he repeatedly looks and emits madhy (pre-ejaculatory fluid), his fast is not invalidated; but if he repeatedly looks and ejaculates, his fast is invalidated.

The correct view is that there is no difference between the two in this second case or in any other case: the emission of madhy does not invalidate the fast at all, whether it results from intimate physical contact or from looking.

Third: Thinking does not invalidate his fast, whether he ejaculates or emits madhy, as stated above.

Question: If a man speaks with his wife until he ejaculates, should he be treated like one who engages in intimate physical contact, such that we say his fast is invalidated, or should he be treated like one who looks? What appears to be the case is that he should be treated like one who looks, making it less serious than intimate physical contact. Accordingly, repeated speech is treated like repeated looking, for a person may derive greater pleasure from speech than from looking.

“Or he performs cupping on another, or is cupped, and blood is drawn …”

His statement, “Or he performs cupping on another, or is cupped, and blood is drawn”: “performs cupping” means that he performs it on someone else.

“Is cupped” means that he seeks someone to perform cupping on him. Thus, if he performs cupping on another or is cupped, and blood is drawn, his fast is invalidated. But if no blood is drawn—because the person being cupped has little blood and nothing comes out—his fast is not invalidated.

The apparent meaning of the author’s statement, “and blood is drawn,” is that it makes no difference whether the blood drawn is little or much, and whether the cupping is performed on the head, the shoulders, or any other part of the body.

The sites and times for cupping, the condition of the person being cupped, and those who can or cannot undergo cupping are known to practitioners of cupping. Therefore, it is obligatory