Explanation: This is not Yanai ha'Melech (Kidushin 66a) who killed the Chachamim;

That Yanai was Kohen Gadol. [His advisor told him] "put the Tzitz between your eyes!" He would not have appointed someone else to be Kohen Gadol in place of himself.

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer that they were minors who did not yet reach the age to see blood?

Answer: We conclude in Nidah (66a) that Rava's law (that she must wait seven clean days after consenting to go to Chupah) applies even to a minor. Perhaps she desired [and saw].

Assertion: If a woman was asked to have Nisu'in, and she counted seven clean days, and every day she checked herself morning and evening, and immersed, and did not have Bi'ah, she must [still] check every day;

Always, from when she was asked, there is a Safek if she saw due to desire, until she has Bi'ah;

Therefore, we require seven clean days preceding Bi'as Mitzvah [of Nisu'in]. Also the Rashbam explained so in Nidah.

Rashi's opinion: They did not have relations. They merely were secluded.

Question (Ri): Since it was forbidden to have Bi'ah with them, why is this Pas b'Salo? (I.e. if one has bread in his basket, his desire is not aroused.)

Answer: We can say that since they will be permitted after seven days, this is called Pas b'Salo.

Question (Ri): Why were they permitted seclusion? If one's wife became Nidah before he had Bi'ah with her, he sleeps among men, and she sleeps among women (Kesuvos 4a, i.e. seclusion is forbidden)!

Answer #1 (Ri): The Rabanan announced "who will be for the day", i.e. not for the sake of Bi'ah, rather, more mere seclusion;

Since they told this to the girls that they merely request seclusion, they would not see blood due to desire.

Answer #2 (Tosfos): The question from Kesuvos is not difficult. We say so (if she became Nidah, they must sleep separately) only for a bachelor who never married before. His Yetzer Ra seizes him greatly.

Support: In Nidah (13a) we say that if one holds his Ever while urinating, it is as if he brings a flood to the world. We distinguish, and forbid a bachelor and permit a married man, even if his wife is not with him;

We must say that Kesuvos discusses a bachelor, since it says "if the meat was slaughtered, and the Chasan's father or the Kalah's mother died [we permit Bi'as Mitzvah before the burial and Avelus];

This is only if the Chasan's father or the Kalah's mother died, for there is no one else who will toil [to prepare another Nisu'in.

Inference (Ri): There we discusses a man without children who never married before. He would be embarrassed to prepare for himself needs of his Chupah;

A widower could toil for himself.

Regarding this it was taught "the same applies if one's wife became Nidah before Bi'ah. He sleeps among men..."

I can explain "he did not have Bi'ah" means that he never had Bi'ah, but a widower, even though now he has no wife [with whom he already had Bi'ah], since he already had a wife, his wife sleeps in the room with him.

Strengthening of Answer #2: All the more so here, the Rabanan [who requested women for a night], who even now have wives, just their wives are not here in the city, [may be secluded with their new wives].

Even if you will say that also a widower is forbidden [if his wife became Nidah before Bi'ah], here it is permitted, because they had wives in their houses, so the Yetzer Ra does not seize them so strongly.

Support (for Rashi): Really, this is better according to Rashi!

Question: According to the Ri, why does it say "they used to be secluded"? It should have said "it was for mere seclusion", i.e. they would tell them that they wanted only seclusion!

Rejection (of support, and answer): We can say that it says "they were merely secluded" to answer the question from the Isur to marry women in different countries;

Therefore, it says that they had mere seclusion, but not Bi'ah at all, since they did not bring their [new] wives [back] with them to their cities [of residence];

Rather, they had seclusion to placate the Yetzer Ra. If they wanted, they could have Bi'ah, and then they would bring them back to their cities.

Observation: We distinguished between bachelors and married men regarding a wife who turned Nidah.

Suggestion: Perhaps we learn from here that if one lost a relative during the festival, his wife may sleep with him in the room, and we do not say that he must sleep among men...

Let us say that there, when there is Avelus in the [seven] days after the Chupah, we forbid [her] to sleep in the room with him, i.e. [only] if he is a bachelor!

Rejection: Surely we do not distinguish. We forbid there even after Bi'ah. Since he already had Bi'ah, there is no difference between one who was already married and a bachelor;

However, when she turned Nidah, we establish this only if he did not yet have Bi'ah. I heard from my Rebbi, R. Yechiel of Paris, that since private matters [of Avelus] apply during the festival, and Bi'ah is forbidden the entire festival, and he must sleep among men...

Proof (R. Yechiel): In Kesuvos, we conclude that the reason is because Rabanan were lenient about Avelus, therefore the Isur is light in his eyes, and he may belittle it, therefore he must sleep among men.

Opposing opinion: However, I found that the Ra'avad permits in his Sefer Ba'alei ha'Nefesh;

Citation (Ba'alei ha'Nefesh): If a man becomes an Avel during the festival, he need not sleep among men, even though it is light to him, that Avelus does not apply to him [for public matters];

Citation (cont.): [We are stringent for a Chasan who became an Avel,] because the seven days of nuptial feasts have excessive Simchah for his close friends and all Bnei ha'Chupah. We do not say so for Simchas ha'Regel, which is not so great,

Citation (cont.) Support: Regarding Shabbos, we do not find anyone who says that he must sleep among men, even though Avelus does not apply on Shabbos.

Question: The Gemara asked there from Avelus of a Chasan to regular Avelus. Rav Ashi answered that they are different, for Rabanan were lenient about the former. Therefore, he must sleep among men, even though he already had Bi'ah;

According to the Ra'avad, he could have distinguished between Avelus here (of a Chasan) to regular Avelus, for a Chupah has excessive Simchah !

Answer: We can say that Rav Ashi gave a better answer.