Shalom b'ezras Hashem. Okay. There's a certain sensitivity that a person has to Torah and Mitzvos and the effect of repeated transgression is that we become desensitized. This, I'm not sure it's a psychological reality, it's a religious reality, it's both. But it's true both on the individual level as well as the societal level. And it's this reality, this religious-psychologic dynamic of na'aseh k'heter which is one of the leading causes of the fact that there are certain blind spots in our observance of Torah and Mitzvos. Things that when one stops to reflect and articulate, just so obvious and so self-evident that one can't even believe or understand what the need is to comment. And yet the reality is that we do again whether individually or collectively we do develop these blind spots and one of the leading causes is this reality of na'aseh k'heter. And in so many areas, there's one particular one that I just wanted to comment on tonight for a few minutes. But just to illustrate the type of thing we're talking about, let's say when it comes to tefillah, to be late for tefillah. So it's commonplace, right? It's commonplace that if the davening begins at whatever hour, 6, 6:15, 6:30, 6:45, 7, doesn't make a difference when it is. So sometimes we'll be there on time and sometimes we'll be there a few minutes late and sometimes we'll be there very late and when one stops to think about it so it's obviously I mean it's staggering. How could it be that we almost routinely can come late to tefillah? It's staggering. The answer is because once it happens once or twice individually and once it happens all around us societally, then it's na'aseh k'heter, then we lose our sensitivity to it. When one again speaks about it, one feels embarrassed as though one's talking about alef-beis and I guess we are in every such situation, but that's what's necessary as the antidote to na'aseh k'heter. Well one of the blind spots in many of our communities is that it's clear al pi din that there should be separation of genders. It's clear al pi din that socializing and the normal interaction bein adam l'chaveiro al pi din should be men with men and women with women. But that doesn't require the extensive bekius. One doesn't need to go further than Pirkei Avos to be aware of it. And yet again it's an example of one of the blind spots that and again I don't know that there's any I'm not singling out any particular type of communities as being more prone to having blind spots than others. But talking about one blind spot that we do see. to rationalize the din, there's no need to to Chazal say, I mean, that's enough. But on the other hand, it is, it is quite obvious the almost inevitable if not inevitable gira yetzer hara, the the almost inevitable if not inevitable encroachment upon efforts for kedushas einayim and shemiras machshava. All of it is what Chazal had in mind and and certainly more when they told us what the the correct configuration should be again in in our normal interactions. That's why it's it's clear that generally speaking, when when one is not talking about people at an age or or an or an event which is intended to facilitate shidduchim, obviously that's a very different parsha and and a very different context, but when one's talking about a regular a regular social context that mixed seating isn't, certainly isn't in keeping with the the guidelines that that Chazal Chazal give us. Now all of this notwithstanding, this is also a good din to illustrate some other sensitivities that that we need to have in implementing halacha. Let's let's take the following: again, there's no question that that the better way to go in in affairs, there should be separate seating, I don't think there's there's really two ways about that. Let's say a chosson and kallah are getting married and they have that sensitivity, but either or both sets of parents don't, so is it, is it cause for confrontation and friction? So the answer is certainly not. It's not something that that to to have confrontation over. If it's something which can respectfully one can advocate for and and one can accomplish, then it should be done. But but it's not something that it's not something that one one would would create friction and certainly not have confrontation with with parents about. Another again sensitivity in and and here too again as something which illustrates the type of sensitivity in general in terms of understanding the parameters of a halacha. So the halacha's אל תרבה שיחה עם אשה. So what does that mean? So how many words is al tarbe, how many sentences is it, how many seconds, minutes, how many what's what's the shiur? So obviously there is no single uniform constant answer. The אל תרבה שיחה עם אשה can be a totally gratuitous comment can be אל תרבה שיחה עם אשה or it can be the case that that there's some kind of extensive conversation which is not ribui. Ribui means unnecessary. Ribui means gratuitous. It doesn't you you can't and and they're not supposed to define it in terms of number of words or number of sentences or how long the the conversation continues. I think they say that the the Steipler so on inyonei kedusha and everything very very makpid, so he he he has as general rule did not talk to women, if he was reconciliation, could help restore and foster shalom bayis, then he used to, and whatever it took he did. So that's not ribui. Ribui means when it's gratuitous. Ribui means when it's when it's unnecessary. When, if a person is a guest somewhere, to acknowledge the baalebosta, to thank her, to compliment for the food or whatever the context may be, again, l'choira, that's not that's not there's nothing gratuitous about that. There's nothing unnecessary about that. That's not bibhinas ribui. So the understanding is that what we're talking about is ribui, and ribui means when it's again, when it's gratuitous. When it's appropriate, it's not ribui. One of the most difficult in in this vein, one of the very difficult sort of decisions and sensitivities to show is that if, as is an a common scenario, one finds oneself in in a setting where the sensitivity to al tarbe is lacking, and because of that, maybe what what would be deemed you know minimally courteous and polite, so how does one weigh that in without losing without losing one's sensitivity and without compromising one's own principles? So that's something which requires a khush and isn't always an easy an easy call, how to how to determine what constitutes ribui in that context and when the and when no, since and and when that's not considered something gratuitous because the society generates a certain expectation which, when not met, can be rude. Obviously, one can can miss the mark in either direction on on trying to be mechaven to that sensitivity. And maybe the final understanding of of the din that I just wanted to mention, one always has to know where the line is between what the din is, what the kpeida is, and the way it usually manifests itself. And never make a mistake of identifying what the din is with what the usual correct manifestation of the din is. What what are we talking about? The din is אל תרבה שיחה עם האשה. Now, yitochen that often what that would mean is if the sense is that if two couples are gonna share a meal together that that's gonna result in four-way conversation, so if that's the sense, so then the manifestation of how one how one complies with the din is that one doesn't organize such social settings. But the din isn't that that that that you can't invite another couple. If the if all four share this sensitivity and and by by extending such an invitation, it gives an opportunity for the wives to to interact that otherwise they wouldn't, and it gives a chance for the husbands to interact that otherwise they wouldn't, and it gives a chance maybe for one couple to welcome another couple into into a neighborhood vechulu, one has to know what what the din is and what the usual application and the and what's only the application or what's only the manifestation because the the din is the din and the the the application doesn't take on a life of its own that doesn't become endowed with the that doesn't become the הלכה למשה מסיני. So depending upon situationally, contextually, so does this din of אל תרבה שיחה עם האשה so is it appropriate is it not appropriate that type of social invitation for Shabbos meal whatever. So there isn't always one absolute answer. It's very much going to depend upon what it is that it will foster and what it is that it will it will contribute. But when we when we read on Shabbos about and and we're reminded how Rashi says quotes from Chazal that the men gave to the Egel, the women didn't, there's a reflection there that there were different groupings and that the again barring again whether it's shidduchim considerations or whatever but the the normal the normal interactions and the normal social give and take that there's a grouping of men is men with men and and the women with the women.