Rabban Gamliel. So there was an individual that came לקמיה דרבן גמליאל. בא רבי אמר לי, \"רבי בעלתי ולא מצאתי דם.\" He comes with a claim of טענת בתולים. If you remember there are two different טענת בתולים: there's a טענת בתולים of פתח פתוח, there's a טענת בתולים of דם. So this person comes, right, we're at the story over here, a person comes with the claim he has, a טענת דמים, לא מצאתי דם. First time he was with his wife, the next thing he asks his rebbe is, \"לא מצאתי דם. I didn't find any דם.\" So אמר ליה, \"רבי בתולה הייתי.\" So here, and as someone pointed out, she actually piped up and she said, \"No, I was a בתולה.\" She argued with his claim. So אמר להם, he said back to them, \"הביאו לי אותו סודר. Bring to me that cloth that was there.\" And הביאו לו אותו סודר. Now, obviously the cloth was clean, because if it had blood on it, then there wouldn't be a question. So she brought this, he brought this cloth that seemingly looked clean, and what he did was ושרו במים. He soaked the cloth in water, he cleaned it, וכיבסו, ומצאו עליו כמה טיפי דמים. And he found a lot of little droplets of blood after he washed it. So אמר ליה, he told, Rabban Gamliel said, \"לך זכה במקחך. Go be zocheh in your purchase.\" Meaning everything is in order, and everything's fine. So here we have a situation where the the husband came with a she'eilah, he came with a claim that he didn't find דם בתולים, and Rabban Gamliel did this little test over here, and he he soaked the cloth במים, and he cleaned the cloth, and he found after it was washed, there was דם. So

what did the washing help? So Rashi says, if you take a look at the bottom Rashi, וכיבסו, Rashi says שהיו טיפי הדמים מכוסין בשכבת זרע. The טיפי דמים were there all along. The little drops of blood were there, just they were covered with the שכבת זרע. They were covered with the semen, and therefore and therefore it was not visible to to the husband, or to Rabban Gamliel before he washed it, that that there was actually blood on it. Okay? So everything was wonderful and they stayed happily married. What's the לשון זכה במקחך? Like זכה במקחך like keep like, don't get rid of her or זכה, a זכות for you, because there's like a couple of different... So yeah, so what do you... So זכה במקחך, what it literally means is You have... it's yours. Don't get rid of it. You... Yeah, because if if he was coming, well so let me let me let me speak out a moment here, maybe they'll help answer your question. Firstly, there if you remember last week there was a different ma'aseh the Gemara brought down, where someone came to Rabban Gamliel, and Rabban Gamliel told him that he claimed פתח פתוח מצאתי. Rabban Gamliel said maybe maybe you got it at the wrong angle, like it was an אומדנא דשמא, with a question mark on his claim. And here, it seems like without this test, they would have been asur. They would have been forbidden to stay married because of the question that that the husband raised. So

some brought down בשם the Yaalat Chen, that our Gemara here is talking about a אשת כהן, the wife of a kohen. So so the wife of a kohen, there's there's a question here with regard to to her בתולים, and there's a question that maybe she was מזנה תחתיו between the קידושין and the נישואין, So then it's like we learned in דף כ\"ז עמוד א', it's חד ספק. There's only one safek. Maybe she was not a בתולה because of something that happened before the marriage and they're allowed to stay married, or maybe it was something that happened during the marriage and she was מזנה תחתיו and they're forbidden. So if so according to ב\"ר, so if they're forbidden, then then he would have had to divorce her. So זכה במקחך, there's no issue because he found dam and they're allowed to stay married even though she's an אשת כהן, and otherwise he would have and otherwise he would have had to divorce her. Exactly. Because of the issur, yeah. Otherwise he would have had to divorce her because of the issur. That he would have had to been מחוייב to divorce her and... Otherwise it's just a matter of if she pays him, right? There's a she'eilah of ketubah also, right. He could have stayed with her. Because an אשת כהן is not allowed to stay with her. If he's not an אשת כהן... Then he is allowed to stay with her. There's no issue. Ah, maybe she was with somebody else? The ספק ספיקא, that was the Gemara in דף... Okay. Maybe she was before, maybe it was before they... Right. כפול ספק. Alright. I think we have one minute. Gemara here. So all the way all the way at the bottom here, so

אמר ליה הונא מר בריה דרבא מפרזקיא לרב אשי, מפרזקיא לרב אשי, אנן נמי נעביד הכי. So we said we found a test. We found a way to determine that if the cloth is clean after the first ביאה, we found a way to test whether she was really a בתולה or not, because you could wash it. So Mar berih deRava said to רב אשי, אנן נמי נעביד הכי. It's gevaldigu, we could always have a solution. Anytime we have a question, whenever the husband comes and he claims that his wife is not a בתולה, and he comes up with a clean cloth, we have a way to prove it. Let's just wash it. And if we see the dam on it, then we'll know that she was not a בתולה. Sorry, we see the dam on it, we'll know she is a בתולה, right? So אמר ליה, so he replied, גיהוץ שלנו ככיבוס שלהם. גיהוץ is more of like a pressing that they had to Where they lived, they needed to to actually press the the cloth in order to clean it properly. And if they had to if they had to press it, ואי עביד גיהוץ, and if you have to do this pressing, מעבר ליה לחומשא. So then it's going to like rub it out, and you're not going to be able to tell if there was really any dam there, because if there really was dam there, then the process that they needed to do in this makom where where Huna Mar brei deRava lived, then it would have actually rubbed out the dam. So there wouldn't have been any proof after it was processed whether she was a betulah or not. That is the lashon of the Gemara. It took more It took a took a stronger effort to clean it, so we were afraid it was going to clean it too well and wipe away the blood. So even if it was actually processed, even if they even if they cleaned it properly with the gihutz, but it was going to rub out the blood, and then this way we won't be able to tell if she was really No, their kibus was a lighter washing where they were able to get to the same Our stronger washing with the gihutz, the pressing is equivalent But there they were able to clean it without the pressing. The pressing was what rubbed out the was what rubbed out the dam. Right. Right. Now, the she'eilah is like this. That

why are we doing this test? For whose whose interest Who are we trying to protect here? What would be the What would be the point and objective of of taking this cloth and trying to see if there's dam on it? Who who are we benefiting here? Very good, Reb Bernardo. We're benefiting the woman, because if we did not test this cloth, so then the Hafla'ah points out, the halachah would be what we what we learned earlier. It will depend. If she was a אשת ישראל, so there might be a she'eilah of her losing her ketubah, which she'll lose, and if she's a אשת כהן, she'll be forbidden to stay with her husband. So all we're doing is by washing out the cloth and finding the dam and say, look, she's a betulah. She says, look, I'm a betulah. So we're we're benefiting the woman, and we're proving that she really was a betulah. So having that in mind, the Hafla'ah asks, so why why not go through the effort and do the actual test and wash the cloth? The Gemara was asking, do the test. Says the Gemara, well, you can't really prove anything from washing it because maybe you'll rub out the blood. By washing it, you're going to press it. Our cleansing is a stronger processing that will process that will that will actually rub out the dam. Okay, so do it. What do you what do you have to lose, asks the asks the Hafla'ah. Do the test, wash it out, and if there's no dam, you don't see anything, so it will be like you didn't wash it. What's the difference? You know, nothing to lose. Well, if you if you didn't wash it, the halachah is that there would be If she was an אשת כהן, she would be asur. Because we assume that he claims you know there's no dam, and the chance that there might be a drop of blood is a very minimal chance, and therefore she she would be asur. So fact So so so what's the Gemara saying, that don't do it because it might get rubbed out? Okay, so maybe it will, maybe it won't. You have nothing to lose. If it gets rubbed out, so you have no proof that she's a betulah, but you're no worse off than you were before. Still asur. You know you have nothing to lose. You only have what to gain. In the other cases that we saw so far, we have no idea what her simanim are. Yeah, so the Rishonim do speak out that that earlier, when the Gemara did not mention what her claim was, the Rishonim did say she was she was arguing with him and she did say betulah, you see. It could have been under such a situation, so he's believed even when she is denying his claim. What is a safek if they don't if they don't wash it? So if they don't wash it, she's אשת כהן and he doesn't find any dam, so we consider it a one safek that maybe she was mezaneh tachtav, maybe she was not מזנה תחתיו. One safek. You think one safek with her testimony might might might No, so with her testimony so he's he's ne'eman. The Gemara we learned earlier, yeah. שויא אנפשיה חתיכא דאיסורא, we learned all about that. Even בפתח פתוח, and certainly by the ta'anah of dam, which is a more far- it's a clearer ta'anah, I mean anyone can tell if there is blood or not. In this case, totally wiped out and no chance of seeing it, then it's strong that it was clean afterwards. There will be nothing there. You want to apply you want to say that if we keep that halachah when we find nothing there Just say you lost the cloth. What would be what would be the halachah if you lost the cloth? Right, but that would be originally before we tested it. It would be a strong, it's a safek. Now that we tested it and there's nothing there, you'd say No, so no, so apparently, no, so so that's what the Hafla'ah is saying. We don't really consider this a safek. There's a small chance that maybe there's a little tipah, a little drop, we're talking about a very small drop of blood there, that's not considered a real safek that we're chosesh for. It's just that we have this ability to to do this test, and if we if we can protect her, so we will. What about the mishpachah? Oh, we're going to get to that mishpachah, yeah. So right now we're not talking about that mishpachah, we're going to see. We're going to see if we we Hang on a second, we'll get to it later, okay? We do we do take that into account. Okay, so the

Hafla'ah gives two explanations as to what was going on here in the Gemara. Why why did the Gemara reject this idea that don't bother don't bother with the test, because if there was really blood, it might get rubbed out? And what we're asking, what the Hafla'ah is asking, but there is the possibility that it will help her. The point of the test is to protect the woman, that maybe she could be proven to be a betulah. What do you have to lose? If if the cloth was lost, she would be asurah. If the cloth was here and you rubbed it out and you don't find anything, so she might as well be asurah. She's no worse off than she was originally. Right? But there's a chance you can help her! There's a chance you can help her, exactly! So, the Hafla'ah says one peshat, which he first says is dochak. Peshat number one he says really is that אין הכי נמי, really you could do the bedikah, maybe you'll be able to to help out this woman and and they'll be they'll be mutar. He says however we're not going to give בית דין this obligation to be matriach himself with this, being that in all likelihood it's not going to be able to prove anything anyway. So to go be מטריח בית דין for this, or the or the rav, whoever it may be, on a small chance that maybe you'll be able to prove something and go make them crazy to wash it, that we don't, so far we don't have to go. And he says vedochak. It's a dochak. I guess למעשה סוף כל סוף if you could save the marriage, you take a chance, right? It's not normal to find dam in this case. In all likelihood it will rub off. If there was dam, it will get rubbed off. Right. Right. So then the the Hafla'ah in his second terutz says a very interesting says a very interesting peshat. It's a whole new taytsh in our Gemara. And it says they really have to back up a step. And what רב הונא, אמר ליה הונא מר בריה דרבא, but his question was was a completely different question, nothing to do with what we call טענת בתולים. Okay, what we're talking about, what our sugya has been discussing pretty much since דף ב עמוד א, דף ט עמוד א also we got back into this, and then when the husband and wife and they get married when they have the נישואין, he finds his wife is not a בתולה based on the fact that there's no דם. That's what our Gemara is talking about. And he's coming to בית דין the next morning, hey there was no דם, she was not a בתולה. So what Rav Mar Huna Mar brei deRava is now bringing up a whole new different halacha situation that he wants to borrow this test that we just learned about from Rabban Gamliel to a different halacha. That halacha is that חתן וכלה get married, the first night, first ביאה ראשונה that they have, halacha is that assuming she is a בתולה and there is דם בתולים, we render her halachically considered like a niddah. Like a niddah. Even though it's דם בתולים, it's not דם נדה, but because it was accepted that we consider all דם, whether it's דם בתולים, whether דם נדה, she is treated like a niddah. Now, the halacha is, for those of you who remember going back to the חתן days, they tell you that even if there is no blood, even if there is no דם, the halacha is also that she is considered like a niddah. Even if you don't find any blood. Niddah! What's the reason? The reason given is because maybe there's a small bit of דם, and you just didn't see it because it was covered with the שכבת זרע, just like we said here. So, that's a halacha that does not really have to do with our Gemara. And Rav Huna Mar brei deRava is questioning that now that we came up with this idea that you could soak the cloth, and you could wash off the שכבת זרע and you'll be able to see if there's דם there, so his question is, why maybe we could rely on this process also for a kula, also for a leniency? And that if you do wash it, and you see the cloth is clean, then maybe this אשה, this חתן and כלה could have an extension for the time that they're permitted to be with each other, and she should not be a niddah? And that was his question. Let's rely on this process, this 7-step process even l'kula, even for a leniency. Completely different halacha. Is it not a chance that it would that it wouldn't get wiped out, what if you relied on that kula? It's always looking to get wiped out, it doesn't have to be a basis that that you rely on. Hold on one second, that's why I'm in the question, I'm in I'm in Rav Huna Mar breih d'Rava's question. And on that, Rav Ashi answered that no, you can't rely you can't rely on this test for leniency because in this place the it takes more of a processing or they had to use different, maybe, detergents. That was right, right. Now going back to the first step, in the initial question when he was asking that you should use this test, he was he was saying use it for leniency. And then the Gemara say, \"No, you can't use this test for leniency. If it comes out clean, if it was a question of niddah or not niddah, you cannot rely on this test of soaking the cloth in the water, because here they didn't weren't just able to soak it, they actually had to press it and then it would get wiped out. This is a זוזא דסרבלא, nothing to do with טענת בתולים. Let's move on. The Haflaah. Tell you a story about the Haflaah's brother. I think the Haflaah had a little bit of a of a leaning, or at least his brother, towards like chasidut. But a very funny story about him. If I said it already, please stop me. His brother was R'' Shmelke of Nikolsburg. That was his brother. It's so so when he was so he was supposed to be, I think he was inaugurated for Rav, I guess, I'm assuming, in the town of Shmelkesburg. Nikolsburg. Nikolsburg, Nikolsburg, you said it. What's the name of the shul, R'' Shmelke Maish Nikolsburg? Nikolsburg. Nikolsburg. So when he So when they had a big ceremony for his inauguration there, and someone saw him pacing back and forth, he's talking to himself and he was mumbling something. Somebody decided he was going to listen closely to what is what is he saying. And he says that, \"I'd like to introduce this great, leading Torah scholar, mamash a big masmid, a tremendous talmid chacham, and and and he's talking about himself as if he's mamash the גדול הדור.\" Seems a little strange. This is going to be our Rav and he's talking about himself as as great, amazing Torah leader, גאון, ירא שמים, ענו, and everything else. And so he taps him, he says, \"You know, what do you think?\" So he said, \"The Mishnah in Avot The Mishnah says that יהי כבוד חברך, the respect, the honor that's given to you by your friend, should be חביב עליך כשלך, should be beloved to you like yourself, which k'pshuto means that you're supposed to give your friend the honor that you give yourself. But he had a little bit of a play on words, and he says, what it really means is, at least in the context that he was trying to apply it, was that same way when you give yourself respect, you look like a fool, so you should train yourself that when other people give you respect, it should also bounce off of you the same way if you're giving yourself respect.\" Just And he was trying to prepare prepare himself for all the kavod that was going to be coming his way, that it should just bounce off of him, and he should feel silly, the same way he's talking about himself as this great Torah leader, when everyone else calls him that, it, \"Okay, yeah, bounce right off. Shouldn't shouldn't affect him, bring him to ga'avah, to ga'avah. Anyway, that's the brother, takes, that's the story, I heard, the brother of the of the of the Haflaah. Okay, so that's the end of this Gemara. This is about the the this is about the cleansing process here. So, the Gemara continues with another story. Top of דף י׳ עמוד ב׳, a new story here. ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבן גמליאל, there's another person that came to רבן גמליאל, the רבי, ואמר ליה, רבי! He said, \"רבי! בעלתי ולא מצאתי דם.\" Again, the same claim: בעלתי and he did not find any דם. ואמרה ליה So, she said to רבי, עדיין בתולה אני. Ah! So, so, so make note of that lashon, by the way. It says that, \"I am still now a בתולה.\" It's a very good point. I wasn't going to get to that yet, but keep that in mind cuz it's going to come back in a moment. So, she claims that right now I'm still a בתולה. It's a little old type of Gemara. So, אמר להן So, he said to them, הביאו לי שתי שפחות, bring me two שפחות, two maidservants: אחת בתולה, one that's a בתולה, one that's a virgin, ואחת בעולה, and one that is already a בעולה. So, והביאו לו, and they brought to him. I don't think so, no. Well, let's see what he did here. והושיבן על פי חבית של יין. He placed both of these women, I think it's a famous Gemara, he placed them on top of a barrel of wine. Okay? בעולה, the one that was already a בעולה, ריחה נודף, there was like a smell of wine that was coming out from her mouth. Okay? And בתולה, אין ריחה נודף. And the one who was a בתולה, was a virgin, did not have this smell. So, what did he come What conclusion did he come to from here? That the one who's a בתולה, and בפשטות, her פתח, the opening is still closed, still סתום. So, the smell of the wine is not going to travel through and come out through her mouth. Whereas the one who is a בעולה, so the

פתח was already פתוח. And therefore the smell, the ריח of the wine could be נודף and come from her come out from her mouth. So now, what did they do? Now they took this Jewish girl that that there was a claim about the טענה and אמר אף זו הושיבה, they put her on top of the barrel, ולא היה ריחה נודף. And she did not have any smell, any ריח of wine coming from her. So אמר לו, so what did רבן גמליאל say? לֵךְ זְכֵה בְּמִקָּחֲךָ. Go. Be zocheh in your purchase. So, that is the story of the Gemara. Now,

first נידון here that was it necessary for her Now, in this in this case, was it necessary for her to actually speak up and say that she was still a בתולה? How to טוען? Or do we טוען for her? The lashon of the Rambam is I'll quote you the lashon of the Rambam. טען, the husband comes and he claims, ואמר, ״לא מצאתיה בתולה.״ He says, \"She was not a בתולה.\" והיא אומרת, and she says, ״לא בעלני, He did not It was not בעלני. ״ועדיין אני בתולה.״ And I am still a בתולה. The Rambam says, בודקין אותה. Then we check her. So, it seems like she did claim. That's what it seems like in the Rambam. have to claim, we don't What's that? What's that? Uh-huh. You know. So, right. Right. But I'm assuming that in this case maybe maybe we lost the סודר, they were they were doing to tell the test. I mean, also we said could be that this the test of the סודר is not really, we can't really do that test anymore. Oh, if you have if you have the סודר and there is דם on it, then there's no question. If there's no דם and she says... So if

there's no דם, then we said that we disqualify that the other stuff. We can't really do the we can't really do the washing anymore because it's going to rub out the blood. So, what about this stuff? So here also, not only she is claiming, it's not really clear, it seems like she has to claim, it's not so clear if she does or not, but the Rambam says she does claim it. But also the לשון of the Rambam seems to also follow like the Gemara that she said לא בא עלי עדיין or ועדיין אני בתולה the Rambam said. She's claiming that she's still a בתולה, even after even after the fact that officially they had the first ביאה. And then he's coming the next day or so to the to to to the to the Beit Din, and he's claiming that she's a בעולה, and she's claiming not only are you wrong that I was a בתולה, but she's saying I still am a בתולה. Nothing ever happened. You know the שאלה here that I'll ask you is, let's say she claimed that I really was a בתולה and you were הטיה, which we learned about earlier that he didn't get it on the right angle. So, she really was a בתולה, but there still was a ביאה. Would this test be effective or not? So she has a chazakah? Well, so he has, we said that he has he he's ne'eman to I mean he he even if even if it's a safek of a פתח פתוח and certainly if he has טענת דמים, the the husband happens to be ne'eman. And here, she's she's arguing with him and she's saying עדיין אני בתולה. I'm still right now a בתולה. So you're saying that you're saying that the chazakah is still ongoing here. That's a good point, I don't I don't I didn't see the I'll have to look into that. Then the לשון of the Rambam, she's claiming that she's still a בתולה. The לשון of the Shulchan Aruch also tends to be a little stronger. Look at this. הטוען ואמר לא מצאתי לה בתולים, והיא אומרת לא בא עלי. He didn't even have bi'ah with me. לא בא עלי, didn't come altogether. And then that's where the Shulchan Aruch says is to where you do this test. Well, the נפקא, well the נפקא מינה would be with regard to ketubah or if she's the wife of a kohen she'll have to divorce her, because maybe she was a זונה. Right. No, so my question is, if she agrees that something happened, would this test be able to prove anything anymore? She was a betulah beforehand, before the first bi'ah she was a betulah, and let's say he was בא עליה. He was בא עליה, and let's say she she agrees that he was בא עליה, but why didn't why wasn't there blood? Maybe because he hit her he got it at an angle or something, and there was no blood, would the test still be effective? So, from the לשון of the Shulchan Aruch and the Rambam, it seems like the test will not be effective, because they're saying that her claim is that it was לא בא עליה עדיין. The test, you're saying. Oh, so let us, so listen to the listen to the לשון of the Raavad. The Shitah Yeshanah, the Shitah Mekubetzet, he quotes from the Raavad that you don't have to say that it was לא בא עליה עדיין. Even if he was בא עליה, it says שבעל בהטיה, even if let's say he got her at an angle. So it seems like if he got her at an angle, the Gemara we said earlier, the Gemara gave משלים, if you remember, about how there can be an opening, you could have a door, for example, and you come to the door and you try to walk right into the door, you're going to smash your nose. But if you get in from the angle, then you're able to go in. Not only could you go in, the Gemara seems to say maybe you could actually open the door like that from the angle. So, it seems like There is some kind of opening through, you know, getting it at an angle. But the Raavad says that even if he does even if he did do a bi'ah, and he was הטה, he did it at an angle, what's that? So he

says, even so, he says it's חוזר ונסתם. Even if getting it at an angle and doing הטיה will make an opening in her, in which case if you put her on top of the barrel, and even if she was a betulah, then the smell of the wine would still come out, so seemingly there is an opening, says the Raavad, no. If you didn't actually penetrate the hymen I guess, directly, the בתולים directly, then whatever opening he made will just close back up. And therefore, this test could still be accurate. And, because since she's really a betulah, she's really a betulah, then the wine will not come out from her mouth, smell of the wine will not come out, and if she's a be'ulah, then it will come out. So the same din as the Rambam who said that he was never with her, and that's why this test is accurate only when he's never with her. Raavad is saying, no, even if he is with her, but if he got in at an angle, because it'll heal, it'll just close up again. So that's the Raavad. Okay, now there's another interesting inyan here. And that is, if we pay attention carefully to the story, the Gemara really asks, we're going to do one more line, a couple more lines here in the Gemara. The

Gemara asks that if this test was an accurate test, why did he first have to start with the שפחות? First he got these two maid the slave maidservants, and he put them on the barrel, and then only after he proved that the ריח was נודף only by the בעולה, not by the בתולה, that's when he put this woman on top of the barrel. Why didn't he just do that to begin with? Asks the גמרא, ולבדוק מעיקרא בגופה דההיא איתתא? The Gemara asks, why didn't he do the test originally with this woman? So, the Gemara answers, גמרא הוה שמיע ליה, he heard about this idea, he heard about this test, ומעשה לא חזי. He never actually saw it done, and therefore he did not want to rely on it. וסבר, דילמא לא קים ליה בגוויה דמילתא שפיר, maybe it will not be able to be proven properly, ולאו אורח ארעא לזלזולי בבנות ישראל. It's not appropriate to be מזלזל בנות ישראל, and just like stick them on top of barrels as a trial, and be a guinea pig, it's not respectful, and therefore he did it firstly with the maids. He wanted to be sure that, obviously, between one that's a בעולה and one that's a בתולה, he's going to see that it works, and then I have that נאמנות. Right, so the question was, why didn't he just rely, if the test works, why didn't he just do it to begin with? Why'd he have to first prove it with these maidservants? And the Gemara is saying he heard about the test, but he wasn't sure, he never saw it actually done, and he wanted to prove that it was accurate, and therefore he first did it with the maidservants, and then he did it with the actual woman. So effectively, what about we who are hearing about it now? So listen to the Tur. So the question is, now could we rely on רבן גמליאל's test? He proved it from the maidservants and he actually did it. And now let's say someone has a שאלה and it comes to בית דין, could they also do this test? Now I'm not talking about now בזמננו, I'm talking about now, בזמן of the פוסקים, the earlier פוסקים and ראשונים. And the Tur says that he says, you do this בדיקה: בודקין אותה שמשיבין אותה על פי חבית של יין. You put her on top of this barrel of יין. אם היא בתולה אין ריחה נודף, ואם היא בעולה ריחה נודף. That's what the Tur says. You just put her on top. That's all you do. Take this woman who you have a שאלה with and you put her on top. And then the Tur goes on to quote another opinion: והרמ\"ה, the Ramah says שאין לבדוק בבנות ישראל, don't start off being בודק בבנות ישראל תחילה, אלא בתחילה בודקין בשתי שפחות, בתולה ובעולה. First you have to start off with the two שפחות, the בתולה and the בעולה, עד דסלקא מילתא אברירא, ואחר כך יעשה בבנות ישראל. And then, if you could prove it, and it worked, the test worked, then you could rely on it. So the Tur, so the

Tur seems to be saying that you could just do the test with this woman, then you have a שאלה comes to you, and you're not sure if this woman is was really a בתולה or not, or is really a בתולה or not, you take the woman and you put her on top of the barrel. And then the Tur goes on to bring the opinion of the Remah, and he says that the Remah says however, don't just start right away with the with the Jewish woman, with a בת ישראל, the בת ישראל, but rather, first do the test with the שפחה, and if it's proven to be an accurate test, only then can you do it to the to the בת ישראל. How do you know if the שפחה is a בתולה or בעולה? You take one that you know is a בתולה and one that you know is a בעולה. How do you know she's a בתולה? How do you know she's a בתולה? Oh yeah, I guess. You have to... There. What's that? Value them. This is a בתולה, this is a שפחה, so they used to know. That's, yeah, so I'm not sure, how do we know that she's a בתולה? They don't, I don't, I don't think they really have such a kashya. The value in the שוק was always, because when they sell them, they ask for it. It was נאמנות from the שוק at least for value, if they're a בתולה or not. How do you know they're speaking the truth? If they had to check them in the שוק, would they would give a בתולה and there's more value, more value to give once an עבד, they bribed them with a בתולה. The master, the father, they knew. Yeah, that's what I'm saying, but there's no real נאמנות. They knew, right? And how did they know? Right, they did this type of test. But you see that there is some נאמנות. They knew because they used to... used to bribe their עבדים, give them like not bribe, used to give them like בתולות for wives versus non-בתולות. So, you see they were able to somehow tell. Some people raised them to be בתולות so they could charge more for them. Right, so they would raise a בתולה with that חשבון that she's not going to be around any man anywhere in a 10-mile radius. Chastity belt, I don't know. Okay, so somehow somehow they knew she was a בתולה. So, so the Beit Yosef explains that the שיטה of the Tur, he understands that there's really a מחלוקת here, and the Tur actually holds that you don't have to first prove it with a שפחה. And he says Just that the test sounds funny because you could smell the wine Somebody sitting on wine. No, so it seems like you were able to tell that it was coming from her breath. Like they would vacuum pack those? No, they would So when she breathes, a sheet, they would cover with a sheet. The barrel. They would cover the whole body with a sheet and the barrel and the barrel. If you cover the whole body and you leave the sheet to the barrel, well then it's coming from there maybe. I don't know, I'm sure they had to test that. I'm just imagining... I don't know, they could, I think that I think I'm saying that maybe the ריח came up from the barrel. How do you tell? But the barrel was probably closed, I mean most of it was closed and maybe a little opening on it and then she sat on top of the barrel. If the barrel was open Well, I'm assuming it was open right where she was sitting. So that the the wine would, the smell of the wine would go through. And then and then if Doesn't have to be wine, you can do it with something else. It's worse with anything. The חשבון is that the smell Right, so I don't know if anything's smell would come through her. We'll get to that in a minute. It seems like it's a peshita why also we'll get to it, בזמן הזה, we don't really rely on this test anymore. But before we get to that back then was flying into... yeah, so yes, so that's what the Maggid like Yeah, the Maggid Mishneh says that their wine The Rambam by the way, when he says he says you do a test, but he doesn't say what the test is. The Maggid Mishneh says because he says he's not to, in בזמן הזה the wine is not, it's not the same. The wine is not the same. The wine is not the same, right. Because the wine was very strong. דארץ יהודה it was strong, right. But now it's I guess a lot more מהול and it's So the Beit Yosef seems to to take on that the this Tur is actually of an opinion that they don't need to first, you're not needing to first prove the test with a שפחה. And he says because Rabban Gamliel wasn't sure about it, so Rabban Gamliel tested it. Once Rabban Gamliel found it to be proven, that test is a test that will work for nowadays. We could all we now all rely on that test that he proved, and therefore, you don't have to every every time a שאלה comes up, you don't have to go test it for yourself. However, the the opinion of the Rema, and as the Bach explains as well, that the Bach says, no. The same way Rabban Gamliel was not sure of this of this test, if it really was effective or not, he had to go first to see with his own eyes to make sure it will work, so too, we also, anyone who's going to have want to do this test, you have to also see for yourself. Now, it's interesting, though, that the Chelkat Mechokek, one of the commentaries on Shulchan Aruch, sorry, so he wants to say that there's not really even a מחלוקת between the Tur and the Rema. It's just the Tur was just bringing down the הלכה. The Tur was just coming to tell us the test, and if the Tur then just goes to speak at the Rema really to to explain פרושי פרושי דבריו, and the way how to go about it. The language he uses in פרוש הרמ״א is, let me just find that again here, והרמ״א כתב, the Rema writes. So, and this is לשון, let me read you the the

Chelkat Mechokek says like the following, that even according to the Tur that says this בדיקה של חביות יין, it says נראה דלא פליגי אהרמ״א. He's not coming to argue on the רמ״א. דצריך שיהיה תחלה בשפחה בחביות יין כנ״ל. According to the טור, you also have to check with a with a with a שפחה first. So, וזה שאף שכתב הטור והרמ״א כתב, even though the טור quotes the רמ״א the רמ״א wrote something, it says he's not coming to argue. לאו לפלוגי אתי אלא לפרושי. He's not coming to argue, he's only coming to explain. דכי היכי דרבן גמליאל בגמרא בכתובות דף י׳ ע״ב לא סמך אקבלה שלו שיבדקו בחביות יין, meaning, if רבן גמליאל was not סומך, רבן גמליאל did not rely on his קבלה to rely on this, ובדק תחלה בשפחה, and he first checked with the שפחה, אנן עאכ״ו יתמי דיתמי, us, generations later, יתומים דייתומים, orphans of orphans, we all the prior and certainly we should first prove the test before you do the test. That is how the Chalkat Mechokek comes out, that there really is not a machloket, Tur and Rema. Everybody really agrees that it first has to be proven before you do it. That proof, רבן גמליאל already proved it. That? Already proved it. That's what he's saying. That proof is, it seems like that's not a proof that you could rely on. Each and each and every situation may may vary depending on the wine, depending on the woman. Yeah. Yeah. Seems like made it out matter of good. You don't want to leave it then? What? Press done. We're done? Okay. Okay, yashar koach.

What's going on, גברא? Doing good, גברא. You rock, man. Okay, how are you doing? Baruch Hashem. What are you going to do now? My phone there. What are you going to do now? I think that was pretty straightforward. Yeah. Is that? Pretty straightforward.