Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Shimi bar Chizkiyah Amar Rav forbids stopping up the outlet of a barrel of wine with rags.

(b) This does not create a problem with de'Bei Rav, who ruled leniently with regard to the first Bi'ah (because of 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven') - seeing as this case ('Mesuchraisa di'Nezaisa') is a case of 'P'sik Reisha' and is therefore worse than 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven'.

(c) We reconcile Rav's lenient ruling by Bi'ah with the fact that he rules like Rebbi Yehudah (by Davar she'Ein Miskaven) - in one of two ways. According to the Lashon that considers Dam Besulim detached, it is because he also considers making the opening to be Kilkul; and according to the Lashon that considers it attached, he considers it Mekalkel ba'Chaburah (where Rebbi Yehudah is lenient).

(a) According to Beis Shamai (in a Mishnah in Nidah), if a girl marries before she is due to have a period, we give her four nights - meaning that any blood that she sees on those nights is Dam Besulim.

(b) She is called not due to have a period as long - as she is still a Ketanah).

(c) According to Beis Hillel - that ruling will prevail until her wound heals (i.e. until she has Tashmish without bleeding).

(d) If she *is* due, then, according to Beis Shamai, we give her one night only. Beis Hillel say - four.

3)

(a) Rava tries to reconcile the latter statement of Beis Hillel (in the Mishnah in Nidah, which implies that we give a girl who is due to have a period, four days, including Shabbos) with those who forbid the first Bi'ah on Shabbos - by establishing the Mishnah by four days without Shabbos (in spite of the implication).

(b) The problem with that explanation is - that the Tana explicitly says 'ad Motza'ei Shabbos Arba'ah Leilos', which, bearing in mind our Mishnah ('Besulah Niseis ... ') cannot possibly preclude Shabbos.

(c) So Rava answers by establishing the Beraisa when the marriage has already been consummated. In that case, we conclude, the Tana needs to add 'ad Motza'ei Shabbos', because of Shmuel - who permits Bi'ah even when it is a 'Pirtzah Dechukah' (if she has only performed Bi'ah once or twice, and her womb is still tight), even though he might cause a wound (see Tosfos Nidah 64b. DH 'de'Shari').

(a) According to those who forbid the first Bi'ah on Shabbos, Abaye explains the Mishnah in B'rachos 'Chasan Patur mi'K'ri'as Sh'ma ... ad Motza'ei Shabbos im Lo Asah Ma'aseh' (vis-a-vis Shabbos) - to mean that he is Patur because he is worried about *not* being able to perform Bi'ah.

(b) Rava however, rejects Abaye's explanation - on the grounds that one is only Patur due to the worry that accompanies the performance of a Mitzvah, but not for other worries.

(c) Based on the Pasuk "Pe'er", Rav Aba bar Zavda Amar Rav issued a ruling - that an Aveil is obligated to observe all Mitzvos with the exception of Tefilin (because his state of misery is not in keeping with the glory of Tefilin), from which Rava derives that worry (which is not directly connected with the performing of a Mitzvah) does not exempt a person from Mitzvos.

(d) Abaye counters Rava's Kashya - by differentiating between worries that are not connected with a Mitzvah at all, and those that are (irrespective of whether one is worried about performing them or not performing them).

(a) Rava reconciles those who forbid the first Bi'ah on Shabbos with the Mishnah in B'rachos - by connecting their opinion with a Tana in a Beraisa (which we will now discuss) who forbids it (in other words, it is a Machlokes Tana'im).

(b) The Tana'im of both Beraisos quoted by Rava exempt a Chasan from K'ri'as Sh'ma on the first two nights, if he has not yet consummated the marriage. On the third night however, one of the Tana'im obligates him.
According to ...

1. ... Rava - this is because he forbids the first Bi'ah with a Besulah on Shabbos.
2. ... Abaye - it is because he is worried about not being able to perform the Bi'as Mitzvah.

(c) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama forbids the first Bi'ah. The Chachamim who permit it - is in fact, Rebbi Shimon, who holds 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven, Mutar'.

(d) Abaye asked Rabah how this could be, seeing as Rebbi Shimon concedes that 'P'sik Reisha' is forbidden. Rabah replied - that not everyone is like the Bavli'im, who do not know how to bend to the side (to perform Bi'ah without extracting blood); in other words, extracting blood is not a matter of 'P'sik Reisha'.

(a) Despite the fact that so many people are experts - Chazal exempt a Chasan from K'ri'as Sh'ma because of those who are not.

(b) This does not imply that an expert is permitted to consummate his marriage on Shabbos, and someone who is not, is forbidden - because, seeing as most people are experts, it is never a case of P'sik Reisha (and is therefore never forbidden).

(c) We will learn later that they would appoint two groomsmen to prevent the Chasan from falsely claiming that the Kalah was no longer a Besulah. Despite the fact that most people are experts in avoiding bleeding anyway (in which case, the cloth will generally be free of bloodstains anyway), the purpose of the groomsmen, and of the cloth which they would later inspect - was in case there *were*, to prevent the husband from hiding it.

(d) If there were no bloodstains and the husband claimed that she was no longer a Besulah - she can simply counter that she *was* (and that he was one of the majority of experts who knew how to perform Bi'ah without extracting blood).

(a) Someone who squeezes a boil on Shabbos, in order to extract the pus, is Patur. He will be Chayav however - if his intention is to create an opening (to extract the pus and to let in the air (Tosfos DH 'Im'), because it is a form of building (which applies even to live creatures - as the Torah writes in Bereishis "va'Yiven es ha'Tzeila").

(b) Patur in this Beraisa means that it is permitted Lechatchilah (and not Patur Aval Asur, as it usually does).

(c) Rebbi Ami asked from this Beraisa - on those who forbid the first Bi'ah

(d) We answer that there the pus is 'Pakid va'Akir' (completely loose), whereas the Dam Besulim, even though it is considered Pakid (deposited and not intrinsically part of the flesh, it is nevertheless 'Pakid ve'Lo Akir' (not completely loose. It is partially absorbed in the walls of the womb) and extracting it is considered a wound (according to those who forbid it).