Implied question: Moshe expounded a Kal va'Chomer! (He did not decide to do so on his own.)

Answer: It is not an absolute Kal va'Chomer;

Challenge #1: Just because once [Hash-m] commanded to be Batel from Peru u'Rvu, should one always be Batel?!

Challenge #2: Only then He commanded to be Batel, due to Aseres ha'Dibros!

Question: Just the contrary! Because Hash-m fixed a time, and Vadai He will speak with them then, there is more reason to separate than when it is a Safek [whether Hash-m will speak with a person]!

Answer: Here, "He fixed a time" means three days. They needed to separate only one day, due to Keri (Tum'ah due to relations);

Rather, due to a Safek of emissions (lest semen leave a woman and be Metamei her), they needed to separate three days.

I (Moshe), for whom Hash-m did not fix a time, and there is a Safek lest Hash-m speak with me at the time of relations or on the same day (even after immersing, some Tum'ah remains until nightfall. All the more so I must refrain!)

Question: What is the source that Moshe decided on his own to separate? From the time he was forbidden with Yisrael at Matan Torah, he was never permitted, like it says "v'Atah Po Amod Imadi"!

Answer: Had he not separated on his own, why were Aharon and Miryam upset with him?!

Rather, surely when Moshe heard from Hash-m "do not approach a woman", he made a Kal va'Chomer on his own, and revealed [to his wife] his intent, and made a separate tent for her or divorced her. Therefore, they were upset with him.

Question: Why did they delay so long before they were angry, until [Yisrael camped in] Chatzeros, which was long after Matan Torah?

Answer: This became known to them only then, like it says in Sifri;

When Hash-m told Moshe to take 70 elders [for the Sanhedrin], Miryam said "happy are their wives, that their husbands were selected for greatness!"

Tziporah said to her "woe to their wives, for from the day that the Shechinah spoke with your brother, he separated from me!"

Question: Why were they upset with Moshe, since Hash-m agreed with him?

Answer: It is because we say (Makos 10b) "in the direction that a person desires to go, they lead him, and help him if he comes to purify himself."

Explanation: This is not an absolute Kal va'Chomer. Pesach is different, for it is Kodshim!

The entire Torah is different. He should teach it to them, and return them in Teshuvah!

Explanation: This is not an absolute Drashah, for "today" connotes literally today.

Implied question: Regarding several matters, we say that one who converted is like a newborn!

Answer: In any case, R. Yochanan holds that here it is reasonable that since when he was a Nochri he fulfilled [Pru u'Rvu], for his seed traced their lineage to him at the time, he is exempt also after he converts.

Question: In Sanhedrin (59b), it connotes that Bnei Noach are not commanded Pru u'Rvu!

Answer: Here, we do not say that they are commanded Pru u'Rvu, rather, that their children are called by their (their fathers') names, like we say below.

Explanation: Inheritance of the firstborn does not apply to them;

However, mid'Oraisa a Nochri inherits his father, like it says in Kidushin (17b).

Consequence: If he was freed, he did not fulfill Pru u'Rvu.

Question: We say regarding a half-slave, half-free man, "he cannot marry a Shifchah..."(We force his master to free him, to enable him to fulfill Pru u'Rvu.)

Inference: If he could marry a Shifchah, that would suffice.

Why would this suffice? He is not commanded Pru u'Rvu, and he is not exempted through this (children born while he was a slave)!

Answer: If he could marry a Shifchah, we would not force his master to free him, since he can fulfill at least Sheves ("Lo Sohu Vera'ah Lasheves Yetzarah"), even though he does not fulfill Pru u'Rvu through this.

Implied question: Above, the Gemara connotes that Pru u'Rvu depends on Sheves!

Rava explained that R. Noson, according to Beis Hillel, learns from "Lo Sohu Vera'ah Lasheves Yetzarah", and he fulfilled Sheves [through one child]! (Since they depend on each other, since a slave does not fulfill Pru u'Rvu, also Sheves he does not fulfill!)

Answer: Even so, we would not force his master to free him, since he can fulfill even a small level [of Sheves].

Implied question: We said above that two males are not considered like a son and daughter! (Here, he is left with a son and grandson, and we say that he is Yotzei!)

Answer: Here, he (the grandson) comes from one (the daughter) who exempted him (her father) from Pru u'Rvu. It is obvious that the son [of the daughter] is in place of the daughter!

Explanation (R. Tam): This "Pekidah" is not Bi'ah;

Rather, when he wants to go on a trip, if he is far from her, he may not leave until he returns to her, either with relations or other matters, and speaks to her heart;

The Gemara asks that we know this from elsewhere! ["V'El Ishech Teshukasech"] teaches that a woman desires her husband when he goes away;

Presumably, since she desires him, he should be Poked her, for one who honors his wife... it says about him "Az Tikra..." (Aruch l'Ner - our text learns the Chiyuv Pekidah from "v'Yadata... u'Fakadta." In R. Tam's text, R. Yehoshua ben Levi learns from Az Tikra only that she desires him when he leaves. It is obvious that this obligates Pekidah!)

Rav Yosef answers that this is needed for when his wife is Nidah. This is the text in all old Seforim;

Explanation: One verse teaches about even when his wife is Nidah, he must be Poked her. The Shi'ur is one Onah. Even though Bi'ah is forbidden, it is Simchah and pleasure for her, since he wants to go on the road.

Support - Citation (Eruvin 63b): One who sleeps in a room where a couple sleep, it says about him "Neshei Ami Tegarshun mi'Beis Ta'anugeha."

Citation (cont. - Rav Yosef): This is even if she is Nidah.

Alternate text: The text of Seforim was changed to say Samuch l'Vestah.

Rejection #1: This is wrong. They changed the text because they wanted to explain that Pekidah is Bi'ah;

It is clear from Shevu'os 18b that the Torah forbids [Bi'ah] Samuch l'Vestah - "v'Hizartem Es Bnei Yisrael..."!

Rejection #2: We establish this to discuss one who goes on an optional trip;

If so, even according to the opinion that Vestos are mid'Rabanan, if so also Samuch l'Vestah is mid'Rabanan, in any case why should we permit [the Isur mid'Rabanan of Bi'ah Samuch l'Vestah] to go on an optional trip?!

Explanation: This refers also to his sons, like we say in Sanhedrin (76b).

Implied question: Chachamim did not enact Nisu'in for a boy, like we say below (68a)!

Answer: They enacted Nisu'in regarding this, his Bi'ah is not considered Bi'as Zenus.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): The same applies to one's brother's daughter. It mentioned one's sister's daughter because she (his sister) entices him verbally, and it is common that he marries her daughter.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): This refers only to one's sister's daughter, because she has a similar Mazel to him, like we say that most children resemble the brothers of the mother.