thus it is not [even] considered to be [Rabbinical] dyeing at all. [2^nd opinion in Admur ibid, brought in M”A 320:24 and M”B 320:59; Igor 484; Darkei Moshe 2; Radbaz 131; Chacham Tzevi Likkutim in end of Sefer 5 that so is implication of Kesubos 7b that one may wipe the Dam Besulin on Shabbos; Shoel Umeishiv Basra 2:7; Pekudas Elazar O.C. 280] Some Poskim rule one may be lenient in a time of need. [Elya Raba; Machatzis Hashekel; Chayeh Adam; M”B 320:59 and 328:146 ] Some Poskim rule that wiping the blood of a Besula is always considered a time of need, and may hence always be done even initially. [Tzitz Eliezer ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos 280:6]

[20] Admur ibid and ibid; M”A ibid

[21] Kuntrus Achron 302:1; See 319:13; 320:21; M”A 319:11; Ketzos Hashulchan 136 footnote 11; SSH”K 14:19; Piskeiy Teshuvos 320:11 based on Admur Kuntrus Achron 302; Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 3 20:20 [p. 295]; Tzitz Eliezer ibid 7

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule it does not suffice to designate a garment for this purpose, and only by an item which people do not care to dye does the allowance apply. [Avnei Nezer 175, brought in Ketzos Hashulchan 136 footnote 11]

[22] SSH”K 14:19; Piskeiy Teshuvos 320:11 based on Admur Kuntrus Achron 302; Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 3 20:20 [p. 295]; This is unlike the ruling of Rav Farkash in Tahara Kehalacha 10:28 and chapter 15 p. 506 which rules that tissues should not be used as they are not specifically designated for this purpose. Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol from where he understood that they must be designated for a specific form of wiping, as opposed to general wiping. In Shabbos Kehalacha ibid he clearly contradicts himself.

[23] There is no mention in Poskim regarding this matter, and hence seemingly it is permitted to have relations on the sheet even though it will cause it to be stained, as this is a mere Grama, and is hence not similar to wiping stained hands on a cloth. It is likewise not a Pesik Resihei that the blood will hit the sheet, as perhaps there will not be any blood at all, and perhaps it will not reach the sheet. This is similar to drinking red wine on a tablecloth, in which case there is no prohibition involved even though it is possible and common for some wine to spill on the tablecloth. Upashut!

[24] Admur 339:8; Michaber 339:5; Rama Y.D. 197:2; M”A 339:11 in name of Maharil; Taz Y.D. 97:6; Ran Beitza 20a in name of Yerushalmi Yuma 1:1; Kesubos 1:5; M”B 339:32; Kaf Hachaim 280:8; Piskeiy Teshuvos 280:6; 339:12 and footnote 118 for all full background on all the opinions; See Michaber Even Haezer 55:1-2 and 64:5

Background: There are two stages of acquisition that take place in each marriage. The first is called “Kedushin” while the second “Nesuin.” Keddushin formally consecrates the marriage, bonding the wife to the husband to the point that she is now forbidden to be with any other man. Nevertheless, she is still not considered the husbands fully fledged wife regarding certain marriage rights which she receives and gives in a marriage. Nessuin finalizes the matrimony, making the marriage effective in all its legal bounds of rights for each partner. Regarding what constitutes Nessuin there is a differentiation between a widow and a non-widow. For a non-widow Chuppah alone constitutes Nessuin. However, by a widow, Chuppah alone does not constitute Nessuin. [Michaber Even Haezer 64:5] Regarding the definition of Chuppah there is a dispute.  Some define Chuppah to mean the wedding canopy, while others define Chuppah as Yichud. [see Even Haezer 55:1-2] This leads to two opinions regarding what constitutes Nessuin by a non-widow and what constitutes Nessuin by a widow.

Non-widow: According to one opinion the wedding canopy constitutes Nessuin, while according to another opinion it is only Yichud which is fit for marital relations which constitutes Nessuin.

Widow: According to the latter opinion only marital relations constitutes Nessuin for a widow, while according to the former opinion even a private audience which is fit for marital relations, called Yichud, constitutes Nessuin. This dispute is based on the previous argument regarding the proper definition of “Chuppah”. Those who define Chuppah to mean the wedding canopy claim that for a widow in which Chuppah is invalid, Yichud is valid. However, those who define Chuppah as Yichud claim that for a widow in which Chuppah is invalid, only marital relations is valid.

The above dispute leads to a dispute in regard to if one may have a private audience or marital relations for the first time with one’s wife on Shabbos or Yom Tov. As according to all, one may not do Nessuin on Shabbos or Yom Tov due to that it makes an acquisition.

The Final Ruling: Admur rules that one is to be stringent like all opinions as will be explained below in the relevant scenarios.

[25] Levush 339:5; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[26] Sefer Hamakneh E.H. 55; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid; See Otzer Haposkim 55:121

[27] The reason: As by doing the marital relations one acquires her for Nessuin and it is forbidden to make acquisitions on Shabbos. If not even a proper private audience was done before Shabbos it is forbidden according to all to have marital relations, while if proper Yichud was done it is disputed if marital relations is allowed. [Admur ibid] Alternatively, the reason for this by a widow is due to danger of death. [M”A 339:11 in name of Maharil; Kaf Hachaim ibid]

[28] This means a private audience which was opportune for marital relations. Meaning there was no one else around at all.

[29] Admur ibid; M”A ibid in name of Maharil [that it is forbidden even if married on Thursday]; Taz ibid [be stringent since there are Gedolim who prohibit it]; Maharil Hilchos Shabbos 18 p.210 in name of Maharash; Mordechai Beitza Remez 698 in name of Maharam of Rothenberg; Maharam Merothenberg 151

The reason: This is in order to suspect for the second opinion mentioned above who rules only marital relations constitutes Nessuin for a widow. If not even a proper private audience was done before Shabbos it is forbidden according to all to have marital relations, while if proper Yichud was done it is disputed if marital relations is allowed.

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that if a proper Yichud was done before Shabbos, they may have relations for the first time at night. [Masas Binyamon 90, brought in Taz ibid; M”A ibid in name of Chelkas Mechokeik even if an improper Yichud was done, and in name of many other Poskim that Yichud which is fit for Biyah suffices; Chochmas Adam 129:13; Kitzur SHU”A 148:4; Maharsham 3:333; Mishneh Berurah 339:32; Kaf Hachaim 280:8; Yabia Omer E.H. 5:9; See Poskim in Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 118 in 3rd option]

[30] M”A ibid in name of Maharil Hilchos Shabbos p. 211; Omitted in Admur ibid; See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[31] Admur ibid [Such as if they had a Chuppahs Nida and have never yet been together in private without Shomrim due to the prohibition of Yichud. This Yichud is not considered a Yichud which is fit for marital relations and hence does not constitute Nessuin even according to the lenient opinion mentioned above]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that even if a complete Yichud did not take place, and she was alone with the Cahsan with two Shomrim, then they may have relations on Shabbos. [Chelkas Mechokeik E.H. 64, brought and negated in M”A ibid; Rivash 135; Shvus Yaakov 1:67; SeePischeiy Teshuvah E.H. 55::5 and 64:8; See Poskim in Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 118 in 2nd option]

[32] Admur ibid; Rama ibid; M”A ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

The reason: As since she may not have marital relations the allowance of being able to immerse is revoked.