Chulin 10

Today's daf is Hulin daf yud and we are seven lines from the bottom of daf tes on the base in middle of a sukia. So the gemara daf tes amud alef brought a very important memra from Rav Huna. Rav Huna said beheima bechayav bechezkat issur omedes. Achrei yivada lach man shechato. If you have a live animal, its meat is assur bachila. It's eiver min hachai. It's even assur bachila to a ben Noach. It's one of the seven mitzvos bnei Noach. As a result, if during the shechita a safek would arise, meaning right now we're not sure whether the beheima had a kasher shechita or didn't have a kasher shechita, the basar of the animal would be bechezkat issur. We saw machlokes tanam what exactly the chezkas issur is. Is it assur bachila and even tamei like an aveila or is it only assur bachila? But regardless, Rav Huna said what at first glance would seem to be very intuitive, that being that a beheima while it's alive is assur bachila because of eiver min hachai. That if any safek is noila during the shechita, it would remain assur. The same would be in the reverse. Nishchato, once there was a kasher shechita, the animal is bechezkat heter. A kasher shechita ordinarily would make the beheima kasher. As a result, if later there's going to be a rayasa and something's going to bring into question whether or not this animal is kasher or not kasher, we're going to assume that if there was a vadai kasher shechita, it's going to be bechezkat shechita achrei yivada lach until we find otherwise that it's going to be assur. The gemara wanted to know what was an example of a case where we presume there was a good shechita. Now there was a rayasa and as a result we're not sure whether we can eat the animal or not. So the gemara said the case is where a wolf came, took the intestines of the animal for a little bit of time, it returned it and when it came back to it teeth marks inside the bnei me'ayim, inside the intestines. Now clearly the za'ev stuck its teeth into the intestines and as a result made a hole. Now, that hole wouldn't render the animal a treifa because in order for a hole in the bene mayim to make a beheima treifa, the hole would have had to have been there before the shchita. Here we know when the hole came into existence. It happened when the za'ev stuck its teeth into it. The question is, do we have to be concerned that maybe b'makom nekav in the place where the za'ev made a hole there had been a hole previously? Meaning, how come nobody ever checked the bene mayim to make sure that there was no hole in it and now there is a hole. So, the question is, do we have to be concerned that there was a hole previously where the za'ev made a hole or not? And the Gemara said, ein chosheshin shema b'makom nekav nokav. And that's what Rashi meant when he said that if you have a beheima which is b'chezkas shleima, we know it was a kosher shchita even though now there's a little bit of a shailo. What's the shailo? That maybe the place where the za'ev made a hole there had previously been a hole. Thus, the animal would have been a treifa. It's something you don't have to be worried about. The Gemara says the kasha, a similar case with regards to the halacha of mashkin megulin and peiros megulin. So, once upon a time nechasim, akrabim, different shratzim lived amongst the chaim sh'kratzim and as a result the chachamim said a halacha that if somebody leaves liquids exposed overnight or if you have a fruit that has a hole in it, you have to be concerned that maybe one of these dangerous creatures went was matil aras, deposited some poison into it and as a result this thing is now going to be assur b'achila. So, the Tosefta gives a case where somebody saw a tzipor, a bird, was making a little bit of a hole in a fig or somebody saw a mouse that was making a hole in a in a watermelon. So, you see now a fruit with a hole. You know how the hole or [snorts] why the hole is there. Seemingly, it's because of this animal. The question is, do you have to be concerned that maybe there was a hole there previously and if it had been exposed overnight, it will now be assur b'achila because of the halacha of megulin. And the halacha is you do have to be worried. Chosheshin [snorts] shema b'makom nekav nokav. So, the question is, how come when it comes to the laws of treifas you don't have to be worried that there's a made a hole where there are previously been a hole. And when it comes to the laws of treifas you do have to be concerned. Amalie said the Gemara said you can't compare the two sugias. One is a sugia of issur v'heter, the other one is a sugia of sakana. When it comes to issur v'heter, treifa, as chomer as it is, but there's no element of sakana. So being that there's no element of sakana, you can rely on chazaka. Chazaka says it was b'chezkas shuta. Now you have some far-fetched chashash in choshesh b'vodai. When it comes to sakana, there you cannot rely on chazaka. And being that you can't rely on chazaka, there the halacha is we are worried shema makom nakiv nakiv. So the Gemara is in the process of discussing whether in fact it's true that halacha treats sakana more stringently than issur. Amora v'achi Tosafos I'll bring you a rayah from a Mishnah in Maseches Parah, s'leichah sh'niyah chamesh u'shloshim u'shloshah. So somebody had prepared water that he was going to use to mix with the efer of the parah adumah. It was going to be used to sprinkle on somebody that was a a tamei meis. Now that water has to be mayim chayim. There's certain halachos, very strict halachos, that govern the purity of that water. So this person had a s'leichah, he had a jug of this water, and he left it exposed overnight. That's a mistake. U'va and he comes the next morning u'matza m'chusa and he saw that somebody covered it. So the halacha is tamei. The water is no longer treated b'chezkas tahor. You have to be concerned that maybe it's tamei. Why? What would have made it tamei? Shiny yom acher on tamei nichnas b'geisah. Because I have to be concerned that maybe a tamei person was the one that covered it. And while this person was covering it, being that he was in the state of tumah, he may have touched the water and he may have caused it to become tamei. In nichnas m'chusa, what happens if someone reverses? He left it covered overnight u'va u'matza m'gulah. And then he comes the next morning and he finds it uncovered. So here, counter-intuitively, it's actually more kulah d'ik. Im yichol l'vo sh'leish b'mayim, if it was uncovered in a way where a chuldah, a weasel, could have drank from it, ayin nachash d'var Amaleik or k'neged Amaleik that holds that if a nachash touches the mayim chayim, so it looks make it to me. So if one of these creatures that would make the water to me could have drank from the water, then the water is to me. Do fell at night, which would also make the water to me because the water has to be and all those cases going to be possible. But otherwise it's going to be taught. Meaning although if you left it uncovered and then you find it covered you have to be concerned that maybe a to me person covered it. If you left it covered and then you found it uncovered you don't have to be worried that a person may have uncovered it. Thus the only thing is the water what's the difference between the nation darkness and the in dark room show the if you left it uncovered and you found it covered then you have to be concerned. The reason is because a person had to have covered it. A can't cover a barrel. So the only person that could have covered it was a person. Now the person could be either to me or the person could be to her. Being that it's a person who covered it was to me or to her we have to assume that maybe it was to me. As a result it's going to be a problem. But if you left it covered and you found it uncovered so there the is there you could be and the reason you could be is because it's not that a person uncovered it because a has the ability to uncover as well. And therefore there's really two possibilities or three possibilities what could have happened. A person may have uncovered it. If it was a person it may have been to me or to her or a may have uncovered it. A is also to her unless it's one of the bad there's a good chance it's to her. There's more possibilities that the way it was uncovered was by something or someone that wouldn't have the ability to be the water. As a result with because there's there's to them to be and the is it's going to be to her. So what do you see from here? You see that when it comes to a something that's even very like the water the that was used for the paradigma, have a right to be if You left it covered and you found it uncovered. So, you don't have to assume that a Tommy person may have uncovered it because it may have been a share it who's not Tommy. You know, there's possibilities where it happened in a way where it didn't become a legal something mind beguiling. When it comes to mind beguiling, you don't make these by this because every time you find mind beguiling, you always suspect that maybe a dangerous may have been marked a little bit of errors. If you're going to go based on probability and statistically, the chances of that have happened is it's not very likely. So, you see what it comes to this so you can be toiled up. You can do a statistical analysis and and based on that be my career a local, but that's only when it comes to this of a hatter. When it comes to second and you see you're more calmer. And says the Gamora, what's the punchline? Schmammy no, camera second to me sura. Schmammy no, so you see from here that is sir is not as calmer as a corner. Camera second to me sura. Thus, going back to the original context when it comes to a side of is sir with a hole in the banana may iron, there's no concern sham of a mocking neck of knock off. Then a contrary, we go based on a local. Is there a soft thick that the animal is a trey for? Maybe. But there's a local that it was a shooter. Thus, we don't have enough to take it away from its local from its status quo. However, when it comes to a question of second and no, there if you saw the people and was it was poking making a little hole inside the the inner or you saw the animal making a hole in the idea. Question sham of mocking neck of knock off. Isn't there a local over here? Yeah, but you don't use a local when it comes to second. We're going to get back to this later with rain and sunshine. Tonight I also want to give them a skin to give away. There's three types of liquids that are awesome. What are they? May iron, the iron, the hollow. Water, wine, and milk. So, if they were left exposed overnight back in the day, there was a major issue and for the Bali Nethus even nowadays, it's a problem. You're not supposed to drink it. So, which liquids? Water, wine, and milk. Come and usually ask them, how long do they have to be exposed for it to be awesome? Does it have to be the whole night? Like from until a lawyer is taste until us. Like the shares The law says the time of long shears that she ate to her husband walking if it was exposed long enough that the rash that's the creature can come from a close place and drink doesn't have to be a long period of time. It can't be long car. What's the definition of long car? I'm going to be with you that so close that if it was underneath the cave how long would it take it was underneath the cave it would take nothing minutes seconds maybe for it to come drink. That's the amount of share for you to come out and I got you like if the share the amount of time that it takes him to go drink then you'll see him. Meaning if if it was there for the amount of time that it would take for him to come out and drink but not enough time for him to run away then you would have seen it. So the law says has to be that you walked away for a long enough period of time where it could have come out of its little hole drank gone back into its hole thus you missed it but if you were away for that period of time even though it wasn't the whole night it doesn't matter that's enough for it to be considered masculine meaning I got it right beside somebody was cool and all this the beginning of school and he found that after he the animal the knife had a nick. Now a knife that a uses to even cool and has to be perfect cuz it's not perfect we we concerned that maybe the imperfection of the knife caused the simon the trachea the trachea and the esophagus respectively to have some sort of damage that would render the animal a treif or right before you gave it a kosher sheet. So the the knife has to be perfect. What happened? A when he and right after the he found that it was cool and all of them so he said it's even if he used it but even if he used this knife to bones or he was cutting bones maybe the bones of the animal so it's going to be possible meaning if he was breaking and cutting bones with this sakin, presumable that that's what caused the sakin to become pugel. As a result, it probably wasn't there at the time that he did the original shrita. So, it makes sense then that the original shrita should be a kosher shrita. Ravuna said, "I don't care. I shina and I'm worried shema ba'arnif gama. I'm worried that maybe this sakin got its gam when it made contact with the skin before the shoychet did the shrita." So, even though he did things afterwards which would seem reasonable to have been the cause of the pegam in the sakin, it doesn't matter. We have to be concerned that maybe the sakin already had this pegam, this imperfection, this nick before he did the actual shrita and as a result, the shrita is going to be pasul shrita. Rav Chisda says, "No. Why? Shema ba'atsin nifka. It seems more reasonable that had it the sakin get its pegam, it got its pegam when you were cutting that sideways. You cut bones. That can nick a knife. A little bit of ar, it's not mistaber that it would cause the sakin." In other words, you have a very important machlokes between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. Before the shoychet shacht, he has to inspect the sakin. Everybody knows. What happened was he shachted it and then after the shrita, he was cutting bones and then he realized that the sakin had a pegam. And the question is when did it get its pegam? He has no idea. Did it get it after the shrita, in which case it would have no impact alacha, the animal that he shachted would be kosher, or maybe it got it when it made contact with the ar before he did the shrita. As a result, the shrita itself is a shrita pasul. Rav Huna said, "Pasul." Rav Huna was machmer. Rav Chisda said, "Kosher." Rav Chisda was meikel. Rav Huna said, "At the end of the day, I have a safek over here. This is Rav Huna lishitaso in daf tes amud alef. Rav Huna said, "Beheima bechayav bechezkat issur d'oraysa. Actually, you won't allow unless you know for sure there was a kosher shrita. You don't know there was a kosher shrita because there's a reisa in the shrita. It's in the animal. It's in the knife as we're going to see in a moment. But still, there is a reisa." Rav Chisda said, "No. At the end of the day, you go based on svara. It's more mistaber that the way this knife got nicked up was from cutting the bones, not from making contact with the art. As a result, says I'm going to be I'm going to let you eat I understand what you mean. It's what she does. At the end of the day, the animal is He doesn't hold up his a lot says the And if you cut bones, it's by the not 100% but it's by the that that would cause a a knife a or or or it's only a by the So I think by the I think the I think we should have of course this is not a the classic is is when you have one by the one is you know something can't be physically what over here is is that you have one is a possibility the other one is a not such a likely possibility common sense it makes more that the got messed up from cut not to contact of course agrees with the idea is but he one reasonable thus we go with this what is which essentially from unrelated somebody was he went he comes realizes the half later that he has a seat on his body what's the question the question did he have when he thus that feel a good feel or maybe later says the even he was busy with that so whatever he found he found on his and he playing in the mud half hour after pretty that from came from from playing it doesn't matter what you that what is not feel. I you I'm unless he could say boringly I'm 100% sure shall I hold your life and look at it. He has to be concerned that maybe it was there even though the sword is to assume that it came later, it doesn't change the Halacha. Right now you don't know for sure that you had a good feel. There's a rayasa, you have something on you that is a hoy says the Halacha is he's going to be ask us to perfect analogy to of his daughter. Where does the Halacha is here it's a Halacha. You have a if the tumor went away, there was a feel but then again there was also a and it's probably that the came later because it's probably the person was in this thing that he found on him after the feel. That's probably where it came from like in of his daughter's case. What probably nicked up the knife? The fact that he was chopping at afterwards. And still what's the Halacha you have to be like at the end of the day you don't say it's something one side is a more reasonable to know there's a sister actually so the master I have a question of his daughter I have a to but the says not a shiny the case of is different. The because it is a tumor. Therefore you have to assume that maybe didn't fit the way you yourself the animals that it's also to eat. I wish you could have how could you say that I very nice is a sister. Is there but right now you did the Halacha the person I know you but there's a what's the Halacha is the difference is and this is the bottom line the difference is and this is the bottom line second is the >> [snorts] >> difference between the two cases is is in the case of the cases is is in the case of the our the issue is over there what's the issue? The issue is there was a shrita. There was an act of shrita. And now there's a rayesa. Something came into question. Maybe the shrita wasn't kosher. Is the issue the quote unquote rayesa, is it with the animal itself? No, the animal's fine. The issue is with the sakan. You're looking at the knife. The rayesa was no light in the sakan. So if I look at the behema, I see a shrita I see a behema that had a beautiful shrita. Problem is when I look at the sakan, they're having issue because now I see a sakan paguma. So I have Now the sakan paguma creates a rayesa in the behema. But the rayesa is not in the cheft of the behema. It's in the sakan. As opposed to the case with a person So this person wanted to the mikvah. He came out. Now there's a rayesa. Where is the rayesa? It's in the subject. It's in the person himself. It's not an independent being. It's on the person he's walking around with a chatzitza on him. The question is did he have it previously or did he not have it previously? Being that the rayesa is in the person in question, in the subject in question, it's in the cheftza itself. You can't say Over there it's going to be different. Bottom line is says the Gemara that if Chizda agrees that there's something called chazaka, this chashash is there, this chashash tumah. And Rav Chizda even says that chazaka is so strong that sometimes safek could be much rather. That if there's two possibilities and one is a possibility, one is a safek possibility, you have to be concerned l'chumra with the maybe possibility. Maybe this chatzitza was there time of the tevilah. But that's only where the safek, where the rayesa is in the thing itself. So when the question is is this person tahor or is this person tamei? And there's a rayesa on the person himself. Over there you have to go l'chumra. However, in the case of shrita, in this case Rav Chizda said his halacha even though there's a rayesa, but the rayesa is not in the behema itself which would determine is it kosher or is it not kosher. Rather it's in the knife. Over there it's going to be different. Basically I'll ask you a kasha. Shok ha'safashot v'achar kach nishmat ha'gargeres. So the context over here is shritas shritas beheima you have to check both simanim. When it comes to an oif all you have to do is check one siman. So what happens if the shoychet shachted one of the simanim and then the other siman he saw was dislocated? It was dislocated to a point where it would render the animal a trayfa. So the question is what's the halacha? It's very simple. If first the shoychet shachted the veshet and then he saw the gargaris the other siman was out of place it's going to be kosher. Because once he shachts the veshet all you need is a siman acher ba'is. The oif had a kosher shrita once it had a kosher shrita I don't care what happens with the other siman. Nishmas gargaris but if first the gargaris was nishmas acher kashrus of the veshet and only afterwards he shachted the veshet so then it's going to be possible. What if shachted the veshet and then he saw the gargaris was mutar? What if he shachted the veshet and then afterwards he found out the gargaris was mutar? Anyway he doesn't know. If koynes shrita nishmas malacha shrita nishmas So here's a safek. Say how you may so this was a real life story. The amru amru pasken. Kol safek bishrita we know what the psak is going to be pasul. Why? Because it's bechezkas Israel made this actually rather the day that kashrus shrita. But the gemara is being medayek the braisa. The braisa said THE CHACHAMIM SAID KOL hakol is the rabbais. Va'amru kol safek bishrita pasul. Kol safek bishrita lasuya it's clearly coming to include something. What's it coming to be marbeh? My loves says the gemara lasuya kigavno even a case where the rayasa is not in the beheima. Even in a case where the rayasa isn't in the sakin. As in Ravhuna Ravhisda's case. Even over there you're going to go l'chumra. In other words a rayasa Ravhuna kashrus Ravhisda right? What's the kol lasuya? A case where you have a a safek and a chazaka? That's every case. Oh must be there's a case where it's a bigger chidush. You know where it's a bigger chidush? So you would just learn Ravhisda's swara that's the chidush. What would be if you had an animal that was bechezkas tuma and now there was a shrita and the rayasa was not not in the animal it was not in the sakin. Ravhisda introduced the new swara to us and say that said that thing that you could say in London shchutal of an echel and there's no rayasa in the shchutal of an echel so be you say in something must be they wanted to have Christmas wonders but that was isn't that what the greatest must be the word says no that's not what it is like last week is something sure something I was just coming to give other examples where there was some something that was no luck at the time that the was done meaning we're not sure you said there's a whole bunch of a whole that the has to conform to when he does something so what would be if he's not sure maybe there was a sheet maybe you waited too long or maybe there was a dress so you didn't do the back and forth motion you know maybe there was errors in the way that the street was actually done but the point is the razor isn't the animal it's not in the sack and it's in the animal maybe it's right that if the razor is in the sack and over there you're not going to go no what's the difference if the something is something sure something I dress so or the something is in the sack and something more says how is the other the animal where the something is in the animal itself something is the animal [snorts] okay so we have a important of his what's the bottom line is what is the bottom line is [snorts] if this before the inspected the knife everything was fine afterwards he sees that there's a problem it's problem if he didn't break any bones with this knife after the then the you have to assume that it happened from the thus the it's going to be possible but the of his the the event [clears throat] that he was hacking bones afterwards then we could assume that it happened from the bones is something might be the other and even though there's a but either way the razor isn't in the knife it's not in the animal therefore that is like all of this bottom line is over there it's going to be okay says the from the way that the established what does it sound like of his the I forgot the way she it sounds like the like was even where nobody where this never cut any bones with this how do you see that because he didn't cut a lot of when you did cut bones so I say that I argue both cases and I don't know in one case that looks like in the other case but the ask the obvious question if that is a lot even when he didn't cut any bones then then what's the what's the that would be make of right was only make of because of we have a did the second become from cutting the did it become cutting the so said it's more but if you tell me said it's even when he was then doesn't that's not a lot says the no if that is a lot even by regular we didn't cut any bones afterwards because the reality is is that when the goes through the animal he's going to touch the bone the bone by the neck in that area so that that too it's more stable that the became from making contact with the rather than from making contact with the thus it happened on its way out after the actual and that's why was make of even when he wasn't at all as it relates to the we like if the is was it the or was it the neck bone we have to be concerned that maybe it was really the or but at the same time we'll be make like if it was chopping that's for sure the more reasonable possibility of what took place over here thus that is what looks like that is what looks like that is what looks like there was a who 13 animals and he never inspected the knife in between shitas and then afterwards he looked and he realized that the sack was pogum and the question was what are you supposed to do? Rav Yosef said that all 13 were a problem, says the Gemara. Come on Rav Huna, right? I feel like that's what it sounds like. He said that all 13 were even the first one. Why would it be even the first one? Because even the first one we're concerned that when did the sack become pogum? When it touched the earth? Right before the first shita? That was the way it's not that was the story. Maybe what happened was Rav Huna and Rav Huna maybe really Rav Huna and Rav Huna and he only said that the latter 12 are the problem. The first one not. Why not the first one? Because you're never concerned that it came from the earth. You're concerned that the first time it made contact with the bone, the bone of the neck on its way out when it completed the shita of the first animal, that's when it became a problem. Thus, the first one's okay, but it's the next 12 that are going to be a Even by the same Maybe Rav Yosef meant Rav Huna. [snorts] Why? Because the Rav Huna Because if he meant Rav Huna then Rav Huna You see Rav Huna holds that you have a right the cooler. Right? Rav Huna The whole spirit of Rav Huna is that we're going to be over here. It's not that it happened from the earth. So we're going to be What's the cooler? That it happened from making contact with the neck bone. Says the Gemara, if you're going to be You might have the essence of the How do you know that it got nicked up from the first neck bone? Meaning from the first animal. The essence of the The So really Rav Yosef held like Rav Huna. The Gemara is arguing and they say I don't think any of them should have been a problem because Rav Huna holds you could be the cooler. You're the cooler when it's one animal. You assume it came from the neck bone not from the earth. If it's 13 animals, we could be even more say it came from the 13th animal. So none of them should be a problem. That's clearly Rav Yosef said some were a problem. If Rav Yosef said some were a problem, he must have held like Rav Huna. And if he held like Rav Huna, he must have held that all were a problem. In other words, what the Gemara is saying is there really were three possibilities how Rav Yosef could have paskened shita. We're not sure if Rebbe Yosef really said but there were three possibilities what he could have meant. Either Rebbe Yosef said that all 13 what happened? There was a shochet he schechted 13 animals and at the end he realized that the sakan was pagum. Then Rebbe Yosef said, "We have problems." Okay, what's that? Give me one of three things. It could either mean all 13 are pagum. He held like Rav Huna that anytime you schecht and you find that the sakan is pagum you can turn that it happened before the schechita. So in this case it happened before the first schechita. All 13 are going to be pagum. Or maybe he held like Rav Chisda that you're not worried that the are would ever be pagum the sakan but you're worried that the bone could have been pagum the sakan. Thus, the first time the sakan made contact with a bone that could have been pagum the sakan was at the conclusion of the first schechita. So from that point moving forward you have to be concerned. The first one's going to be kosher but the next 12 will be a problem. Or the Gemara is suggesting another possibility and that is let's work with the spirit of the law as it relates to Rav Chisda. And Rav Chisda seems to be toila the kula. And being that Rav Chisda is being toila the kula, so maybe just like you have a right to be toila that it came from the bone not from the are. Maybe you have a right to be toila it came from the bone of the 13th animal. Sounds like a stretch. But from the 13th animal not from the first one and as a result none of them would be a problem at all. Says the Gemara great Rav Ashi. Rav Kahana Rav Kahana held that a shochet who's schechting many animals he has to be bodek the knife in between schechitas. Says the Gemara "Kiman? Who does he hold like?" Presumably Rav Huna. He held like Rav Huna and the reason he held you have to do this is because if you're not going to check and then you're going to find an issue then all of them are going to be tamei retroactively. So because of Rav Huna's halacha he held like Rav Huna that's that's why Rav Kahana felt that the shochet has to be bodek in between. You're doing it for a concern that retroactively you may have an issue. But the Gemara who no it's not much that that's where of kind of held you have to do it, but rather maybe it was of his it was meaning you didn't say that you have to check in between because we're worried that if you would find a problem, it would mean that the behavior you just shocked it is an issue. He's not worried about the behavior that you just shocked it. It's just that you always have to check a second before you do so if you shocked in many animals, you have to shock simply for the next not for the previous get about the previous I'm worried more about the next but the one who says keep on maybe so If he was saying that you need to do a for the next one, then it's not enough to just be by you have to do because that's the the is is that you have to go to a before you shock and you have to show the the second and make sure it's a good second. So if it's more a concern to make sure that nothing developed at the time of the that's where of kind of was addressing so that anybody could do that. But if you're worried if this is more about the next the next is a whole you have to conform with. If kind of didn't seem to say that if kind of was because doesn't sound like you needed because so the says that the truth is that you don't never need a to check the second. You know why? Because what are we dealing with? It's the what's very important actually here. When do you need to in the first so when I can go into this now but the point is is that you know it's a question of it comes to it the says so I don't understand so then why do you ever have to show it to a if if there's a concept of then why do you ever show it to a I mean you're right it's good I know what the answer is it's based on that the only reason you ever show it to a is to give cover to the really you shouldn't have to show it to a this should never have to go to a and say rabbi is this okay? Why not? Because anybody is for the reason you have to show it to a is just to give cover to the so ordinarily before you go you give cover but if you're just 15 animals so what in between each animal to go to give cover to the that already don't have to do so between not for retroactive maybe if you held like but it's not maybe I'm not worried about what happened what happened is water under the bridge now that I have a it's more about moving forward I'm moving forward that don't have to go to a that's before you do your first to to give cover to the but if you're going to have an assembly line where we're knocking out in that case you don't have to go in to and give it to excel so before we go to the next which is another classic just a little bit of read as it relates to the end of yesterday's and the beginning of this morning's so the mentioned a very important principle it's a principle that governs many of us in many areas in and that is so we know that anytime there's a so we know that anytime there's a something's then it's it's self-explanatory if it's it's sometimes there's an need to be but what is what do you have a I'm not sure is this is this so there's a whole some of the more difficult complicated super in address how you deal with a situation when you have a is it a or you go to the sheet is only even so the holds you can go whatever you can go something you can go then there's something called a and then you have you have different types of you have you have so how many do you have all of then you have you have there's so many needed base but so stuff and some of the so in Shas deal with how you address a Safek. So, the short answer is very, very complicated. That's all when you're dealing with something that is merely a question of Issur Heter. Can I eat it or can I not eat it? However, what came what emerged from the Sugya that we learned is that when the Issur at hand also involves an element of Sakana, over there it takes on a whole different Shulchan Aruch. And the context in which the Gemara said it is that even though ordinarily, for example, if you had an animal, you did a kosher schechita, and then later it was not allowed a Safek that maybe the animal is a treifa. Why? Because as the animal stuck its teeth into the benei mayim and shema be makom nekav nakav. And the chazaka there the chazaka halacha that we would assume that the animal for sure the meat is kosher. Why? Because being that there was a valid kosher schechita, chemed beheima al kasher kasher, that it was be chezkas schechita unless you know for sure that there was an issue. That's all true, you can rely on chazaka when you have a Safek Issur. But let's say you have a Safek whether this drink that's in front of you or this fruit may be a shayla of pikuach nefesh. Maybe if somebody eats this lay lay no who knows what could happen to him. So when it's a question of Safek Sakana, then you can't rely on chazaka. And we're concerned like the Gemara said shema be makom nekav nakav. So that proverbial Safek which seems a little far fetched, we even have to be worried about. What do you mean? There's a chazaka that there's there's no um megulim, there's no arrest, there's no poison. It doesn't matter. You can rely on chazaka when it comes to a shayla of Issur, but you cannot rely on chazaka when it comes to a shayla of Sakana. Why? Because chamira sakanta mei issura. The Darkei Moshe in Yoreh De'ah Siman Kuf Tes Zayin discusses what happens if you have a question of Sakana and the davar shel Sakana got mixed up in a taruvah. So for example, if you have a taruvah of basar be chalav. Like so that should give you a chazaka gamur. The Torah says it three times. Once to tell me there's an Issur Achilah, twice to tell me there's an Issur Achilah, and a third time to tell me that it's even assur b'hana. What is basar b'chalav mean? If you cook basar b'chalav together, it's a problem. Stated that if proportionally the ratio between basar to chalav or chalav to basar is such that one is mevatal the other ones, then there's no problem. If you have shishim times basar k'neged the chalav or shishim times chalav k'neged the basar, sugiyos that we're going to learn b'ezras Hashem at the end of the masechta, so then the halachah is you have nothing to worry about because we say bitul b'rov, bitul b'shishim. So if you have taruvos of shishim, nothing to worry about. We know that Chazal said you're not supposed to eat fish and meat together. Why not? Not because it's assur, but because of sakana. Chazal believed that there was a sakana of eating fish and meat together. Thus it's an issue. Shteil zach a shaila, what happens if somebody cooks fish together with meat and he realizes afterwards, and it would be so there's a taruvos. But there's shishim of basar k'neged the dagim or there's shishim of dagim k'neged the basar. Do you say bitul b'shishim? I mean, that's taruvos 101. What about when it comes to this? Says the Ramah Darkei Moshe it's in Siman Kuf Tes Zayin in Hilchos Ma'achalei Yom Tov that even though there's something called bitul b'shishim, when it comes to issur, when it comes to a question of sakana, you don't say bitul b'shishim. Why? Because the Gemara says in Chulin Daf Yud Beis Amud Beis, our sugiyah, chamira sakanta me'issura. So that although it's true you can go based on a bitul as it relates to a question of issur, but when it comes to an issue of sakana, there not. And the Taz brings the Darkei Moshe, he brings from the Yam Shel [ __ ] not everybody agrees with this Darkei Moshe, but it's the Ramah. So the Ramah's psak was that even though bitul b'shishim, that's only when it's a question of issur, but chamira sakanta me'issura. Thus when it comes to a question of sakana, you do not say the halachah of bitul b'shishim. So let me ask you another shaila. What about a sfek sfeka? What would be the halachah if you have a sfek sfeka? Not a safek sakana, but rather you have a sfek sfeka of sakana. What would be the halachah over there? The truth is it's in the Pri Megadim. The Pri Megadim in Orach Chaim Siman Kuf Ain Gimel from all places. The Orach Chaim discusses the Pri Megadim discusses it and says the Prima Godden, I think it's totally in a wondrous shiva that in Yeshiva we learned in base where the Gamara discusses how exactly faker works. Does faker work more in the realm of it's just a bigger suffix so to speak or there's a famous shita in the post game that the way faker works is me time right. Says the Prima Godden without getting too that in depth that it's more in the Gamara he quotes our Sugya that even though when you have a narrow when you have a suffix you can rely on but when you have a suffix you can't rely on so can't be when there's a suffix if there's a question is it kosher or non-kosher rely on a but if there's a question that this may harm you there's a whether you're not allowed to rely on what about a faker so says the Prima Godden if faker works me time right then maybe I can hear it side to be why because we know the Gamara says so although you see in that can't be a suffix it doesn't mean that can't be because so says the Prima Godden if faker is me time right then he quotes the issue in base then maybe I can hear it if faker is not me TIME RIGHT THEN HE DOESN'T want to hear it so much but the bottom line is that discuss different applications of how you treat a suffix what was our our Gamara is that if you have a suffix you can't use a to go be on the cool what about so that's the Ramah what about a faker that's something that the Prima Godden discusses in the and in not in it's in either way there's a lot of different directions we can go with this but I thought it's it's to speak out a fascinating true as it relates to Hamira Sakant and all many true that were written by Gidalia Israel by the grace of Poiskin as it relates to this just to see how they apply the principle of Hamira Sakant and how they treated it differently than you would treat a regular question of Safek is the heter and that is a true from the Munkatcher Rebbe the Minchas Elozer. The true is in Chelek base it's in Siman Ayin Vav and the question that was presented to the Minchas Elozer was as follows. There was a woman who had gotten married three times and all three of her marriages ended unsuccessfully. She was a young woman and the shaila that's presented here in the true is as follows. She gets married this woman does she had children and her husband died while he was a a young man. So she got married a second time. The second husband turned out to be a bad guy who America who she finally he he left her for a short period of time eventually he was willing to get to give her again. Then she got married a third time and this third person that she got married she had children with again and this person again was today she's a young woman the Minchas Elozer says she's not even 50 years old she's an Ishas Chayil Chashuva Tznua who both been married and she came to me so sad and she wants to get married and she knows she's technically a Katlanis because she buried two husbands and being that two of her husbands died Machlokes Rebbe and Rebbe Shimon ben whether Katlanis is established by a woman burying two husbands or three husbands we go with Chumra of course like Rebbe and as a result she knows she's a Katlanis so she came to the Minchas Elozer and she wanted to know is there anything you can do for me is there any way you can find me a heter I'm a young woman I want to get married and the Elozer wrote a beautiful true but a very long true but it's 10 pages long and there's a a tremendous amount of brilliance and and one this specifically as it relates to what we're talking [snorts] about right now. Now just from going through the true for you see a few things. There was some mitigating factors but nothing that made the Min lose a comfortable to go and emphatically issue a a heter. Number one, one of the husbands had died during the outbreak of typhus. The Ramah says in Hilchos Ishus Even Ha'ezer Siman 10 that if a man dies machmas dever or makas medina where there's some sort of outbreak where the whole city died so then it doesn't fall into the realm of katlanus. Katlanus would mean that this woman there's something about her that's causing her husbands to die. But if the whole shtot died then obviously it's nothing to do with her, right? If a woman lost a husband by the Holocaust I mean that would make her a katlanus. Of course not. It wasn't her mazel. It was it was the it was the situation. And it's a pshat in the Ramah. The Ramah brings it in Hilchos Ishus when he discusses the laws of katlanus. So the Min said that you know certainly a mitigating factor the fact that this man died during this typhus outbreak. But he said that really if you go through the Ramah and the poskim there's very technical criteria that you have to meet in order for it to be considered a dever and a geifa. And he didn't believe that it met those technical criteria. Another mitigating factor that the Min threw out there but at the end of the day he wasn't comfortable with and that is the Rosh. So do it. The Rosh says that the law of katlanus only applies if a woman loses two husbands. What if a man loses two wives? So then you don't say the the law of katlanus. Why not? Because the Gemara says that why is it that a katlanus is not allowed to get married? The Gemara gives two reasons but the reason that stands the halacha is mazel godel. We're concerned that maybe there's something about her mazel. Says the Rosh it doesn't mean her mazel. What what which what part of her mazel are we worried about is dictating that somehow causing her husbands to die. Says the Rosh it's the mazel chazal say bonay chayi u'mezoni. It's the mezoni mazel. It's the fact that women usually rely on their husbands to support them and her mazel is not to have mezones. Probably she has a husband who's a successful guy. So what's happening? He has to die. That's the only way for her mazel of mazel to play itself out cuz it's not for her to be a balance of mazel. It says the Russian he wrote this in the truth of the matter brings this law law. And that is that a woman who relies on her husband for parnossa, so that is a law of but a man who doesn't rely on his wife for parnossa usually, so they not going to have the law of so it says the that this woman was an in the sense that she was a balance parnossa. So, really there would be a mitigating factor where maybe you can argue and you can say that being that she has parnossa, so just like the Rush said there's no from a man when he loses his wife, so maybe this woman who lost her husband shouldn't have the law of either but the said he wasn't comfortable. So, there were two mitigating factors that at the end of the I have to give it away. He'll be but he doesn't wasn't comfortable with that. That wasn't enough for him to issue a So, what do we do with this woman? We want to help her out. Said the that end of the day he found two two coolers not mitigating factors where he was a little bit more comfortable. And that the first one is the The is also here in where the says this is one line. Says the says the what would be if a woman got married, lost a husband, then got married and everything was fine. Maybe there was a death or something else happened. And then got married and again the husband died. Would she be a or maybe being that it was a relatively successful marriage in between the two so maybe that would be enough to knock out the maybe over there you wouldn't have this He's not sure. Says the this is exactly what happened over here. So, you're looking for a to be make I found a I found the a and at first glance this would definitely seem like something you could rely on. Now, the truth is that there is a a sheet of Rashi Rashi in the end of the first paragraph of Masochist Yevamos for those who don't know this Rashi. We we spoke about many times when we learned Yevamos. Where Rashi says an unbelievable chiddush that just like there's a halacha of Katlanus with a woman that loses her husband, there's also a halacha of Katlanus for a woman that gets divorced. A woman that gets divorced divorced twice, Rashi's shita is is not supposed to get married a third time because there's a halacha of Katlanus. Now, we don't pasken that way. It's brought down in halacha as a issue in Shulchan Aruch. Now, according to that shita, there was no sayruga over here. To the contrary, not only is it not a sayruga, she's a Katlanus according to Rav [ __ ] Gamzu because one husband died, the other husband got divorced, and then the third one died again. So, question So, certainly without a question that wouldn't be a a sfek sfeka. But again, it's all based on the fact that we don't pasken like Rashi, and it's not something that we work with halacha. And being that we don't work with halacha with this Rashi, so it's based on that. It's poshut say the Minchas [ __ ] What you're left with then is a sayruga. And being that sayruga, maybe you can rely on this be'er heitev. The second thing he said was the Sefer Chassidim. And the Sefer Chassidim is in tuf ain ches if you want to look it up. And he's just talking masechta Yevamos. It's a fascinating discussion. Unfortunately, we're not learning the shita of Katlanus now. We're learning Hakol Shaveh, right? But >> [laughter] >> But the point is he mentions Derech Agav the Sefer Chassidim says something about Katlanus, but says the Minchas [ __ ] let's be medayek with [ __ ] as of the Sefer Chassidim the way he presented the law of Katlanus. He says as follows, "Isha, a woman with shlishi oylerin v'ee lo yitinasu." Meaning, if two of her husbands or three of her husbands died, markidesley markidesley Rebbi and Rav Shimon ben Gamliel should not get married again. "Im meisu ba'aleha zeh achar zeh, if the husbands died one after the other, l'achar shebo aleha ummeisu belo banim." That's the punchline. And they died without children. Says the Minchas [ __ ] "I see a gevaldige chiddush. I see that the Sefer Chassidim held that the only time there's a problem of a Katlanus is if the man died without children. But if the man died and left over children, so then there's no halacha of Katlanus. He says a very big chiddush. I didn't see anybody say it, but I also never found anyone that should say to the contrary. So, if Rebbe Yehuda Chassid, one of the Rishonim said it, and nobody said to the contrary, and to me that means this is this is real. So says the Ben Ish Chai Azulai, I have two real s'varos to be matir this woman to get married. Number one, I have the Be'er Heitev. The Be'er Heitev said yesh la histapek if it was a rugan, maybe you don't have the halacha of Katlanus. Be'er Heitev himself wasn't sure. And then I have a Sefer Chassidim who seemed pretty sure, and I don't even know anyone that argues with the Sefer Chassidim. So he says this is more than just a safek, this is like a real tzaddik, because nobody argues with it. So l'chumra, you have two s'varos to allow this woman to get married. So based on that, this is the first two three columns of of Tshuvas Minchas Elazar, where he feels that maybe we can figure something out to help this woman who came b'mar nefesh, and she's she wants to get married so badly. I think this may be an eitzah. She's a Katlanus without a question. But at the same time, there are two s'varos in Gedolei HaPoskim maybe to allow her to get married. But here's the question. Says the Minchas Elazar, could you rely on two s'veikos to allow this woman to get married? What we're going to call a s'vek s'veika in din? Right? It's not a s'vek s'veika in metzius. But it's a s'vek s'veika in din. Maybe the Be'er Heitev is right in one of his s'varos that if it's a rugan that she's not a Katlanus. Maybe the Sefer Chassidim's right that if the man dies with children, so you don't have the halacha of Katlanus. So essentially you have is two s'veikos, right? Two s'varos to be meikel. It's I guess a s'vek s'veika. S'vek s'veika in din. Could you rely on a s'vek s'veika? So the Minchas Elazar said to him, it's a primagada. And the primagada wasn't sure. Primagada said I'm not sure. What do you mean? I thought you always rely on s'vek s'veika. I mean s'vek s'veika, this is halacha s'veika 101. Yeah, that's when it's a question of is it b'heved. But over here we're dealing with sakana. And the Gemara says "Chumra d'Yud chamiros d'chamtamei sura." I mean a chumra d'chamtamei sura, maybe over here it's going to be different. Maybe over here you will not be able to rely on it. That was the says the that the truth is I don't even understand the I think we have to be so at this point it's not looking good for this woman. I think we have to be and and he's he doesn't understand he says I'll prove it to you. Everybody knows the it's in the end of what happens if a wall falls down on and we're not sure we think there may be somebody underneath that wall. So the is that even though removing the bricks and doing what we need to do to possibly save this person would involve that the fact and all of us a member gets a call on doesn't ask questions he goes on the call. Why because that's the something that is everything. There's nothing to talk about. And the when it speaks out what may or might may not be underneath the wall the many possibilities. There may be nobody there. Even if there's somebody there may be dead. And even if the person's alive maybe he's not a Jew. So maybe he's not even someone for whom the is it doesn't matter. Because being that we're discussing that you can bring that if THERE'S A SMALL SAD WE'RE GOING TO BE SO WHAT WAS THE you have a question over here should I drink this glass of water or not there may be a maybe a question of that this. So you'll tell me okay but IT'S A MAYBE YEAH MAYBE NOT. You have ANOTHER YOUR THUMBS ARE flying all over the place. You're coming up with a hundred different reasons. At the end of the day it's a because of that this. If you can be because maybe because of that this then it's possible you have to be when it's maybe because of that this. You see from the of the fact and all of us clearly that if there's any because of that this in the world that is that because of that this is going to it's going to trump. That's what's going to take precedence. So if they come to the side, "I don't understand parshas shavua and the pri megadim." And he comes and now he looks at the pri megadim. Says it's not a question that you can't rely on a sfek sfeka when it comes to a question of sakana. So if that's the case, said the Minchas [ __ ] "Even though I came up with mitigating factors, and I came up WITH TWO REAL SVAROS TO BE mevareir hateav, that was be seif Ruvain and the seif Shimon Yitzchak who says that the two children as a result is no longer a problem. It's very nice have a sfek sfeka, but sfek sfeka be mevareir katalanus. It's a shaila of picuach nefesh. So with a sfek sfeka be mevareir katalanus, how are we going to get out of this?" And then the Minchas [ __ ] says a davar nifla. He says, "You know what the perush says?" The Rambam. Which Rambam? The Rambam has a very mechudeshes when it comes to katalanus. We know the halacha is a woman that's married twice, two husbands died, according to Rebbe three times, according to Shimon Gamliel, she's not allowed to get married. It's a halacha l'maaseh. What happens if she got married? Let's say this woman got married chuppah kiddushin Moshe v'Yisrael. They got married and then they split up. And then after there's something called katalanus. She they weren't aware of this. They had no idea there's something called the katalanus. Or they knew and whatever. They got married. SO THE QUESTION is how do we force them to get divorced now or do we not? Now if somebody marries a chayvei lavin, a mamzer or something, of course you would have to get married. Koifin. That that's not even a question. They're not allowed to stay married. We're going to force them to get divorced. But this is not a question of issur. So the question is koifin or ein koifin? Says the Rosh in the P'nei Menachem that a woman with the halacha is koifin. Why? Because the Gemara says a chulin daf yud amud aleph, "Chamira sakanta mei'issura." So madrei'cha if it was a question of issur, the halacha would be koifin. We'd force the man to give a get. So certainly if it's a shaila of sakana, when it comes to katalanus, you know what chazaka when it comes to sakana? Right, SAKANA IS SO MUCH MORE CHAMUR THAT THE GEMARA SAYS YOU DON'T SAY BITUL B'SHISHIM when it comes TO SAKANA. SO CERTAINLY if sakana is more chamur, "Chamira sakanta mei'issura." Therefore the halacha is going to be you're going to force them to stay married. The Rambam says that anyway. The Rambam says the halacha of katalanus is on the katila level. The katila person is not supposed to marry a katalonus. But b'dieved, let's say a person married a katalonus, the halacha is they could stay married. And the question is why? What happened to chamira de kande misura? So believe it or not, this question was asked to the Rambam himself. And the Rambam wrote a teshuvah. The Rambam wrote a teshuvah, he responded to the people that were questioning his certainly very novel psak, that katalonus is only under the katila level, but b'dieved let us stay married. The teshuvah is printed, it's printed in the Kesef Mishneh in the end of Hilchos Issurei Bi'ah. The problem is a little suss. It's a little bit unclear what exactly the Rambam meant. But we have a teshuvah of the Chasam Sofer. The Chasam Sofer in the teshuvah Even Ha'ezer siman chaf gimmel. Do we speak of the Chasam Sofer here this week? >> [laughter] >> The Chasam Sofer in the teshuvah Even Ha'ezer siman chaf gimmel chelek aleph. So he brings this Rambam, and he says, "I'm going to tell you what the Rambam meant." U'v'tshuvah Bi'ur Ha'Rambam. Listen to this. This halacha that a katalonus is not supposed to get married is einai eved l'mandei kafdei. Someone that's a kafdei. Someone that's worried. Someone that worries a lot. A person like that, kafdeinan b'chavedei. He needs to be worried. And as a result, he's not supposed to get married. Listen to this. The Rambam held that if somebody goes to a rav and they ask a shaila, "Rabbi, I was red a shidduch, right? The the she wants TO KNOW, COULD SHE GET MARRIED?" And he wants to know, "Can he get married?" So obviously he's a little bit concerned, cuz otherwise he wouldn't be asking the shaila. So we tell him, "Don't get married." You know why? Because if you're a kafdei, mandei kafdei kafdeinan b'chavedei. And therefore you need to be worried. So we tell you stay away FROM IT. BUT WHAT HAPPENS, SAYS THE CHASAM SOFER, this is the way he explains the Rambam. IF THIS PERSON GOT MARRIED, THEY HAVE NO KAT WHAT? KATALONUS mazel gadol. It's it doesn't resonate BY THEM. THEY FELT, "NO, I have no problems. I have no problem getting married." And then, so what do you see? They don't care. That means they're a light kafdei. Are you a light kafdei? Light kafdeinan b'chavedei. You have nothing to worry about. You could stay married. Notice the Rambam held that the issur of katalonus, when the Gemara says mazel gadol, it's not a real thing. It's not a real ein shomei'a l'kol ha'olam in Sha'alos U'teshuvos Chasam Sofer. It's you have to see it. It's dvar halacha. IT'S NOT REAL. And even though the Gemara says mazel garden, it means because people very often get anxious, they get worried when it comes to these types of situations. So, if someone that's a kometz kometz in a b'chadei, but someone that's a light kometz, light kometz in a b'chadei. Now, this term mande kometz kometz in a b'chadei, mande light kometz light kometz in a b'chadei, it's a borrowed term. It comes from the Gemara in Maseches Pesachim daf kuf tes. And the Gemara over there is talking about zugos, right? Once upon a time you weren't supposed to do things in pairs. You have to drink two cups of wine. Right, that's why we drink dalid keisos. Right, I mean we drink dalid keisos connected to the dalid she'einos of Geulah. But we drink that's what comes in an arvis pesach. We drink dalid keisos that to show that it's lo sh'murim and amezikim, we don't have to be worried about zugos, about dvar hamatik. But but the point is is that once upon a time there was something called zugos. If you did If you had two glasses of wine two shots of Right? So, they make sure you have a third. That's what you're supposed to do. That's the Gemara tells the story, right? There was a person who was sitting in a kretchma somewhere, and he had a few shots, his head started spinning. He says, "Give me one more shot." Then his head stopped spinning. >> [laughter] >> Hashtag kiddush club. It was spinning counterclockwise after the next shot. Yeah, but anyways, [laughter] but but the point is Right, there's something called zugos. So, the Gemara says you have to be worried about zugos? The Gemara says very simple. If you're worried about zugos, you have to be worried about zugos. Mande kometz kometz in a b'chadei. Or mande light kometz light kometz in a b'chadei. It says it about iron heart, about other things. But really Chazal said it about zugos. That's what Chazal said it. The Chasam Sofer is borrowing that terminology. U'v'tshuva Be'er Hagolah, I mean he didn't say this. U'v'tshuva Be'er Hagolah, at least the K'sam Sofer doesn't quote it that way. U'v'tshuva Be'er Hagolah she'eino elo lemande kometz kometz in a b'chadei. BORROWING THAT TERM. SO, SOMEONE THAT'S worried about katzvones the mazel garden has to be worried about the the mazel. But someone that's not worried about the mazel garden need not worried about the Ma- That's what the Rambam said. Like you ask a shaila, yeah. Then of course it's something you have to worry about. If someone is asking a shaila, clearly the person is conservative. If the person is not asking the shaila, then this person does not have to be concerned. Says the Minchas Elozar. Says the Minchas Elozar. If that's the case, it comes out that there's really no problem with the Katlanis getting married unless the person is worried. So he says, "I'm comfortable issuing a psak." And here's the psak. The Minchas Elozar went up to the woman and said, "Listen, really there's something called Katlanis. But at the same time, and in in the Halachic world, this would not be an issue. It'd be a good point cuz it's a sfek sfeka. I have two real stardam to be meikel. And sfek sfeka permeates Halacha. It's always something you can be meikel. It's not a sfek sfeka in metzius, it's a sfek sfeka in the What are the two dinim that establish the sfek sfeka? Maybe the Halacha is like the one side of the Be'er Heitev that if it's a seruga, it's not an issue. Maybe the Halacha is like the Sefer Chassidim and being that you have children from both of your husbands, so this is not a problem. Ner fos chamira sakanta mesura. But it's only chamira sakanta mesura if she's going to be worried. Said the Minchas Elozar, "Once I tell her that it's a sfek sfeka, I don't think she's going to be worried anymore." Isn't that a classic case of What's a classic case of Katlanis? Where a woman knows THAT THERE'S SOMETHING CALLED KATLANIS, SHE CAN'T GET MARRIED. BUT IF THE RABBI TELLS HER IT'S FINE, it's okay. I don't think you HAVE TO BE WORRIED ANYMORE. I DON'T HAVE TO BE WORRIED ANYMORE that there's nothing to worry about. Like the Ram Shita said, "Well, kedai Ram lismach kol and that was the psak that he said." He brings a teshuva from his zeideh, the Chayei Adam, the Tzanzer Rav, that the Tzanzer Rav in Even HaEzer chelek beis siman chof vov who brings a similar shaila where there was a question of a Katlanis and he said that his grandfather, Rabbeinu Tam, holds like Rabbeinu Tam Shita. The zeideh of the Minchas Elozar and the zeideh of the Divrei Chaim that the Rabbeinu Tam Shita said that if the rav of the city is going to pasken that it's okay for her to get married, she can get married. She doesn't have to worry about Katlanis. Said the Minchas Elozar, "What's the psak?" He says, "You know what the psak is? It's this Rambam. Because if she hears from the rabbi that it's okay to get married, she won't be worried. She's not worried, there's nothing to WORRY ABOUT." THE WHOLE issue of Katlanis, the mazel gorem is all to the extent that this person is a kofer. So it's mande kofer kapdei na ba'hadei. But mande lo kofer, lo kapdei na ba'hadei. We ran out of time. We'll have to stop here.