When Rava offers an answer after up-shlugging Abaye by proving distress in not an exemption with the mourner and tefilin, he brings down a beraisa to prove it's a machlokes tana'im and Abaye rebuttals that really they're arguing about if distress is an exemption. Why does Abaye keep up this point if Rava already up-shlugged it?
Tzvi Levi, Manalapan, USA
Rava does indeed disprove Abaye's interpretation of the Mishnah in B'rachos, in that the Chasan is Patur from K'ri'as Sh'ma, not because he is distressed (as Abaye suggests, but) because he is worried about the imminent Be'ilas Mitzvah.
That is not however, the main theme of the Sugya, which is concerned whether one is permitted to perform the Be'ilah of a Besulah on Shabbos.
In that context, Rav Yosef proves that one may from the Mishnah in B'rachos, which exempts him on the grounds of being worried about the Mitzvah. Abaye then tries to refute it by interpreting the worry with regard to personal distress. Along comes Rava, and re-establishes the Mishnah like Rav Yosef.
Bear in mind that neither Abaye's Kashya on Rav Yosef nor Rava's vindication of Rav Yosef, reflect their own opinions. In fact, on top of the same Amud, it is Rava who counters the proof that Be'ilas Mitzvah is permitted on Shabbos, and Abaye who attempts to uphold it (the exact opposite of their current opinions).
Consequently, all Abaye and Rava are doing are bringing proofs and counter proofs, which at the end of the day, leave us with no conclusive ruling. If anything, we have conflicting opinions.
It is hardly surprising therefore, that Rava concludes with a Beraisa demonstrating that, it is in fact, a Machlokes Tana'im
May we be Zocheh to witness the coming of Mashi'ach and the building of the third Beis-Hamikdash soon.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler