Chulin 72

Today's daf is and we have nine lines from the bottom of so we're moving along in which deals with brought a very important mera from the in the laws of rabb said two number one if something that's such as isa it's swallowed it's absorbed in something else is the same is true said rabb if is swallowed it's absorbed in something else then it cannot become said that the is learned out from Tomasa is learned from there and a shakario all within the realm of the but either way this up until this point is two things says theor was asked with his he said you're coming to and you're saying these two big where's this in the 10th parvo if somebody swallowed a ring that was tomasi says that it came in contact with a mace and we know the rule is so if metal metal touches a mace, the metal now gets the of a mace and it can now be met and make someone that comes in contact with it to m. So if somebody a person swallows a tabas that had anas mace is that person is now m as if he would have touched the mace itself and for that reason is to he has to go through the and maybe even would need from the and only afterwards he has to go to the mikvah and be and he's going to be able to eat why he's the reason he's because he came in contact with a tabas that came in contact with a mace. He has an a status of mace. If he spits out the iso, he is going to be and he's going to be tom again. The point, however, what you see from this mishna is that up until the point that he spits out this tabas, he's not considered to by virtue of the fact that he's in contact with the tabas. Why does it help if the tabas is still inside his g for him to now go to the mikvah and be able to eat chum if he still has tabas inside of him he's still in when he swallows it it's a problem when he spits it out it's a problem if that's the case when it's inside of him it should also be a problem because at that point he's in contact with the tabas which has tumas m what do you see from here it must be said because a he told you you're saying a big kdish tomah it's not such a big kesh in fact it's a furishna So rebi what are you trying to say it's saying overn everybody knows the mikv and the second thing that rabbi said which was it cannot become that's also a it's the same if somebody swallowed a and he entered and he went through the whole process and then he spit out the there's no problem meaning if somebody swallows a that's and then he enters The is the tabass itself never becomes t meaning if the tabas was inside of him. It's not going to become why not the tabas is in the person who's in the let the tabas become the ter is because the tabas is and you see from here that that's can't become again both that said would seem to be says Just a little bit of an introduction before we see exactly what the Gmorra means to say and that is Rabba said that really those two there'd be two ways to understand. One way to understand the Mishnas is meaning you could understand that what the Mish is saying is that that's inside of somebody doesn't have an ability to be mama. It's for that reason that if a person swallows the tabas that's he can go through the regular process assume he's t only when he spits it out that he comes into real contact with it. When it's not anymore is it an issue because and as well. That's why if a person has a tabas inside of him and he walks into an island, it's not going to be. But really, he said there's another way to learn it. Maybe is maybe Tyra could become. If that's the case, why is it that if a person has a tabas that's to inside of him, he's not to? Because how do you become to it when you come in contact with? You have to come in contact with him. Maybe the definition of contact is being touching a part an external part of a person. So if a doat touches an external part of you then you become but if it touches an internal part of you maybe that's not enough for you to become. It's what's known in the vernacular of the tyra as tumas bas it could be if the maga happened the bas stom in a hidden place in an internal place it's not to so rabb said like this it's true now that I told you that it's part that's what the mik means but before I said this really there could have been another way to understand the mishna maybe the reason there's no toy in the mak is not because the t doesn't have an ability to be mama Because it's belove could be matama. Maybe the reason it's not mama is because the maga is happening in internally. What's it touching? It's touching one of the internal organs. That's called magarim. If it happens, that's the reason it's not. What difference does it make is because it's a so there's a or the bim there's no problem with the problem is is that it's not considered a gia what would be if somebody swallowed two one was and one was and the two touched each other inside if doesn't have an ability to be mama if doesn't have an ability to become so that even though they're touching each other in a regular albeit in a funny place but in a in a regular is there would be if however there's a then the is is that there'd be no way for it to be says the you want to know what was where was it all I had was the mission I would have thought that maybe in that case there is going to be and the reason it's going to be is Because at the end of the day it's not magnus basum because although it's happening in a basum but the two are not touching each other in a in a way they're touching each other in in the regular way in the ordinary way is not because of it's much more than that it's because no if that's the reason that even if the two were together at the end of the day they're both I can't be mama you you can't receive for me and it's for that reason that rabbi had to say his tokash. So what does it have to do with our why are we discussing rabb in the first place? Because it relates back to our mission. What did the Mishna say? A woman who had a a child that died inside her who pushed and the midwife put her hand inside the of the mother and she touched this. That's not alive. So she ate the is going to be is not going to be why is because she touched like two and still you see the is if holds why is the midwife when she touches the uber the uber is balua it's bala inside the mother so the gar understands that that it should be a textbook example of balour. What's bala? You swallowed a tabas. You ate in a veil. You're digesting the food. An uber is balour inside her mother or his mother. As a result, the uber is also bal and still you see that the midwife becomes to. Now if Rab was wrong and although there's a Mishna that says a that if somebody swallows a that's he doesn't become but the reason that that is true is because it's considered our Mishna wouldn't be because our is not and our Mishna literally stuck her hand inside the mother. As a result, it's a regular manga. It's not if it's not basic. But now that said that the reason in the there's no is not because of it's a much more fundamental problem. It's because the itself when it's doesn't have an ability to if that's the case. I don't look at an Uber as being because the Uber eventually is going to leave the mother's and that eventually it's going to leave the mother's. So it's for that reason I don't consider that it's not it's not considerable is going to be there forever eventually is also going to leave the body of the person said I heard from also known as the name who said in the name of the has nothing to do with realm of on a biblical level, but rather everything going on in the Mishna is on a rabbitic level. It's says what does he mean? That's pretty wordy. Don't say in the name said in the name of is going according to who says that in we'll see what that means in a minute. Even according to that says again forget who's this is going to ask the and I think by the time we're up to the bottom of B of know who Raish are but for now what we need the punchline that Ra said just to explain the Mishna and to answer the rabb is that the reason in our Mishna the uber that's dead is mama the midwife is not toa it's tomal to doesn't have ability to be the reason that the midwife is going to be it's a new because we're worried that maybe the Uber is going to stick its hand outside of the praiser. Once it sticks its hand outside of the praiser, it's considered born at that point. It's not belua anymore. If it's not, if it would touch the midwife at that moment, the midwife would be really mid should be no because it's and if it's then the doesn't have an ability to be the midwife. But that's all true if it's what happens if it sticks its head out and then it touches the midwife. And now the midwife is already tame. So we're splitting here that if it's 100% inside the then it doesn't have an ability to be matama. If it's six outside of the then it does have an ability to be matama. Sounds like a perfect place for the to make and said that even though if it's inside you're right there's a whole voice of I hear but at the same time it's going to be awesome. That's the terret the ter this is only but ask if this is the case meaning the reason in our Mishna the midwife is is because of why is the right the Mishna said blood of and now the midwife stuck her hand inside the inside the midwife is the woman is what's the difference between the midwife and the woman you would think based on rab that for the midwife or there's a real maga. It's not bas for the mother. It's a basar. But now that you're telling me that it's all based on oneras that there should be no difference between the midwife and the mother because just like you're making a for the midwife, you should make for the mother as well. Apparently, when the mother's carrying the dead child, that doesn't make her. But the moment it's born, she would become tom. So if we're worried about differentiating between when the ubra is inside the mother and outside the mother as it relates to the midwife then the same should be true as it relates to the mother as well. says a woman knows the difference between what it's inside of her and outside of her. We don't have to make says so if the woman's my gashes why can't she tell the midwife oh one second the baby's coming out and and as a result you know be careful meaning the same protection that you have for herself why don't you have the says she says she's just too busy being in pain and as a result that's literally what means but she's a she says she's busy with her her labor and as a result it's not going to happen therefore for the midwife who doesn't have the sensation of Is the baby inside or outside? Did we had to make as it relates to the mother? We did not have to make the so again according to the is not mama. Technically the should have no ability to be mat not the mother. It shouldn't have an ability to be mama the midwife either the you see the midwife does become it's not all it is is but when the gummorus brought this the said that said I heard from who is in the name of the name of who said that is but he added a line he said don't think the mission is going in which case the mission would be telling me rather is going according to even according to and the means of it says my who is this time going to the so the is going to bring several now in the beginning of parish that talk about that talk about and the is going to bring when it says anyone that comes in contact with a mace that was al was on the open field. We learn from there is the opposite of being in an open exposed area. It's not and as a result if somebody touches he's not says that is not coming to be but rather it's coming to be what's it coming to be the is the top of the coffin the are the walls of the of the coffin that they too have their own of says how know he knows from he doesn't need this for that who doesn't use obviously he must have known from somewhere else that because otherwise how did he know that the is coming the rabbi's girl maybe it's coming like suggested says he must have known it from somewhere it seems like he had an an objective source that and that's why he's learning says he did have a source in that same learned as follows. So the says so we've had a few drawers like this already this week. Someone touches a mace that's not which is what does it mean a mace that's inside an oh must be an and the says right so says that is going to be what is in that he learns from seems to have a nice which is benef Come and teach me a different like the mace itself says and again what's an example of a nephesh that's not the itself but it's the benef teaching me something not a m that's in a nephesh but that the nephesh if you have a a nephesh of a person which is considered the of a personal is you're going to be why does the way this is an often quoted because it comes up this does not only when you're learning of Tomas and the end of Nazer but every time the garra brings the sh of mikra and so there's a whole bunch of mar that always brings this is one of them says mason that is but doesn't have to be from one m even if it comes from two mason how do you know that if you have combined from two mason so one m contributed a half a m contributed a half re for example and now together you have the reas how do you know it's so mace is a is a rabb We learn from there that two together. The point is holds that the reve doesn't have to come from one maze. It can come from two mason the way he don the of that it's referring to because that is written in doesn't say it says and if that referring to would have a stero I would have one that says the re has to be from bene have another p that says It's a stero forced to differently how did he not referring to a ram that he knows from another and there he even knows a big that can come from two mason combined rather what the is coming to teach me is that if you have a bish is going to be the bottom line is is we have a rabbi specifically with regards to an uber that died in the womb of its mother. Is it now Tommy Tomas that it should trigger the beginning of parish or is it not according to it's he learns it from the is that it is holds it's not he learns it from a as well meaning we have a shil That's the ra the mice that's a more general shil that's a shila that's of all of magim these are very fundamental coreis as it relates to but we also have a very local a very specific between as it relates to and it's based on in the beginning of parish when in other words the said that the Mishna is not referring to but can also mean meaning not necessarily it can also mean he wasn't referring to he was alluding to this well we have a has an ability so at first glance said you read the and you see that a midwife who touches a dead uber while it's in the mother is going to be so it sounds like Raaka said no meaning of course the Mishna could be Rabaka Mishna usually is Raba but it doesn't have to be Rabaka the Mishna could even be Rabish have to be Rabish isn't that the grace in the way he dared all the in the beginning of who held that doesn't have ability because it says yeah that's true on a biblical level doesn't mean the only means with the rabbi said that once I heard from that the can be to he said the mission is not a cash on you either because even though rabbi had a much more fundamental problem with the rabb is is never but just like we explained the mishna who said that doesn't have an ability stating that the is referring to so too as it relates to the more general issue OF IT'S NOT A PROBLEM BECAUSE at the end of the day all means it's right doesn't have stating that it will be it's not getting easier that is in labor and then it stuck its hand out and the shed the hand of the Uber. So what's the of that hand right now? It's easy. If you check or you remove you cut, you sever one a of a live animal. At this point the animal was alive. I mean it's having a rough day but it's alive. So and afterwards the mother is the baser is to the ather is obviously but everything else is going to be okay. But the is that not only is the rest of the animal but it's also as opposed to being and that's because we know that impacts an animal in two ways. Number one, it makes it. Number two, it also makes it is one of the that the Torah talks about. So comes up when you're learning because it's an NA also comes up when you're learning because also stating that the the mother is and the Uber that remained inside the womb being that it had a is not going to be Tom. It's only the which is going to be user and that's going to be a problem state that and the reason the sayingesh is because being that the mother came in contact with the a well that's the assumption anyways so why don't you say that the a which was cut which is now the mother is just like so why don't we say it's mama the mother says the reason is is you don't have to worry about that. That's that's a it's it's it's not it's na it's not it's not it's not an issue because it could touch it from today till tomorrow. A live animal doesn't have an ability to become a live human being could become obviously is dealing with humans for the most part but as it relates to live animals they can never become thus this is not going to be a what happens if first you shed the mother and afterwards you cut that limb. So you shed the mother while there was one hand that was outside of the mother. So number one we know that that hand is also that's the first mission if it's but if it was outside at the time of the everybody agrees that's going to be so now this one which is in contact with the mother is the rest of the animal now is going to be and the reason is because once you the mother if it's still touching This a that's so then the a being that it didn't become was an a if it's an a it's also the animal once you shed it the mother that is is so if you sh the mother so now you have to be worried about because the mother came in contact with that one a that had no it's true that that one a is not but even though it's doesn't have an ability to givea if it's doesn't that by definition mean this no just like by a tra that had a doesn't have to right what's the primary difference between and also has to spoke about this many times doesn't have to see maybe this but there's no there's no if you could have one of the it doesn't matter not going to be so that it's true this one a that was outside of the mother never became but at the same time I don't look at it as it doesn't have the ability to be are you going to tell me if it's doesn't that by definition mean it's a no there's precedence for that the precedence for that is going to be the in other words you find it by so maybe it's going to be the same over Raor mayor who argued mayor said no if this is I look at it as noa I don't look at it as he said how you comparing the tofu I understand a tra when you the being that you'reing the animal itself so I understand why the even though it's not going to be m the end of the day it's a tra but at the same time I understand why it's met from tumas But but this is already a little bit different. This is different because this is the a of the uber and being that it's the aver of the uber maybe the of the mother doesn't have an ability to be an a of an which is a to say that it shouldn't have to so it's not a perfect I understand you find precedence for the idea of and at the very least removing the but that's when it's the same go being that over here we're dealing with the a of an which is a different maybe over here it's going to be different either way one thing you see from the you see that if you the even though it doesn't make the but at the very least it's why do you know that a is meaning how do you know that when the works at the very least and if anything the garra says I can argue a non- kosher animal is although it's a kosher animals just like doesn't work to be from so the same should be true for right somebody it's still going to be doesn't work so why does the work for a traf says no is different because it never was kosher a wasn't born a tra since it had a shaser you always find this in sha is always a good thing It's a so even though right now it's not like that's why the is going to work at the very least from the says take back what you brought. It's an expression. What if the baby was born a so you're going to tell me it's different? He said no it's still difficult by it's never possible that entire species is excluded from the difference right but at the end of the day tra this animal happens to be a tra but most animals are not traers right we know there's a behav that are not traers so you have the majority of that aren't tra that's why even for this one where the doesn't work to be but the very least is going to work to be says one final if an animal gives birth to a baby that's a benina it's a pro it was born in the proverbial 8th month meaning it was born premature the understanding and the assumption is that this baby animal will not be able to live as a result it's viewed when it's born as an aa so even if it's a kosher animal and you now do aita because there's no such thing as this premature animal being able to live. Thus, we look at as an avail as soon as it's born and even if you do a proper afterwards, the is not going to work. You can see from the Mishna, the kind of daff that are that we have ahead of us over the next few days. But either way, exhale. So, just to go back to some of the raid that we spoke about yesterday. So we've been learning that deal with a mahameashle then uh an isha that has an different related to an so we digressed yesterday and we spoke a little bit about abortion in meaning is is it okay for a woman to kill a fetus that she is carrying? So we said that at first glance is a mission. The mission over there talks about different that go into effect as soon as a child is born. One of the things the Mishna says is that if somebody kills this he's going to be it sounds like from the Mishna that only once is there if somebody kills the but up until the point that this child is born there is no stating that was discussing the we know doesn't have mitzvah he has mitzvah one of the mitzvah is and The Gomorra there brings a a was found in the where the different is with regards to as it pertains to said this that their would kill a fetus he would kill an he would be because he violated one of the so on the one hand says Sounds like only and here it says killing says at first glance I would say is talking to and is talking to the problem is if that's the case it comes out and we know the says it's not possible that A y should be more than that than a y should be more cooler than a guy. Except if that's the case if a [ __ ] for killing how could he not be says you have to say that it's true really is not going to be for killing it's but at the same time says one line however it's true it's true and that's what the mission says that it's only but as it relates to being that's going to be why is it going to be Because and if you find that by it means that by definition it has to be as well. Now the truth is is a very detailed and lengthy discussion in the piskin how exactly to walk away from tus because all t said is and and it's very very subtle language. What does mean? What is it? Is it is it at the very least? Does it fall into one of the ten commandments? Is it considered like how do you view this? And the truth is it's a discussion the place some place going to say means yeah he means it's and just means the best can kill the person but there's going to be if you want a nice welcome take a look in the in the beginning of par but either way that yeah could be the person's even there's opinions that are in the complete opposite of the spectrum who hold that just means It's you would have said it's there are others that argue even a bigish and that is that the ra clearly did not hold of this I'm sorry from different places as that the ra didn't didn't hold and so I want to say that according to the ra who doesn't even hold a mikd won't even be an iss but the point is leaves us saying clearly it's user to kill an ober but at the same time's lion is a unclear and b very very soft tus says it doesn't even say it's not and this is important language because it plays itself out in some of the the shas where sometimes actually have to sit down and opine whether it's okay to do an abortion either way yesterday we spoke out a tr from the a from and then a tr from the specific sh that theor was asked was with regards to an as that was misana and then she found out that she was pregnant and she wanted to abort the child and the question was is it okay to abort the child or not said I don't know what the fact that she was an has to do with anything I mean to me all it can mean is the child's going to be a mom a fact says that so if you're asking me a can be very very so why why should it make any difference so said I'm looking at the sha as if it was a the sh that was presented to us is it okay to abort the child he wrote a said absolutely positively no said that he says no I think that when the asked about an h that was mazan he was coming from a very specific angle and went ahead and wrote an unbelievable truva where he said that of course is right it's not okay to just go ahead and to abort the child however in a case where ancient silan there's a maybe why it should be Okay. Not maybe asking that it's okay and that is because that was and if she was carrying a child they would have killed her together with the child. So you see from there that this mother and the child areas if they are they have a then there's no is to kill them. They can kill themselves. It's maybe even a mitzvah of says for them to kill themselves. But the bottom line is it's not so he says if it's not maybe the bottom she would have been killed maybe in this case it's going to be fine. So it says I agree with the truth of the that it's not okay primarily based on albeit soft language but it's a at the end of the day no one no one's going to argue with ais but as relates to this particular shila I think there's a there's a nuance he said there brought the then he brought and he said that even though was was from you can't look at this and then again we said yesterday that it's Shva chuva sharp on ramisha standards raisha chuvas are so soft so it's a little sharper than than a typical ramshva but either way said that the reason he's speaking sharply and dramatically is because of what recently has been going on in democratic countries referring of course to the supreme court decision in 1973 row versus wade where they legalized abortion in the United States of America felt it's a because every abortion and I don't the fact that there's a a cha like this from is you know creates a little bit of a slippery slope and a kos in this whole area of and I have to stop it and as a result said I'm saying what I'm saying and we have to stop there stating that there's a lot more to this chuva and really and really the second part of this begins I think with a chuva in the shuv which was written by the beneskai so the beneskai wrote a of truous he has a few shuv one of them is called rafoll this is a ebanzer and the shila that was presented to the is the same exact sh that was presented to the and it's the same exact that discussed in histo months pregnant she was carrying the child. Butlan the child was a momser cuz she was an haz that was mis and the question that was asked to the ben is bad dad was is it okay for this woman to abort the child or was it not okay to abort the child says any he says I'm not going to tell you what's I'm not gonna tell you what's all I'm going to do is I'm going to present to you what the already spoke about and there's three paragraphs in the first paragraph he says and came out that it's the second paragraph initially was asked the same exact question and he came out that it was so immediately says I'm not going to opine but I'll present the facts to you number one is your son is also okay so there's a lasser is to be then he adds a third paragraph and this is very very important. He says there was a he says the was a one of the early he said he wrote a where he discussed a woman who had a there was no there was no like the rama we spoke at yesterday but there was just a for her to abort the child and the Marit wrote a whole discussing whether it's okay or whether it's not okay. He says he wrote this in either way and he says in the test I think he said it's it's so based on that then in this case if this is going to give birth to this child it's not her husband's child's going to be a mom there's going to be a tremendous embarrassment for the family could be I think that maybe is so in addition to having that you can maybe rely on to be mate that was but at the same time there's another sniffler out there and that is the marit where the marit said that if there's a for the mother you could abort a child phenomenal says says the banish I think this is a why again quote either way it's a short he says bottom line he writes I'm not telling you anything of my own I'm not going to tell you but he had an opinion but he show and I'd rather somebody else tell you what to do. That's the so the was presented with the same exact and he didn't want to write a he said what I'll do is I'll present facts to you on the one hand and we know that so was but I could bear another said the and that is the said you could be m killing the this is a there's a there's a bizar There's over here and being that over here I think these would be to be m as well the rahudzar valdenberg wrote three chuvas about abortion the first cha that he wrote is a test the second chuva that he wrote is in the third chuva that he wrote is in it's I think it's to go through The chuva that he wrote and the chuva that he wrote. Both of those chuvas were written to professor Dr. mayor who was the manali of the shared hospital in either way venberg in addition to being one of the right everyone knows the sha alzar but he was also considered an expert in in medicine and yafua medical ethics and a lot of the protocols that are followed in the hospitals and followed the guidance of valdenberg so either way this doctor mayor was asking shas about abortion and exactly how to deal with you know different questions that come up in the hospital. The shila that he wrote on in giml was with regards to a woman who was told that she's carrying a baby that has tacax disease. Now we do darim to try to prevent tax but you know this was a child that's carrying that had the tasax disease and he goes on to describe in in detail the the symptoms of tayax and the mitsas is is that the child that's born can't live past the age of four or five. The child is going to live with tremendous and the shil that was asked was is it okay to abort this child or is it not okay to abort this child. So Valdenberg in the beginning of the chuva gives you the end of the chuva. So we'll do the same thing comes down he says it's mut. He said not only is it mut he said it's mut up until the seventh month. So up until the seventh month of pregnancy it would still be okay to abort this child. So what's the what's what's the I mean there's no risk to the mother there's no issue of of over here you don't have of being mis says the tit says I'm going to base this on the chuva of the banish who based his on a chuva of the of the marit which says that if there's a god to go ahead and do an abortion it's something that's going to be okay says the says, "But first we need to clarify a few things. Most places it's only a according to many." And he said it's for that reason that my was because if he held it was real over here how would he have ever been m so based on that based on that says that I He goes on to explain graphically theim that this family is going to have to endure because of the state of the fears that this child is going to be in. He says that this outcome of the birth of this child, the side effects, the is much worse than what the Benes discussed as he says there's never been a truver written that ever describes side effects of a lea that can compare to the side effects that this family is going to have to endure as a result of this child being born. So it says that it's to me based on the who said based on the who said it and by the way when he goes through this he says that if you very carefully that one of the things said was I quote so he says even already alluded to this he says the bottom line is I think it's something that's okay and it being that this is something that's okay bottom line is he was mate and he said it's going to be okay up until the seventh month. Now the truth is that the fact that he said it's up until the seventh month seems like onto itself and he doesn't really support it. He doesn't have a mccart to that in fact that even in the Supreme Court ruling rode so when they said that abortion is legal so up until what point is abortion legal? So the language that was used, although it's a little bit unclear, is up until the point of fetal viability, which most commentaries of the Supreme Court ruling understand to be somewhere between 22 and 24 months. So this is in the fifth or sixth month. 22 24 weeks. Fifth or sixth month. Here we have Raldenberg who said up until the seventh month, it's going to be M. This is more than Row versus Wade. What's the because again your vener will tell you that 22 to 24 months 22 to 24 24 weeks and fetal viability this is craz like the said he's doing anything fetal viability he looked at it from the perspective and from the perspective the way saw it was is that by the seventh month there are certain aim of the fetus that are fully developed and he felt that up until the point that some are fully developed it's still going to be okay once there or at least some that are fully developed that's when it's not okay that's his logic and as a result he said up until the seventh month I'm going to I'm going to be mus now this is the chuva that wrote in and it was with regards to pesax and again pesax is a very unique diagnosis and that we know for sure that the child is going to have gerim the child will not be able to live a productive life and the child is going to live he writes in this truth up until the age of approximately four and it was based on that that he said it's going to be okay. But there was another chuva that he wrote and it's sort of a followup and this is not this is and it's so the first one's 102. This one is a it's 101. And again this was written to Dr. Mayor as well. And this sh is a little bit different. This shila was with regards to a woman who did a sonogram and they found different diagnosises and you have to know the specific diagnosis but it's not nearly as hummer as tax with tax he said he wrote his trou so this was what if it's not so what if it's not on that level meaning it could be something that's going to take a tremendous toll on the family and the child will definitely have challenges some of which will affect perhaps the life expectancy of the child as well but the point is it's not on the level of case sex and this was the sh is it okay or not okay now it's actually interesting because there were two shilas that were asked the first shil that Dr. mayor asked was is would it be okay to abort a child like this? And the second child that he said was assuming it's not okay and that's certainly the assumption. Then what should I allow these sonograms and these these tests that are done to even be done? The reason not is because maybe this because maybe if we're going to do the test for a secular woman who doesn't keep so maybe I have to be concerned that she's going to find out that this child that she's carrying is you know it's going to be there's going to be it's going to be a tremendous challenge and she may elect to to do a legal abortion in the state of Israel. So that was that was there even a naivver component meaning that you can't abort such a child. So maybe I have to worry. This is a hospital that's being run up. So maybe we have to worry. You can't even do these tests because maybe these tests are going to lead to lift. So as it relates to the naiv something we spoke about in the beginning of and that is says in that the only time is if you know 100 is how the p can bring these lus and these that we learned together to real life. He says the only time you have to be worried about this is if you know 100% sure that an a is going to be done. But if you don't know 100% that the a is going to be done then there's no problem of lifting. So said do you know for sure that the a is going to be done? Number one you're going to take the test and rub the ruba of children the test comes out fine. So sharing is going to be fine when you do the test and based on that you don't have to worry because most likely there's not even going to be a sh. Now there is a mut of of times that there is a sha maybe this person will want to abort the child. Let every person elect to do an abortion obviously and and then see even if they decide this is what he wrote that they want to do an abortion maybe the abortion will be mut cuz I'm not telling you unequivocally that it's awesome some shila with the with the health of the child ask a shila and maybe it's going to be okay says Raldenberg You hear what I'm telling you? He writes so beautifully. He says, he say, I was very careful with right. I emphasize meaning I told you ask because although I can't tell you unequivocally like I did regarding the tax disease that it's mut but as it relates to I can't I can't tell you it's either because sometimes it's going to be mut. Why would it sometimes be mut? and revaldes over the truth that he wrote albe it much more the a bridge version and he says because I already told you that if there's a based on a a one liner and a from the and you're allowed to go ahead and do this. So if that's the case, this could be a case of as well. And he brings a story he says that happened with him where there was a young couple that came to him and he said they had two children that were that were born with some diagnosis and they both died and after the second child died the woman the mother was very traumatized and as a result she was afraid to have any other children and she didn't want to be with her husband theos and it was affecting their shias and the whole family was falling apart and and something very very terrible was happening. He says they came to him to talk to him. So if Alder brick said like this he says you know what I told him I says you should try to have another child and you should go for the test and if it comes back that it's not OKAY I'LL BE MOCKED WITH THE ABORTION THAT'S WHAT HE DID TO save the family and he says she became pregnant and they went and they took the test and the child live and it's a gazint he said but it all worked because of my so he says I'M TELLING YOU IS THIS NOT A he unbelievable IS THIS NOT I SAVED THE FAMILY SO OF COURSE this was a he says either way then he says that somebody told him he writes this in parenthesis that somebody told him that maybe there's a pab not to do this if he says somebody told him that alaba there's an idea that when children are born with certain you know illnesses that it could be in these the special and they have a so you know maybe you're not supposed to get involved in in in so maybe let the child be born and what do you if wants this family to have this child why are you starting up with that so he says it's true he's not arguing with that But he says you have you can never mix and match and for that is actually a fascinating chuva. It was written to the trrist where apparently it was far away. He comes back to the and the and there was a everybody came to greet the and they all came to him and he comes and it was apparently he come from overseas and he walks they make this big suda and at the suda he gets up and he makes a to and there was a big to people started getting very angry at the at the he said if you don't make at night make a taste you don't make it at night they love them they what do you mean what can the carbon you couldn't bring at night only how CAN YOU AND BESIDES you do it when you get an aliyah you get an aliyah you know or gala and then you go ahead you bang at least somebody else gets right you start in front OF A SAFE ATTIRE says you're going to the m of and then this told and by the way when we're on the topic of theb going I've seen you do other things because apparently the reb had a the had a nephew that was on his best and and they were mad together and now together either way the the trrist sent to the wanted to know from am I wrong what I'm doing am I not right what I'm going either way first wrote a cha about n then he wrote a chuva about having your nephew as being you get which was wrong. He said that's not something you're allowed to do. He gave him very he said that's that's not the right thing to do. But then at the end he writes like this. He says I want you to know that you know what is saying that if it's true that that that you know you have you can't be mazenhogen is a very important thing and he says he talks about it all the time. That's what wrote. But he said one thing I will tell you that if they were timing that the minhagen that you were violating were more in the world of meaning you were following the BUT WHAT YOU WERE DOING wasn't listen what says he says that there's a he said when it comes to play on words comes to you can't mix it together You're mixing and matching. You're mixing. So that's not something you're allowed to do. So it says I'm not of course it's true and these areas but you ask me I'm writing a tru and as it relates to you can't be of these things. The bottom line is this is what revaldberg wrote. Raalberg said that as it relates to the tax disease, he said it was mut up until the seventh month beyond the state of quote unquote fetal viability as it relates to other diagnoses he has to ask and the has to know the family has to but the point is there are times when it's going to be okay after he brings and says he says I'm skipping I was amazed when I saw from he doesn't want to say who it was. It was written to the man the CEO of hospital which is by the way a giveaway because who else has giml in the truth wanted you to know it was but he didn't want to mention his name says it's written in more than three months. He was But what he failed to mention did writing he said that was not true was he was then he writes he wrote matter that the was even though he said it's awesome what did mean because there was one line we said He wrote he says but at the same time what else does it mean that there's so it's true but how do you ask him based on that clearly implying that to say it's the like comes out he was only m at the end of the day because of of Gabri was the tru Paul and as it relates to the truva of the beneskai that he quoted what did the benesk did the benai in that chuva he said he didn't even pass him he was afraid to pass it so he says at the end of the day I don't understand he said based it out of marit wrote two chuas one chu he said it's there's another tru he said it's a so I he said then said sounds like there's many lesser And he SAID THE BENES MAY NEVER ASK IN THE BENES. SO YOU'RE RIGHT. HE presented it clearly this I'm not saying there's no such but at the end of the day how could you be come out with things that are when it comes to says and this is the final that we'll end with. How you doing? This was written to aid Tendler signs off. clients.