The Amazing Insight of the Ketzos Hachoshen In the Comparison of She'eila and Toch Kdei Dibbur

Correct. >> Okay friends, the garra is explaining the opinion of B explained in the Mishna and that if someone says B says you're a Nazer says you're not a Nazer says what's the reasoning of B said when you say you're a Nzar and when you say you're retracting and Bame holds So says what do you mean says? So Tyus says what do you mean you're coming to be mach on your nether? um you're not the the coming to be mate. So says on the fourth line you're not you're coming to be mate which exactly did you go to to be mate you came to be mate you didn't come to you're not coming to ask the question you're regretting it and you're retracting it's like it's like someone who's coming to the is looking for an opening but have a nethers is like a nethersel. So the question is Tyus deals with the following question. Typhus is saying what do you mean the guy is not going to the guy is just regretting it. So says you're right that actually you're not coming to regret it um through like you're coming to retract on it. You're coming to retract down. If you take a look inus says um says you're not regretting you're coming to retract. So that means the garra is saying that according to Shai you said nazer which is an acceptance of nazerus and then you're retracting but you can't question if so why would the garra say that the reason you can't retract is because you're not trying to do you're trying to retract In what way is expressing a way of articulating that you can't retract on a seemingly these two ideas are completely unrelated the ability to go to a and get the to you should has absolutely nothing to do with whether you could pull back on a statement within. So therefore why would the gumar express that you can't retract on the nazerus by saying and then say which is a retraction. Why would it express that in a way that there's no you can't regret nazerus. So the um basically offers the following approach over here the says what the garra means the way to is explaining it is the reason the the way that works is that you're trying to effectuate on the first statement that you said it mistakenly. Therefore, the Gar is explaining the fact that there's no the fact that you can't go to and ask him for a ner that shows a great principle. The principle it shows is nazerus. We don't care if you make nazerus. You if you made a mazer and it was a mistaken, it's a valid nazerus. Then you can't pull back. The way works is it wants to effectuate on the nazerosab but we see from the fact that you can't go to a to be ma to be mash on your nazerus that means there is no concept of nazer there's no concept of nazir there's no concept of pulling back let's see quickly how the expresses >> [snorts] >> The Gomorrah says fine says you're not actually coming to me. You're coming to regret it. question says there is no here to which says no here you're coming to retract so the same way according to okay says From here we see the reason of doesn't work. What do we see from here? the way retracting works is you're trying to say my original statement was mistaken. So if according to bias is a hectish and you can't go to a the same logic that you're not able to go to a because is not uh is a hectish and the toss doesn't say that it's not a valid statement for the same by the same logic you can't pull back because the way pulling back works is it renders the first statement a statement bas But we see a statement is valid by hectish. How do we know that? Because you can't go to a so if you can't go to you also can't go back. That's the in pulling back. The way works is it renders the first statement a statement. But there is no concept of to by or by nazeros. We'll have to see after. Okay. We got we have one more to go. Okay, we're going to hold it over here. Thank you for joining. Stay tuned for further. We might do an tonight. Thank you very much. Col >> recording stopped.