THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
KESUVOS 6-9 - have been anonymously dedicated by a unique Ohev Torah and
Marbitz Torah living in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
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.
2) PERFORMING "BE'ILAH RISHONAH" WITH "HATAYAH"
The Gemara explains that this Beraisa is not proof that it is permitted to
perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos (i.e., that the blood is not absorbed
within the flesh and extracting it is not considered to be 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 where
he already performed the first Be'ilah before Shabbos, then what is the
Beraisa teaching us? The Gemara answers that the Beraisa is teaching us 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 and causing stones
to become detached from the sides, then why is it permitted on Shabbos? It
should be prohibited just like the Be'ilah Rishonah is prohibited on Shabbos
-- because of the blood coming out! 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 it is permitted to walk into a narrow
opening even though one 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. Because of this, 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 Isur of Be'ilah on Shabbos with other women who have been married for a
while and who will not bleed, Be'ilah with this 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 this wall will cause stones
to be detached, and if Be'ilah with this woman will cause blood to flow, then
it is a Pesik Reshei and is certainly prohibited!
We do find, however, a concept similar to that which the questioner suggests,
in 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 one
intends 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
There is, however, a clear difference between the Halachah presented by Rashi
in Zevachim and that of the questioner in the Rivash. In Rashi's case, the
person pouring the wine has an alternate way to achieve *his* goal, by
pouring the wine in a way in which an Isur will not be done. In the cases of
our Gemara, though, there is no way for *this person* to achieve his goal
without doing an Isur; stones will definitely be rubbed off when walking
through the narrow opening, and blood will definitely be caused to flow when
doing Be'ilah on Shabbos.
(b) The RIVASH himself explains that when Shmuel says "even though one causes
stones to be detached," he does not mean that stones will certainly fall when
the person walks there, but that there is a *possibility* that stones will be
detached; it is not a Pesik Reshei. Similarly, there is a *possibility*, but
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 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. Thus, Beis Hillel is ruling that a "Davar
she'Eino Miskaven" is permitted. If so, how will Rebbi Yehudah -- who says
that "Davar she'Eino Miskaven" is prohibited -- understand this Halachah of
Beis Hillel? He certainly cannot be arguing with Beis Hillel!
Perhaps the Gemara holds that according to Rebbi Yehudah, Beis Hillel holds
that the first Be'ilah is indeed permitted on Shabbos because of Mekalkel.
Beis Hillel is not discussing entering a narrow opening at all.
Alternatively, entering the 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
(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 that has loose stones on the
sides that are not attached which are brushed off when one rubs against them.
QUESTIONS: The Gemara cites the Chachamim who rule that it 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 still 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 Hatayah, it is not considered a Pesik
Reshei and is permitted.
The Gemara then asks that if a person is able to perform Be'ilah with
Hatayah, then why is a person who is newly married exempt from Keri'as Shema
because he is "Tarud" (worried) about performing the Mitzvah (on Shabbos, -
Tosfos), as the Mishnah in Berachos says? The person can simply do Be'ilah
with Hatayah and then he has nothing to be worried about! The Gemara answers
that the Mishnah there is referring 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 at Hatayah should
be permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos, and one who is not an
expert should be prohibited. To this the Gemara answers that "Rov Beki'in
Hen," most people are experts.
The Gemara seems to be saying 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.
The RASHBA asks, first, 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?
Second, if every expert in Hatayah is required to read Keri'as Shema, then
why does the Mishnah in Berachos ask that Raban Gamliel should have been
exempt from Keri'as Shema? Being from Eretz Yisrael, and not Bavel, he was
certainly part of the majority who can do Hatayah ("Rov Beki'in Hen") and
thus he was not "Tarud." Why, then, did Raban Gamliel's Talmidim question why
he read Keri'as Shema the night of his marriage?
Third, 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?
Fourth, the Gemara concludes that Be'ilah Rishonah is permitted on Shabbos,
and this is the Halachah (as the Poskim rule). Based on our Sugya, though, it
should only be permitted for one who is an expert in Hatayah, and who
specifically intends to do Hatayah! Why, then, do the Poskim say that Be'ilah
Rishonah on Shabbos is permitted without mentioning that one must do Hatayah?
(HAGAHOS ASHIRI; see DERISHAH in EH 63:1.)
Another very basic question on the Sugya is that our 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 *should not* be recited by those who are not
experts. However, the Chachamim instituted that *no one* should recite
Keri'as Shema on their 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 and Rashi, Sukah top of
44a). 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 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, it should have been prohibited for
a person who is not an expert to perform Be'ilas Mitzvah on Shabbos, but the
Chachamim permitted him to do it because of "Lo Sisgodedu," establishing the
same protocol of conduct for everyone.
Although this answers the questions we asked above (except for the last one),
it is a forced answer. We do not find that it is *prohibited* for a Tarud to
say Keri'as Shema. In addition, how can Lo Sisgodedu be applied to Be'ilas
Mitzvah, an act that is, by nature, done in private? And if it does apply,
why did the Chachamim not *prohibit* it to everyone, instead of permitting it
(b) RASHI (DH Baki Mutar) appears to say that even a "Baki" cannot be certain
that he will do Be'ilah with Hatayah and avoid extracting blood. Rather, when
we refer to a person who is a "Baki" to do Be'ilah with Hatayah, we mean one
who is *able* to do Hatayah. Hatayah is not something that one has decides to
do and does based on skill. It is not an expertise that is acquired through
experience. Rather, it is a *physiological nature*. Some people are able to
do Hatayah because of their physiological make-up, and others are not able to
do Hatayah. That is what is meant by a "Baki" at Hatayah.
This explains how a Bachur could be a Baki. Hatayah has nothing to do with
acquired knowledge (of which a Bachur certainly has none), but rather the
physiology of a 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
Why, though, do the Poskim not mention that those people (the minority) who
do not have the physiology required for doing Hatayah are prohibited from
doing Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos? The answer is because 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 thought 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 answering that being a Baki means only that it is possible that he
will not extract blood and therefore it 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
Therefore, even a Baki is exempt from Keri'as Shema, and 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 says that as far as Keri'as
Shema is concerned, even a Baki is exempt, because he is not confident 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, it is not a Pesik Reshei and is
Mutar (RIVASH #394).
The RITVA explains the Gemara differently according to Rabeinu Tam. He
explains that when Rabah said that Bavlis do not know how to do Hatayah, he
did not mean that they literally do not know how to do Hatayah. He simply
meant 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 what Rabah was saying. 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, though, that Be'ilah Rishonah should still be permitted
on Shabbos *only* if a person intends to do Hatayah, because then at least he
*might* do Hatayah. Tosfos (DH Lo) writes clearly that it is permitted to do
Be'ilah Rishonah as long as one does not have intention to do Be'ilah
Gemurah. Why, then, do the Poskim leave out 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 if a person intends to do
Be'ilah Gemurah and specifically wants to avoid Hatayah; such a Be'ilah is
Asur because it is a Pesik Reshei that blood will flow. As long as a person
does not have anything in particular in mind, it is permitted to perform
Be'ilah in the normal manner, because one might do Hatayah. (Tosfos here is
following his own explanation elsewhere; see Insights to 5b.)