first daf of Kesubos. Mishnah starts off by saying בתולה נשאת ליום הרביעי, that a בתולה, a virgin, has to get married on the fourth day of the week, which is on Wednesday. And the Mishnah gives the reason, because twice a week בית דין would sit, Monday and Thursday, and they were afraid that, just in case he would realize after the חתונה, when he had relations with her, that she was not a בתולה, we want him to come to בית דין, tell, and we're afraid if there'll be too much time between when he realizes it till the בית, till he'll be able to come to בית דין, he might cool off and not come. So they wanted he should get married as soon as as close as possible to the time he goes to בית דין. So therefore, you have to get married Wednesday. If you get married Wednesday, Thursday Wednesday night will be the relations, so if any problem, he won't cool off by the morning, and he'll be able to run to בית דין. While if he does another day, till he goes to בית דין, it'll cool off. And the Gemara asks the kashya: If so, why can't he get married on Sunday too? Sunday. No, which, Sunday, no, that's Gemara gives a different reason later, by possibility we're afraid that he might prepare Shabbos. The Gemara gives a different reason, because the Chachamim wanted that every woman should have a good חתונה, nice חתונה, and it takes at least three days to prepare it. Oh, I see, yeah. So you can't, right, and Shabbos in between, you can't do it, that's why you can't get married on Sunday. Afterwards, the Gemara comes with a conclusion and says that, according to this, there will be a certain דין that will come out. The

Gemara says later on that a בתולה, from when she was engaged, the Chachamim said, you have twelve months to prepare. Until twelve months, the husband would not have to do the חתונה. But as the when the twelve months were up, he was obligated to marry her, and from the moment he marries her, he's obligated to support her. And the Mishnah says later on that if the twelve months were up, and the day came when he was supposed to marry her, and הגיע זמן ולא נשאו, so they didn't get married, he decided, I don't want to marry you yet, or I want to wait another month, he has a right to do it, but from the day that the time was up, he's obligated to support her. So the father, her father, says to him, from now on, you support her, instead of me. So the Gemara says, what happens if the day came on Sunday? Exactly the twelve months were up on Sunday. And he says, I'm ready to marry her, but I can't. Why? Because the Chachamim said not to marry till Wednesday. What about these few days, does he have to support her, or not? So the

Gemara says he doesn't have to support her. Why? Because it's not his fault that he's not marrying her. Based on that, Rav Yosef says, according to this logic, that since it's not his fault, therefore he's not obligated to support her, what happened if there's another reason that it's not his fault? Let's say he got sick, so it's also not his fault that he can't marry her. What happens if she got sick? What happens if she became a niddah, and he cannot marry her then, because the law says that you shouldn't marry when she's a niddah? So if because the day came on Sunday and he can't marry her because it's not his fault, you don't give the the מזונות, you don't have to support her, so the Gemara says, so too, if he got sick, or she got sick, or פירסה נדה, he doesn't have to support her because it's not his fault. That's the way the Gemara says at first. Then the Gemara says, איכא דמיבעיא ליה בעיא. Other people did not say it that way. Others had a question. Others said, I'm not sure what would be the דין if he got sick. And the Gemara explains the two sides of the question. He said like this: התם מאי טעמא? משום דאונס, הכא נמי הא אונס. If, in the case where the the date of the חתונה came on Sunday and he couldn't marry her, he doesn't have to support her, the reason is because it's not his fault, it's an ones. So what's the difference? So here too, if he got sick, it's also an ones. So therefore, he shouldn't give her. או דילמא, or maybe, התם אונס דתקנתא תקינו ליה רבנן, הכא לא. Maybe we can't compare it. In that case, he's an ones because the Chachamim said don't marry her, but here, it's a different type of ones, maybe you can't compare it. Then the Gemara goes further: אם תמצא לומר חלה הוא, מעלה לה מזונות, he does have to support her, in other words, afilu if we'll say that we cannot compare this ones to the ones that the Gemara speaks about before, I have another question: חלתה היא, what would be if she got sick? מהו, what's the din? On one hand, מצי אמר לה, he could say to her, אנא הא קאימנא, I'm here, I'm ready to marry you. You're the one that's sick, so it's not my fault. So then why should I pay you מזונות? Why should I pay you the support? או דילמא, or maybe, מצי אמרה ליה, she could say to him, נסתחפה שדהו, she could say to him, tough luck. He had twelve months to marry her, though, it's only for one day. No, but he didn't have to, till then there was no problem, and now he she's now she's supposed to marry her and she's sick, but so, or he could say to her, it's your fault, or she could say to him, my fault, did I do anything about it? It's not my fault. It's your tough luck, and you have to support me, the day is up. That's the two she'elot, and then the Gemara goes into the third type פסקי דינים, which is not נוגע to the ענין. The following we have in the Gemara an איבעיא, when you have two sides of a question, so we have to look into it and understand what are the two sides of the question. What are the reasons why we feel it this way, why the reason to feel this way? So here, basically, these two questions, but we have to understand what are the two sides. The first question was, do we compare when he got sick, חלה הוא, to the case when he couldn't marry her because the time, because that it was Sunday or Monday or Tuesday, it wasn't Wednesday yet? Do we compare it, or don't we compare it? Or in other words, do we make a difference between not being able to marry her because it's a תקנת חכמים, that the Chachamim said don't, or any other type of ones? So we have to understand what would be the two sides of the story. Why do we think we could compare it, or why do we think we can't compare it? And then the second thing, when she got sick, those the two sides the Gemara asks: can he say to her, well, I'm ready to marry you, and therefore I don't have to pay, or she could say to him, tough luck. But there must be reasons for the both, both of the sides. The first one is the easiest to explain, and there are a few ways we could explain it.

Number one is it's possible to say that if the Chachamim said don't marry her on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, it's as if the time hasn't come. The 12 months were takeh up on a Sunday, and we assumed that's called the time came here. But it's possible to say that because you cannot marry her because the Chachamim said don't marry, the time didn't come. Who said that you need 12 months? The Chachamim. The Chachamim said that if it's Sunday, you can't marry her, so it's as if it's not up. It's as if the חכמים לכתחילה said, not that you have to marry her after 12 months, you have to marry her on the first Wednesday after 12 months. According to that, it's not the reason he doesn't pay her support is not because it's an ones. We don't look at it this way: well, you have to marry her, you can't because there was some kind of ones, some kind of of a problem, some kind of emergency. The peshat is that the time hasn't come. So if you look at it that way, we can't compare חלה הוא to this. We can't say if he got sick, maybe it's different. Where do we see that if there was some kind of ones, you don't pay support? But the fact that he didn't have to pay support when the it was Sunday, Monday is no ראיה. On the other hand, you could say no. On the other hand, you could say that there are two things here: the Chachamim said 12 months are up, you have to marry her, that's exactly on the day; then there's a separate din, that you can't marry her on Sunday. So if you look at it this way, really the time has come, but there is a ones why you can't marry her, and we say, therefore, you don't have to pay. So from there, we could learn now the other ones also, it looks the same. So there's two sides is, what kind of geder, what kind of concept is the fact that you cannot marry her till Wednesday? Is it one with the time, and therefore it's not as if the time didn't come, or not? The same thing you could say in other words. When it comes to a takanat chachamim bichlal, the chachamim say a takanah, we see that sometimes the takanah, not only because of what the chachamim said, you're supposed to keep what the chachamim said even though it's against a din, but the chachamim have a right to change a din. I'll give an example.

Even when it comes to a mitzvah d'oraita, give an example: very close, this year, Rosh Hashanah is going to be Shabbos. Mid'oraita you have to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah even if it's on Shabbos. Came the Rabbanan and said, יום טוב של ראש השנה שחל להיות בשבת, אין תוקעין במדינה, you don't blow. The reason is gezeirah d'Rabbah, we're afraid if you blow, you might carry the shofar, you might carry it outside. Anyway, the chachamim say you're not allowed to blow. So we're not allowed to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah Shabbos. There is a שאלה, Rabbi Akiva Eiger in a teshuvah discusses this: What, did the chachamim say that you're not allowed to blow? They didn't take away the mitzvah, they can't change the mitzvah, there's a mitzvah to blow, but they have a right to stop you from doing the mitzvah? Or when they said don't blow, they took away the mitzvah, there is no more mitzvah, but they have a right to change that? Now we have a rule, the Gemara says in Yevamos: יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה בשב ואל תעשה. The chachamim have a right to take away a mitzvah from the Torah as long as it is by telling you not to do something. They can't change a din of the Torah by telling you to do something against the Torah. That was, they could never say that on Shabbos you should carry. They can never say that we make a din that you should have to write on Shabbos, and they're going against the תורה בקום ועשה, telling you, do something against the Torah. But they have a right to tell you, don't do something that the Torah wants to do. And therefore, they have a right, for whatever reasons they have, to tell you that even though the Torah wants you to blow shofar today, we have a right to tell you not to blow. So they have a right to do that, but when they They did do that, what took place? Did they say that even though the mitzvah remains, but we have a right to stop you from doing the mitzvah, or by doing that, they have a koach to make it there shouldn't be a mitzvah? In simple words, if someone will blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah, he definitely did an aveirah, an איסור דרבנן. But did he do the מצוה דאורייתא of shofar? Well, depends. If they took away the mitzvah, well there is no mitzvah. If they didn't take it away, then there is a mitzvah. A nafka minah would be, let's say somebody has to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah because of פיקוח נפש, for instance. He has to blow because that's the way he could save someone's life. So he's allowed to blow. Should he make a ברכה, אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לשמוע קול שופר? After all, he's doing the mitzvah and he's allowed to do it. Is it a mitzvah? I'll tell you even better. Should someone else run and try to stand when he blows to listen? Because there is no aveirah, you're not blowing, he's allowed to blow, there is a mitzvah. Well, depends what the chachamim did and there are two sides how you could learn like this, you can learn like it's נוגע to other things also. If a person did carry it, is it called טועה בדבר מצוה? If he did an aveirah, and he'll pay of carrying on Shabbos, is this daytsh he made a mistake with a mitzvah so you don't bring a קרבן חטאת? If it's not called טועה בדבר מצוה, you do bring a קרבן חטאת, whatever, but it's a she'eilah: is it a mitzvah, or did they spoil the mitzvah? It's על דרך like there was somebody in Yerushalayim, I mentioned, a guy, Harav Shlezinger, years ago, I'd say 70 years ago, who held that by the כותל you have to blow shofar on ראש השנה שבת now also. And he went to blow there. Because the גזירת רבה... the גזירת רבה is only outside, the Beit HaMikdash it wasn't, and he claimed it doesn't have to be the Beit HaMikdash ממש, it's even in the area of the Beit HaMikdash. So he went to blow shofar on ראש השנה שבת. So people had a whole thing, should we run and listen? Another example: we know the halacha is לילה לאו זמן תפילין. Night is not the time of tefillin. But many poskim pasken, the Alter Rebbe pasken's also, that it's only mid'rabbanan. מדאורייתא לילה זמן תפילין. The Rabbanan made a gezeirah that you shouldn't put on tefillin at night. They're afraid you might fall asleep in it, whatever, you shouldn't blow... you shouldn't put on tefillin. Question is, what did the Chachamim do? Did they, through this, were they מבטל מצות תפילין at night? So now, someone will put on tefillin at night, he didn't do the mitzvah of tefillin, or if he did, he did do the mitzvah? He did an aveirah, because the Chachamim said you're not allowed to put on tefillin on Shabbos uh at night. But he did a mitzvah also! The same question, if it'd be pikuach nefesh, at night he or something, he has to put on his tefillin. Should he make a berachah? Should he be מכוין לשם מצוה? Or I'll ask you another question: if someone put on tefillin at night when he wasn't allowed to, okay, and it's the only time in his life he put on tefillin, would he be in the category of קרקפתא דלא מנח תפילין? You know there is a special category, person, a head, who never in his life put on tefillin, Gemara says, אין לו חלק לעולם הבא, all kind of terrible, terrible things. Once in your lifetime you put on tefillin, you're not in that category. Now this guy put on tefillin at night. So he did an aveirah, he did other aveirot. Everyday he didn't put on tefillin is an aveirah. But did he do the mitzvah of tefillin? Is his head a mitzvah head, a head that put on tefillin? Well, depends. One way to learn is the Chachamim were מבטל מצות תפילין at night, or not. I'll give another example in a different type of case. And this was a she'eilah I had mamash halacha lemaaseh and it was very hard to come to a conclusion. No anybody I asked, nobody had an answer. We know mide'oraita,

most women mide'oraita are נדות when they see דם, not זבות. The דין מדאורייתא is that a נדה doesn't need שבעה נקיים, doesn't need clean days, seven clean days. A נדה, as soon as she sees דם, for seven days she's טמאה, and the seven days are up, if she's her blood finished, she can go to the mikvah. A זבה, a special type, after she finishes seeing the דם, she has to count seven clean days, and then she can go to the mikvah. חכמים said that we all, all the women now should consider themselves like זבות מדרבנן, and therefore you have to count seven clean days. Now a she'eilah: a woman who came and said, they were מקרב her, in taharat hamishpacha, she agreed to go to the mikvah, but didn't want to wait the seven days. 'And after I finish, oh wait, I'll wait seven days from when my period starts, but I don't want to wait seven clean days.' What should we tell her? Should we tell her to go to the mikvah? Because at least if she goes to the mikvah then, mide'oraita she will have been טהור? And this is an איסור כרת, טומאה is כרת. She's takeh מדרבנן they would be טמאה, but mide'oraita she'd be טהור. Or not? Because the way depends how you look at it. When the חכמים said you have to wait the seven clean days, is it that they were מבטל the דין that a נדה could go to the mikvah, ממילא it won't help at all? Or they said mide'oraita it still stays, we just added a דין that we want you to wait the seven clean days. But if you didn't wait, you're still mide'oraita טהור. בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן. Yeah, but this became a miderabbanan. It says קיבלו עליהם and then the רבנן, what, אמר רב זירא. So it's a she'eilah. In other words, what comes out from here that when it comes to a תקנה דרבנן against something else, and here we were talking against a mide'oraita, there are two ways to look at it: do the Rabbanan change the de'oraisa and make as if it doesn't exist, or they just add a din? Same thing would be here. Not a de'oraisa, but it's a derabbanan itself. There is one din derabbanan that when the time comes, you have to get married. And if you didn't get married, you have to pay support. Then came the Rabbanan and said, \"We don't want We don't allow you to get married on Sunday, Monday, or Tuesday.\" Is the pshat that the Chachamim, by saying \"We don't want you to get married Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday\", they said that on those days there is no din of getting married, of and of paying support, or they said no? The din of הגיע זמן ולא נישאו, that if the time came you have to pay support, remains. Then they just said, \"Well, we don't want you to get married.\" What is the difference? If you say the second way, then it's like an ones. Really he is supposed to get married and pay support, but there's an ones. And if we say that in such a case you don't pay, I assume that an ones doesn't pay support. So we can learn out from here case of ones. But if we're going to say that when they said this they were mevatel the whole din, then it's like the time didn't come, they took away the concept of the time coming. If the time didn't come, then you can't learn out from here for a regular ones. That's noge'a the first thing. The question really would be how do we explain the second case, when she got sick and the question is do we say that he has to pay because tough luck, or does he say, \"No, I'm here, I'm ready to marry you. What does it say?\" That's one thing. Then there's another thing here. The Shita Mekubetzet says, he asks a kashya on this whole parsha of the Gemara. Gemara has a question, what's the din he got she got he got sick, and then what's the din she got sick. He says like this: don't we have a rule אונס רחמנא פטריה אמרינן, אונס רחמנא חייביה לא אמרינן? When someone does something by force, the Torah poter's him. You can't blame him, he is patur, that's the din. So that's what we say, but we do not say that when you do something be'ones makes you chayav. So he says according to this rule, the Shita asks, both questions shouldn't be a question. If he got sick, why should he have to pay? The fact that he's not marrying her is be'ones. אונס רחמנא פטריה. If you're an ones, the Torah poter's you. Why should you have to pay, the Torah poter'd you because even though he didn't get married, and for not getting married on the on the right day from derabbanan you pay, but it was be'ones, it wasn't your fault. אונס רחמנא פטריה אמרינן. On the other hand, when she got sick, he also shouldn't have to pay. Because of the second reason: אונס רחמנא חייביה לא אמרינן, we can't make you chayav because of an ones. Here, too! Because it was an ones, she was an ones, you want to make him pay? An ones can't make you pay, so you should be patur! So what's the Gemara שאלה? That's what he asks. So to answer this, we'll explain it like this: klal, we have certain times when you have certain dinim that have two causes, and in many cases there is a she'eilah, a safek, which of the two causes is the ikar cause, and which one is the tafel, which one is the secondary, which one is the main cause, and which one is just like a condition. Now I'll just give use one example that I used and I'll use that example again. When a person's ox is mazik, damages someone's property, so the owner has to pay. And the Gemara says that the owner has to pay why? Because ממונך ושמירתו עליך. It's your money, it belongs to you the ox, and you had to watch it. In other words, there are two points here. Why do you have to pay? Because it's yours, it's your money, and also because you had to watch it. Now the question that in the Acharonim they talk about and the Rebbe talks about it in a place also at length, which of the two is the main reason? You could say the main reason why you have to pay is because the ox is yours, you're responsible for everything it does. I'm just using an example l'havdil if a child someone's child breaks someone's window, the father will pay. Why, you're you're the one that caused the damage? But you're responsible for everything that your child does.

You're responsible responsible for everything your ox does. So the reason you pay is because of ממונך, because it's yours. The only thing is, if you watched it, you'll be patur. So the fact that you didn't watch it is not the reason why you pay. The reason you pay is because of ממונך. But had you watched it, you wouldn't have to pay. And since you didn't, you have to pay. Or you could say the opposite: the reason you have to pay is because you didn't watch it, it's your fault, you caused the damage, you didn't watch the ox, so it caused the damage. But if it wouldn't be yours, the fact that you didn't watch it doesn't matter. It's only if you didn't watch your thing, you're chayav. So we have two reasons. Though normally there are two points that make you chayav. There's a question, which is the ikar, which is the tafel? Can I ask a question, going back to the she'eilah of Shita Mekubetzet? You know, wouldn't this be different responsibilities of of אונס רחמנא פטריה? Why? Because, like for example, by by shomer sachar, right? The ones is what's creating the act Got to be chayav. In other words, ones is the cause of the damage being done, and as a result of the ones— Do you know what the difference is? In a sho'el, because you're you're responsible for you're responsible for ones. You took the responsibility for an ones. Right, by a sho'el, but by shomer sachar— shomer sachar you're patur. Right. Why you're patur? Because you never took the responsibility on an ones. Right. Okay, so so there they're there you're patur. But here, it's not the act of the of the of the ones that's making chayav or patur, it's the fact that the time came, and therefore you're chayav or patur. That's what we're going to get into, the sevara, whether the nekudah here is the time came. Because normally the reason you didn't get married, that— I'm sorry, I was trying to understand— No, normally it's because you didn't get married. Should have gotten married and you didn't. It's it's not the ones that's making him chayav or patur, it's— No, it depends, but that's all depends. That's what we're going to see. Normally, the way the shita asks is, the reason you're chayav is because you didn't marry her. You should have married her, and you didn't marry her. But you didn't marry her b'ones. Well, it'll depend what the reason is. That's what we're getting to. I mean, adrabah, you'll see that. In other words, it's not the cause, it's an effect. Well, that's that's what we're going That's why I started saying there are two Just like of Let's stick to the example first. The example over there, we have two reasons, and there's a she'eilah: which one is the ikar? And this noge'a to a lot of arguments in the Rishonim in the Gemara Bava Kama, which of the two reasons is the ikar. For instance, from the Rambam, some Acharonim want to say he holds the main reason is ממונך, because the Rambam in the beginning of נזקי ממון, when he speaks about paying for נזק, he starts off by saying any animal that's your money, belongs to you, you are chayav to pay for its damages. So, obviously, the ikar is because it's yours. On the other hand, in other places we find expression because you should have watched it and you didn't, that's why you're chayav. But then we have a she'eilah That's the two she'eilot. The same thing here. Here we could have same two she'eilot. In this case, why do you pay support? The

time came to marry, and you didn't marry her. Is it because the time came, is the time that מחייב you to pay support, or is it the fact that you didn't marry her? If you have to In other words, is the reason בכלל when you do marry, let's say the normal case when the time comes and you marry her, you have to give her support. Is it the time that makes the support, or is the marriage that makes the support? Marriage. Normally, you would think not like that. Why should support have got to do with time? Normally, you would think that you marry a wife, you got to support her. And the Chachamim gave you a certain time when you have to marry her. You have to support her whether you marry her or not. No, why? Who says? Maybe not. It says it. No, it says it because the time came you should have married her! Since you should have married her and you didn't, so then that's we make you pay. So, in the normal case the she'eilah is, is the הגיע זמן the reason, or is the marriage the reason? And for the support? The support is either on the time or on the marriage. Or on the marriage. In this case where you didn't marry, we have the same question. Is the time the reason, or is the not marrying the reason? Not marrying means you should have married her and you didn't. So, it's תלויין בזה. So, the question I'm saying here is that we have a chakirah: is the הגיע זמן, the time came, the reason for the support, or is the לא נשאו the reason for the support, the not marrying? I'll explain these two צדדים looking at it a little bit from a different angle. We find a lot of times, I'll give another also an example, if you could have a certain cause that will bring two effects, and the question will be: does the cause affect number one, and number one affects number two, or does the cause directly affect two things independently? I'll give you an example. This is an

interesting she'eilah also בדיני נדה. We know that when a woman sees dam, she becomes tamei. Tamei, like any person, touches a sheretz, touches a met, all kinds of tum'ot, it's a tumah, she's teme'ah. We also know a woman who sees dam is אסורה לבעלה, she's forbidden to her husband. And the reason we go to the mikveh now is not because of tumah because we're all tamei, because of the איסור לבעלה. The she'eilah is: is she asur because of tumah? Do we say niddah becomes tamei, and such a tumah, because she's so teme'ah, she's forbidden to her husband? Or do we say that the niddah the the ראיית דם, the seeing דם causes two separate dinim: it makes her teme'ah on one hand, and that's one thing, and it makes her also אסורה לבעלה? The if the the difference between these two tzadim will be: is it possible that לגבי נדה לגבי טומאה she should be teme'ah and לגבי איסור she should be mutar, or the opposite? In other words, a woman should see דם, and we should פסקן that she's mutar to her husband, but she's still teme'ah? Or the opposite, we'll say that she's asur to her husband and she's tahor? So,

there is min haTorah, Tosefos holds that it's possible. There's a Tosefos in Bava Kama, and the Tosefos says like this. The Gemara there makes a difference by the case of a niddah between a ספק and a ספק ספיקא. When you have one ספק whether she's a niddah or not, the din is asur. The din is, every time you have a ספק by a דין דאורייתא, ספיקא דאורייתא לחומרא, so it's asur. If it's a double ספק, a ספק ספיקא, you go לקולא. That's what the Gemara says. Comes Tosefos, Tosefos asks such a קשיא: You have a din in, by טומאה, the דין is that ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד, טמא, ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים, טהור. That by טומאה, it depends where the ספק is found. If the ספק happens in the private domain, then even if it is 10 ספיקות, a 100 ספיקות, it's טמא. If it's a ספק that happens in the רשות הרבים, public domain, even if it's one ספק, it's טהור. I'll give you an example. Let's say you walk by and you brushed on something. Now, number one, you're not sure that you touched it. Number two, even if you touched it, you're not sure if it's a שרץ or not. Even if, let's say not, let's say food touched, I'm thinking of an example of food brushed on it, and even if it was a שרץ, maybe the food never got wet, so it wasn't מוכשר לקבל טומאה. So here we have three ספיקות. What will be the דין? If this ספק took place inside a house, it's טמא, even if it's a 100 ספיקות. On the other hand, if the same ספק took place in the street, even if it's only one ספק, it's טהור. That's the דין. So Tosafot asks a קשיא: how does the Gemara say by the דין of נידה that there's a difference between one ספק and two ספיקות? Since נידה is טומאה, טומאה there's no difference. It depends not how many ספיקות, it depends in which place it happened. So Tosafot answers, the Gemara is not talking about טומאה, the Gemara is talking about the איסור לבעלה. But לגבי the איסור, whether she's מותר to her husband or not, that's where there will be difference between ספק and two ספיקות. And לגבי טומאה, it won't be a difference. So what comes out from here? That let's say there's a נידה, and there is one ספק, and this happened in the street, what will be her din? לגבי טומאה, we'll say she's tahor, because in the רשות הרבים it's tahor. But since it's only one safek, she'll be asur to her husband. On the other hand, if you have a safek sfeika, and it happened and it happened in the street, so לגבי the husband it had, no, what, I know which is happened, it happened in the house. So לגבי טומאה she'll be tamei, because in the house tumah is tamei, but לגבי the husband she'll be tahor. Now, if you would say that ראיית דם causes tumah, and the tumah causes the isur, so it's impossible to say that. Cause you can't be tamei and not asur, because the tumah causes the isur. You can't be tahor and asur, because if the whole reason comes So obviously they come from two separate things: ראיית דם causes tumah, one thing, and causes isur, another thing. The same thing by many cases where you have one thing that seems to cause another and they're two effects, you could say that one causes the second, the second causes the third, or you could say the first causes both. The same thing here also. You could you have the fact that the day came, and you have to give mazonot. You can look at it two ways. You could say when the time comes, two things happen. Number one, you have to marry her. Number two, a second, a separate thing, in that day you have to support her. Or you can say, when the day comes, you have to marry her, and since you have to marry her, you have to give support. So the giving support is not a result from that time, it's a result of the marriage. So according to one way, the giving support comes direct as a result of the time; according to the other way, it comes from the marriage. In this case where you didn't marry her, so it comes from the not marrying. It's the marriage inyan, or you marry, or you should have married and you didn't, but there's delays in this. So whichever So or you use the expression that I said before, that when you have two sibot, which is the ikar and which is the tafel, or the way I'm saying now, which one causes what. But the bottom line, we have a she'eilah here. The she'eilah is: when the time came, and he didn't marry, and the Mishnah says you have to give mazonot, what is the cause for you giving mazonot? Is it the not marrying that is the cause for giving mazonot, or is the time the cause for not giving mazonot? So that we have a she'eilah here which we have to, if we could say either way. Okay. Now let's stop for a moment, and let's go to the other inyan.

When the Shitah Mekubetzet brings this rule, אונס רחמנא פטריה אמרינן, אונס רחמנא חייביה לא אמרינן, that an ones could patur, and cannot even mechayev, it doesn't mean, let me explain, this rule doesn't mean whether an ones makes you patur or makes you chayav. What it really means, an ones, when something is done b'ones, it cannot change any status. A action that's done b'ones has no value. You can't consider it. And therefore, whatever was there before will stay. And therefore, if you were patur before, you're patur. Now something happened, and we want that happening to make you chayav. So we say no, if that happened b'ones, you can't become chayav. If not for the מעשה, you would have been patur. You continue being patur. The same thing the opposite: let's say without the מעשה, you would be chayav, and something happened that this something should make you patur. It can't! Adraba, then you'll be chayav. Because a מעשה that takes place b'ones, that's what it means, is not considered A מעשה that should have any effect. It's not whether it makes the word, even though we use the word ones rachmana patrei, it makes you patur, it doesn't mean make you patur. I'll bring the proof in Gemara in in Nedarim, the Gemara tells like this a story: so

there was this guy who came to בית דין for דין תורה, and he came out with all his documents and all his זכותים. And then he left, claimed he has to bring more, and they didn't trust him. They said, \"Maybe you're just leaving.\" So he said like a promise, \"If I don't come back within 30 days, I give up my rights of all the proof that I have.\" They said, \"Fine.\" The fact was he didn't come back by 30 days, but it wasn't his fault, an ones happened. So first, one מאן דאמר says, \"Well, you didn't come, you didn't come on time, you lose all your rights.\" אמר רבא, but Rava said, \"How come? Ones rachmana patrei, yes? Ones, the Torah פוטר'ס him, and therefore he shouldn't lose his rights.\" What does the Gemara mean there, ones, the Torah פוטר'ס? We're not talking about פוטר'ינג over there. We're talking over there about פארקער, about losing the זכות. So Rava should have said, \"An ones cannot lose his זכות,\" and he used the term ones rachmana patrei, but that's what it means. פטריה means whatever is status quo, a מעשה באונס cannot change. And therefore this guy, normally his זכותים, his proofs, his proofs are proof. You want that because he didn't come back he should lose his proof, but his not coming back, the מעשה of not coming back was an אונס'דיגע מעשה, and an אונס'דיגע מעשה cannot change status quo. Status quo is that his proofs are proof. You want to change it, you can't. That's the rule: an אונס cannot change anything. Coming back to us, according to this, if there was an אונס why he didn't marry her, is he חייב to pay מזונות? That's really our question. Is he חייב to pay מזונות or not? Well, it'll depend. How is the status quo? How is בעצם? Does he בעצם have to pay? Then the fact it was an אונס can't change that, still have to pay. If בעצם he doesn't have to pay, I mean he does, you can't make him pay. We have to know how it was בעצם. How do we know how it was בעצם? Well, it'll depend on what we said before: what makes the חיוב of paying? Is it the זמן, or is it the marriage or the not marriage? If it's the זמן, then what happens? The time came, the moment the time comes, it's not up to him, he has to pay. Now the status quo is you have to pay. What? The אונס doesn't do anything. It can't change any מצב. That's what I'm saying, yeah. An אונס cannot change any situation. That's the rule. Now, therefore, if the reason you have to pay מזונות is because of the זמן, that's the עיקר סיבה, not the one of the marriage or the not marriage, but of the זמן, then it comes out that when the day comes, the moment the day comes, you have to pay, finished. Now, we want to say, maybe since the reason you didn't marry her is באונס, that should change the situation. And what'll happen? That you don't have to pay. An אונס can't change the situation, and therefore, what will be the דין? That you do have to pay. On the other hand, if we say the reason you have to pay is not because of the זמן, the reason you have to pay is because of the marriage, so the fact that the time came, you still don't have to pay. What we want is that the fact that you didn't marry her should be מחייב you to pay. The not marrying in this case was באונס. A מעשה באונס cannot be מחייב anything, cannot do anything. So since בעצם you don't have to pay, so the מעשה באונס can't make you pay. Because why should you have to pay? Because of the מעשה of not marrying. That מעשה of not marrying was a מעשה באונס. Can that מעשה באונס take effect as if there was a מעשה? No, if it was באונס, there was no מעשה. So it's as if there was no מעשה. If it's as if there was no מעשה, what happens? You don't pay. So if this זמן makes it, so you have to pay. Now, we want the מעשה to take off. The fact that this was be'oness, you want to take off. You can't take off. Oness, as if if nothing happened, you have to pay. The zman itself makes you pay. Disregard everything else, you have to pay. On the other hand, if you don't have to pay and the not marrying makes you pay, and if it's an ones'dige not marrying, it can't make you pay either, so you shouldn't. And those are the two sides here in the Gemara. So the not marrying is a maaseh? Yes. And that's the way That That's what we're talking about the whole time, that's the reason. The not- It's not a technical maaseh. In halacha, that's considered a maaseh. Is the marrying or the not marrying, the maaseh or the העדר המעשה, or the not maaseh? But it's not something that happened by itself. If the fact that you didn't do the maaseh, that's what is the cause. So that's called an אי מעשה, העדר המעשה. But it's a maaseh or a not מעשה באונס, so it can't do anything. So when we're trying to understand the two sides of whether the oness makes you pay or not, so you could say that the two sides are not a question whether the oness makes you pay. The real question here is: what is the cause of why you have to pay support? Is it because the zman, or is it because the marriage, or in this case, the not marriage? And based on those two sides, that's what will come out in the din whether you pay or not. So, but how did that what was the the one who I don't know who asked what why is there a question? Oness So, that's the answer he's getting, right? That that answer would No, we're giving this answer to his question. To the Shita Mekubetzet? Yeah, this is the answer to the Shita Mekubetzet's question. That so even though it sounds like אונס רחמנא פטריה, let me in there. But if we translate that differently, right, then that's not a question. You translate it simply, an oness is patur, but it can't make you chayav. What it means an oness could never make you chayav, so what's the she'eilah? I'm saying it doesn't mean it could never make you chayav. It can't make you chayav. If you're chayav, you'll stay chayav. See, the way it seems pashut'er pshat, you could never be chayav on an oness of all. So you should always be patur. I'm saying, no, if you are chayav from before, the oness can't take away the chiyuv, and the oness just can't change the fact. Because as we look at it as if in an oness nothing happened. And if nothing happened, we forget Imagine this didn't happen. What would be if this wouldn't happen? What would be the din? And that's how it stays. So if הגעת if הגעת זמן is the reason, and if this didn't happen, you have to pay. If the if this happening is the one that makes you pay, and this didn't happen, you don't pay. And those are the two sides. Oh, it makes sense. It's a good kashya. There's another way to learn this whole thing, but it's too long and I'm not going to get into it. Practically speaking, I mean if they figure out what happens if they're engaged, they're going to plan so many months in advance. Then they get engaged, so if to come out at least on a Monday, then they couldn't do that. They didn't the Beis Din had to make every month different, so you didn't know how how the month will be. Oh, I see. So this is all a ביאור Oh, but he knows. He knows it's a Monday. Friday, Shabbos, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday. It's all within four days though, right? When when they make when they get engaged? 12. How could they? Because months could be either 29 or 30 always. The total time could be 30. Yeah, so. Because if it's the maximum, right? So it could be four. You could you could miss off by four days, and you're you're off you're off. Yeah. You can never know. You can't plan it. So, but you know that the 12 months is coming up on a Sunday. So you know that by that Wednesday, you have to marry her, otherwise you're going to have to start paying. Right, by the Wednesday. But let's say the date comes out, the 12 months are up by Sunday? No, so then you know that you had to marry her by the Sun by the Wednesday before? Why by the before? You can't, no, you don't have to marry Wednesday before, no. Time's not up, for sure not. No, because you No, you know that if you don't, so then you're going to end up paying. No, it depends, no. If if you hold the No, no, we said for sure not. Like if it's because of The question we have is if there's an אונס of sickness. But not of this, this for sure the Gemara says you don't have to pay. If the date came and you couldn't marry her because the חכמים said not to, then you don't pay. That's for sure, so there's no reason. But all this is from the angle to explain the two sides from the angle of whether the זמן is the thing or the נישואין. You could go from the other

angle: it's a question of what the concept of אונס is. Right, that's what I assumed first. But like we talked about before, it's Yeah, what's before? What's before? There's a proper time for davenen. So here, there it's a question of זמן, when's the time, but I'm saying what together בכלל אונס is to clarify a סתירה in the whole מושג of אונס, which the Rabbi Yosef Engel has a whole סתירה, and based on those two sides, you could understand pshat in the Gemara also. That's Whether Whether it's called אונס when you No, whether it's called that you did it, but you're just not responsible, or as if you didn't do it. That's the other סתירה. If not doing it, could be you could be responsible for. No, you're not responsible, for sure. If it's done by force, you're not You're פטור. The question is, are you only פטור from a punishment? If you did an עבירה by אונס, you're פטור from a But the עבירה was done. Or there was no עבירה done. Since it was done by force, you don't even consider it if you did it. It's not מיוחס to you. It doesn't relate to the person who did it. It's not his. You said that's between the Pnei Yehoshua and the Noda BiYehuda. No, these are אחרונים, that's opposite. Funny that by by שרץ, what what that's opposite of what he said there. There is it they did it No, there it's a דרבנן, they have different questions, they explain why חכמים took it away. Here I'm saying פשוט if a person does something by force, is it considered that he did it?

Let's say a person is מחלל שבת because he's forced to. He becomes טמא. Yeah. Touch. Yeah. He becomes פסול for Yeah, but there it's not נוגע to the to the עבירה, it's to the מעשה. Is it still an עבירה? No. So if it's by אונס, it's מותר? Okay, and it's אסור, but does Not because the person was עובר on an עבירה. He wasn't over on an aveirah. Could say could say there was an aveirah done, but you're not responsible, you don't get punished. Or it's as if you didn't do it. That could be noge'a to this Gemara. Take the take for instance an ones if someone takes your hand, not just You can have two types of ones. You have a guy standing with a gun and say, 'I want you to write on Shabbos.' And because he wants to kill you, so you by ones, you write. There's another way: he can take your hand and write with your hand. He he takes your forces. Isn't Here I would certainly say this, you didn't do it. Your hand was like a A keli in his. The first way you could say, \"No, you did, you just did it be'ones.\" But the second way, certainly. So he has a chakirah in a regular ones: maybe it's not since you weren't, it wasn't beratzon, you didn't want to do it, you were forced into it, maybe it's not called that you did it, or maybe it is, just you're patur, they can't punish you because you have a good excuse, because anyway it's not your fault.

And both sides, you could go into the sefarim to hear whether the ones has to pay money or not. Yeah. Should we go? Did everybody go? According to the Rambam, a decree is a prohibition against doing something which the Torah permits, while a takanah is an obligation to do something which the Torah does not explicitly require. But in general terms, the sages also instituted positive takanot and negative gezeirot to establish what we call in halachah a seyag laTorah, a fence around the Torah to prevent people from unintentionally violating Torah laws. One well-known example of a seyag laTorah is the rabbinic prohibition against eating poultry with milk, or the laws of shevut, which are rabbinic restrictions designed to safeguard the sanctity of Shabbos and prevent the violation of Torah prohibitions. Now let's return to the three essential questions