Distinction: However, one who does not intend for Melachah at all, the reason he is exempt is not because we require Meleches Machsheves, for also in other places [than Shabbos] Eino Miskaven is exempt, e.g. regarding Sha'atnez;

Garment vendors may sell in the normal way [even if they wear Sha'atnez], as long as they do not intend [to benefit from the Sha'atnez - Kil'ayim 9:5];

Also, a Mishnah teaches that a Nazir may rub (shampoo) his hair, and separate [the hairs, as long as he does not intend to detach hairs];

Therefore, it is permitted also regarding wounding.

Explanation #1 (Rashi, R. Chananel, one version in the Aruch, and Seder Tana'im v'Amora'im): It is forbidden due to squeezing.

Question (R. Tam): Squeezing is forbidden due to laundering. It does not apply to other liquids;

Anything that dirties what absorbs it, e.g. wine, beer and oil, laundering does not apply to squeezing it. It applies only to water.

Strengthening of question: We do not decree lest one squeeze, like we decree about water, like it says in Shabbos (113b);

Citation (113b): If one was walking on Shabbos and encountered a stream... what should he do? If he will walk through the water, [his garments may get soaked and] he will come to squeeze!

Citation (Shabbos 147b - Beraisa): One may dry his entire body with a towel [on Shabbos], but he may not bring it in his hand;

The Gemara explains that this is lest he come to squeeze.

In Beitzah (18a) it says that all agree that we do not immerse Kelim [on Yom Tov. One opinion in] the Gemara says that this is a decree due to squeezing.

Distinction: In Shabbos (139b), a Mishnah permits straining wine through a cloth [on Shabbos].

Inference: Regarding wine, we do not decree due to squeezing!

Also in Beitzah (30a) it says that we should spread a garment [over a barrel of wine being carried]. We do not ask that he will come to squeeze [but we do not do so for water, lest he squeeze]. This is because laundering applies only to water.

Implied question #1: It says in Shabbos (128b) if [a woman who gave birth] needs oil, her friend brings to her [oil absorbed] in her hair;

The Gemara asks that she will come to squeeze, and answers that squeezing does not apply to hair;

Inference: Squeezing applies to oil!

Implied question #2: It says in Shabbos (143a) that if a sponge has a handle, one may clean with it. If not, one may not, for he will come to squeeze oil absorbed in it!

Answer (R. Tam): That squeezing is due to Mefarek (extracting). It is forbidden like squeezing olives and grapes [to extract the liquid inside].

Strengthening of question (b) (R. Tam): Here, we cannot say that it is forbidden due to Mefarek, for what is squeezed out goes to waste, even though it is a Pesik Reishei.

Support: Also the Aruch says that any Pesik Reishei that he is not pleased with is permitted.

His primary proof is from Zevachim (91b). According to R. Shimon (who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven), we may sprinkle wine on the fire [on the Mizbe'ach], even though it is a Pesik Reishei, for it surely extinguishes [somewhat. This is forbidden at all times];

Since he is not pleased with the extinguishing, it is permitted.

The Aruch brought another proof from Sukah 33a. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says that one may diminish berries on Yom Tov, i.e. berries on a myrtle branch [so there will be less berries than leaves, to be Machshir it for the Mitzvah];

The Gemara asked that he fixes a Kli, and establishes that he intends for eating. He holds like his father [who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven].

The Gemara asked that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei, and answered that he has another myrtle branch;

Inference: Since he is not pleased with this, and he is not concerned for this fixing, it is permitted, even though it is a Pesik Reishei.

Answer #1 (to question (b) - Ri): This is not difficult. We can say that one may not squeeze other liquids due to laundering, just like with water;

In any case we are not concerned lest he squeeze, since the taste and smell remain in the garments, and he would not benefit much from squeezing it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we could say that it is forbidden due to Mefarek;

Even though it is a Pesik Reishei d'Lo Nicha Lei, R. Shimon forbids l'Chatchilah, just like Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.

Rejection (of Aruch): The Aruch's proofs are invalid;

R. Shimon permits sprinkling wine on the fire. We can say that [normally Pesik Reishei d'Lo Nicha Lei is forbidden mid'Rabanan, but] a Mitzvah is different.

Similarly, we can say that the case of one who has another myrtle branch is permitted due to the Mitzvah. (Chelkas Yo'av asks, if he does not intend [to be Machshir it] and he does not need it, in what sense is this for a Mitzvah? Perhaps Chachamim were lenient, for even though now he does not need it, perhaps he will need it, e.g. one of his will become Pasul, or someone else will come who needs it. Rabah says that the Torah permits cooking on Yom Tov due to the possibility that guests will come - PF.)

Alternatively, it means as follows. [We asked] "it is a Pesik Reishei!", [and answered] he has another branch. Therefore, it is permitted according to R. Shimon, for perhaps he will not need it, so he did not fix a Kli. Therefore it is not a Pesik Reishei.

However, according to R. Yehudah, it is forbidden, lest he need it, and retroactively it is revealed that he made a Kli.

Question (against the Aruch): A Mishnah (Shabbos 107a) says that one who pierces an abscess on Shabbos, if it is to make an opening, he is liable. If it is to remove the pus, he is exempt;

Only due to pain, he is exempt and it is permitted. If not for pain, it would be forbidden, even though he is not pleased with the opening at all.

If he were pleased with the opening, even when he does not intend he would be liable!

Similarly, we permit moving a hand needle [on Shabbos] to remove a thorn [stuck in the skin, even though he will draw blood] due to pain. If not [for pain], it is forbidden, even though he is not pleased at all.

Question: If Pesik Reishei d'Lo Nicha Lei is forbidden, why does Rav say in Shabbos (145a) that if one squeezed [liquid from] pickled vegetables to improve them, he is exempt and it is permitted, since he does not need the water that comes out?

Even though he does not need it, it should be forbidden!

Answer #1 (Ri): We can say that only pickled vegetables are permitted, because what is squeezed from them is like a food that separated, and it is not called a liquid;

This is like we say, that if he squeezed them for their liquid, he is exempt, but it is forbidden.

Answer #2: Anything that one does b'Mezid (knowingly wets his clothes), it does not apply to say "perhaps he will squeeze." This is logical, since he does so intentionally;

Therefore, regarding straining wine, we are not concerned lest he squeeze.

Support: It is fine that we allow (Beitzah 18a) a Nidah to scheme and immerse in her clothes [to be Metaher them. If they are loose, they are not a Chatzitzah. We are not concerned lest she squeeze, since she intentionally wets them.]

Similarly, in Yoma (77b) we say that one who goes to greet his Rebbi [on Yom Kipur] may pass up to his neck in water. We do not decree lest he squeeze, since he intentionally does so.

Also, we can say that there is different, for it is a Mitzvah.

Explanation #2 (Aruch): We forbid tightly pressing cloth to fill a hole in a barrel of beer, lest one be Mevatel it (leave it there permanently), and he made a Kli on Shabbos.

Objection (Ri): What is the case?

If when he puts it there he intends to be Mevatel it, why is this called a Pesik Reishei? Immediately he makes a Kli, for he intends to do so!

If he did not intend to be Mevatel it, this is not a Pesik Reishei that he will make it a Kli!

Poor answer: He intends to be Mevatel it, but he does not intend to make it a Kli;

It is relevant to call this a Pesik Reishei, since he does not totally intend to make a Kli.

Explanation: We can answer similarly for Shmuel. Really, he holds like R. Shimon;

According to the version that says that blood is deposited, he needs the opening. According to the version that blood is attached, he needs the blood.

Explanation - Rhetorical question: Why did it mention Motza'ei Shabbos, if not to teach that he may have Bi'ah on Shabbos, even though he removes Besulim?!

Suggestion: Perhaps it mentioned Motza'ei Shabbos to teach that the four nights [for which we attribute blood to Dam Besulim] must be consecutive.

Rejection: They need not be consecutive. A Beraisa (Nidah 64b) mentions an episode in which they allowed her four nights over a period of 12 months.

Explanation: We give to her four nights until Motza'ei Shabbos. He may have Bi'ah every night and remove some Besulim, until Motza'ei Shabbos. It teaches that one may remove Besulim on Shabbos.

[Rava] answers that no, it is permitted except for Shabbos. It mentioned Motza'ei Shabbos to teach that they must be consecutive.

Implied question: We could have asked from the Beraisa in Nidah, which proves that they may be spread out!

Answer: Rather, we ask from the Beraisa itself [that Rava explains]. It says four nights until Motza'ei Shabbos!

Question: What did [Rava] think when he answered "except for Shabbos"? It explicitly says four nights!

Answer: He thought that it means that we give to her until Motza'ei Shabbos, except for Shabbos, which is four nights in all;

[Abaye] asked that it connotes that he has Bi'ah on four nights;

[Rava answers that] this [Heter for four nights including Shabbos] is when he had Bi'ah. It teaches like we explain below, that even though it is a tight opening [it is permitted].

Support: If she sees blood, we attribute it to Dam Besulim! Even so, it is permitted.

Explanation: Why did it mention Motza'ei Shabbos? We cannot say that it is to teach that they must be consecutive, like I explained.

Implied question: Why can't he answer like above, except for Shabbos?

Answer: If so, he is not exempt until Motza'ei Shabbos. This would imply that the Tana erred, for he exempts him until Motza'ei Shabbos;

However, above, even if we say except for Shabbos, and he cannot have Bi'ah on Shabbos, the Tana precisely taught until Motza'ei Shabbos;

This is because until Motza'ei Shabbos we attribute [blood] to Dam Besulim, if he transgressed and had Bi'ah.

Explanation: Abaye holds that [if he has] distraction without a Mitzvah, he is obligated;

However, distraction that he cannot do Bi'ah is considered distraction of a Mitzvah, since he is distracted about inability to do a Mitzvah.

Explanation: We say in Mo'ed Katan (15a) that since Hash-m told Yechezkeil [in his Avelus] "bind your glory upon you", this implies that other [Avelim] are forbidden.

Implied question: Rashi explained that it says "glory" regarding Tefilin, and an Avel is depressed (his head wallows in the earth)!

Answer: (He agrees with the Drashah in Mo'ed Katan.) He said so to explain why we do not learn other Mitzvos from Tefilin.

Question: What is different about Tefilin, that we say that only Yechezkeil was told [to wear them], but not other Avelim, and regarding Talmud Torah, we learn other Avelim from Yechezkeil?

We say there that an Avel is forbidden Talmud Torah, since Hash-m told Yechezkeil "be quiet"!

Answer: To forbid, we learn from Yechezkeil. Since Hash-m forbade Yechezkeil, also everyone is forbidden;

However, we do not learn from him to permit. The verse permits only him.

Implied question: Tana'im explicitly argue about this (first Bi'ah on Shabbos! What forced Abaye to say that Tana'im argue about whether inability to do Bi'ah is considered distraction of a Mitzvah?)

Answer: Even so, above Abaye struggled to say that inability to do Bi'ah is considered distraction of a Mitzvah, in order to establish the Mishnah (that Rav Yosef brought) like Shmuel, who forbids Bi'ah;

He establishes also the argument of the Beraisos to be about whether inability to do Bi'ah is considered distraction [of a Mitzvah], in order to establish like Shmuel as much as he can.

Explanation: It is not a Pesik Reishei, for the entire world are not like Bavliyim. Rather, they are experts. Therefore, they may have [first] Bi'ah [on Shabbos], as long as they do not intend for a full Bi'ah.

The Gemara asks, "if so, why is he distracted?" I.e. why did we exempt him from Keri'as Shema on Shabbos, since they are experts?

Granted, during the week there is distraction, since he intends for a full Bi'ah;

Even experts have distraction to have a full Bi'ah, like it says in Berachos (16a) that R. Gamliel was exempt [from Keri'as Shema], but he was stringent on himself, even though he was expert, for he was not a Bavli;

However, on Shabbos he does not intend for a full Bi'ah. Why is there distraction?

He answers, for one who is not expert. I.e. it is because he is not expert at the time of Keri'as Shema. Even those who are experts at the time of the act, before the act they fear lest they are not expert. Therefore, all of them are distracted.

Explanation: For everyone, it is a Safek whether he is from the majority, and all of them are permitted.

Inference: The majority are experts about Hatiyah.

Question: It says in Chagigah (14b) "if a Besulah became pregnant, is she permitted to a Kohen [Gadol]?

E.g. if she was checked through a barrel [she sat on it], and the smell [of the wine] did not come [through her and out of her mouth], are we concern for [people like] Shmuel, who said "I can have several Bi'os without blood"? (If so, she is forbidden to a Kohen Gadol.)

Or, perhaps she became pregnant through [sitting on semen] in a bathhouse?

We conclude that [people like] Shmuel are uncommon.

Also in Nidah (64b), we say that Shmuel was different. He was exceedingly expert.

Summation of question: Here we say that most are experts!

Answer: Shmuel was able to have full Bi'ah, from which a woman can become pregnant, without blood. A woman cannot become pregnant through Hatiyah;

Therefore, in Chagigah, we are not concerned for Hatiyah, only for [someone like] Shmuel.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since they are expert to have Bi'ah without blood, perhaps he will do Hatiyah, and she will not suspect that he did Hatiyah!

We answer that the Shushbinin and cloth are for if he will not do Hatiyah, and have full Bi'ah, and the cloth will be lost;

If he will do Hatiyah and say that he did not find Besulim, she can say that she is still a Besulah.

Question (Ri): This does not answer what he asked! He should have answered that it crosses her mind to say "I am still a Besulah." The primary answer is not in the text.

Explanation #2 (Ri, R. Tam): We asked only about Shabbos. Why are there Shushbinin and a cloth? He must have Bi'ah through Hatiyah;

It is common practice to have Shushbinin even on Shabbos.

He answered that perhaps it will occur that he did not do Hatiyah. He will do a full Bi'ah, and the Dam Besulim will be lost;

This is like "why is he distracted?" Also that question was [only] about Shabbos.

Explanation: This opening is made for entrance and exit. Air enters and pus leaves.

Observation: In Shabbos (107b) we establish this like R. Shimon.

Explanation: The Hava Amina of R. Ami, who asked, is that blood is deposited and he needs the blood, but not the opening;

It is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, and even so, Shmuel forbids. Therefore, he asked from piercing an abscess;

Just like one who intends to remove pus is exempt, and we hold that he is exempt and it is permitted, since he does not need the opening [also here it should be permitted]!

Implied question: In other cases of Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, one is exempt, but it is forbidden!

Answer: Regarding an abscess it is permitted, due to pain;

Also here, we should permit due to the Mitzvah!

Further, even if we should permit due to pain more than for a Mitzvah, like R. Tam explained above, [R. Ami] asks properly here, for surely it is a Pesik Reishei regarding the opening. If not for pain, it would be forbidden;

However, regarding Bi'ah, we should permit even without pain, since it is not a Pesik Reishei regarding the opening!