it's not really so appropriate for him. The Chachamim don't want a person to be easy and quick to divorce his wife, and therefore, one second, let me finish this thought, and therefore, it's considered like a penalty that if he decides to divorce her then he will have to pay what we'll call a ketubah or settlement. And this was really mandated by Chachamim and it's really falls into the category now of a תקנת חכמים and has like an obligation of a real chiyuv of תקנת חכמים. Yes. Why do we say שש שעות? So that he's asked at least Yeah, let's do שש שעות. Let's we'll talk about שש שעות. No, no. But look, if nothing's changed, everything is the same and according to what you're saying, what's the reason? Because the guy is not adequately to be what his wife. All right? The whole point of making a big party, getting the guy involved, and saying that it's going to cost him money is the same reason. Or why do you need both? שש שעות was that the woman should have a good party. That was שש שעות. Well, okay, so when you throw a big simcha the guy that spends the money Well, the Gemara the Gemara is talked yeah, Brother, let's not do שש שעות. Let's not do this. If you want, I'll explain you later. It's kind of it's going to take us to There's a

few Gemaras that say you can divorce your wife for petty things like if the soup is cold. Yes, so you're allowed to, hachi nami, the halachah is that you're allowed to. That's a petty thing. That's not like a Right. So, that's why it's considered like a penalty. That's considered a cause thing, though. Exactly. So, that's why that's that's what that's what we're saying. Therefore Therefore, we want to penalize him if he does that. He's allowed to. The halachah that that Gemara is talking halachically. Ha-halachatically a husband is allowed to divorce his wife if he found her she burnt the food. Oh yeah, halachically, no problem. That's the Beit Hillel says. That's a Gemara in the end of the Masechet Gittin. But here we're saying that we don't we don't we don't really want that. It's not ideal. We don't want people getting divorced because his wife burns the soup. Okay. Very good. So, that leaves us with now the opinion here that that ketubah is derabbanan and being that ketubah is derabbanan, you can only collect from ziborit. So that is the first opinion here. Now,

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, כתובת אשה מן התורה. He argues and he says that כתובת אשה is מן התורה. Now, one thing that is not really clear in the Gemara, which I just want to point out as we as we speak about the Gemara in a moment, which was that A moment ago, when we're talking about ketubah being derabbanan, the Gemara said clearly that because it's derabbanan and if she has to collect the ketubah, what quality is she entitled to? The Gemara says she only gets the ziborit, the lowest end. Now the Gemara brings down the opinion if ketubah is if that ketubah is דאורייתא, מן התורה, but the Gemara doesn't mention that that if it's מן התורה, what she would be entitled to. we could assume it's not going to be derabbanan because Sorry, it's not going to be זיבורית, because the Gemara moments ago said being that it's derabbanan, it's זיבורית, is משמע if it's דאורייתא It's more than זיבורית. It's going to be upgraded, right. So, but there's still two options. It could be בינונית, or it could be עידית. That the Gemara doesn't say, so just hold on for a moment. We're going to see in a moment, hopefully, we can figure out what that would be. Okay? So,

what is the source of this halachah that it's דאורייתא? So the Gemara says רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, כתובת אשה מן התורה. כתובת אשה is מן התורה. And the Gemara goes on to say, is that true? מי אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הכי? Did רבן שמעון בן גמליאל really say that כתובת אשה is מן התורה? We seem to have a beraita that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says בהדיא that it's דרבנן. The beraita first brings down a תנא קמא, which is not רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, that says it's דאורייתא, and that's going to be the דתניא. תנא קמא here. תנא קמא says it's דאורייתא, not רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. And he says כסף ישקול. What is the source? It says, כסף ישקול כמוהר הבתולת, that כסף, he shall pay like the מוהר הבתולת. What is the מוהר הבתולת? We'll translate it again as settlement, I think that's how the ArtScroll translates it. And this is talking about the parashah, which we've mentioned before, I think, of מפתה. What is מפתה? מפתה is when one persuades a נערה, a young girl who's not married, to to live with him, and he doesn't force her, it's not against her will, it's not אונס, it's מפתה. And the Torah says that it's a positive mitzvah That being that this woman might not be so desirable anymore once she gets on to the market for shiduchim, there's a special mitzvah, I think that's one of the reasons they give behind this mitzvah, there's a special mitzvah that the that the person who was מפתה her, he has a mitzvah to marry her. As it says ולו with a vav, ולו to him, תהיה she should be לאשה as a wife. So one who is מפתה a young girl, he has the commandment to marry her. Now, if she does not want to marry him, this is all for her benefit, that he should marry her, but if she does not want to be married to him and her father does not want her to be married to him, then they could they could they could say no, we don't want to get married, and in that case the Torah says that the מפתה, the one who was מפתה her, and was מזנה with her, he has to pay כסף, money, like that of the settlement of a בתולה. Oh, so how does it The pasuk doesn't say 50, how do you know 50? Where'd you get that from? It's I'll tell you the read the pasuk: כסף ישקול, כסף he should weigh or he should pay, כמוהר הבתולות. Oh, so hang on a second, so oh, so so oh, so Right, so it says חמשים כסף by the other case, by אונס. There's two stories. One story is a guy goes to a girl and he convinces her to be מזנה with her. Right? So we call him מפתה. And this is where it says that it's only כסף, it doesn't give a specific number. It's כסף like that of the of the settlement. But then by אונס, where it's against her will, which is בעל כרחה, it doesn't give her a choice, he physically forces her, then the pasuk says ונתן האיש, if he doesn't marry her if they don't want to get married, then ונתן האיש חמשים כסף, then he gives 50 כסף. So we have one pasuk by מפתה which does not give the amount, it says it should be like the other מוהר, which is by the אונס, where it says the number, it says 50 by the אונס. So the Gemara says in this baraita here, so what we learn from here is see, הרי זה כמוהר הבתולות ומוהר הבתולות כזה. That the halacha of מפתה and the halacha of אונס we learn one from the other. Each each parasha is missing one one point here. מפתה doesn't say the number, how much money does he give? It doesn't say 50. So that we learn from the פרשה of אונס. And by אונס, it does not say that it should be it should be כסף that are שקלים. And therefore we learn out from from from מפתה that it also should be the שקלים. I don't think it's a גזירה שוה, but it's sort of like a hint that the the פרשה by מפתה said כמוהר, like the settlement, which refers to the other settlement of אונס. So that would make them similar. I don't think it's a גזירה שוה. Yeah, some kind of yeah something like that. So that doesn't seem to have anything to do with a ketubah. This is a לימוד that we have by the פרשה of אונס and מפתה. But the beraita continues that מכאן, based on this לימוד which we just mentioned, סמכו חכמים לכתובת אשה מן התורה, the chachamim had what to base this idea that כתובת אשה is min haTorah, not just מדרבנן, but rather min haTorah. So how do we get to ketubah? Yeah, that's what you guys are asking. What does this have to do with ketubah? We brought down a לימוד that אונס and מפתה seem to have some kind of connection here, and that just that we learn the number that we find by אונס of 50, we say that that's the same number of כסף by the מפתה, and the מפתה has שקלים, so הוא הדין by אונס where it doesn't say שקלים it's also 50 is talking about the שקלים. So what does this have to do with a ketubah? How do we see from here that כתובה דאורייתא? Oh, very good. So so so not only a payment, it's about even the לשון that the Torah uses to describe, exactly, to describe the kind of payment that that that that we're talking about here is it says מוהר. And מוהר I guess the word we like is is the settlement, which implies that there is some kind of settlement of a בתולה. And that is what the chachamim are saying is Yeah. The word כמוהר is in the חומש. The word כמוהר is in the חומש, yeah, that's in the Torah. It's in the Torah, yeah, it's in the Torah. Right, so the word כתובה is not in the Torah, but the way the Torah is describing the form of payment by the מפתה, it's like a hint that it's called a מוהר, like and we're saying that the מפתה pays like the מוהר, like the settlement of that of a נערה. What, what settlement is there by a נערה? An innuendo, not an actual proof, though. Right. Oh, very good. So, so that's what some ראשונים want to say, that that's why the Gemara says מכאן סמכו. It was like they they they saw like a hint that it's מן התורה, it's not clearly explicit in the Torah, but it it's based on a Torah. There's a Torah concept there to the כתובה. הרבו עלי מאד מוהר ומתן. Right? הרבו עלי מאד מוהר ומתן. Is that going to marriage? Yeah, so there there we see that מוהר is being used for a marriage contract? Right, but but again, you don't see from there that it's an obligation. But yeah, so yeah, very good, so there's another pasuk that shows us that we see there is there is referred to some kind of contract like a כתובה. But when I was googling this stuff, so what did you come up with? מוהר, the wife's settlement. Okay. We also have עידית and זיבורית. Where'd you get that? Very good. Okay, so that is that is the first part of the braita. So that is the first part of the braita. The braita then it continues and says, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, כתובת אשה אינה מדברי תורה, כתובת אשה לא מדברי תורה. So this is where לכאורה we have a kashya. A moment ago we said that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel אומר, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said it was it was מן התורה, כתובת אשה מן התורה we said a few lines earlier. And now we have a braita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says להדיא that כתובת אשה is not מדברי תורה. It's מדברי סופרים, it's rabbinical. So what do we do with that? So the Gemara says ipcha, in the beraita we reverse the opinions, meaning the first Tanna that made this whole דרשה here about the אונס and the מפתה and the מוהר, so he really was Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. That was really Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's point, so Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is really the one who says d'oraita. And the Tanna Kama is really the one who argues and says that it's only מדברי סופרים. Now the question is that the Gemara does not say what this settlement could be collected from. Should it be collected from the עידית or the בינונית? So we know that if it's d'oraita, it's not זיבורית, you don't collect from the lowest quality, but what we don't see is, well which quality is she entitled to? Could she even get the better quality, the best quality, the עידית, or does she only get the בינונית? So

some Rishonim want to say that she'll actually get the best quality, she'll get עידית. And the reason given is because assuming that כתובת אשה is min haTorah, the source for it we just said was from the מפתה. And there the Gemara learns out that מפתה also pays from the עידית if if he doesn't have. The Gemara learns it out from נזיקין, from from בור. I believe I believe with that, when someone's בור, someone digs a pit and it creates damage, animal dies in there, so he has to pay from even from his best, from the עידית. And being that we learned it there to מפתה, so hu hadin, being that כתובה is learned out from מפתה, so כתובה also if it's min haTorah and it's coming from that same source of of פיתוי, then also the halacha will be it comes from the עידית. And this is this is what I think a number of Rishonim how they learn. Even though it's the same amount, it sounds like a woman would be getting lesser quality. Like what you said it was going to be זיבורית if it's not If it's d'rabbanan. What's the logic behind that compared to the the the d'oraita, that he was he was losing out more, because he's giving away superior quality land? So what's the reason if it's d'oraita or derabbanan, why should that make a difference? Is that your Is that your question? Right, because it's the same amount, so if it's derabbanan, it sounds like she's losing out, inferior land. If it's de'oraita, he's he's losing out, because he has to give away higher quality. That's what it seems like, even though it's the same exact amount. Yeah, so that's a good question. I I'll have to look into that. the Gemara, but yeah. I mean, if it's de'oraita, the reason being we said is because coming from from a halacha which we have לימודים, that we're learning out that it should be, we're learning out that it should be from עידית, it should be from the best. And I think the pshat understanding, if it's derabbanan, then so the the level of chiyuv is a lower level chiyuv, so they don't obligate him as much, not as as machmir. That's that's probably the the the pshat understanding, but there's all sorts of different kinds of sevara. I mean, listen, למשל by הלוואה, a loan is really something which is recognized min haTorah. If someone lends someone money, doesn't have what to pay, so he obligates, if he's משעבד his נכסים as a lien, so the halacha is that we, he has to pay from בינונית, middle. But if I'm not mistaken, מעיקר הדין he only has to pay from the lowest quality. However, who's going to want to lend money? You know, you lend somebody money, he can't find what to pay, you know the only going to get is his garbage property, you're not going to be interested in lending him the money. So there's a concept of שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין. We don't want the doors to be closed before those that are in need, and that people should want to lend them money, so therefore we upgrade and and they collect from the בינונית. So there are also different kinds of sevarot that go into this that which are really Bava Kamma סברות, but we'll leave that for now. Okay, so now the

Gemara continues, מאי חזית דאפכת לבתרייתא איפוך לקמייתא. Why do you see fit to reverse the second ברייתא? Why not reverse the first ברייתא? So the Gemara is getting a little technical here, and we kind of challenging the answer that we just had, which was that we had a setira on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. At first, we mentioned that the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was that he holds כתובה is de'oraita. And then we brought down the second ברייתא with the machloket. The תנא קמא said it was de'oraita, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said it was derabbanan. There's a setira on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. So we reversed the second ברייתא. We said, you know what? We're going to stick to the fact that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל held that it was really דאורייתא. And the second beraisa, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said it was derabbanan, we're going to flip around the shitos, the opinions. And the Gemara now asks, well, why flip around the shitos of the second beraisa? Why don't we say that it was really a mistake, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the first beraisa that said it was de'oraisa, that was really we should reverse? And say that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel really holds it's derabbanan, and then we leave the second beraisa intact? So the Gemara says the reason why we don't do that is because דשמיע ליה לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל. We have other information that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds דאמר כתובת אשה מדאורייתא, that כתובת אשה is דאורייתא, דתנן, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא, that the husband has to give her from the money of קפוטקיא.

Do you know what קפוטקיא is? What's קפוטקיא? No idea. You're probably not going to find that on your Google, but you can check. It's a place. It's Turkey, you say? It's in Turkey? Okay. So קפוטקיא is a place. And the halachah of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is that if one writes a kesubah You just have to look at Rashi, you know? You've got to look at Rashi. That's right. See? וגירשה בקפוטקיא נותן לה ממעות... על ידי שהן קלות... Yeah, so let's read the Rashi. That's a good idea, Yair. Rashi says נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא. בפרק בתרא דתנן, we learned in the last משנה, נשא אשה בארץ ישראל, a person marries a woman in the holy land, in ארץ ישראל, וגירשה בקפוטקיא, and he divorces her in a place called קפוטקיא, which Avner is telling us is in Turkey. Rashi says Turkey? I don't know, I don't see that. But נותן לה Now, there's a difference, by the way, in the value of the currency of ארץ ישראל and קפוטקיא. So, he got married in ארץ ישראל, and he divorced her in קפוטקיא. In קפוטקיא, the money was was more valuable, or was was was either the same amount, I guess the size coin maybe it was worth more, or was larger and heavier, or some Tosafot I think is that it was some words like אברהם אבינו, עובר לסוחר, it was more accepted by all the merchants. Maybe he just doesn't spell right. But so now the question is: he married her in a place in ארץ ישראל where the the coins were maybe a little lighter, and he divorced her in a place where they were worth more. So what's his obligation? Does he have to give her the money in קפוטקיא currency, or does he have to give her the money in the ארץ ישראל currency? So the Gemara is telling us נותן לה ממעות ארץ ישראל שהן קלות, that they're they're lighter, they're they're worth less. This is not רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, by the way. This is the תנא קמא. ונשא אשה בקפוטקיא וגירשה בארץ ישראל נותן לה ממעות And so if it's the reverse, again, you could always be mekil, he gives her from the ארץ ישראל. מניין הכתוב בכתובה, the number that that it says in the כתובה, so אזלינן לקולא, because we go לקולא. Now that was תנא קמא, but Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel argues in the last three lines near Rashi, and he says, נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא. He gives her the better quality money, the money which is more valuable, שמשתעבד בהן כשאר מלוה דקסבר כתובה דאורייתא, because Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that כתובה דאורייתא. So what do we see? Yes, we see here we have other information that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that כתובה דאורייתא. So, therefore, we want to stick to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel being of the opinion that דאורייתא, and therefore we reverse the ברייתא in which he said it was דרבנן, and we say that was a mistake, and that we then we reverse רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ותנא קמא. That is teirutz number one. Teirutz number two, ואיבעית אימא, if you prefer, you could say that כולה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא. Really we don't have to make any reversals. Everyone talking was Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, but we do have to stick in a a חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני. There was something missing in the Mishnah. And this is what it really meant to say, that מכאן, and this was is is concluding the the fact that we said that כתובת אשה is דאורייתא, and this was all within the תנא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, not תנא קמא. ומכאן סמכו חכמים לכתובת אשה מן התורה, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agreed to that. And then what we have to insert here is וכתובת אלמנה, that's the key, וכתובת אלמנה, the כתובה of a widow, אינה מדברי תורה, that's not מדברי תורה, אלא מדברי סופרים, and that is only rabbinical, and this is where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel continues, sheRabban Shimon ben Gamliel אומר, because Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, כתובת אלמנה, the ketubah of a almanah, who is not a betulah anymore, אינה מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים. So this concludes this idea here if ketubah is דאורייתא or כתובה דרבנן. And the the the

Gemara's now final teretz is that really Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is of the opinion throughout all these beraitot that a ketubah of a betulah is דאורייתא. Is this like a one-time payment, lump sum? Ketubah is a one-time payment, for sure, yeah. Doesn't it also say they have to support her and her Yeah, so that so that depends on Yeah, yeah, so that depends on on on what you write there in the ketubah. But the that could also be while they're married. If she brings in Imagine she's a second marriage and she brings in a daughter, he may obligate himself. There's takanot in different, you know, things that are accepted if he if he accepted responsibility to feed feed her to feed her daughter, etc. Maybe another one time when I remember, I'll try to bring in a ketubah and we can read the text of it and know. In cases of like modern-day halachah where they go to בית דין and they say that he's obligated to support her and the kids Right, you have all this, yeah, facts, yeah. We have to really see. We really should one day maybe we'll pull out a ketubah and see what it says. But good to know, probably, right? You got an extra one lying around? You got an extra one? Remember to bring it in. We can try to It's in Aramaic. Some of the words are going to be a little hard to translate, but I think we should be able to do it, hopefully, be'ezrat Hashem.

Why did Rashi say the beraita's missing words if it's supposed to That's what it meant? Then he doesn't have to answer. חסורי מחסרא usually usually means that Okay, usually means that it's missing some words, but usually like הכי קאמר usually means that this is what it means to say, but חסורי מחסרא means there's something חסר, there's something missing. Okay, so now story time. We're done with כתובה דאורייתא, כתובה דרבנן. Now we're really going to get back to to the previous sugya. It's going to It's going to tie back in a little bit, and we're going to get back to some stories about people that came with our claim as פתח פתוח. So we're going to have to try to remember some of our sevarot that came up earlier and see how this comes lema'aseh. So the Gemara says the following story: ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרב נחמן, there was a person that came before Rav Nachman. ואמר ליה, he claimed, he said, פתח פתוח מצאתי. He found He got married, and in the nisuin, and he sees that his wife is not a virgin, her פתח was פתוח. She's not a betulah. And he comes to his rabbi, Rav Nachman, and Rav Nachman tells him, says, אמר ליה רב נחמן, you know how Rav Nachman responds? It comes out pretty harsh. He says, אסבוהו כופרי, you should hit him, give him makkot with palm branches that have thorns in it, you should hit him. And the reason being, he says, is because מחוזייתא חביטי ליה? He says, were the זונות of Mahoza, Mahoza was a place, were they lying in front of him? How does he know that her פתח was פתוח? You're coming with a claim after the marriage, you're getting married and you're telling me you're coming and you're claiming פתח פתוח? You should hit him, give him malkot. For what reason? Yes, he's a baki. Why is he a baki? Learned on the job, it's the only way to do it, right? Oh, so that's what we're going to see. So

what are the sevarot here, exactly? Lichora, the Gemara seems to understand lichora the way Rashi is learning here is that he shouldn't have been a baki, meaning we learned earlier that the halacha is that there's an ne'emanut, right? We learned דף ט׳, the big sugya in דף ט׳ that Elazar said that אומר פתח פתוח מצאתי, he has ne'emanut to make his wife אסור. Now, Rav Nachman is saying that, yes, maybe there's an ne'emanut, maybe you're actually believed, but that's only because we could assume you're a baki. If you're going to come with a claim, you're a baki. Why are you a baki? You must have had the זונות of Berachsa lying in front of you, and for that, you deserve to get malkot. And then the Gemara That That lichora is the way the פשט פשט in the Gemara, the way Rashi and some Rishonim seem to learn here. The Gemara then asks, ורב נחמן איהו דאמר מהימן? פסק the Gemara one second, Rav Nachman himself is one of those opinions that we learned earlier that says he's believed, and never made any mention of the fact that you should hit him. He said, אומר פתח פתוח נאמן. He was actually talking, I think, about the the נפסיד לכתובה. Just make a side remark, it's really פסק that he's supposed to get lashed. Yeah. So So the Gemara says, אין הכי נמי, that really just because he didn't mention earlier the fact that he gets malkus, doesn't mean that he does not deserve malkus. He was just talking earlier about the ne'emanus, do we actually believe him or not? That's what he was saying. But, indeed, he does get malkus. That's what the Gemara says, ורב נחמן איהו דאמר מהימן? The Gemara answers, מהימן ומספינן ליה כופרי, that אין הכי נמי, there is a ne'emanus, he is believed, but in addition to that, he's only believed because we could assume he's a baki. And why is he a baki? He must have had the זונות lying in front of him, that he had experience when he should not have had experience, and therefore, he should he's deserving of getting malkus. Who is a baki? Shmuel is a baki? בקי בסילקא? Who Where does it say he's a baki? I don't know, so we'll get there maybe. Nobody's claimed in court, \"Hear me out.\" Oh, so let's see. So,

Rava bar Rav Chanan משני, Rava bar Rav Chanan has another answer, and he says, הכא בבחור, הכא בנשוי, that there's a difference between a bachur, a young man who is never previously married, oh, and uh a nasui. Yes, and a nasui, someone who is previously married. For someone who is married, he's he has experience. Someone who is a bachur, so the way Rashi learns here, not only Now we're going to be changing here the reason as to why he's getting malkus. We're going to say that really, he's not even believed. He has no ne'emanus, actually, and the reason why we're giving him malkus is because he's being מוציא שם רע, according to the way Tosafos learns. According to Rashi, he is being, there's like a certain azus. In English, maybe gall is the right word. He has like a certain chutzpah. Chutzpenyak. Chutzpenyak to come with these claims as a bachur. Who do you think you are? And you And therefore, he gets Therefore, besides for the fact that he's not believed, the malkus are for are for the מוציא שם רע. That maybe he gets the ne'emanus, and he's believed? And he gets Or maybe it does figure in his own So, So, it's really a matter of of what Rav Nachman meant. When Rav Nachman said that were there the זונות lying in front of him, that could've been said as a statement that he's getting malkus because the זונות were lying in front of him, and what the Gemara now is saying is that it's it was more of like rhetorical, like like, \"How do you know? Were the זונות lying in front of you?\" This is obviously not what what a בחור is doing. Sarcastic, right. There's that Right. It was It was a sarcastic remark that, \"You obviously didn't have a זונות lying in front of you. How would you know? It's a chutzpah. What are you saying?\" And the

מלקות are because Rashi is saying is because of the עזות, or the way Tosafos says, it's like הוצאת שם רע. Now you're going to start spreading rumors about this woman for no reason, and and and and and and it's really a matter of what what Rav Nachman meant. When he said, was he saying it sarcastically, or was he or was he saying in a sincere way that the Rambam brings this halachah. The Rambam brings the halachah of כאן בבחור, I didn't see the Rambam inside, but it actually does not seem to be mentioned by the Rambam. It's the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. So, we could take a look at that maybe tomorrow night, but Rashi here explains, take a look at Rashi, the middle of the דיבור המתחיל. The two dots in the middle of Rashi and he says, בחור לא מהימן, you see that? Rashi says a בחור is not מהימן, ומסבינן ליה כופרי, and he gets the מלקות על שמיאס פניו, because of that עזות, the chutzpah. נשוי, someone who is married, מהימן ולא מסבינן ליה כופרי, doesn't even get the מלקות. Someone who has experience, we trust him, we believe him, and he does not get any מלקות. Someone who was never married previously and he comes with a טענה of פתח פתוח, so then, then he does, yes gets the מלקות. Now, as far as why does he get the מלקות when he's a בחור, and if he does not have an נאמנות, the Ritva adds an interesting point, and he says, in addition to all this chutzpah, maybe a מוציא שם רע, the Ritva also says that בחור אינו נאמן והיינו דמלקינן ליה, and for this reason we give him the מלקות, דכיוון שאינו נאמן, being that he's not believed, שמא הוא דמפיק עליה, he's being מוציא שם רע on her, ודומה לזה שאמרו, similar to that which we say, הרואה דבר עבירה, one who sees a דבר עבירה בחבירו ומעיד בו יחיד, and he testifies by himself, lokeh, he gets malkot. The Gemara tells the Zigud and Tuvya story in the Gemara somewhere. Now,

there's a halacha, and it actually reminded me, it's really brought down in the Chafetz Chaim, interesting point there in Shmirat Halashon here when he talks about one of the transgressions, transgressions that someone could be over with lashon hara, and he says this, this issur, he says when one says over a story about someone doing an aveirah, so he says you're, like you're testifying in a way that your testimony can't bring about any justice, because you're only an עד אחד, you're one witness. And I'll read you the, it's an interesting halacha here, it's really one of the לאוין that the Chafetz Chaim counts, אם קם והעיד עליו בפני בית דין בדבר איסור ביחידי, one gets up in front of a בית דין and he's saying לשון הרע about somebody, someone did an עבירה, כיוון שאינו יכול להביא מזה שום תועלת, being that there could be no to'elet, nothing could be accomplished of this, לא לענין ממון, with regard to money, או שבועה ולא לענין לפסלו לאיש, you can't make the person פסול מחזקת כשרותו כיוון שהוא עד אחד בדבר, being that he's only one עד, אם כן שם ביש בעלמא הוא דקא מפיק עליה ועובר על ידי זה גם כן על הלאו דלא יקום עד אחד באיש לכל עון ולכל חטאת. This is included in the לאו that a person should not get up as a single עד לכל עון ולכל חטאת about any sin. וצריכין בית דין להכותו עבור זה הדבר, and a person, beit din should give him malkot for this. This is one of the issurim. So if there could be, if there is no, there's nothing productive that will come out of any kind of a הוצאת שם רע, then he's saying something that someone did that was bad for no reason. And for that he deserves to get malkot. And

we'll continue with tomorrow night, be'ezrat Hashem. Is, is it so pashut that there is no to'elet? Because firstly, that which the Gemara says he's not ne'eman, is that with regard only to the money or is it also the issur? As well as we spoke about Rashi previously in the beginning of דף ב, that said there may be some to'elet of coming to beit din. You got to come to beit din because even if nothing could be done at the moment, but maybe the witnesses could come forth. If there's a kol, if the rumor gets out, maybe she was a זונה, but then witnesses will come forth, so there is an objective, there's something that could come about through his, through the husband's claim. So why is it that he should be getting malkot for this? That is the question of the Bach, and we'll discuss that, be'ezrat Hashem, a little better, a little more tomorrow night. Yeah. Okay. Pretty good. Good here. We're on for tomorrow? I'm on for tomorrow, be'ezrat Hashem, bli neder. I'm out of town next week, and so. Oh, we got to hop right in. That's, that's what's, that's what's the benefit of going to a shiur, people can come and go as People can come and go, yeah. But as long as you get something out of it. It was a little bit of a new sugya, but it's still connected. I got a lot out of it. Still connected, and This Gemara happens to be a little bit lighter, but it's still still connected to our previous sugya a little bit, so we're gonna we're gonna try to chug along a little faster. I have a I have a whole thing how you get on Shabbos, I get like a thing from a yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael, so they it's like a five-page thing on alimony and. Really?