Reply To: ????

So you could suggest that there actually is a ???? according to the ????? (and maybe ???), but he will explain the ???? differently in a way that there is no ????.

However, the ??? ????? learns like the ????? (as I will prove), yet still does not hold of the ????. He asks a ???? on the words ?? ????? ???? — If we are talking when she marries one ??? and one ?????, then why does it only talk about a ?? ????? – the same applies to a ?? ???, because once married to a ?????, she must stop eating ?????. (Here we see he doesn’t hold of ????, because if he would, his whole ???? is not shver – betzem a ?? ??? can eat ????? based on the ????, and it is takah only the ?? ????? who has no ????).

Yet the ??? ????? answers that we are talking when she married two ?????, and says a massive ????? that a ??? is only ????? his wife if she is ???? ???? ????, and in a matzav of ??? she cannot eat. — And if this is supposed to answer his question, a ?? ??? married to two ????? will be ???? to eat – so he must learn like the ????? that the she is eating of her own accord, because the husbands cannot be ????? her ????.

So he holds like the ????? and still does not hold of the ?????

?????? the only ????? will be that he holds of ??? ?????? ?”? that in a case where the ???? was a ???? (such as where you TRIED to do a ??????? but are ????? if the money landed ???? ?? or ???? ??) there is no ???? that she is unmarried. Efshar we can shtel that tzu to here that she is definitely married, the question is simply whether the marriage is to the ??? or the ?????.