Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Ami permitted someone to marry on Shabbos and to perform Bi'ah. To counter the fact that there was no Kesuvah (and it is forbidden to live with a woman without Kesuvah) - he would order the husband to give her objects as collateral until the Kesuvah was written.

(b) Rav Yehudah permitted marriage on Yom-Tov. According to Rav Papi in the name of Rava, this ruling included Shabbos, and the reason that he confined his statement to Yom-Tov is - because that happened to be the case about which he was asked to issue a ruling.

(a) According to Rav Papa in the name of Rava, Rav Yehudah did indeed confine his ruling to Yom-Tov, forbidding marriage on Shabbos - because the his concession is based on the principle of 'Mitoch she'Hutrah Chaburah (by Shechitah) le'Tzorech, Hutrah Nami she'Lo le'Tzorech', and 'Mitoch' (Migu) applies on Yom-Tov but not on Shabbos.

(b) Rav Papi queried Rav Papa from Mugmar (incense burned on a fire to impregnate vessels or clothes with a pleasant aroma) - which is forbidden on Yom-Tov. Why should Mugmar too, not be permitted because of Yom-Tov, he asked (since making a fire for cooking is permitted)?

(c) To answer Rav Papi's Kashya, Rav Papa quoted the Pasuk "Ach Asher Ye'achel le'Chol Nefesh" - from which we learn that, even with the principle of 'Mitoch', a Melachah only becomes permitted if it is 'Shaveh le'Chol Nefesh' (most people need the outcome of that particular Melachah that is being performed). Mugmar, on the other hand, is confined to finicky people, whereas Bi'ah is something that everybody does.

(d) Despite the fact that most people do not eat venison on Yom-Tov, Shechting and cooking it is nevertheless permitted - because it is not because the poor do not need it, but because it is not available to them (if they had the chance, they too would eat it).

(a) The problem we have with Rav Ya'akov bar Idi's statement 'Horeh Rebbi Yochanan be'Tzaidan Asur li'V'ol bi'Techilah be'Shabbos' - is that we normally associate the expression 'Horeh' with a leniency, not with a stringency (seeing as being strict does not really require a careful ruling, since even when in doubt, one tends to rule stringently).

(b) The truth of the matter is however, that we do have precedents for the use of 'Horeh' le'Chumra. Beis Hillel ruled - that Queen Hilni, who took a seven-year Nezirus vow in Chutz la'Aretz, when her son went to war, had to begin all over again when she came to Eretz Yisrael.

(c) An animal with a broken spinal cord is T'reifah. According to Rebbi, most of the diameter must be cracked to be considered a Tereifah. However, 'Horeh Rebbi ke'Rebbi Ya'akov' - who declares the animal T'reifah with even the smallest hole in its spinal cord.

(d) Rav Huna disagrees with Rebbi's second ruling - accepting his original one.

(a) Rebbi Avahu was present when Rebbi Yishmael ben Ya'akov asked Rebbi Yochanan whether the first Bi'ah was permitted on Shabbos. He replied - that it is forbidden.

(b) The ultimate ruling in this issue is - that it is permitted.

(a) We reconcile Rav Huna's ruling (that an Almanah does not require Birchas Chasanim [Sheva B'rachos]) with another statement of his, where, included in a string of names (ultimately headed by Rav), he ruled that an Almanah as well as a Besulah, requires Birchas Chasanim - by establishing the former when she married an Almon, and the latter, when she married a Bachur.

(b) Rav Nachman quoting Huna bar Nasan, learns from the Pasuk "va'Yikach Asarah Anashim mi'Ziknei ha'Ir va'Yomer 'Sh'vu Poh'! va'Yeishvu" - that Birchas Chasanim requires a Minyan.

(c) When Rav Huna said that there is no Birchas Chasanim for an Almon who married an Almanah - he meant for *seven* days, but for *one* day, there is.

(d) This creates a problem however, with what we learned earlier with regard to an Almanah marrying on Thursday and consummating the marriage on Friday - where we explained that Chazal were particular that even an Almanah should have *three* days Simchah ( and not just *one*)?

7)

(a) One gives ...

1. ... a Besulah - seven days of Sheva B'rachos.
2. ... an Almanah who marries a Bachur - three days.
3. ... an Almanah who marries an Almon - one day.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa says 'Mevorchin li'Vesulah Shiv'ah, u'le'Almanah Yom Echad', disregarding the case of three days - because his intention is to inform us that there is no Besulah who gets less than seven days and no Almanah who gets less than one.

(a) We quoted earlier Rav Nachman quoting Huna bar Nasan, who learns from the Pasuk "va'Yikach Asarah Anashim mi'Ziknei ha'Ir va'Yomer Sh'vu Poh va'Yeishvu" that Birchas Chasanim requires a Minyan. Rebbi Avahu learns it from the Pasuk in Tehilim - "be'Makheilos Borchu Elokim, Hashem mi'M'kor Yisrael".

(b) Rav Nachman learns from "be'Makheilos Borchu Elokim, Hashem mi'M'kor Yisrael" like Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa - who learns from there that even the unborn fetuses sang Shirah to Hashem after the miracles of the Yam-Suf.

(c) In spite of Rebbi Meir's D'rashah, Rebbi Avahu also extrapolates from the Pasuk the Din that Sheva B'rachos requires a Minyan - from the fact that the Pasuk uses the Lashon "mi'M'kor" (which has the connotation of marriage and Bi'ah) rather than "mi'Beten".

(d) And according to Rebbi Avahu, the Pasuk informs us that Bo'az collected ten people, not in order to teach us Sheva B'rachos (which would not have required Zekeinim) - but that he wanted to publicize the Halachah of "Amoni", 've'Lo Amonis' ... (over which a major dispute concerned was threatening the validity of Malchus Beis David).

(a) Rebbi Avahu explains Boaz's need to teach us the Halachah of "Amoni" 've'Lo Amonis ... ' in front of so many people - in order to gain sufficient publicity (as we just explained).

(b) We prove this from Shmuel, who instructed Rav Chana Bagdesa'ah to gather ten people in order to issue the ruling in front of them - that, 'ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar Kanah' (meaning that if someone acquires something on behalf of a fetus, then he [the fetus] acquires it), even though he is not yet in the world.

(c) We do not however, follow Shmuel's ruling in that matter - because we rule 've'Hilchasa ' ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar, Lo Kanah'.

(d) Shmuel's disciple was called Rav Chana *Bagdesa'ah* - meaning from Baghdad.

(a) The Tana Kama requires Birchas Chasanim when one goes under the Chupah. Rebbi Yehudah adds - that the Eirusin also requires Birchas Chasanim.

(b) Abaye confines Rebbi Yehudah's ruling to the province of Yehudah - where the Chasan and Kalah would meet privately (and were likely to be intimate - creating the need to recite Sheva B'rachos first [in order to avoid contravening the Halachah 'Kalah be'Lo B'rachah Asurah le'Ba'alah ke'Nidah']).

(c) The Tana Kama concedes that one recites - Birchas Eirusin at the Eirusin.

(d) The source for the statement (in Birchas Eirusin) 've'Asar Lanu es ha'Arusos' - is purely mi'de'Rabbanan, like we learned earlier 'Kalah be'Lo B'rachah Asurah le'Ba'alah ke'Nidah'.

(a) According to Rav Acha Brei de'Rava, one concludes Birchas Eirusin 'Baruch ... Mekadesh Yisrael al-yedei Chupah ve'Kidushin' because he compares it to Kidush. Birchas Eirusin is similar to Kidush - both as regards the length of the Berachah (inasmuch as it contains various phrases in between the beginning and the end, and as regards its name - 'Kidushin'.

(b) Ravin and Rabah, sons of Rav Ada, rule that one does not conclude Birchas Eirusin with a B'rachah - because it is similar to the B'rachos over fruit and Mitzvos, inasmuch as the entire B'rachah is all thanks to Hashem, and does contain any additional requests.

Next daf