Citation (cont.): If one rock was removed and he towered over the second, he is Tahor, for the Tum'ah has a place to leave.

According to R. Tam, what is the relevance of a place [for the Tum'ah] to leave?!

Question #2: In the Tosefta of Ohalos, a Beraisa mentions an episode in which someone died on Erev Pesach, and they did not want to bury him. Women entered and tied the rope to the Golel, and men pulled from outside, and women buried him. The men went and did Korban Pesach in the evening.

Inference: The women could not bury him until the men pulled the Golel from outside.

If Golel is a Matzevah, why couldn't they bury him without a Matzevah until after Pesach?!

Conclusion: Rather, surely it is a coffin cover, like Rashi explained. It was of stone, therefore it was so heavy.

Alternate text: Some texts say "Bo Ohf" (he will slaughter a bird on Shabbos).

Implied question: The word "Shabbos" is feminine. It says "Mechaleleha Mos Yumas"! (If so, it should say "Bah Of.")

Answer: Shabbos is also masculine - "Kol ha'Oseh Bo Melachah Yumas", "Shomer Shabbos me'Chalelo."

Defense #1 (of our text): Also the text "Ben Ohf" is fine. People normally slaughter [birds that are] tender and small, like it says "Shenei Bnei Yonah."

Defense #2: In Kidushin (36b) we learn from Ben Ohf from Ben Tzon. For Ben Tzon, the Torah did not fix [that a Kohen must slaughter it...]

Question: Why does he (the Tana) mention Yom Kipur, which is [a time when many people slaughter] only according to R. Yosi ha'Glili?

Citation (Mishnah): At four times in the year, one who sells an animal must inform [the buyer, e.g. if] "I sold its mother for Shechitah..."; and according to R. Yosi ha'Glili, even Erev Yom Kipur in Galil.

Why didn't [our Tana] mention one of the four times that all agree about?

Answer: On Erev Yom Kipur they used to [eat] many birds and fish, like it connotes in Bereishis Rabah (11) regarding the tailor who bought [the seller's last] fish [for an exorbitant price, and no fish remained for the governor. He explained that we must show honor to the day when Hash-m atones for our sins. He received a great reward.]

This is because it is a day of forgiveness and atonement. At the [other] four times, they used to [eat] many animals. There is no need to decree lest one slaughter [an animal on Shabbos, because it harder than Shechitah of birds. Before doing such a major Shechitah, he would remember that it is Shabbos.]

Explanation: Granted, if the Beraisa would have taught that a Besulah has Bi'ah on Thursday due to calming down, like we asked, and not due to the Berachah to fish, which is not important, we would understand why a widow has Bi'ah on Friday due to Berachah;

However, now that the reason for a Besulah is Berachah, also a widow should have Bi'ah on Thursday!

Question: How could we say that it is due to Shakdu? The explicitly taught that it is due to Berachah!

Answer: According to this answer, the Beraisa means as follows. A widow is married on Thursday and has Bi'ah on Friday, i.e. due to Shakdu, like another Beraisa explains.

Question: Due to the Berachah to fish, we should have abandoned the enactment of Shakdu! (Maharsha - we should not have enacted due to Shakdu, since there is another day with an attribute.)

Answer: Chachamim were not concerned for this, since also on Friday was said a Berachah to man.

Implied question: (We already know a difference!) One who does not fulfill Berachah is not called a transgressor!

Answer #1: In any case, we ask why we need the reason of Berachah.

Answer #2: We ask what is the difference between the version that answers that the Berachah to man is better, and the version that says alternatively, due to Shakdu;

We answer that they argue about an idle man, or Yom Tov that falls [on Erev Shabbos];

According to the version that the Beraisa is due to Shakdu, and not due to Berachah, here that Shakdu does not apply, she may have Bi'ah on Thursday if he wants;

However, according to the version that the Beraisa is due to Berachah, like the simple meaning of the Beraisa connotes, even an idle man, or when Yom Tov falls on Erev Shabbos, and Shakdu does not apply, due to Berachah she should have Bi'ah on Friday.

Even according to this version, had they not enacted due to Shakdu, due to Berachah alone they would not fix a day, like I explained above (2a DH v'Tinasei) regarding "she should marry on Sunday!"

Explanation: This (Yadi) connotes one.

Implied question: The verse ends "vi'Ymini Tafchah Shamayim", and it says in Menachos (36b) that "Yad" refers to the left hand. If so, both hands are written!

Answer: In any case in any one deed there is only one [hand written];

However, regarding Tzadikim, in one deed, e.g. the Beis ha'Mikdash, two hands are written.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to the Bohen Yad (thumb) of a Metzora. (We put Dam Asham and oil on it.)

Objection #1: If so, it should have said "this is Bohen"!

Objection #2: Even if the fingers were not separate, one could put on the thumb alone, for it is the shortest!

Explanation #2: It refers to Kemitzah, like a Mishnah (Menachos 11a) says, that he wipes off [excess sticking out past his index finger] with his thumb above;

However, he could not use the other hand for this, since Avodah must be with the right hand.

Question: (Surely it is forbidden!) They enacted that a Besulah be married on Wednesday [and have Bi'ah that night]!

Answer: If it occurred that he did not have Bi'ah on Wednesday night, they did not obligate him to wait until another Wednesday or Sunday night (so he can go to Beis Din the next morning if he has Ta'anas Besulim);

Therefore, he asks whether or not Bi'ah is permitted on Shabbos.

Implied question: A Beraisa above (3b) teaches that we separate the Chasan from the Kalah on Shabbos night because he wounds, and another Beraisa (4a) says "in any case [whether or not there is an Ones], he may not have Bi'ah on Erev Shabbos, and not [on Motza'ei Shabbos]."

Answer #1 (Rashi): The Makshan did not know the Beraisa. (Tosfos ha'Rosh's text says "Lehu", i.e. he did not know either Beraisa.)

Answer #2 (Rashi): He knew it, and asked whether the Halachah follows it, for we can say that R. Yehudah and R. Shimon argue about this.

Observation: You are forced to say that he did not know the Beraisa that is concerned lest he slaughter a young bird. If he knew it, what did he ask? R. Yehudah and R. Shimon do not argue about this! (R. Akiva Eiger - perhaps he held that the Halachah does not follow this Beraisa, for another Beraisa is concerned only for wounding! Hafla'ah - perhaps he held that concern for Shechitah is only on Motza'ei Shabbos, when he is rushed. On Erev Shabbos, the Beraisa forbids due to wounding, and Tana'im argue about this.)

Implied question: Why didn't the Gemara resolve the question from this Beraisa in the end?

Answer: We find Tana'im who argue with it.

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Shabbos 107b): One is liable for wounding due to dying, regarding the eight Sheratzim [listed in the Torah]

Citation (107b - Beraisa): If the blood gathers in one place, even if it did not leave [he is liable].

Question #1 (Ri): In Chulin (46b), in the Sugya of the lungs, a Beraisa says "[one is not liable for] other Sheratzim and vermin until the blood leaves them.

Why does dying apply to other Sheratzim? They do not have skin!

Question #2: Also here, how does dying apply to this wound [of Besulim]?!

Question #3: Also regarding the wound of Bris Milah, dying does not apply! (Why is it permitted on Shabbos only on the eighth day?)

Question #4: You are forced to say according to Shmuel that there is another reason, for in Shabbos (75a) he said that one who slaughters is not liable for dying, rather, for killing!

Explanation #2: Rather, the reason for wounding is due to killing, like Shmuel said there.

Rav said there that [he is liable] for dying. He means even for dying.

Suggestion: [He is liable for] killing, i.e. because he weakens it, and removes part of the Neshamah.

Rejection: Here he does not need the woman to become weak!

Defense: However, we can say that the Isur we discuss here is mid'Rabanan.

Objection: However, regarding Milah it connotes that there is a Torah Isur of drawing blood;

Citation (Shabbos 133b): If a Mohel does not suck [blood from the Ever after the Milah], this is dangerous, and we depose him.

Citation (cont.) Objection: This is obvious! Since we are Mechalel Shabbos for this [surely there is mortal danger not to do so]!

Citation (cont.) Answer: One might have thought that the blood is deposited (so there is no Chilul Shabbos). He teaches that this is not so. The blood is connected.

Inference: If wounding were due to weakening, there would be no Chilul Shabbos, for this is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. There is no need to weaken the baby!

Explanation (R. Tam): Drawing blood is considered killing, for "ha'Dam Hu ha'Nefesh." When one removes some of the blood, he removes some of the Neshamah.

Question (Ri): We say in Shabbos (75a) regarding one who traps a Chilazon (the fish whose blood is used to make Techeiles) "one who bruises it should be liable also for killing!"

Citation (75a) Answer: He is Mis'asek regarding killing (he is engaged in something else, without intent for this). As long as it has a Neshamah, he prefers this...

According to this (R. Tam's Perush), even if it is totally alive, there is killing!

Answer (R. Tam): The blood of the Chilazon used for dying is deposited. One is not liable for it for killing;

Regarding the rest of the blood, which is attached, he is considered Mis'asek.

Question: This is a Pesik Reishei regarding the opening!

Answer: We must say that he can extract blood without making an opening.

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): He needs to extract the blood so he will not get dirty another time when he has Bi'ah.

Consequence: According to this, below, when we say that blood is attached, if he needs the blood, it is forbidden, even though it is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, which is permitted in a situation of pain, regarding bursting an abscess [to remove the pus - Shabbos 107a];

[Even so,] here, regarding a Mitzvah, it is forbidden.

Below (6b DH v'Im) we will explain the question from bursting an abscess according to his Perush.

Explanation #2 (Ri): He needs the blood to see if she was a Besulah.

Explanation: R. Yehudah holds that one who is Mekalkel (ruins) is exempt.

Implied question: He holds that he is exempt, but it is forbidden!

Answer: Here it is permitted l'Chatchilah, for there are two [reasons to exempt]: he ruins regarding a wound, and it is Davar she'Eino Miskaven (he does not intent for it).

Question: R. Yehudah forbids dragging [a chair on earth, lest it make a furrow], even though there are two [reasons to exempt]: Davar she'Eino Miskaven, and also he ruins, like we say in Chagigah (10a);

We establish the teaching that exempts one who digs a cavity and needs only the earth even like R. Yehudah, who obligates for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah;

He is exempt because he is Mekalkel.

In Beitzah (23a), R. Yehudah forbids combing [an animal with a fine comb], even though it is Davar she'Eino Miskaven [to draw blood], and he ruins!

Answer #1: Here it is permitted more, for there is also a Mitzvah.

Answer #2: Also not for a Mitzvah, when there are two reasons [to exempt], he permits;

We can establish the case of [dragging, which might make] a furrow to be when he does not totally ruin. It fixes matters a little in one respect, for it evens out cavities;

Also regarding combing, drawing blood lightens the animal a little, like letting blood.

Inference: If the Halachah follows R. Shimon, it is permitted even if he is Metaken (constructive), since he does not intend.

Question: At the end of the fourth Perek of Kerisus (19a), R. Shimon said "since Mekalkel in a wound is liable, also Mis'asek is liable.

Why is Eino Miskaven different? R. Shimon exempts this regarding wounding, more than he exempts Mis'asek!

Answer: Mis'asek intends for Melachah. He is exempt on Shabbos only because it is not Meleches Machsheves (intended);

Therefore, R. Shimon obligates Mis'asek in wounding, just like Mekalkel in wounding, for which R. Shimon obligated, even though it is not Meleches Machsheves;

Therefore, its law depends on Mekalkel, because the reason why both of them are exempt for other Melachos of Shabbos is because we require Meleches Machsheves.