גמרא challenges and the גמרא asks, ומי אמר רבי אלעזר הכי? Did רבי אלעזר really say that הלכה that a person is נאמן based on his word to אסר his wife to him? We have another statement from רבי אלעזר, והאמר רבי אלעזר, רבי אלעזר said, אין אין האשה נאסרת על בעלה, a woman is not forbidden to her husband אלא, only, על עסקי קינוי וסתירה. What is עסקי קינוי וסתירה? So קינוי really means the warning and סתירה means seclusion. קינוי refers to a warning by סוטה. Are you familiar with the פרשה of סוטה? Not that well. Not that well, ברוך השם. Yeah, right? קינוי means warning, סתירה is seclusion, seclusion. So we have a statement elsewhere that רבי אלעזר says the only time a woman is forbidden to stay married with her husband is if there is what we call קינוי וסתירה. קינוי וסתירה is referring to the פרשה in the תורה that we know of סוטה, where a husband is חושש that his wife has an interest in some other man and he tells her, "Stay away from him." And then if she is found to have been מתיחד with him, then we have a פרשה in the תורה called the פרשה of סוטה, and the הלכה is that בכי האי גוונא she is forbidden to be with her husband. However, רבי אלעזר said that this is the only way that a woman is forbidden to her husband. At least that's what the גמרא understands right now, that this is the only way. וכמעשה שהיה, just as the מעשה that took place.

What מעשה are we talking about? Avner, you know what מעשה? Yeah, I think it says right here, so don't make your assumption that I know, but I definitely know how to read, and it's between דוד המלך and בת שבע. Between דוד המלך and בת שבע. So so let's let's take this apart here. Right now the גמרא is posing a question on the initial statement that רבי אלעזר said, the initial הלכה that if a husband says פתח פתוח מצאתי, that he has a נאמנות to אסר his wife unto her. פרעגט די גמרא that רבי אלעזר says elsewhere the only time a woman is forbidden to her husband is if there is קינוי וסתירה, if he warns her to stay away from somebody and then she's found to be מתיחד with that person that he warned her against. And part of that statement also, it came along with that statement, it's like we find by the story of בת שבע. And that is the גמרא's question right now. It seems like a contradiction. רבי אלעזר said you could אסר her based on his word, he finds her פתח to be פתח פתוח מצאתי, so he's נאמן לאוסרה? That has nothing to do with the פרשה of סוטה, that has nothing to do with קינוי, nothing to do with סתירה. He sees that she's not a בתולה. Based on the fact that she's not a בתולה, and as we spoke about before, she's אשת כהן, or if he married her פחות מבת ג', because of the ספק that she was מזנה, because of that ספק she's אסור. So how is it that רבי אלעזר later goes ahead and says that she's only אסור if there was what we call קינוי, the warning, and סתירה, and the seclusion? So now the

גמרא's going to put this question on hold for a moment, and we are going to analyze this last statement here from רבי אלעזר. This last statement that רבי אלעזר said, that the only time a person is his wife is אסור to him is only if you have קינוי וסתירה, and the המשך of that מימרא, רבי אלעזר concluded by saying, "Like the story that we find by בת שבע and דוד המלך." So one interjection here, we have to take this apart for a moment because this doesn't seem to make any sense. The גמרא asks: ותסברא? One second here. מעשה שהיה בקינוי וסתירה הוה? The מעשה of דוד and בת שבע, how is that being brought as a support to the הלכה, the second הלכה of רבי אלעזר that the only time a woman is אסור to her husband is קינוי וסתירה? The גמרא says רבי אלעזר says, "וכמעשה שהיה," like the story of בת שבע and דוד המלך. By דוד and בת שבע there was no there was no קינוי וסתירה. So how is that story going to support the second הלכה of רבי אלעזר? That's one question. Well, there might be סתירה, but not necessarily קינוי. No קינוי, right. Secondly, ועוד, furthermore, מי אסרא? בת שבע was not אסור to דוד המלך! So again, it seems like רבי אלעזר was trying to bring a סיוע, he's trying I don't know about a a סיוע for דוד המלך support this הלכה that he was saying, the הלכה was that the only time a woman is אסורה to her husband is when you have קינוי וסתירה. And he says because according to דוד ובת שבע, like the גמרא דוד ובת שבע was not קינוי וסתירה, and secondly, she was מותרת, she was permitted to stay with דוד המלך. Because her husband was dead. Because the Uriah, well we'll see why the גמרא is going to ask later, why why was she actually מותרת? Okay. We'll we'll talk about that soon. So if this this this raises a question on the second מימרא and and if we discredit the second מימרא, obviously the question will fall apart. We have to understand what רבי אלעזר is saying here. What is רבי אלעזר talking about? So, says the גמרא, we could explain the second הלכה of רבי אלעזר as follows, הכי קאמר. Er I'm sorry, הלא קשיא, this is not, this is not a problem, no קשיא. הכי קאמר, this is what רבי אלעזר meant to say: אין האשה נאסרת על בעלה אלא על עסקי קינוי וסתירה. What רבי אלעזר was saying is like we said before, that a woman is not forbidden to her husband only עסקי קינוי וסתירה. So that part is intact. The only time a woman is אסורה to her husband is if you have the warning, the קינוי, and the סתירה, and the seclusion like the פרשה we have of סוטה. And this is like ממעשה שהיה, like the story that we find with דוד המלך and בת שבע, that did not, ולא have a קינוי וסתירה, that did not have קינוי וסתירה ולא יתסרה, and was not אסורה. So we're just Could it didn't happen, doesn't mean that it it it does happen, you know what I'm saying? Well Well, well, we'll see exactly. Well, we have to see exactly what happened by the story of of of דוד ובת שבע. The גמרא's going to go into that a little more here. So the גמרא wants to say is that we see that unless you have קינוי וסתירה, there's not going to be an איסור. And just like we find by דוד המלך and בת שבע, There's no There's no איסור, so so it must be that it takes קינוי וסתירה. Sounds I mean, so simplified, obviously it's Yeah, we'll yeah we'll we'll we'll wait till we clarify the story here of of דוד המלך ובת שבע. Before we get back to this. So now that we have some kind of understanding as to the second מימרא of רבי אלעזר, so we're back to our question. מכל מקום קשיא. We're back to our initial סתירה, our contradiction, excuse the pun here, initial סתירה on רבי אלעזר. קינוי וסתירה אין, פתח פתוח לא? If רבי אלעזר said the only time a woman is אסורה to her husband is if it's קינוי וסתירה, so קינוי וסתירה אין, only if it's קינוי וסתירה, what about פתח פתוח, מצא or not? And the גמרא earlier told us רבי אלעזר said, that פתח פתוח מצאתי, he is נאמן to אסר her on him. So the question is הדרא לדוכתא. הדרא לדוכתא, what? הדרא לדוכתא. הדרא. Back in place. Back in place, הדרא לדוכתא. הדרא returns, לדוכתא to its turns. Hadran, not Hadran. לדוכתא. So,

again the גמרא challenges the question, ולטעמיך, with your reasoning that you're going to start making דיוקים based on the second מימרא. The second מימרא of רבי אלעזר was, that the only time a person is אסור, The only time a person's wife is אסורה עליו is if it's קינוי וסתירה, So, how far are you going to take that? You're going to tell me also קינוי וסתירה אין, עדים לא? You're going to tell me that, oh, רבי אלעזר said, it has to be קינוי וסתירה. Does Does that mean that's the only way a woman is אסורה to her husband? If you have two עדים that she was מזנה, are you going to also say that she's permitted? Obviously that's not what רבי אלעזר meant. So, if רבי אלעזר did not mean when there is two עדים, so maybe he didn't neither mean to exclude פתח פתוח. So what did he mean? So, what did he mean? Says the גמרא, אלא He really takes, sort of, this is the only way. Yeah. That's what he kind of said. Yeah, so the גמרא's going to explain, what did he mean that it's the only way? אלא הכי קאמר, this is what רבי אלעזר was saying: אין אשה נאסרת על בעלה בעד אחד, here's the catch. רבי אלעזר was saying, that a woman will not be forbidden to her husband with one עד, with one witness, אלא בשני עדים. The

only time a woman is forbidden to her husband is with two witnesses, not with one witness, except קינוי וסתירה. And for קינוי וסתירה, אפילו בעד אחד נמי. קינוי וסתירה when she was warned by her husband and then she was מיוחד with this person, then even if the ייחוד was with one witness, then she is forbidden to stay married to her husband. Can that one witness be the husband? Can that one witness be the husband? It's a sidewind question maybe, but just curious. I don't know offhand, I think so. I would think so, but I'm not sure about that. I'd have to double-check. So, now what about פתח פתוח? פתח פתוח כשני עדים דמי. And the claim of פתח פתוח, that she's not a בתולה, that is equivalent to two עדים. So, when one claims פתח פתוח מצאתי, he is נאמן with with an נאמנות of two עדים, שוויה אנפשיה חתיכה דאיסורא. Go ahead, אבנר. Yeah, how do you say when it's like a hundred? One is like a hundred? What? Huh? כמאה עדים דמי? Yeah. נאמן? Does that apply? יותר ממאה עדים דמי, yeah. Yeah, right, well if the way right the way you understand the way you understand the הלכה of שוויה אנפשיה חתיכה דאיסורא that it's working like the קצות explains that there's like an נאמנות that a person is נאמן on עצמו, like a בעל דבר, then כמאה עדים דמי like you're saying, yeah. Well, what's not the case where? No, yeah, yeah, but that's a חידוש of the קצות, that's not that's not by סוטה. What רב אלעזר was saying there's what we call רגלים לדבר, there's a circumstantial evidence. Correct, yeah, so there's there's evidence that we're working with, there's what we call רגלים לדבר and that's the פרשה of סוטה that we we reason with the עד אחד and we accept it, like you're saying, yeah, also because of the whole story that something wrong with it. Correct, yes. And however in our case, פתח פתוח מצאתי nothing really to do with the פרשה of סוטה, but if a husband finds his woman his wife to be a בעולה at the time of the נישואין, so again, he is נאמן לאוסרה עליו as two עדים who actually saw her being מזנה, are also נאמן to אסר her to her husband. But if she gets she's a סוטה, when they bring but but it doesn't establish the fact, right, without the witnesses? It does not establish the fact, but it establishes a real איסור for the husband. Enough to go through the סוטה process. That he now has to divorce her, What? What good is what? Not the סוטה process. Yes, to divorce her. It's now אסור to stay married to her. And the סוטה also, they have to be סוטה has to be separated. Unless she wants to, and then they go through the סוטה process. Yeah, if they want to go through the סוטה process, they could, but they're not allowed to stay married. Not only are they not allowed to stay together until Why do you need witnesses to establish the fact in court? What does it help? Well, you might not You don't always have a קינוי. A קינוי is when the husband testifies, "Don't hang out with this guy." Now, let's say there's no קינוי and, I don't know, one day witnesses come forward that a woman was מזנה, so then you'll have if you know it was בפרהסיא and there was עדים and there was a warning, התראה, then she'll get killed. If it was בפרהסיא and that's that's everything. But the פרשה of סוטה is a חידוש where you don't have clear, clear, solid evidence of two עדים Who does what? By a סוטה she does not get killed. I'm talking he was asking about a case where it's not a סוטה and you have no קינוי. There was no warning, let's say, for example. Right, he's new here. He didn't understand that They saw that מיוחד. They saw ייחוד only. Right. Right, very good. Correct, correct, yes. If עדים saw זנות, then they would kill her. Does the warning have to be by the the husband? Like that? The warning has to be from the husband? The warning has to be for the from the husband, so that we have to look in for the רמב''ם. In הלכות סוטה, I think it does have to be by the husband. I think so. Okay, so that's the גמרא. So I didn't really want to go into this גמרא too much, but what we come out with here is that we don't we do not have a contradiction for רב אלעזר. On the one hand, he says that a woman a man who says פתח פתוח מצאתי is נאמן, not a contradiction to his other statement, because his other statement about how a woman is אסורה to her husband only with קינוי וסתירה is in reference to a situation where you only have one witness. But if there are two witnesses or פתח פתוח, which is equivalent to two witnesses, then a woman also could be אסורה to her husband. What's that? Oh, so that's what we're going to do now. The next גמרא is going to get into more the story of דוד ובת שבע. Okay, the

גמרא asks, וכי תימא מעשה שהיה, getting back to our story here of דוד ובת שבע, the story that happened, מעשה שהיה, the story that happened, מפני מה לא אסרוה? For what reason was בת שבע not forbidden to דוד המלך? Why was she permitted? So there really are two explanations here as to what the גמרא is trying to ask. I'll read you רש״י's explanation, the last רש״י on the page here. רש״י is coming to explain this question, מפני מה לא אסרוה, why was בת שבע permitted to stay with דוד המלך after לכאורה, it seems like she was מזנה with him? So רש״י explains the question is, why was she permitted to דוד and not אסורה, מפני מה לא אסרוה על דוד, why was she not forbidden to דוד, שהרי עדים הרבה, many witnesses, ידעו, many witnesses knew what happened. Now לכאורה, what רש״י means, yeah, there was an awareness, everybody knew it happened. So being that everybody knew it happened, that's also considered like עדים. So that's also considered like עדים, so דוד המלך should be forbidden to stay with with בת שבע. Now let's take a look at the bottom תוספות, and he is not so satisfied with רש״י's explanation of the question.

תוספות: מפני מה לא אסרוה? פירש הקונטרס, רש״י explains, דהלאו עושו מעשה בעדים הוי. The גמרא's question is that she should be forbidden based on the fact that there were many people that were witnesses, everybody knew what happened. תוספות challenges that פשט. ואינו, תוספות does not like that פשט, דאף דאי הוי ידוע לרבים הוי שהביאה לביתו, although it was known to the public, it was public information, everybody knew that דוד המלך brought בת שבע to his house, to his palace, מכל מקום לא ראו כמכחול בשפופרת, no one really saw that they were מזנה, clearly. שבפני בני אדם לא שימש. He was not מזנה with her in front of anybody. So it was the type of thing maybe that everybody knew, and it was understood, but למעשה, עדים have to see with clarity. In order to accept the testimony of witnesses, they have to have seen what happened. So תוספות says it can't be because of the fact that it was public information that that's why she should be forbidden to stay with דוד המלך. So תוספות explains that the גמרא's question really is asking a completely different not not not because of the not because of the fact that they're עדים. ונראה לרי, that really connects with our סוגיא of of of שויה אנפשיה חתיכה דאיסורא. How so? ונראה לרי, the ר״י explains, לפרש דאם תאמר, we're really challenging what we said before that פתח פתוח if you need עדים דמי, that one who claims that his wife is פתח פתוח, the הלכה is he's נאמן לאוסרה עליו, and he has an נאמנות like two עדים. On that, אמאי לא יאסרוה על דוד? Based on that הלכה, why is she not forbidden to דוד? דדוד היה יודע בודאי שנבעלה. דוד המלך himself, he knew that she was נבעלה. If a person knows something is אסור, just like the husband when he finds his wife to be a בעולה, so whether we don't know if he's telling the truth or not doesn't really make a difference. We accept what he says because with regard to him שויה אנפשיה חתיכה דאיסורא. And similarly, דוד המלך, he knew what he did, and he should have, as we'll see in a moment, תוספות explains that he did תשובה. ואף על פי שעשה תשובה, מכל מקום עכבה, he still held onto her. And he knew what he did. So at point that he did תשובה, he was still holding onto her, that must be that the הלכה was he was allowed to keep her. But why was he allowed to keep her? He himself knew that she was אסור. ואם היתה אסורה לו, and if she was forbidden to him, לא היה עושה צדיק להושיבה לו לאשה. This צדיק, דוד המלך, should not have kept her as a אשה, as a wife. So the way תוספות is explaining our גמרא, is it's really continuation of our סוגיא. That if a person has a right to be believed, and he has an נאמנות to make on himself an איסור, if he knows something is forbidden, שויה אנפשיה חתיכה דאיסורא. So here דוד המלך, at the point where תוספות says he was אחר תשובה, and even if he may have done something here with בת שבע that would have אסר'd her, but when he did תשובה, he knew that he did was מזנה with her. And if he's מזנה with her, the הלכה is that a woman who's מזנה is forbidden to be with her I forgot to point this out, let me mention it, not only to be with her husband, but she's also forbidden to be with the בועל. The בועל is the one that was מזנה with her, which in the story of דוד המלך would be דוד. And that איסור, as we'll talk about soon, is really a package deal. That meaning to say if she's אסור to her husband because she was מזנה willingly, then she's also אסור to her her בועל. What's נבעלה again? What's that? נבעלה, that you said the word. נבעלה? Yeah. It means ביאה. She had ביאה. Oh, ביאה. It's she was נבעלה. Oh, נבעלה. Why do you have that reason in the גמרא, בגלל ש... Sure. You want to put on pause? Huh? You want to pause it? No. No. Is it a question or you just want to know? Ah, go ahead. Why should he have been forbidden? תוספות explains like... Why should he have been forbidden? It's like סקילה, it's like חטא. But when they're in כנסת, דוד would have had to... סקילה is only when there's עדים and התראה. Two witnesses have to come over to him, say "sir, do this, and you do it, we kill you." Okay, but between him and Hashem, that's between him and God, that's... You mean what? Well, I'm not getting here into the השקפה and the understanding and and how חז"ל tells us not to say דוד המלך was חוטא. He wasn't חוטא, correct. Right. Right, so well תוספות is in the גמרא's question, you have to realize that that information that you're aware of is probably the מסקנא of the גמרא. Right now the גמרא is of the understanding that he actually was מזנה with an אשת איש. We're going to see that that's going to blow off. That's going to blow off. The גמרא is going to say that didn't really happen. It wasn't really an עבירה. But we're going to assume for a second, we don't know the גמרא's answer yet. We're in the we're we have to work with an assumption here that דוד המלך may have done something wrong here, okay? The גמרא. The גמרא right now is assuming she was an אשת איש. Okay. No, no, no. Well, well, of course she does. Well, then why is she after the daughter? She's not after the daughter. What what's the difference? The difference is whether the name is for a girl. Let me back up a second. The גמרא assumes that בת שבע was an אשת איש, that she was she was married to אוריה, that she was married to אוריה. That's the גמרא's answer, we're going to get to that, we don't know that yet, Bernardo doesn't know that yet. We don't know that yet. The גמרא's going to talk about that. The גמרא is going to answer this question by saying that she got a גט. We don't know that yet, okay? Put that aside. You learned כתובות already, not everybody learned כתובות yet. We don't know that yet. Okay? We don't know that she got a גט, okay? The גמרא we have to we have to we have to work until we get to that גט in the גמרא. The גמרא right now assumes that בת שבע was an אשת איש, she was married to אוריה. And the גמרא also is of the impression of the impression that that the הלכה was that דוד המלך what happened, the story was that he kept her as a wife. And what the גמרא is asking according to תוספות is that if he was מזנה with her, which we're assuming right now he was, that means that this בת שבע, this girl בת שבע, was מזנה ברצון as an אשת איש, which makes her forbidden to be with

her husband, package deal, also forbidden to the בועל, which would be דוד המלך. And how then, asks the גמרא according to תוספות, how then did דוד המלך keep her as a wife? He's not allowed to. He was the בועל. He's not allowed to stay with her anymore. So even if we'll take for even if we could assume for a moment there was something wrong, there was an עבירה done, but תוספות said every at least certainly he did תשובה after the fact. And this צדיק דוד המלך, and we'll see in the מסקנא of the גמרא she wasn't really even an אשת איש. But even if she was an אשת איש, he certainly was always a צדיק, and he wouldn't have kept her if he knew that he may have stumbled, and if he did do such an עבירה at one point, he won't continue with that עבירה, he would let her go. Good point. We'll get to that. Okay, Bernardo, did we clarify a little bit? Huh?

Where does it say, yeah, where does it say she's a קטנה? Yes, it happens to be that the גמרא in סנהדרין says that she was a קטנה, she was six years old. We're going to talk about that, yes, we will get to there. That would bring us back to the רמב״ם, yes, good. You see where it's going now. You see where it's going? Very good, Bernardo. So we got the קשיא here, Bernardo? The how is בת שבע permitted to be stay married to the בועל, to דוד המלך, if she was מזנה willingly, and דוד המלך himself, he knew that he was מזנה with her? Ooh, maybe. That was also, you're going to be so, yeah, we're going I'm not sure about the נודע ביהודה, okay, hold off with that. Don't forget. When we get to the הלכה, so we'll see if we can work it out. Okay? So אזוי פרעגט די גמרא. Bernardo can't understand this קשיא because he knows the answer already, so, hey, bear with me, we'll get there, give me a minute, right? וכי תימא מעשה שהיה מאי איכא למימר. And if you're going to ask that by the story of בת שבע, and we'll work with let's work with תוספות explanation, that if she was an אשת איש that was מזנה ברצון to דוד המלך, דוד המלך knew, and if he knows, so he's נאמן על עצמו like מאה עדים. So she should be אסור to him, and if he was a צדיק, he should not he should not have kept her. The גמרא gives two תירוצים. The

first answer is: התם אונס הוה. There, by בת שבע, she was not מזנה willingly, she was not מזנה ברצון, she was forced into this, and it's considered an אונס, and if she's considered an אונס, what does that have to do with דוד המלך? So לכאורה the פשט is that, as we said before, it's a package deal. If she's אסור to her husband, then she's also אסור to the בועל. If she's permitted to go back to her husband, then she'd also be permitted, if she got a גט or her husband died, she'd be permitted to go get married to the בועל. It's a package deal. So, being that she was an אונס, therefore she's still permitted to be with her husband, so if her husband died like he did in the story of בת שבע, then she would still be permitted to to דוד, who's the בועל, because she was not מזנה ברצון, she was only מזנה באונס. That doesn't seem to make sense in a way. It does not seem to make sense in a way. Why not? Why not? Because, okay, go on, I second understand that, and you want to say that דוד המלך knew he was, meaning the בועל knew he was doing something wrong. It seems like she'd still be prohibited to to the בועל, but not not to her husband because it's an אונס. She should be prohibited to the Unless she got unless they had a גט, then that's a different story. The פשטות I think really is, I think I think I saw בשם the רשב״א that that it's good it's good. But she's not she's not מותר to both of them. If they're both alive, no, no, she's not gonna be מותר to both of them at the same time. Right, only if only if they died or they got a גט. Okay, but But you're learning one from the other. What do you mean learning one from the other? Meaning cuz the if she's מותר to her husband because of the אונס, so she's מותר to the That's that's right. That's true. Yeah, but I want to go into the second answer of the גמרא, then we'll get back and talk about the first answer. The

second answer is: ואיבעית אימא כי הא דאמר רב שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן, like רב שמואל בר נחמני said in the name of רבי יונתן, כל היוצא למלחמת בית דוד, this is what we're waiting for, גט כריתות כותב לאשתו. He would write a גט כריתות to his wife. דכתיב: ואת ערובתם תקח, and what does that mean? מאי ואת ערובתם תקח? תני רב יוסף: דברים המעורבים בינו לבינה. That דברים which were between איש לאשתו, which is referring to the קידושין, the husband would give her a גט before he would go out to war. And therefore, this woman was never really an אשת איש, and we're going to talk about this maybe either next week or the week after, next time we get back to this, but the the פשט, the explanation, רש״י explains is that he writes her a גט, if he dies, then she's divorced from today, and being that אוריה never came back, so retroactively, she was not an אשת איש when דוד המלך went to her, and therefore, he was never מזנה with an אשת איש, and that's why they were able to stay married. So, our גמרא gives two reasons as to why בת שבע could have been permitted to דוד המלך. Reason number one is she was never מזנה ברצון, she was only מזנה באונס. And answer number two, and second and answer number two is that there was really a גט in effect, and therefore, she was never really considered an אשת איש. Yes or no to that? How did דוד המלך write to Uriah... Yeah, this is not a, this is not a... another שיעור. אונס by סיני. The

ר״ן explains that this אונס that הקדוש ברוך הוא held the mountain over our head, he used to say that that his his לשון was כגיגית, barrel. That what was the barrel? It was a barrel that you keep aged wine in it. He says we were like in a different world then after the ניסים and we saw the יד הקדוש ברוך הוא, and we accepted the תורה with קריעת ים סוף, we accepted the תורה with the מן, all these things, there was no choice. פשוט, this was the way to go. That's what the גמרא says, מודעא רבה לאורייתא. But in time of גלות, when we don't see the יד השם so clearly, then maybe not. And then they accepted it again by time of פורים. This was שוואך. So you want to say that it was a kind of אונס, not at gunpoint, but rather it was just simply there was no choice. Okay. We'll see. I have another point to add, there's another גמרא that says she was a קטנה also, which could be the reason why it's an אונס might have been because it has to do with the רמב״ם who's is big about that the הלכה is פיתוי קטנה אונס הוא, that if you persuade a קטנה. Yeah, so, yeah, so I saw, yeah, so. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, right. Yeah, so there are those that want to say that in those times, people matured earlier and she was able to get pregnant, but for the same reason that she was able to get pregnant, she didn't really הלכתית have a דין of a minor, because being that they were so mature that they got the שערות pretty earlier. So there's different סברות out there to explain what's going on here,

which we will talk about בעזרת השם next week, we will get into this first answer of the גמרא that בת שבע was considered an אונס and why that permits her to דוד and how does the fact that she's a קטנה play a role in that היתר and are the two לשונות of the גמרא possibly arguing? How about the women themselves if they get pregnant? Right, so no, so it could be they matured earlier in those days. Right, right, so yeah, I saw there are those that want to say that. She might not be a קטנה with regard to, I think עונשים goes by physical, I don't think it means she's a קטנה, but at least as far as being forbidden to her husband, maybe נפקא מינה. I'm not sure. But there are those that want to say that argument. I don't remember who I saw it in, but hopefully next week. יישר כח. יישר כח. You want to pour this into my thermos? Anybody want to get? Thanks. It's coming, it's finally here.