Explanation: This is before they bury the Mes, but not after, like it says below "private matters (of Avelus, e.g. the Isur Bi'ah) apply [during the Regel, and the same applies during the seven days of Mishteh].

We infer from what it taught "all those days he sleeps among men..."

Suggestion: We could infer also from the Reisha. We permit Be'ilas Mitzvah only when the Mes is in the room!

Rejection: We could reject this. "He has Be'ilas Mitzvah", i.e. even after Avelus took effect on him.

Question (Rashba): Why don't we infer from this that it taught "and he separates"? This implies that private matters apply, for we permit only Be'ilas Mitzvah!

Answer (Ri): We could have said that he separates due to Dam Besulim, like it says in Nidah (65b);

However, there is a proper inference from "he sleeps among men..." that this is due to Avelus;

If it were due to Nidah (Dam Besulim), since he already had Bi'ah, he may sleep [secluded] with his wife, like Rav Yosef said below.

Also "all those days (seven days of Mishteh and seven days of Avelus) he sleeps among men...]" connotes that there is one reason for all of them, i.e. Avelus. (A Nidah could become Tehorah within two weeks, especially in the days of the Tana'im, before Bnos Yisrael accepted to count seven clean days after any sighting of blood.)

Observation: We are more lenient about Aninus mid'Oraisa (the day of death, to allow Be'ilas Mitzvah) than about Avelus mid'Rabanan (the week after burial. In this case Bi'ah is forbidden for two weeks, for the seven days of Mishteh do not count towards Avelus, since he conducts like Yom Tov, other than private matters.)

Explanation: It is called Be'ilas Mitzvah because it says "Ki Bo'alayich Osayich", and we say (Sanhedrin 22b) that a woman makes a covenant only with the man who made her a Kli;

Also, through this he clings to her, and they come to Pru u'Rvu. Therefore, the first Bi'ah is called Be'ilas Mitzvah.

Explanation: The same applies if they are Avelim due to [the loss of] other relatives.

Question: It says in Mo'ed Katan (23a) that if one's wife died, he may not marry until three festivals pass. If he has no children, he may marry immediately, due to Pru u'Rvu;

If [his wife] left him small [nursing] children, he may marry immediately, so he will have someone to feed (nurse) them.

Here, we say "if it was oppositely, no." This implies that he has no children, since it says that no one will toil for him. This connotes that we discuss a bachelor! (The Chasan's father toils to make a wedding feast for his son only once.)

Answer: "Immediately" is not precise. Rather, it (Nisu'in) is permitted after seven days;

However, Bi'ah is forbidden until after 30 days, like is proven afterwards from the episode in which Yosef ha'Kohen's wife died, and he said to her sister in the cemetery "go feed your sister's children";

Citation (23a): Even so, he did not have Bi'ah with her until a long time. What is a long time? It is 30 days.

Inference: He had Nisu'in with her within 30 days. Within seven days is surely forbidden, like is clear from here;

What he said to her in the cemetery was not Nisu'in. It was mere Shiduchin (discussion about marriage).

Explanation #1 (Ri): Surely, one who has small children may have Nisu'in within 30 days, like the episode with Yosef ha'Kohen connotes;

However, one without children at all may not have Nisu'in until 30 days, since he may not have Bi'ah within 30 days.

Support - Citation (Maseches Semachos 7 - Beraisa): This is when he has big children. If he has no children, or he has small children, he may remarry after 30 days.

Inference: Even Nisu'in is forbidden within 30 days.

Implied question: When he has small children, he may marry within 30 days! (This suggests that the Beraisa is not precise.)

Answer: It mentions after 30 days for the case when he has no children.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): If he has no children, even Bi'ah is permitted within 30 days, after seven days, for the sake of Pru u'Rvu.

Observation: We cannot resolve the Beraisa in Maseches Semachos according to his Perush.

Assertion: If has small children, he may marry, even if also she is an Avelah, for she feeds his children, even though it is possible through another woman [who is not an Avelah].

This is clear from the episode with Yosef ha'Kohen. She was an Avelah over loss of her sister.

Rebuttal: This is not such a proof. Perhaps there is different, for she will have mercy over her sister's children more than another woman would.

Implied question: A Mishnah (Yevamos 41a) teaches that all women may become engaged, except for a widow, due to Avelus. It does not distinguish at all;

Inference: She is forbidden even to marry one with small children when she is an Avelah.

Answer: There, it is because even without this (Avelus), she must wait three months before Bi'ah due to Havchanah (lest she gave birth nine months after her husband died, and we will be unsure who is the father).

Assertion (R. Tam): Even if one's mother or father died, he may make Nisu'in after 30 days.

Implied question: It says in Mo'ed Katan (22b) after the loss of any [other] relative, one may enter the banquet hall after 30 days, and after the death of one's mother or father, after 12 months.

Answer: That refers to other Simchos. To marry a woman, which is a great Mitzvah, is permitted;

This is even if he has children, for it says "ba'Boker Zera Es Zar'echa vela'Erev Al Tanach Yadecha."

Proof #1 (R. Tam, for himself): The Beraisa says Stam 30 days for Nisu'in, and does not distinguish between his father or mother and other relatives. This connotes that for all of them, after 30 days is permitted.

Proof #2 (for R. Tam - R. Yosef): A Beraisa in Maseches Semachos says "for any Mes, one may not enter the banquet hall until 30 days are completed;

For one's father or mother, all 12 months are forbidden, unless it is for a Mitzvah.

Inference: Any Mishteh of Mitzvah is permitted.

Question: This requires investigation, whether this applies also to the Reisha, and it is permitted even within 30 days.

Question: What forced Rav Chisda to establish this when he put water on the meat? He should establish it in a village, even if he did not put water on the meat!

Answer: Rav Chisda prefers to establish it in most cities, which are intermediate (not big and not small). [Rav Ashi] means "such as Masa Machsiya and most cities."

This is why the Beraisa mentions that he put water on the meat, because it discusses most cities.

Observation: Everywhere, we equate festivals and a Chasan;

E.g. a Beraisa in Mo'ed Katan (7b) teaches that if Tzara'as came on a Chasan, we give to him the seven days of Mishteh (he need not go to a Kohen to rule about it until they finish), for him and his cloak and garment;

Similarly, during the Regel, we give to him all the days of the Regel.

Explanation: It is obligatory to do so, and not Reshus (optional), for we bring a proof from the Beraisa.

Implied question: Rav and Shmuel say in Mo'ed Katan (24a) that Bi'ah on Shabbos of the seven days of Avelus is Reshus. The Beraisa here is difficult for them!

It is unreasonable to distinguish between Mo'ed and Shabbos, and to be more lenient about Shabbos.

Answer (Ri): Rav and Shmuel distinguish between a Chasan, and Mo'ed and Shabbos.

Question: "All those days he sleeps among men" connotes even on Shabbos!

Pesak: Bahag rules like R. Yochanan.

Implied question: In Aveilus, the Halachah always follows the lenient opinion!

Answer #1: This applies only to an argument among Tana'im, but not to an argument among Amora'im.

Answer #2 (Ri): Surely, the Halachah follows R. Yochanan, for the Gemara says that [the Beraisa] supports him.

Explanation (Ri): "Setting the bed" here refers to spreading sheets, which is a matter of endearment. Arranging pillows and blankets, which are not matters of endearment, a Nidah may do.

Proof (Ri, for himself): A Mishnah below (59b) says that if a woman brought three Shifchos into the marriage, she does not set his bed or work with (spin) wool. If she brought four Shifchos, she sits in a comfortable chair [and need not work at all];

It says in the Gemara (61a) that even though we said that if she brought four slaves, she sits in an easy chair, she mixes his drink, sets his bed, and washes his hands, feet and face.

Rashi explained that this that was taught that when she entered three, she does not set his bed, this refers to arranging pillows and blankets, which is a toil;

However, setting his bed, i.e. sheets and felt, are matters of endearment, that endear her to him, and they are not a toil. Only the latter are forbidden [for a Nidah].

Support: The Tana mentioned it together with mixing his drink and washing his hands, feet and face, like there.

Disclaimer: However, according to Seforim whose text of the Mishnah says only "she does not set the bed", and do not say "for him", and in the Gemara it says "for him", there is no proof from there that they are two kinds of setting;

[We could say that] our Mishnah discusses other beds, and the Gemara discusses setting the bed specifically for her husband.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): She applies rouge to her face.

Objection: It says below (17a) "she does not need rouge or Pirkus." This implies that they are two matters, for Pokeses here is Pirkus, like it says below "this was taught regarding painting the eyes and Pirkus."

In Shabbos (95a), it was taught "she is Pokeses and puts rouge on her face"!

Explanation #2 (Rashi, below): Pirkus is braiding hair.

Objection (Ri): In Shabbos (94b), it was taught that she braids and is Pokeses!

Explanation #3: Rather, it is some [other] way that women adorn themselves.

Question: Without Rav Yosef's teaching, we could have asked a contradiction between the Beraisos!

Answer #1: If not for Rav Yosef's teaching, we would have distinguished between the time of Chupah and not the time of Chupah;

At the time of Chupah, his Yetzer overpowers him, even though he already had Bi'ah.

However, Rav Yosef cannot distinguish like this, for if he had Bi'ah, he considers her like an old wife, and even at the time of Chupah he may sleep with her [even if] she is Nidah or in her Avelus.

Even so, in his Avelus, it teaches that he sleeps among men. Therefore, we asked properly.

Answer #2: If not for Rav Yosef's, there would be no difficulty. "With him" and "with her" taught in the Beraisa does not mean with him or her in the bed, rather, in the house.

According to Rav Yosef, in her Avelus, she may sleep with him. If so, this that was taught "he conducts Avelus with her" means with her in the bed, just like here, regarding his Avelus, she is with him in the bed.

This that we answer "teach in his Avelus, he sleeps..." does not correct the text of the Beraisa. Rather, it explains what "with him" taught in the Beraisa means.

The Gemara asks "it taught with him in the bed", i.e. like "with her", and answers "no, it is with him in the house."

Explanation #1: In several places, Rashi explained that Golel is the cover on the coffin, and Dofek are the boards on the side of the coffin. It is called Dofek because the Golel is Dofek (presses) on it. The Aruch explained similarly.

Question #1 (R. Tam): It says in Berachos (19b) "we (Kohanim) used to jump over coffins." How could they do so? The Golel and Dofek have Tum'as Ohel, like we say in Chulin (126b)!

Question #2: In Chulin (72b), it expounds "Al Pnei ha'Sadeh" to include Golel and Dofek. According to Rashi, the coffin is not on the face of the field!

Answer #1 (R. David of Netzinbork): According to Rashi, we properly expound to include Golel and Dofek. We include from "Al Pnei ha'Sadeh" that it is Metamei only when it separated. When it is buried, it is Batel to the ground, and it has no Tum'as Ohel.

This answers also why they jumped over coffins.

Answer #2: Some say that even though Golel is Metamei b'Ohel, one may jump over it and become Tamei through Golel, for a Beraisa in Maseches Semachos says that any Tum'ah for which a Nazir does not shave (and begin again) is not forbidden to a Kohen.

Rebuttal (of Answer #2 - R. Tam): The Beraisa is mistaken. A Nazir does not shave for [Tum'as Ohel of] a Revi'is of blood, like the Mishnah in Nazir (54a) teaches, yet a Kohen is warned about it!

Objection (to Explanation #1 - R. Tam): A Beraisa in Eruvin (15b) says that anything alive, one cannot make it a Golel for a grave...

According to Rashi, it is normal to make a coffin cover from something alive?!

Answer: We can say that even though it is not normal, we find several matters that are not common, and the Gemara discusses them to receive reward;

It says in Chulin (70a), if a weasel swallowed [a fetus in an animal that did not yet gave birth] and removed it and inserted it [in another animal's womb] and spit it out and it came out by itself, what is the law? If one stuck two wombs together, and [a fetus left one and entered the other], what is the law?

Even though this will never occur [it asked].

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Golel is a Matzevah (a monument). It is a big rock. "Golel" applies to a rock, like it says "v'Galelu Es ha'Even";

Dofek are two rocks, one at the front of the Matzevah, and one at the back. Sometimes, when a Matzevah is not ready, they stand up an animal or something else there for a sign.

They used to jump when there was no Matzevah. They did not become Tamei due to the Mes, for most coffins have an open Tefach [above the Mes, so the Tum'ah is contained within the coffin].

Implied question: According to R. Yehoshua, when does Avelus take effect when there is no Matzevah?

Answer: We can say that it takes effect from when they turn their faces away from burying, like it says in Mo'ed Katan (22a) that those who do not follow the Mes [to the cemetery], it takes effect from when they turn their faces away.

Question #1 (Ri, against R. Tam - Tosefta Ohalos 4 - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If one made two big rocks, each of four Tefachim, a Golel for a grave, one who towers over both of them is Tamei;