Explanation: This is because it is possible to remove blood without making an opening, like is proven above (5b);

Explanation (cont.): We answer that here it is deposited and not uprooted from the flesh. He (the Tartzan) holds that blood is [somewhat; Chasam Sofer - looks like it is] attached.

Implied question: He could have answered that he (a Chasan) needs the opening!

Answer: Since he (R. Ami, who asked) holds that he needs the blood, he answered him accordingly.

Question #1: Regarding Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, Shmuel holds like R. Yehudah, like it says in Sanhedrin (85a) and Zevachim (92a! How can R. Ami ask from piercing an abscess, which R. Shimon permits?)

Question #2: He should have asked from Davar she'Eino Miskaven, which R. Shimon permits, and not from Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, since most are experts, and it is not a Pesik Reishei!

Note: Shabbos 42a explicitly says that Shmuel holds like R. Shimon regarding Davar she'Eino Miskaven, but not regarding Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.

Explanation: Since it is permitted l'Tzorech Ochel Nefesh, it is permitted also Lo l'Tzorech Ochel Nefesh;

However, there must be some need of pleasure of the day, or need to fulfill a Mitzvah on Yom Tov, like Hotza'ah of a baby in order to circumcise him, a Sefer Torah to read in it, or a Lulav to be Yotzei the Mitzvah with it (Beitzah 12a);

However, if there is no need of the day at all, it is not [permitted], e.g. Hotza'ah of rocks, for which one is liable, or baking on Yom Tov for the sake of a weekday, according to Rav Chisda;

He says that one is lashed for this, since he holds that we do not say Ho'il (since if guests will come, the food can be proper for them, the Torah permits in every case).

Implied question: Why do Beis Hillel permit Shechitah of Olas Nedavah [on Yom Tov]? (R. B. F. Te'umim - the citation should be to Beitzah 12a; see Tosfos there, DH Hachi.)

Answer: This is because it is improper that your table is full (you offer Korbanos for yourself), but your Master's table is lacking.

Implied question: If one finds Chametz in his house [on Yom Tov], we say (Pesachim 6a) that he covers it with a Kli. Why may he not burn it Yom Tov? We should permit, due to Mitoch!

Answer: It is forbidden mid'Rabanan to burn it, due to Muktzeh. One may not move it.

Suggestion: Perhaps we discuss when he did Bitul (so he does not transgress for it, so there is no Mitzvah to burn it)!

Rejection: In any case mid'Rabanan there is a Mitzvah to burn it, so it is a need of the day. We permit also for a Mitzvah mid'Rabanan, when we can say Mitoch.

Question: In Beitzah (12b), if one cooks Gid ha'Nasheh on Yom Tov and ate it, Beis Shamai, who do not say Mitoch, hold that he is lashed [for cooking it]. Beis Hillel, who say Mitoch, hold that he is not lashed! (This is not Ochel Nefesh, for no Yisrael may eat it!)

Answer: We must say that even though it is not considered Ochel Nefesh due to the Isur on it, it is a need of the day, since he ate it.

Assertion (Ri): Hotza'ah of a baby in order to stroll, this is a need of the day;

However, it seems that Hotza'ah for the sake of a Nochri is forbidden.

Implied question: Nowadays, the custom is to do Hotza'ah for the sake of Nochrim!

Answer (Rashba): This is because our Reshus ha'Rabim is only Karmelis. [Our streets] are not 16 Amos wide;

Regarding Yom Tov, Chachamim did not decree [to forbid Karmelis], just like they did not enact Eruvei Chatzeros on Yom Tov.

Support: Beitzah 16b connotes like this. It says that if Yom Tov fell on Erev Shabbos... R. Meir says that we make Eruvei Chatzeros, but not Eruv Techumim;

This is because we forbid [a person] with something forbidden to him (Techumim apply to even on Yom Tov), but we do not forbid him with something permitted to him (Eruvei Chatzeros).

Inference: There was no enactment of Eruvei Chatzeros on Yom Tov.

Likewise, they did not decree Karmelis.

Implied question: In Kerisus (14a) and Beitzah (12a), we hold that Eruv and Hotza'ah apply on Yom Tov!

Answer #1: It seems that it discusses Eruvei Techumim.

Retraction (Ri): We cannot learn from a Chatzer without an Eruv to Karmelis, which is more stringent, like I explained in Shabbos (117a).

Answer #2: It seems that this that we hold that Eruv and Hotza'ah apply on Yom Tov, i.e. Eruvei Chatzeros.

Source #1: We wanted to say in Kerisus (14a) that Eruv and Hotza'ah do not apply on Yom Kipur, since a Mishnah [discussing Yom Kipur] says that if it was Shabbos and he was Motzi it in his mouth, he is liable. (If Hotza'ah applied to Yom Kipur, there would be no need to say "if it was Shabbos.")

Source #2: In Beitzah (12a), we want to derive that Eruv and Hotza'ah do not apply on Yom Tov, since Beis Hillel permit Hotza'ah of a baby and Lulav. This refers to Eruvei Chatzeros;

Now, there is a proper proof, since Hotza'ah is permitted, and Rabanan did not decree about Eruvei Chatzeros, only due to Hotza'ah;

However, Eruvei Techumim have no connection to Hotza'ah.

Implied question: It says "you do not forbid him with something permitted to him"! (This implies that there is no Isur of Hotza'ah at all.)

Answer: This is because Hotza'ah is permitted for a need.

Question: We can ask also according to him (the Makshan)! Doesn't he hold that we say Mitoch? This is Beis Hillel's reason!

Answer #1: He held that Beis Hillel's reason is because Eruv and Hotza'ah do not apply on Yom Tov (there is no Isur at all), like we initially thought in Beitzah.

Implied question: We asked there against this [and rejected the Hava Amina]!

Answer: Perhaps Rav Papi [who does not say Mitoch] did not hear [the rejection there].

Answer #2: He held that it is permitted Lo l'Tzorech, as long as it is something common;

Therefore, he asked that this (Bi'as Besulah) is not more common than incense.

Explanation: The same applies to Bi'ah [with a Besulah].

Question (Ri): It says in Beitzah (22a) "may one extinguish a lamp [on Yom Tov] for the sake of relations?", and it concludes that it is forbidden;

Here, we permit because everyone desires it!

Answer #1: Here we discuss only the first Bi'ah, which is a Mitzvah. This is a need of a Mitzvah of the day;

However, other Bi'os are not such a need of the day.

Answer #2: Extinguishing a lamp for the sake of relations is like Machshirin (preparations). Even regarding Ochel Nefesh, they are forbidden.

Support: This is clear from there. It asks from a Beraisa "we may extinguish a log so the house will not fill with smoke", and answers that the Beraisa is like R. Yehudah, who permits Machshirei Ochel Nefesh;

Citation (22a): I said [that one may not extinguish for the sake of relations] according to Rabanan.

Inference: We are not concerned lest he slaughter a small bird.

[Nowadays] we rely on this to make Seudas [Nisu'in] on Shabbos.

Implied question: "Makhelos" connotes two congregations!

Answer #1: There is no logic to distinguish between 10 and 20 for anything. The verse discusses congregations in general (but not that two congregations are required for Birkas Chasanim)!

Answer #2: The Yerushalmi expounds that Makhelos is written lacking a Vov [to hint to the singular, i.e. one congregation].

Implied question: Shmuel himself rules like R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar (below 58b), that one who was Makdish his wife's earnings, the excess [above what she is obligated to produce] is Chulin, for one may not be Makdish Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam;

All the more so [one may not be Makneh, i.e. transfer ownership] to Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, which is weaker, like it says in Gitin (13b);

Citation (13b): Even according to R. Meir, who says that one can be Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, this is only to Davar she'Ba l'Olam. He did not say so [about Hakna'ah] to Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam.

Answer #1: Shmuel considers a fetus to be in the world.

Answer #2: Shmuel holds that one can be Makneh to Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam more than one can be Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam;

The Sugya in Gitin is like Rav Huna.

Support: We find that Rav Nachman explicitly holds [like this,] opposite to Rav Huna;

Rav Huna holds regarding [one who sold] fruits that a date tree will produce, that once the fruits came to the world, he cannot retract;

Regarding a fetus, he holds that even when he is born, he does not acquire.

Rav Nachman holds that when he is born, he acquires, but regarding fruits of a date tree, even after the fruits came to the world, he can retract.

Explanation: This refers to Hilni ha'Malkah. (She vowed to be a Nezirah for seven years, and came to Eretz Yisrael when she finished. Beis Hillel ruled that since Chutz la'Aretz is Tamei, she must be a Nezirah for seven more years in Eretz Yisrael.)

Implied question: She was from Beis Chashmonai, for she was the mother of Munvaz ha'Melech, like it says in Yoma (37a. Rashash says that Me'or Einayim (51,52) brought awesome proofs that Hilni and Munvaz were converts, and not from Beis Chashmonai. They were about 25 years before the Churban. If so, there is no question.)

The reign of Hurdus [and his descendants] was [the last] 103 years of Bayis Sheni (after he killed everyone from Beis Chashmonai). Hillel became Nasi only three years after Malchus Hurdus [began], like it says in Shabbos (15a. If so, how could his Talmidim give a ruling to Hilni?)

Citation (15a): Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel (ha'Zaken) Shimon (ben Gamliel ha'Zaken) were the Nesi'im for [the last] 100 years of Bayis Sheni.

Answer: In any case, [even before Hillel became Nasi] he already had Talmidim who gave rulings.

Note: It seems that Hillel became Nasi right after he came to Eretz Yisrael. It is surprising that while in Bavel, he had Talmidim in Eretz Yisrael called Beis Hillel.

Implied question: It is not precise to say that she was a widow, for when she married Machlon, she was a Nochris!

Answer: Since she was a Be'ulah, she is considered like a widow.

Explanation: Since not both of them were previously married, we bless all seven days.

Implied question: In Maseches Kalah, it brings the verse "va'Yvarchu Es Rivkah"!

Answer: That was Birkas Eirusin. Here we discuss Birkas Nisu'in.

Inference: We learn from there that we bless Birkas Eirusin for a woman who becomes Mekudeshes through a Shali'ach, for Eliezer was a Shali'ach.

Disclaimer: It seems that it is a mere Asmachta. We do not learn 10 from there. The simple meaning of the verse does not discuss Birkas Eirusin.

Explanation: We say that a Kalah without Berachah (Birkos Nisu'in) is forbidden to her husband like a Nidah;

Since [in Yehudah] sometimes he would have Bi'ah with her not for the sake of Chupah, they said the Berachos first, so she would be a Kalah with Berachah.

Explanation: Birkas Peros is not long. Also this (Birkas Eirusin) is not long! It is unlike Kidush, which is very long.

The one who holds that we are Chosem [Birkas Eirusin, i.e. conclude with a Berachah], this is like Kidush. We are Chosem [Kidush] because it is long! Also this (Birkas Eirusin) is considered long!

Explanation (Rashi): Because (Birkas Eirusin) uses an expression of Kedushah, we are Chosem, just like Kidush.

Rebuttal: This does not seem correct.

Question: The one who holds that we are not Chosem, why is this different than Birkas ha'Torah, which we conclude with "Asher Bachar Banu...", even though Birkas Eirusin is longer than it?

Answer: Perhaps he holds that we are not Chosem Birkas ha'Torah.

Explanation (Ri): Panim Chodoshos are only people for whom they increase the Simchah more.

Implied question: Why is Shabbos considered Panim Chodoshos?

Answer: It says in Agada "Mizmor Shir l'Yom ha'Shabbos" - Hash-m said that Panim Chodoshos came here. Let us sing Shirah!

Also there (a Seudah in honor of Chasan and Kalah), they increase the Simchah and meal for the honor of Shabbos.