Observation: In Kerisus (14a), the Gemara wanted to derive that there is no [need for an] Eruv or [Isur] Hotza'ah on Yom Kipur, since he needed to say "if it was Shabbos..."

[If Eruv and Hotza'ah applied on Yom Kipur,] it should have said [only] "if he took it outside, he is liable"!

The Gemara concluded that Eruv and Hotza'ah apply on Yom Kipur. It mentioned Shabbos to increase liability. He is liable for Shabbos and for Yom Kipur.

Question: How can R. Meir count liability for Hotza'ah together with liability for eating? It is not related! He could equally have said "if he did Melachah on Shabbos, he is liable"!

Answer (Ri): When he swallows, he is liable also for Hotza'ah, even though he still did not rest (he is still walking), for swallowing is the Hanachah [of the food];

This is like Rava said in Shabbos (80a), if one took out [ink to write] two letters and wrote them while walking, he is liable, for writing them is the Hanachah [of the ink].

Implied question: It says in Shabbos (92a) if one was Motzi with his mouth or elbow he is exempt, for he was not Motzi the normal way!

Answer: For something eaten, this is a normal way!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Here there is Isur Bas Achas, for when night came, the Isur to eat on Yom Kipur and Hotza'ah on Shabbos [came together].

Question (R. Yitzchak): What is the relevance of this to Isur Chal Al Isur? Even according to the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur even b'Bas Achas, here all agree that it is Chal;

This is even if it is one after the other, and even if he eats and is Motzi one after the other, and even if Shabbos and Yom Kipur [would] fall one after the other; (Aruch l'Ner did not understand this. If he does one after the other, this is not relevant to Isur Chal Al Isur, and obviously he is liable for both!)

The Isur Melachah of Shabbos, if it were first, would not prevent the Isur Achilah of Yom Kipur from taking effect afterwards, since it was still not forbidden due to Shabbos. The same applies oppositely (if Yom Kipur were first).

Explanation #2 (R. Yitzchak): Isur Bas Achas is the Isur Hotza'ah of Shabbos and the Isur Hotza'ah of Yom Kipur, like I explained [that there is an Isur Hotza'ah on Yom Kipur; the Mishnah] mentioned Shabbos to increase liability.

Question: In Pesachim (72a), R. Meir establishes the argument when there are two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbos, and one to circumcise on Sunday;

R. Yehoshua exempts when he prematurely circumcised the "Sunday" baby on Shabbos, even though he did not do a Mitzvah, since there was a Heter [for him] to override Shabbos for one baby;

However, if there were two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbos, and one to circumcise on Erev Shabbos, and he prematurely circumcised the Shabbos baby on Erev Shabbos, and the Erev Shabbos baby on Shabbos, he is liable;

Even though he did a Mitzvah, since there was no Heter [for him] to override Shabbos [he is liable].

Also here, he should be liable regarding two women, for there was no Heter to override Ervah!

Answer: There, it does not depend on overriding, rather, because he is obsessed with the baby he must circumcise on Shabbos, and he erred about it;

Also here, he erred about his wife.

Alternate answer: We could have said that eating Terumah is called Avodah, and R. Yehoshua's reason is because it says "[Barech Hash-m Cheilo] u'Fo'al Yadav Tirtzeh" - [Hash-m accepts Avodah] even [of] Chalalim, like it says in Pesachim (72b).

Observation: This is fine even according to R. Yehoshua, for R. Shimon holds (Pesachim 72b) that R. Yehoshua holds that if one erred about a Mitzvah and did not do a Mitzvah, he is liable.

Rashi's text: This is Rashi's text.

Question: This is not b'Bas Achas! The Isur Nidah takes effect on him first, for he cannot be Mekadesh or make a Shali'ach until he matures, for a minor's actions are void.

R. Tam's text: All the early texts say so, but the text of Sefer "Basar Al Gabei Gechalim" says that they were spurting from before three years old until after three years to obligate them (the men, for Isur Bas Achas);

After three years and one day, a girl is proper for Bi'ah, so all the Isurim take effect [at once].

[They were spurting] from before 12 years until after 12 to obligate them (the women).

If they had Bi'ah when all of them are adults, there are 16 Chata'os.

Observation: Both according to Rashi's text and this text, we need not say that they were truly spurting [Dam Nidah]. Rather, it suffices that they saw blood and did not immerse until after this [12 years for the girls and 13 years for the boys], according to Rashi];

According to R. Tam's text, [each girl] saw before three years and did not immerse until after 12. (If she immersed in between, the boys' Isurim preceded the Isur Nidah.)

Inference: It is forbidden to have Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah.

Question #1 - Citation (Nedarim 20b): A woman [complained] to Rebbi "I set the table for my husband, and he reversed it!"

Rebbi told her that the Torah permitted her to him. We conclude that this is the Halachah;

"Reversed" is [a euphemism for Bi'ah] Lo k'Darkah. [She complained] because this pains her;

We learn from "va'Yishkav Osah va'Y'aneha" - he pained her through Lo k'Darkah. It says also "Im Ta'aneh Es Benosai" - Lo k'Darkah.

If "reversed" meant that she was on top and he was on bottom, she would not complain about this!

Question #2: In Sanhedrin (58b) it says a Nochri who has Bi'ah with his wife Lo k'Darkah is Chayav Misah;

Citation (58b) Question: Do we ever find something that a Yisrael is not liable for it, and a Nochri ] is liable for it?!

Explanation: "Not liable" means that it is permitted for a Yisrael. If it were forbidden for a Yisrael, it would be fine that a Nochri is Chayav Misah for it (even though a Yisrael is not), for anything Nochrim are warned about (forbidden), they are Chayav Misah for it, e.g. theft and other matters.

Answer #1 (Ri): There, we discuss without ejaculation of semen. It is permitted. Since no semen is wasted, it is unlike Ma'aseh Er v'Onan.

Answer #2 (Ri): It is considered like Ma'aseh Er v'Onan only when he intends to waste seed, and does so regularly. If it is a mere occurrence, and he desires to have Bi'ah with his wife Lo k'Darkah, it is permitted;

Source - Citation (Nedarim 20b): One may do with his wife whatever he wants;

A parable for this is meat from the butcher or fish from the hunter. One may eat it like he desires, e.g. roasted, cooked or half cooked (some say - overcooked).

Explanation: The mascara should not fall on her face.

Implied question: Once she stands up, she will emit [some of the semen, and becomes Temei'ah regarding food], and needs to immerse! (It did not help that the Torah was Metaher her.)

Answer: In any case, we can say that the Torah was concerned [for her mascara] as long as she does not stand up, or she can put a wad [in the place] before standing up, so she will not emit.

Explanation (R. Tam): Due to the episode in Bava Basra (12b) in which Rav Chisda's daughter said that she desires [to marry] both [Rami bar Chama and Rava], she anticipated fulfillment of her prophecy;

Since Rava had another wife [when she was widowed from Rami bar Chama], she delayed marrying him. Even so, she anticipated [marrying] him.

Explanation: This refers to all the women in the Mishnah (41a) and Beraisa (42b).

Explanation: We decree Zenus of a minor Bas Yisrael due to an adult.

However, it is not applicable to decree a minor convert due to an adult convert, since an adult herself, since she plans to convert, guards herself, like it says below;

We forbid [an adult convert] only due to a Bas Yisrael [lest a Bas Yisrael think that she need not wait, just like a convert need not].

Question #1: Like whom is Shmuel's teaching?

Granted, regarding a minor Bas Yisrael, he holds like R. Meir, who decrees (42b) in the Beraisa of Redufah (one who constantly went to her father's home). He forbids a minor Nesu'ah, due to an adult;

Shmuel holds that he likewise decrees about Zenus.

However, regarding a convert, like whom does he hold?

If he holds like R. Yehudah, he should decree even about a minor convert, like the Beraisa below - "R. Yehudah says, a convert or Shifchah... above three years must wait three months"!

Implied question: In most Seforim, here the words "above three years" are not in the Beraisa! (If so, there is no proof that R. Yehudah decrees about a minor.)

Answer: In Kesuvos (37a), these words are in all texts.

If he holds like R. Yosi, even an adult should be permitted, for R. Yosi permits even an adult convert to marry immediately!

Proof: In the other version of Shmuel that permits an adult, we say that he taught like R. Yosi.

Question #2: Also, Shmuel's reasoning is opposite to R. Yehudah's!

In the Beraisa of Redufah, R. Yehudah does not decree about a minor Bas Yisrael even Nesu'ah, and regarding a convert, he decrees even about a minor, like it says "above three";

Shmuel holds oppositely! He decrees about a minor Bas Yisrael, but not regarding a convert!

Partial answer (to Question #2): This is not difficult according to texts that say "R. Yosi", and not R. Yehudah, in the Beraisa of Redufah. We will explain also below, with Hash-m's help.

Answer (Ri): In our Sugya, the text does not say "above [three]", and also not in the Tosefta. R. Yehudah forbids only an adult;

He permits a minor. Shmuel holds like R. Yehudah regarding a convert.

Question (R. Moshe Kohen): Shmuel already taught this elsewhere!

In Kesuvos (60b), Shmuel rules like R. Meir's decrees regarding the Beraisa of Redufah.

Answer (Ri): Shmuel's primary teaching is needed here only for Mema'enes. Shmuel's teaching here was taught primarily in Kesuvos 100b.

Implied question: There, the Gemara asked "all of these were taught in Mishnayos!", and answered "the Chidush is three months, which was not taught"!

Answer: This means that he needed to teach the law of three months. The teaching itself (who needs to wait) is needed only for Mema'enes, to teach that she need not wait, like I explained.