1) THE SECOND "BE'ILAH" ON SHABBOS
QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that a person may perform Be'ilah with a Besulah during the first four nights after the wedding, even though one of those nights is Shabbos.
The Gemara explains that the Beraisa does not provide proof that one is permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos (i.e. that the blood is not absorbed within the flesh and thus extracting it is not considered a Melachah of Chaburah), because in the case of the Beraisa he already performed Be'ilah before Shabbos, and thus when he does Be'ilah again on Shabbos he is not making a Chaburah. The Gemara asks that if the case of the Beraisa is when he already performed the first Be'ilah before Shabbos, then what new law does the Beraisa teach? The Gemara answers that the Beraisa teaches the Halachah of Shmuel, that a person is permitted to enter a narrow opening on Shabbos even though he rubs off stones from the sides of the opening.
If the Be'ilah on Shabbos still causes Dam Besulim to come out during the first four nights, like walking through a narrow opening causes stones to become detached from the sides, then why is it permitted on Shabbos? It should be prohibited just as the Be'ilah Rishonah is prohibited on Shabbos -- because of the blood that is drawn. Even if he does not intend to extract the blood, it is still a "Pesik Reshei" and should be prohibited.
(a) The RIVASH (#394) addresses the comments sent to him by a questioner. The questioner suggests that the reason one is permitted to walk into a narrow opening even though he thereby rubs off stones from the sides is because had the stones been firmly cemented into the wall, they would not have been rubbed off. Accordingly, even if the stones are not cemented-in firmly it is not considered a "Pesik Reshei" if he rubs them off. Similarly, since there is no prohibition of Be'ilah on Shabbos in the case of women who have been married for a while and who will not bleed, Be'ilah with a newly married woman is not considered a "Pesik Reshei" (even though she will bleed). It remains no more than a "Davar she'Eino Miskaven" and is permitted.
The Rivash rejects this approach emphatically. He says that there is no logic to justify such a suggestion. If rubbing against the wall will cause stones to be detached, and if Be'ilah with the woman will cause blood to flow, then it is a "Pesik Reshei" and certainly is prohibited.
However, a concept similar to that which the questioner suggests is expressed by RASHI in Zevachim (91b, DH Ha Rebbi Shimon). Rashi explains that pouring wine (for the Nesachim) on the fire of the Mizbe'ach is permitted because one does not intend to extinguish the fire of the Mizbe'ach but rather to bring the wine offering. Rashi there adds that extinguishing the fire is not a "Pesik Reshei" because it is possible to pour the wine with very small drops that will not extinguish the flame, and therefore even if one pours thick drops that extinguish the flame on the Mizbe'ach it is a "Davar she'Eino Miskaven" and not a "Pesik Reshei" (because he could have poured small drops).
There is, however, a clear difference between the Halachah presented by Rashi in Zevachim and that of the questioner quoted by the Rivash. In Rashi's case, the person who pours the wine has an alternative way to achieve his goal, by pouring the wine in a way in which no Isur will be done. In the cases of the Gemara here, however, there is no way for this person to achieve his goal without doing an Isur; stones definitely will be rubbed off when he walks through the narrow opening, and blood definitely will flow when he does Be'ilah on Shabbos.
(b) The RIVASH himself explains that Shmuel's words, "even though one causes stones to be detached," do not mean that stones will certainly fall when the person walks there, but that there is a possibility that stones will fall. His act is not a "Pesik Reshei." Similarly, there is only a possibility, not a certainty, that the woman will bleed, and therefore it is not a "Pesik Reshei." This also seems to be the intention of Rashi (DH she'Meshir Tzeroros) who writes that "perhaps he will cause bleeding."
However, this approach still does not answer the Gemara fully. The Halachah that Be'ilah is permitted during the first four nights after the wedding is quoted in the name of Beis Hillel. If Beis Hillel is ruling that a "Davar she'Eino Miskaven" is permitted, how will Rebbi Yehudah -- who says that a "Davar she'Eino Miskaven" is prohibited -- understand the ruling of Beis Hillel? He certainly cannot argue with Beis Hillel.
Perhaps the Gemara understands that according to Rebbi Yehudah, Beis Hillel maintains that the first Be'ilah indeed is permitted on Shabbos because of Mekalkel. Beis Hillel is not discussing entering a narrow opening at all.
Alternatively, entering a narrow opening is not even a "Davar she'Eino Miskaven" because it is very unusual for the stones to become detached, or for bleeding to occur. Therefore, it is permitted even according to Rebbi Yehudah.
(c) The RASHBA writes that the bleeding that occurs after the first day is not from the Chaburah made to the Besulim. Rather, it is just blood that was stuck to the sides of the flesh that was already separated from the flesh. It is similar to walking into a narrow opening where there are loose stones which are not attached to the sides of the opening and which are brushed off when one rubs against them.
2) PERFORMING "BE'ILAH RISHONAH" WITH "HATAYAH"
QUESTIONS: The Gemara cites the Chachamim who rule that one is permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos because causing blood to come out is a "Davar she'Eino Miskaven." Abaye asks that it should be prohibited because it is a "Pesik Reshei." Rabah replies that since there are those who have experience with performing Be'ilah with "Hatayah," and not like the Bavli'im who have no experience with Be'ilah in such a manner, it is not considered a "Pesik Reshei" and is permitted.
The Gemara asks that if a man is able to perform Be'ilah with Hatayah, then why is a man who is newly married exempt from the Mitzvah of Keri'as Shema because he is "Tarud" (worried) about performing the Mitzvah (on Shabbos; Tosfos), as the Mishnah in Berachos says? The Chasan simply should do Be'ilah with Hatayah and then he has nothing to worry about. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah there refers to a person who is not an expert in Hatayah, who is "Tarud" and is thus exempt from Keri'as Shema.
The Gemara then asks that according to this, only an expert in Hatayah should be permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos, and one who is not an expert should be prohibited. The Gemara answers that "Rov Beki'in Hen," most people are experts.
The Gemara apparently means that some people are able to do Hatayah and some are not. Those who are not able to do Hatayah are "Tarud" because of the Be'ilas Mitzvah and they are exempt from Keri'as Shema even on Shabbos. Also, such people are not permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos since they do not know how to do it with Hatayah.
There are a number of obvious questions on the Gemara.
1. The RASHBA asks that if a non-expert is not permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos, then why is he "Tarud" and exempt from Keri'as Shema? An expert is not "Tarud" because he can do Hatayah, and a non-expert is not "Tarud" because he is not permitted to perform the Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos! Since no one will do a complete, prohibited form of Be'ilah on Shabbos, why should anyone be "Tarud" and exempt from Keri'as Shema?
2. If every expert in Hatayah is required to read Keri'as Shema, why does the Mishnah in Berachos ask that Raban Gamliel should have been exempt from Keri'as Shema? Raban Gamliel was from Eretz Yisrael and not Bavel, and thus he certainly was part of the majority who are able to do Hatayah ("Rov Beki'in Hen") and he was not "Tarud." Why, then, did Raban Gamliel's Talmidim question why he read Keri'as Shema the night of his marriage?
3. If Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos is permitted only according to Rebbi Shimon because a person is an expert and will do Hatayah, then why does the Tana Kama argue and prohibit it? What reason could there be to prohibit the Be'ilah Rishonah for an expert who does Hatayah?
4. The Gemara concludes that Be'ilah Rishonah is permitted on Shabbos, and this is the Halachah (as the Poskim rule). Based on the Sugya here, however, it should be permitted only for one who is an expert in Hatayah and who specifically intends to do Hatayah! Why do the Poskim rule that Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos is permitted unconditionally, and make no mention that one must do Hatayah? (HAGAHOS ASHIRI; see DERISHAH, EH 63:1.)
5. Another basic question on the Sugya is that the Mishnah is discussing a man who was never married before (as the Gemara says on 9a-b). How, then, could he be an expert in Hatayah?
(a) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES cites the RADVAZ who explains that, in theory, Keri'as Shema should be recited on the night of one's wedding by one who is an expert in Hatayah, and it should not be recited by one who is not an expert. However, the Chachamim instituted that no one should recite Keri'as Shema on his wedding night because of "Lo Sisgodedu" (to prevent making it look like there are two distinctly separate groups of people following two separate Halachos; see Yevamos 13b, Rashi to Sukah 44a, DH l'Didhu). The Chachamim could not have instituted conformity the other way by having everyone, including the non-expert, read Keri'as Shema on his wedding night, because it would be a lack of Kavod Shamayim to institute that Keri'as Shema be recited by someone who is not able to concentrate.
Similarly, with regard to Be'ilas Mitzvah on Shabbos, it should have been prohibited for a person who is not an expert in Hatayah, but the Chachamim permitted him to do it because of "Lo Sisgodedu," as they sought to establish the same protocol of conduct for everyone.
Although this approach answers the questions above (except for the last one), it is a forced answer. The Gemara and Poskim mention only that one is "Tarud" is not obligated to say Keri'as Shema, but not that he is prohibited to say Keri'as Shema. Moreover, how can "Lo Sisgodedu" be applied to Be'ilas Mitzvah, an act that is always done in private? If for some reason it does apply to Be'ilas Mitzvah, why did the Chachamim not prohibit it to everyone instead of permitting it to everyone?
(b) RASHI (DH Baki Mutar) apparently maintains that even an expert cannot be certain that he will do Be'ilah with Hatayah and avoid extracting blood. Rather, when the Gemara refers to a person who is an "expert" ("Baki") in Hatayah, it means one who is able to do Hatayah. Hatayah is not something that one decides to do and does based on skill. It is not an expertise acquired through experience. Rather, it is an anatomical nature. Some people are able to do Hatayah because of their physiological constitution, while others are unable to do Hatayah. This is what is meant by a "Baki" at Hatayah.
This explains how a Bachur who was never married before might still be a "Baki" in Hatayah. Hatayah is unrelated to acquired knowledge (of which a Bachur has none), but rather it depends on the physiology of the person.
This also explains why Rebbi Yehudah argues. He prohibits Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos because even a "Baki" might end up not doing Hatayah. The act is therefore prohibited because of "Davar she'Eino Miskaven."
This also explains why the Halachah does not require that a person intend to do Hatayah, or that a person be an expert of some sort. He must simply have a particular physiological constitution.
Why, though, do the Poskim not mention that those people (the minority) who do not have the physiology required for Hatayah are prohibited from doing Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos? The answer is that a person cannot know whether he is able to do Hatayah or not before he does Be'ilah for the first time. Therefore, it is permitted for one to follow the Rov and to assume that he is probably a "Baki." (Rashi DH Rov Beki'in, TOSFOS DH Rov.)
When the Gemara asks that a "Baki" should be obligated to read Keri'as Shema since he is not "Tarud," the Gemara at that point assumes that a "Baki" is always able to do Hatayah and therefore he has nothing to worry about. The Gemara answers that even the "Baki" is not a complete expert since he cannot know for sure that he is going to do Hatayah; it is only a possibility. The Gemara is saying that being a "Baki" means only that it is possible that he will not extract blood and therefore the act is not a "Pesik Reshei." There is still an element of anxiety involved since one is never certain that he will do Hatayah. (Rashi's Girsa in the Gemara probably read "she'Eino Baki" instead of "l'she'Eino Baki," like the Girsa of the Rashba and the Munich manuscript.)
Therefore, even a "Baki" is exempt from Keri'as Shema. That is why the Mishnah in Berachos says that everyone is exempt from Keri'as Shema on the night of one's wedding, and even Raban Gamliel also should have been exempt.
(c) RABEINU TAM (cited by the Ritva and other Rishonim, and cited in part by Tosfos DH Lo) explains the Sugya differently. He explains that with regard to Keri'as Shema, even a "Baki" is exempt because does not have confidence in himself that he will be a "Baki" until he actually performs the Be'ilah. Hence, he is nervous on his wedding night and is exempt from Keri'as Shema. That is why Raban Gamliel and other "experts" are also exempt from Keri'as Shema on their wedding night.
Why is a person who is not an expert permitted to perform Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos, as we asked above? The answer is that since most people are experts and can intend to do Hatayah, it stands to reason that the minority who are not able to do Hatayah at will might, nevertheless, accidentally do Hatayah. Therefore, for those people, too, the act is not a "Pesik Reshei" and is permitted (RIVASH #394).
The RITVA explains the Gemara differently according to Rabeinu Tam. He explains that when Rabah says that the people of Bavel do not know how to do Hatayah, he does not mean that they literally do not know how to do Hatayah. He means that the Bavli'im are not aware that it is possible (for anybody) to do Hatayah, and therefore they think that causing blood to flow as a result of Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos is a "Pesik Reshei." They are mistaken, however, and the truth is that it is not a "Pesik Reshei."
Abaye, who asked that one who is not a "Baki" should be prohibited from doing Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos, misunderstood Rabah's intention. Rabah corrected him and explained that he did not mean that there are some people who cannot do Hatayah. Rather, he meant that "Rov Beki'in Hen," meaning that everyone can do Hatayah.
The question remains, however, that Be'ilah Rishonah still should be permitted on Shabbos only if the man intends to do Hatayah, because then at least he might do Hatayah. Tosfos (DH Lo) writes clearly that one is permitted to do Be'ilah Rishonah as long as he does not have intention to do Be'ilah Gemurah. Why, then, do the Poskim make no mention of this condition?
The answer might be that Tosfos writes only that one must not have intention to do Be'ilah Gemurah (in the negative). He does not write that one must intend to do Be'ilah with Hatayah (in the positive). Tosfos is saying that Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos is prohibited only when the man intends to do Be'ilah Gemurah and specifically wants to avoid Hatayah; such a Be'ilah is prohibited because it is a "Pesik Reshei" that blood will flow. As long as the man has no particular intention in mind, he is permitted to perform Be'ilah in the normal manner because he might do Hatayah. (Tosfos here follows his own explanation elsewhere; see Insights to 5b.)