????

Home › Forums › Bais Medrash › ????

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • February 20, 2013 12:00 am at 12:00 am #608287
    Chortkov
    Participant

    The ???? in ??????? ?? ?”? speaks about the case of one who is ???? a woman ????? ????? ? and then a second man came and was ???? her during those thirty days – we Pasken ?????? ????? ??????. The ???? continues and states ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??????.

    The Ramban asks what the ????? of the last part of the ???? is? (?? ??? ??????) He answers that we are talking where the two marriages were to one ????? and one ???. So one could have had a ??? ????? that a ?? ??? has a ???? that she was eating ????? in her fathers house, and now we are ????? whether she is married to a ??? or ????? so she can carry on – ??”?.

    ?????? it is shver – Why takah is there no ?????

    There is a ?????? between ??? and the ????? (I think ??”?) as to why a ?? ??? eats ?????. One way of learing (???) is because she is in her fathers ????, and when she is married she eats because of her husband. The ????? seems to learn that she eats because she herself if a ????, but when she marries a ????? she loses this ???. (See ??”? on the ???? who is ???? like the ?????).

    According to ???, there is a way out of this ????. The ???? cannot tell you that she can carry on eating ?????, because the reason why she was eating before has definitely finished; she is now married. Our ???? is only if she can start again for a different reason – from the husband. On that there is no ????.

    The problem with this is that ??? in ?????? ?”? speaks about a ???? ???? in a case where the man was ??? because of one ???, and then grew another ??? ???, followed by becoming ???? from the first ???. The ???? should tell us that the man is ??? and his ??? ??? is a ???.

    The ?????? is ????? that ??? must hold ??????? ?????? ??????, because although the first ??? has gone, and the only reason to be ??? is from a totally different ????, still we use ????.

    According to that, the ???? here will still be a ????, whether you hold like ??? or the ????? (although one can always answer that the ???? argues with ??? ?????? about ??????? ?????? ??????), and why can the woman not eat ??????

    February 20, 2013 2:09 pm at 2:09 pm #931139
    Chortkov
    Participant

    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 ?????.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.