3 Approaches Between If She is Pogemes Kesubasa Rebbi Akiva Eiger, the Hafla'ah & the Noda B'yehuda

progress okay good morning friends we're going to examine gar in the case of P case of p is where the woman demands her Cuba the husband says I paid you and she says no you only paid me back part of it let's say the CUO was a thousand Z and she says you only paid back 100 Z the M says you have to swear the initial thought was she swears she's like even though it's not technically is when somebody claims you owe me $100 and the person says yes yes I owe you 50 in this case it's a little bit different she says you owe me $200 he says I don't owe you anything she says well uh the truth is uh you paid back half of it so she is being m to the deor usually the deor is the one who is M here the Creditor is the one who's being but the thought it was a uh it's a case of and the says this is not a case OFA usually somebody swears and is exempt here she would be swearing and collecting furthermore there's a lean on the car you don't usually swear when there's lean on the car to which thear says she should not have to swear to collect presumably because she has a star that he owes him the money why would she have to swear she has a document why does she have thear but she swears midra why does she swear midra because usually the person who pays back is careful the person who gets paid back is not that careful and alert to what's taking place therefore therefore since the person who gets paid back is not that alert when she says I was paid back partially she really may have been paid back entirely she just wasn't paying close attention Okay that's the gamarra rashi's bothered by a question but we're going to focus on tsus the action is on tus ra tus is bothered and Rashi again has this question as well that if the reason why she has to swear is because the person who pays is careful the person who gets paid is not careful well if the person who gets paid is not careful then even if she says you owe me the Cuba and he says I paid you back so she should also have to swear CU even though she has AAR she should have to swear because as the gar says what difference does it make if she was play like or not either way the person who gets paid back is not careful so why is she only swearing if she claims she got paid back partially even if she even if she says she didn't get paid back at all she has to swear because uh she was not careful fine to which um that's to's question look at let's see if I have it on no I didn't put it on the sheets but it's is bothered the only time she swears is if she claims she was partially paid back cuz you could say since she was partially paid back really it could she was totally paid back Play game but if she doesn't admit that she was partially paid back we don't say she was not careful in other words you could only say if somebody got paid back partially well maybe they weren't being careful and May and they really got paid back totally but we would never say that if she says she wasn't paid back well maybe really she was paid back that careless somebody wouldn't be okay in other words a person could be careless they they thought they were paid back partially they were really paid back totally but we would never say that a person uh really was paid back and has no recollection of it at all but then adds why don't we say Mig why don't we say believe the woman when she says she was paid back partially believe her when she says she was paid back partially because she could have said she was paid back totally I'm I'm sorry believe her when she says excuse me believe her when she says that she is owed half the money cuz she could have said she wasn't paid back at all you hear the question tsus wants to know again tyus just set forth the following idea that she has to swear when she says she was paid back partially cuz maybe she wasn't careful and she was really paid back totally but she would not have to swear when she denies being pidb at all CU we would never say a person is really not careful and doesn't remember if they were paid back or not so de is only possible when she claims she was part paid back partially not when she claims she wasn't paid back at all now tus wants to know when she claims she was paid back partially why don't we say believe her she's owed half the Cuba cuz she could have denied the whole thing so believe me that I was paid back partially because I could have denied the whole thing says there's noig cuz the reason is she's not careful who suff she thought she was careful dictate but she wasn't was saying you know why doesn't have amigu believe me I was paid back partially cuz I could have denied the whole thing no we don't believe you were paid back partially because you weren't being careful it's basically amigu against a phenomenon that you probably weren't careful so again let's review TSA says a few things and they going to be two ways of learning it tsus asks why does a woman only have to swear when she admits to partial she should also have to swear when she denies the whole thing because she probably wasn't careful if he would have paid him back if he would have paid her back to which TOA says a person's only not careful if they're paid back partially they won't remember if they were paid back totally but they wouldn't be so careless not to remember if they were paid back or not then tus asks why doesn't the woman who denies who who is PBA and admits the partial payment why doesn't she have amigu she could have denied the whole thing says she might have aigo but we don't believe her anyway because she was not Cu uh such a person is not careful she thinks she only got paid back partially she was really paid back entirely okay so the simple way of understanding T is that only applies when she's pame it does doesn't apply when she's not play game meaning the the the idea that a person's not careful is only applicable when she claims she was paid back partially it doesn't apply if she denies being paid back altogether comes rer and everybody you guys know the rule of our that any day you learn a rabar is a good day okay now I've I was thinking about this question over shabas and last night maybe this morning I understand it better I think just knowing that I would be seeing you soon it helped me understand it better because of the tremendous pressure that you put on me now I'm joking um but reer asks a very simple question reer says what is tus bothered by tus wants to know why does a woman only have to swear if she's poba and she doesn't have to swear if she denies ever being paid at all is isn't there a very major difference between why a woman is allowed to collect without a shua if she says she was never paid as opposed to If a woman was pame her the difference is as follows says T the difference is that if she says she was never paid at all she has a Kaka the kazaka is she's holding AAR why why would she be holding theba if the guy paid her so the fact that she's holding AAR means he didn't pay her yet cuz otherwise he would have asked for the star back so when she says I was never paid that claim is supported by a kazaka the kazaka is I'll prove to you I never I never got paid because I have the star but if she claims she was paid a 100 and he says I paid you the whole thing then her claim is not substantiated by thear because thear doesn't substantiate her claim because it doesn't even say on it that she was paid back a 100 so even though she claims I'm owed 100 thear says well she can't say well uh obviously I wasn't paid back the remaining hundred cuz why do I have thear we say what do you mean actually we don't understand why you have thear because it should at least say on it that it was partially paid back according to your claim so the the of what she doing with thear is weakened when she's ping LBA if she was never paid her claim is substantiated by the fact that she has a star but if she was only if she was partially paid she's her claim is not substantiated by the fact that she has AAR I canot understand this question really because why isn't her Claim substantiated by the fact that she has AAR doesn't the fact that she's holding thear mean he still owes her money is her claim weakened we may not understand why the husband did not demand that they write on the star that he pay back a hundred but that's that's not his problem that's her problem but in terms of her claiming you owe me another 100 why is is that not fully substantiated by the fact that she's holding thear wants to say let's read the words why does need to say that the difference between when she's pame or not is if she's not po then we don't [Music] say but if she was partially paid we do say that isn't there another distinction if it was notame that your star in my hand what's it doing here is in full strength therefore there's no oath you know why she doesn't have to swear if he didn't pay back anything in other words if she is not she doesn't have to swear because she has aak why do I have thear but if she was play game where theak is weakened then you need a so I didn't really understand this question because why is the kak weakened when she's pugging thear well is kazaka really weakened so I saw this this really this helped me as well in the ha the ha sort of asked R's question he says why didn't say earlier game that why didn't R say you know why you have to swear not because of the reasoning of why didn't why didn't say a better FL says he's basically asking Rabbi Ker's question the thing is he asks it on the gar instead of on tus he wants to know why did Raa have to say that if she's pugging thear she has to swear because why didn't he say a better reason that when you're po thear you have to swear because you don't have aak of what am I doing with thear because that Kaka is weakened because if if he paid back partially no document was written that it was paid back partially or they didn't change thear why don't why don't you need why do you need the of so here the is explaining the question more you know why it weakens her tatina cuz if she claims he owes me the rest he only paid back part he says I paid back everything and she says you only pay me back part but what she's saying is not substantiated by the fact that she has AAR because why why isn't there a document that he paid back part why or why didn't you switch the why wasn't the star switched to a Le a lesser amount and therefore not what he's not asking on to why didn't to why did to need to differentiate between by po and not by game he's asking on the gamar which really means that the ha Fields the gamar is the gar itself is that the only difference between Po and not PO is whether a person is careful or not and the gamar is indicates that there's no difference between the kazaka of having thear so what rer asks on to why did to have to say this in a way the ha is answering T had to say cuz the gamar says it the gamar is saying the that the reason why you have to swear by po game is because there a person's not careful which implies that when it's totally paid a person is careful so but what the does is he switches and he shifts what raber is asking onto the gamar why did the gamar need to make this distinction why didn't the gamar make the distinction that when she says say she was partially paid she's not supported by the K why does she has thear but when she says she was totally PID um when she demands the whole thing she's supported by having the star and then the says what I was thinking and why I told you I didn't understand that in fact the kazaka does support her even when she says that I was partially paid I why does why don't you have any document why do you still have thear she says I keeping the star to be able to collect the rest see that's why I didn't understand reeger's question in the first place that I would have said she the fact that she has thear supports her claim even when she says she was partially paid I why does she have thear to collect what she didn't get yet so basically that's how the learns the G the says the only difference between po game and not po game is in both cases she's supported by aaka namely if you didn't pay me why do I still have thear and the only difference is that if she claims she wasn't paid at all we say you don't have to swear because we don't assume you weren't careful but if she says she was partially paid so then we have to be concerned maybe she wasn't careful the only difference between pame and not pame is would she be careful or not but rebbi ker was asking there's another basic difference the other difference is when she claims she wasn't paid at all she's supported by the fact that she has thear and when she claims she was partially paid she's no longer supported by that because if he taka only if he taka paid half and owes the other half they should have switched thear to which the ha says no she's just holding on to it to be able to collect the rest there's another Mah in this this is the okay it's it's a very uh it's a big says amazing is right the truth is he says the only difference between the main difference between play game and not play game is that if she does not say she was paid back par partially she's supported by kazaka that I I I my claim is substantiated and that you didn't pay me back cuz why do I have the star but if she says that I was paid back partially she's no longer supported by the fact that she has thear because it's weird that she has AAR saying she's owed the whole thing when she herself said she was paid back half so why didn't they replace the star says the real difference between when she's play and not playgame iser's question I the problem is so why didn't the gamar say that why the gamar have to say the difference is that when she admits she was partially paid we say well maybe she wasn't M mctic but when she denies the whole thing we won't say maybe she wasn't mctic says that's only for a side point you know why the real difference is when she claims you didn't pay me at all she's supported by kazaka when she says you only paid partially she's not supported by kazaka but now I have a different question even when she claims she was paid back half but you owe her the other half why don't we have aigu why don't we have amigu okay I understand she doesn't have a kazaka but she has something else going for her she has amigu going for her so believers she was owed half cuz she could have claimed I didn't owe anything to that the gamar says a side point that the um she doesn't have a MIG because we don't trust her to begin with because maybe she wasn't mtic but that's not the real reason why she's not believed the real reason she's not believed was R Ker's question namely she doesn't have a kazaka but but we have a different question why doesn't she have aigu she doesn't have aigu because she's not mtic so basically there three and in your I could say it very clearly the gamar says the difference between when she claims the whole Cuba and when she claims she was paid half is when she claims the whole Cuba we say she's believed and when she claims half we say she wasn't careful which which presumably means when she claims the whole thing why don't we say there she's so not careful T says no there we don't say she was not careful for the whole thing we don't say she's not careful and then to as a question what about migu no to says migu doesn't help reer wants to know why isn't there a simple difference between the two cases when she claims the whole thing she has a kazaka when she claims partial she loses her kazaka reab ker by the way answers that it's in the gar uh that she's believed even without aaka why because ultimately the gar wants to know what if she says I was paid back partially with aam but the rest I wasn't PID back so the G's conclusion is she has to swear because maybe taka he pay back the rest without now if she's only swearing in a situation where her kazaka is weakened is her kazaka weakened if she said if she was paid back with aam her kazaka is not weakened if she's pidb with with aam because we say well why didn't the guy um if he paid back part make a new star the guy didn't have to make a new star cuz he he relied on the fact that he has a that he paid back partial so you see says even without her having aak I'm sorry even when she has kazaka she still swears that's Ker's answer the answered Kasha that in both cases there's a Kaka because maybe uh because still she could say you owe me half and the proof is I have AAR why am I still holding on to AAR for the whole thing I'm holding it on for the little bit that you didn't pay me at learns that the main difference between the two cases is when she claims the whole thing she has a Kaka and when she claims half she doesn't have kazaka so why didn't the gamar say that the gamar is addressing a different point cuz even when she even though when she's play game she doesn't have a kazaka why doesn't she have a migu and to that the answer is there's no migu because we don't believe her because maybe she wasn't mtic if you look in the L of tus though tus is masma not the way theud is reading it the way raber is reading it that raber um that is saying that by po we say she wasn't M and if she's not play game she was madak and by the way there's also no migu because she wasn't mtic but tus is using the fact that she is mtic when she claims the whole thing not just in the realm of Migo but also why she's believed when she's not play game in other words if I were to ask you why does a woman who say you didn't pay me anything why does she not have to swear so says well because she has a kazaka and raber was asking why do we why um RAB kager is reading tus that that's not the reason the reason is because because she's mtic there Ander wants to know well why didn't the gamar say that the reason is because you have a kazaka but is learn the gar is saying that it's because she's mtic then says no the gamar is only saying addressing the migu but thear is not addressing why she's believed why she believed because she has aaka okay that's the these are three m in learning the the G you have rer learns if she's not pame she's believed because she's m and it's not because of kazaka and the proof is later in the gar she has to swear even when she has a kazaka and there it's because she's not mtic even though she has a kazaka then learns um I'm sorry the learns that there is Noak in a case I'm sorry the learns there's aak in both cases so the difference is not because of kaka and the taka learns that the difference is the reason why she's believed is because of kaka and the gar is using the the logic of the just to address the Mig everyone thank you for joining c c be well but shouldn't bothered by the fact that the at the end of the day she could she could have anything and she would have got would okay so think about it like this she says believe me because I could have made a better claim right but we say to her we believe you we believe you that you think that you weren't paid the rest but we just know that people get paid they're careless so we believe you that you think that you're a mctic but we we don't think you're mtic we believe you mean we believe what you're saying that you think you weren't paid the rest just the thing is people are just not careful about that so it it's not that we don't believe you the Migos says we know you think you're telling the truth we believe you that you think you're telling the truth but we just think he must He Slipped the money to you and you weren't even thinking so it it sort of undermines the Migo it it doesn't say doesn't go against it doesn't go against the Migo but it under it undermines it yeah okay thank you so much have a good day call to