Avodah Zorah 42

Today's daf is Avodah Zarah daf mem base and we are two lines from the bottom of daf mem aleph amud base. So, yesterday we began the third perek in maseches Avodah Zarah, perek kol ha'tzelamim, which is a new topic. It discusses the halacha of tzelamim of Avodah Zarah. Specifically, can one be hana'ah from Avodah Zarah? The halachos of being mevatel Avodah Zarah. Either way, another daf Gemara and then b'ezras Hashem at the end of the daf we'll come back and speak out just a little bit more about chul of stam. So, the Mishnah had begun with a machlokes tano'im regarding tzelamim. So, a tzelem, literally translated, is an image or a statue of some sort. Rebbe Meir said that tzelamim, even though technically they weren't Avodah Zarah, still you're not allowed to have hana'ah. You can't have hana'ah from Avodah Zarah. The Rambam says in perek zayin, halacha bet, hilchos Avodah Zarah, that if somebody does have hana'ah from Avodah Zarah, he's like a sh'tayim. He's over two lavin she'yeish b'meisah. What about a tzelem? So, Rebbe Meir said you can't have hana'ah from a tzelem either because nevodim pamachas b'shana, one day a year people used to worship the tzelamim and as a result, you have to be concerned. What emerged in the Gemara was that the truth is most tzelamim were not ne'evad, not even once a year, but there were a mi'ut of tzelamim that were Rebbe Meir's chashash yud and as a result, Rebbe Meir held that kol ha'tzelamim asurim because of the chashash, because of the mi'ut of people that are ovedes atzelim pamachas b'shana. The chachamim argued, the chachamim who hold that we're not chiyavim l'mi'ut, the chachamim said we can go by the ro'iv tzelamim and ro'iv tzelamim are never ne'evad, stating that if you have a tzelem that's holding either a stick, a bird or a bull, because of symbolism of a deity of Avodah Zarah, those tzelamim would be assurim. Shimon Gamliel was the chashash of Avodah Zarah she'yeish b'machri'a benei adam. Shimon Gamliel said it's fine. of It's true that not all but it's also true that not only three types of custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom custom of a custom of a custom of a custom custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom of a custom Reish Lakish, I understand the halacha. The pshat in the halacha is, because really, whenever you see shvarim, the assumption is that for sure the was mevatel it. And in fact, says the Gemara, it makes sense that just like according to Rav Meir, that slomen are assur, shivrei slomen are mutar, so according to the chachamim, that avodah zarah is also shivrei avodah zarah will be mutar as well. But the Gemara's kasha was according to Rav Yochanan, that the only time shvarim, shivrei avodah zarah are considered to be mutar is if you know for sure the broke it. But if it broke by itself, avodah zarah she'nishtaberah me'eileiha, Rav Yochanan holds is assur, then why if you find shivrei avodah zarah is it assur? Now, the Mishna just said shivrei slomen, but the Gemara assumes that if shivrei slomen are assur, according to Rav Meir, who holds kol ha'slomen assurin, then shivrei avodah zarah would be assur according to the chachamim that all avodah zarah is assur. And the Gemara's kasha was that why should shivrei avodah zarah be mutar? Vachura, we should view it as it possibly being assur because of the possibility because of the possibility that maybe it broke by itself, and if it broke by itself, at that point Rav Yochanan holds avodah zarah she'nishtaberah me'eileiha is going to be assur. So the Gemara said, you're right. It's true. The only time shvarim are mutar is shivrei slomen, not shivrei avodah zarah. What's the difference? So the Gemara said, because by shivrei slomen you have a sfek sfeka. By shivrei avodah zarah you only have one safek. Shivrei slomen you have a sfek sfeka, because even Rav Meir that's machmir, he's only machmir misafek, because he's choshesh me'eileiha. But it could be this avodah zarah was never ne'evad. So you have a safek that maybe it was never ne'evad detzura, plus you have a safek maybe it was broken. Sfek sfeka it's going to be mutar. As opposed to shivrei avodah zarah, you don't have a sfek sfeka, all you have is one safek, and for For reason it's going to be assur. Why by one safek will it be ossur? Because ain safek motzi midei vadai. If it is ossur, you know for sure it is ossur. You have a safek, maybe it became battul. Ain safek motzi midei vadai. Great gemara. Ain safek motzi midei vadai. Is that true? Two lines from the bottom. How do you learn to the braisa? Omri Rebbi Yehuda, maaseh b'isha she maaseh d'hu a story where there was a maaseh Rashi says gavra aluma, a very strong and powerful person. And he had a shifcha. She hitila neifel labar. And this shifcha miscarried a child. And the child and she threw it into a pit. Ubakayin, and a kohen came the heitseis and took a walk inside the pit. So, hovered over the pit lay that to determine im zachar im nekeiva, to see if this child was a zachar if the child was in a keiver. And the reason was because this shifcha wanted to know how many yemei tumah and how many yemei taharah she was going to have have to sit. She was tumas yeledus. And the question was how long was she going to be tumah for? Now, what happened was the person that looked was a kohen. A kohen is not allowed to be metameh to a meis. One of the ways a kohen could be metameh to a meis is tumas oil. One of the ways he could be metameh to a meis oil is by being mahel. If a person himself becomes the oil over the meis, that constitutes tumas oil. So, essentially this kohen had now become tumah tumas meis al yedei mahel. Now, so he goes to the rabbanim now. Ubakayin lifnei chachamim, v'hitiruhu. And they told him that you're tahor. You have nothing to worry about. The reason is because Umar mitzuyim sham. Because of the different animals and insects that were matzui there. And the assumption is is that the neifel wasn't there. Meaning he went to look at the neifel to see if it is a zachar or a nekeiva. He was the rov. So, he's trying to help out this woman. Turns out he was machlis himself into a major shaila. But, there was good news. The good news was he never saw the neifel. So, was he now tumah tumas oil? So, he goes to ask the chachamim and they hold him no. The maaseh, you didn't see the neifel there. And chudah baalus mitzuyim sham. And as a result, we could assume it's not there. If it's not there, you're not talking about gemara. we know for sure there was a vadai that this naifel, this fetus was there. And safi got rules of the glory glory. It's only a safi if the bardless and the holder took it away. Because he's safi still, what did the tell him that you're tohar? Because the safi, the sad the possibility that maybe the holder and the bardless took away the naifel is might be the vadai. He says, "Don't worry about the vadai to us." So, what do you see? That safi is might be the vadai. Says the no, "Lo temei tilu naifel bar." Don't say the story was with it was for sure naifel on the bar. "Elo temei tilu kamin naifel bar." The story was with this woman miscarried a child, but it was in the early stages of her pregnancy. So, it wasn't even clear if it was a if it was a baby yet, if it had the form, if it had the tzurah of a blood. So, it wasn't even clear that it was tumah. So, there's a safi if there was tumah. And now there's a safi that maybe the nachash or the holder and or the bardless took away this naifel. As a result, it's a safi and a safi. That's where the told him that he was tohar. The Gemara says, "Valeda im zachar im nekeva hutani." It says that the cohen was going to see if it was a zachar and a nekeva. Meaning it sounds like we know for sure it was a naifel. The question just was the gender. But in terms of whether or not it was a naifel, sounds like that's clear. So, the Gemara says, "Hachi kamar." No, that's just add a little bit of words to the braisa to make it work. The shailah was, the reason the cohen was going was to determine number one "im ruachi pila im naifel hitila." To see if it was in fact a child. "Im timtzo levin naifel atila." And if it was in fact child "eidem zachar im nekeva." To know if it was a zachar and a nekeva, but it's not true that they knew for sure it was a child. But the shailah just was zachar and a nekeva. They weren't even sure if it was a naifel. Maybe it was a ruach. As a result, it was a safi. That's why the cohen were mad because it was a safi if there was ever tumah in the bar. "Im timtzo leimar there was tumah." There's a safi that maybe the holder and the bardless removed it. Safi is might be the safi. You're saying alternative to "kimish demadus mitzoi and sham vadai go." Or or that no, maybe the story was we know for sure that there was an apple there. If you know for sure there was an apple there it was if there was a tumor then why was this person told that he's the higher because of the bottles and the holder it's only a that the bottles and the holder did what it did. It says no could be it was considered a because given the holder and the bottles we look at it as a the bottom line is it wasn't a being made a either it was a but it was or it was a either way so we have a we have a but it could be a also it says and we're going to have a whole and change of that's going to go back and forth and discuss this it's a what the God said the mission said that if somebody finds it's however if the was the Torah of a hand or a foot hurry it was the reason is that because we assume that it's a possibility that maybe people worship the ad and people worship why is it also it's at the end of the day it's broken so if it's broken it should be motor so it's the right of you and frankly me according to that always why is it a regular according to what I always what I only if you know the person was but if you don't know that the person was if it broke by itself for example it's going to be so there's a that could be maybe that's the beer in that but according to that always even if it's so why is it regular so it gives the obvious answer what we said already yesterday a target of but the talking about regular we're talking about what the shevir was now on a on a platform and it was it was on somebody's break front it's a little bit different. When it's on a basis already at this point even though it's a shevir but it shows it's a dovor shel chashivus and it's for that reason it's going to be ossur. But then again could be all shvarim even yad even regel if it's not on a basis and if the didn't go out of his way to show that he's been machshiv it it's in fact going to be ossur because it's chashuv. Mivutal avodah zarah is k'chulu. A has an ability to be mivutal his own avodah zarah. That's the whole idea of a breaks his avodah zarah that avodah zarah becomes muttar. A can also be mivutal avodah zarah of his friend. That's a chiddush. So if a walks into his friend's house takes his friend's avodah zarah slams it on the floor breaks it into a thousand pieces the avodah zarah is not going to be ossur. I how could I go and do something? It doesn't matter. A can be mivutal his own avodah zarah he can be mivutal his friend's avodah zarah as well. But Yisrael a Yid einam mivutal avodah zarah shel avodah zarah. A cannot be mivutal avodah zarah of his friend. Now these are all mishnayos later in the perek. A a Yid cannot be mivutal his own avodah zarah either. So if a has avodah zarah and he takes avodah zarah and he's mivutal it it's not avodah zarah anymore. It becomes ossur avodah zarah. If a Yid has avodah zarah and he says I'm mivutal avodah zarah and he does it together with his beer Halacha is it doesn't become muttar b'hana'ah. A Yid has to destroy the avodah zarah. We'll see what a Yid has to do with his avodah zarah later in the perek. A can be mivutal his avodah zarah a Yid cannot be mivutal his avodah zarah. Says the Mishnah another halacha. A can be mivutal his avodah zarah and his friend his avodah zarah as well. A Yid just like he can't be mivutal his own avodah zarah he certainly can't be mivutal another Yid's avodah zarah. He can't even mivutal a goy's avodah zarah. Says the Gemara ammai? A feste kasha. Tihavei k'avodah zarah she'nishtab'ah m'eilav. If a Yid goes and he breaks the goy's avodah zarah, why is it awesome? Bishloimo, according to Rebbe Yochanan, that holds avodah zarah is nishtaber me'eilav asurah I hear. But according to Reish Lakish who holds avodah zarah is nishtaber me'eilav is muttar, what does that mean? That means as soon as the wakes up in the morning and he sees that his avodah zarah is broken, such as when Terach woke up in the morning and he saw what happened to his avodah zarah. So that law is we assume he's mevatel the avodah zarah and at that point it's going to be muttar. So what's the difference if it broke by himself or if a Yid broke it? Why should a Yid breaking the avodah zarah of his neighbor, the be got a from avodah zarah nishtaber me'eilav? You're right, the Yid broke it. Yid doesn't have a koach to mevatel avodah zarah. Take the Yid out of the picture, it's broken. That's the bottom line. The bottom line of broken avodah zarah that's broken is always muttar. Amar Abaye, Abaye said shipichasa. We're talking about where it wasn't broken. The this halacha that when a Yid is mevatel avodah zarah of a it's not bottel. It's not talking when he breaks it. When he breaks it, according to Reish Lakish it would be muttar. Because it's broken. And once it's broken, Reish Lakish holds even if it's nishtaber me'eilav, it's going to be muttar. We're talking about where he just hit it. Rashi says, ansheyn this macha tzurasa. He just changed the form of the avodah zarah. But he didn't actually destroy it. Being that he didn't destroy it, the law is different. But the Gemara says chipichasa me'ayavi. Why is it different that he just disformed it? But now we learned in the Mishna, chipichasa af bishlichus mevatel. At the end of the day constitutes what's bittel. So if this chipichasa, whatever that is exactly, if it constitutes bittel, and avodah zarah that's nisbatel me'eilav is muttar, so what's the difference if the Yid broke it or if he was chipichasa? The Gemara says no, very simple. Hani meili chipichasa of chipichasa Yisrael lo battel. Meaning it's true chipichasa is considered bittel. So a person can be mevatel. can be mevatel his avodah zarah by breaking the avodah zarah. He can be mevatel avodah zarah by hitting it until it it it starts becoming looking it starts looking different. That constitutes bitter. That's true. But as it relates to the halacha of where even though it happened by itself it's mother that he only said by if it wasn't there's no such a halacha. So granted if a year would go to his and he would break it to the point that it was where would hold it would be mother not because the year has a he doesn't he can't be his own can't be but it's like but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about where he didn't break it. We're talking about where it was if all it was was over there there's no of may it's going to be mother. You need that the one that was had to be a year's of bitter is not considered a bitter. Thus a guy could do it to his own a guy could do it to another guy's a year would not be able to do it even to a guy's a guy's it could be maybe it's not true. Maybe between the and and if because it's considered bitter then the same would be true with regards to so that but if a year would be the halacha is it would be mother because the year is like from it happening may love. I why then if a year goes to a guy's thing is bitter bitter pick up this and he'll be in it the other may and then he'll be the other and then it's going to be a year's halacha and any that's that already can't be were very very very stringent. They said there's no way a year could just be we have to do the year but we have to come over and we have to uproot it literally like a type of idea. We have to absolutely destroy it. So for years of we're not going to have any leniencies. So this was like a zero that anytime a year does anything to it shouldn't count it to be why after the years own of either way get familiar with that line. Zero of a couple of a couple of a straw because the more it's going to repeat it now several times. A guy who took stones from a cool guy who took stones from a cool guy cool was one of the infamous of a we are we learned it in in detail when we learn but the idea was it was you would take stones and you would put it in a certain suit but you basically you took a volume and you would worship it you would offer it up to the known as as my cool so it says the price I can share cool of a guy take stones from my cool the him draw and he used them to pave roads. The right direction says is the right way to go. Is the right way to go. A year however who takes stones from my cool the right way to go and the right way to go is going to be us. So if a guy takes stones from my cool and now he uses it pave stones I needed a stone so what did he do he went to my cool and he took he took one of the stones from there so he was that way to go by taking the Evan from my cool putting it on the floor using it as cement so at this point it doesn't have anything to go with it. If a year does it not think the right way to go and the right way to go the right way to go the right way to go and the right way to go the right way to go and the right way to go the right way to go the right way to go the right way to go the right way to go the right way to go the right way to go the right way to go the right way to go the right way to go the be kind of the oven or the point is if you're going to allow a year to be a he may come to you cannot be a who had a a stone that was a he starts he was smoothing the he was sawing it he was smoothing it the stone itself so the is if he was doing it because he wanted the wood for himself or he wanted what was coming off the wood for himself he the itself this and the thing that's coming off it because we can do it like breaking the let's say he's doing it for the to beautify the he has so the itself remains but the little bit of saw that comes off of it that dust that's going to be motor the I would say but a year that does it whether he does it for his own cause he does it's all going to be awesome why the same thing because the year can't be and even if he breaks it but I'm my same the why is the year doing it worse than if it happened by itself the same really shouldn't be worse and based on of this should be but if a year does it it's worse because it's a after if a year would do it to his own it's another he says somebody has a that's metal it's not wood it's metal so what do you do you grind it because you can just throw it up in the air or you can just throw it into the this is a year which you completely have to destroy that's what you're supposed to do with it that's not a good idea if you're going to be and you're going to be is one of the something that is one of the integral things that people do when you work on a farm after you being the mattress is going to now fertilize the >> You're going to have now some kind of from the desert. You can have a note. But the message is why is it a big deal? Why don't we assume that the result of the rule of blinds So what are you going to tell me? But it should be like God below according to which lucky that's what it That it is rather it's true. It really The reason it's not good there is because of a year can't seem about to love it is all right. Even if there is some husband after we make up What's the tourist dark guy? Is somebody found the tour of a dark one. Mention the next mission of this was some serpent of some sort that was a very popular of it is all right back in the day. So somebody found the tour of a dark one. This is all right is all right. The right shape of the and the head of it was off. So it didn't have a head. Suffolk now did a guy knock off its head be headed? Maybe you stroll did it. So the is motor. It's going to be motor. If we know for sure that he is strong was the one that be headed it. And then that look is it's going to be awesome. Why is it us even if you know for sure that he had did it? Why should he taking the head off this serpent this dark one be any worse than what than if it had it happened by itself which is going to be good. It's only and really that look is it should be okay. I follow your uncle is be my suggestion. The the over there is planting underneath an asherah tree. So, he says you're not even allowed to plant your Rocco's vegetables even be my suggestion. The reason is because the leaves are going to fall off that asherah tree. They're going to be on the what you planted and it's going to fertilize what it is you planted and you're going to be Nana from the asherah. When the leaves fall off the asherah, that is forget this has nothing to do with the yet. It should be a classic case of just isn't this textbook you have an asherah tree and now the leaves fell off, branches fell off, it landed on what you planted, it's going to fertilize it. It's a problem. You haven't got Nana. No, you're not because what fell off is and according to the even may Allah which is what fell on its own just nature. It just fell. So, what's the the is it's mother. So, why can you have from the of the asherah only time is mother is if somebody did it. He was it. Okay, nobody did it. This just happened but according to even if it happens by itself the says the this is already different. The is over here we mean that the asherah itself is still standing only a part of it fell off. That's not called the the definition of is is when the at least broke. The is broken but if the is just some leaves, some branches fell off, that's not called the says from today's stuff we have a right not that way. The one of the examples were we had and you're just smoothing it out a little bit and a little bit of a little bit of wood fell off. So, what was the halakha? The the over there with the kind of mechanical suit that if you did it with avodah zarah, the halakha is he, meaning the avodah zarah itself is assur, the shifuya, but what came off of the avodah zarah is going to be mutar. Why is it mutar? Why is it different than the leaves of the tree? Why don't you say that being that the ikkar of the avodah zarah is kaim, that even what came off should be assur? So, the Gemara says you're right. I'll give you a different reason. There are the laws. So, the only time even Reb Kluger holds that avodah zarah that comes in a shalom bayis is mutar is if it's out of the ordinary. But, if what happened wasn't the usual course of business, if it what happened was ordinary, it's not going to be assur. But, what was It's not going to be mutar. What was Reb Kluger's svara? Reb Kluger said avodah zarah couldn't help itself. How's it going to help me? So, that's true. The guy comes home and he sees his avodah zarah is on the floor and a head fell off and the company is Yadain Fellow. Right, that was the case of Dogon. So, over there he's going to say, "Boy, if Dogon couldn't help itself, how's it going to help me?" But, if a person has an asheira tree that he worships and he comes and he sees the leaves fell off, you know, during the season when leaves are supposed to fall off, he's not going to think anything. So, the whole svara of Reb Kluger is predicated on something happening out of the ordinary, which he's going to take as a sign that the powers that he had previously attributed to this mishigas is is obviously a mishigas. But, if what happened was natural, he's not going to think that. And being that he's not going to think that, dear, that halakha doesn't apply. Kancha berisha ilan, if there's a kan. So, a kan is a nest where birds live in the nest and it was on the top of a tree that's hekdesh. So, the halakha is lo nehenin. In our avana, mid'erabanan. Lo nehenin but at the same time there's no issur me'ilah mid'oraisa. So, lo nehenin and lo mailin comes up a lot, especially when you learn kashrus, and it's a little tricky. Lo nehenin means you're not allowed to have hana'ah. Lo mailin means you're not mo'el. The two lo's don't mean the same thing. But, it sounds like they're saying that you can't have hana'ah and You can't be moel. No, that's not what it means. Lo yenanen means you can't have a no. Thou shall not. That's what the first lo means. The second lo means you are not or you cannot. There is no me'ilah. So, you cannot have hana'ah mid'rabbanan, but at the same time there's no me'ilah mide'oraita. That's if the kan was on the top of a a tree. Bereshit That was hekesh. What if it was on the top of a tree that's hek- that's an asherah tree? So, de'oraita is hekesh bekan. If you want, you can get it. How do you get it? You take a stick and you find a way to take the nest. Now, the Gemara says kasav da'ita. It's fair to assume kegavna me'eimen eitzim bikinzavah that this nest that the birds made where did they get the wood to make the nest? They probably took it from the tree. Meaning, they took the atzei asherah and they made a nest. And it says it's okay. Now, lo chura, why is it okay? Shouldn't it be a problem? You're trying to take the nest. You want to have hana'ah from the nest presumably. How do you let have hana'ah from the nest? So, what are you going to tell me? Because it was nishtabra. But, Bishlam according to Reish Lakish now we're flipping the script. So, Bishlam according to Reish Lakish that holds nishtabra me'eilav mutar. Okay, so it's mutar. But, according to Rabbi Yochanan that nishtabra me'eilav is assur. So, even though it was nishtabra, but no one was mevatel it. If nobody was mevatel it, then it should be assur. So, till now all the kashes were kashes on Reish Lakish. This kashe is a kashe on Rabbi Yochanan. According to Rabbi Yochanan that nishtabra me'eilav is assur, then why are you you're taking the nest? What are you doing with the nest? You're not allowed to take the nest. If you're going to take the nest, you're going to have hana'ah from it. Lo chura, you're not allowed to have hana'ah from it. Says the Gemara, askina and the I see it to me. No, we know for sure that this nest didn't come from that asherah. The nest came from somewhere else. Bikinzavah and that's how the birds made the hekesh. Lo yenanen I'll prove it to you. Because by hekesh what do bracha say? Lo yenanen velo mo'alin eitzim I understand a lot. You can have a no middle of the bottom but at the same time you're not mile on the right side. Why are you not mile on the right side? Because the eight cent came from somewhere else. They were never caught there. So there's no middle of the right side. It's on a tree. That's hectic. So the bottom said don't be mad at it. But you want to know why they don't mile it? Because the wood is not hectic. Why is it not hectic? Because the birds that made this nest, they didn't make it from the wood of the tree. So just like they didn't make the nest from the hectic tree in the ratio they didn't make the nest from the ash tree in the safer which is precisely why even according to it's okay to go ahead and take the nest. But according to the max show who thought this was a right to lock it. Because he understood this safe is talking about with the birds took the wood from the ash tree ash tree itself then in the ratio you have to be consistent. You have to tell me it's the same story. The story is that the birds took the wood to make the nest from the hectic. If that's the case I'm not mile it. Why is there no day right side? This is hectic 101. It should be awesome. It could be It's not working that would be hectic. Because hectic the only time you do the hectic are hectic is only what grew before you lock this But there is a man that holds that you do the someone is locking the and then it starts growing. What grows after you lock this Maybe it's not hectic. So maybe this a lot of is going according to the man of war that holds that you do the really not hectic as a result don't ask me cashes why there's no is you can assume that the wood that was used for the nest came from the tree. Could be that's not my kind of send me I heard different you're right it's a good question really meaning first this over here that you have a chance why you want to take it the assumption is that where did the wood come from the wood came from the tree itself the came from the tree itself it's not a shame you can't have enough of so basically according to it's it was even though it was made I would say it's according to the house of so why you want to have a what's going on over here so the first the more I said is it's only true and we took the wood from somewhere else but I said that I heard from a different I heard and I want to go for the the wood the nest itself is off limits my you know what that means means if somebody was going after the you wanted the chickens that were inside that's something you be allowed to take okay that has nothing to do with the point in the but it's in the nest that's on the but you're right the nest itself that you would be able to touch I'll tell you what I heard that can become you want the it's always going to be whether it was on the tree of whether it was on the tree of you can always take it it's not part of the tree so it's always going to be but they if you want the can become they're always going to be awesome the reason the one that is awesome cuz the need the tree being that they need the tree it's always going to be awesome that which we said is always awesome but if they need their mother and the mother is in the nest which is on the tree can be we look at it as and in that case it's going to be awesome another mission if somebody finds a Tzuras Lavana, Tzuras Darkon, it had one of three pictures on it. So, somebody found a kayli, you found a cup, and engraved in the cup was a picture. It was either the Tzura of the Chama, that's the sun, the Lavana, or the Darkon, that's this creature. You get rid of it, you throw it in literally into the Dead Sea. Not all kaylim. Shaul if it was not a explain that that's but if it's not a kayli that's it's going to be says the the main right first you understand this mission. Presumably the reason why if you find these Tzuras on a kayli, this kayli is also because it says in the Torah And the assumption is that these three pictures on a kayli equals constitutes as if to say these three things were things that the pagans worshiped. As if to say all the things they didn't worship. Because if the pagans worshiped other things then the should be if you find those other Tzuras on kaylim then those kaylim should also be awesome because of the maybe you worshiped it. The says that true? The only things the pagans worshiped were the sun, the moon, and the Darkon? If somebody brings a carbon, he an animal with the intention of it going which the seas, the the the desert and the Lavana the stars and the constellations the sun the sun a little worm and the sun and the sun now presumably this is discussing things that were common, things that actually happened. So, you see that people used to worship the the sun and the sun and the sun they worshiped a lot of things. So, why these three things? Why the sun and the Lavana and the sun? But, who anything that people worship which were many, if you find those on the calendar said the obvious answer. If they have they worship anything they found. They they were not very discriminatory when it came to what exactly they were willing to worship. However, mates are who but to make a picture and then worship that Cali way you made the picture, then they were ready sticklers. They were a little bit more specific. Let me over there we assume that they didn't worship it. So, if you see a Cali that has a picture of a show show cotton when we assume it was a they made it not going to be mounted. The used to collect difficult prices and the Tony and he used to say shop and this is an example of a difficult price that had collected and we explained it's actually not so difficult if you have come. Call is good the first part of the price that says all constellations are multiple what they are going to explain that but all are multiple with the exception of the one the person all faces are multiple with me parts of except for the face of a person the actual race multiple all pictures are multiple with me pictures for prices said three things all are multiple with the exception of the one all are multiple with the exception of all pictures are multiple with the exception of essentially four things were also the that was ratio all done that's the that's the middle case and that's the safer that's the third case all pictures are multiple what are we talking about either are we talking about making these things? Is that what the bris is? The bris, the first part of the bris is discussing making the sura of the mazel. As if they say you're allowed to make the sura of a mazel. Just literally make it in your workshop. You're allowed to make the sura of a mazel with exception of the one. That's not true. Because is it called mazel me shuri? Is that true? All of mazel with their save. We know this will speak about it more tomorrow we saw some eat the other They hate the way they hate of the sura you're not allowed to make the way they hate of the way they hate of. And it says eat the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate of the way they hate They might say that the bris must be talking about somebody who found a cave that had the sura of the mazel on the cave. And in fact the race is saying our mission. Okay, that's not and that's what the bris is saying. If a person finds a cave that has color mazel, what's the what is the color of the mazel? That's our mission. It's mentioning two of the three things that our mission has said are us if you find it on a cave. The two that are mazel. So So color of mazel with exception of the one if you find it on a cave with the exception of with the exception of the one. But the race is saying if the first part of the bris is discussing somebody who found a cave that has the sura of the one. Look at the middle case. Look at the second case of the bris. What was the second case? Color of the one with exception of the one. Look at the middle case. Look at the second case of the bris. What was the second case? Color of the one with exception of the one. bris is saying that if they had a picture of something it's going to be unless the picture was of a human being. Parts of Adam exception of the one. where do you find that a parts of Adam is also? Somebody finds a cave with the face of a man, that's not what the mission has said. But tonight I'm going to take this what do you do with the dark in parts of Adam where you don't see anything about parts of Adam. So it doesn't sound like we're discussing a mission. It's partial says the what must the second case of the price to be discussing by not the Easter of we're not talking about our mission our mission of we're talking about the mission of Rosh Hashanah. We're talking about making a parts of who came to and it's fact that Yeshua said that you're not allowed to make the parts of of a human being. You can make the parts of of any other creature but not the parts of of a human being. We'll see why. But the bottom line is Rashi says the come on the we're going to get to it later in the but for right now that must be what the second case is talking about. But the says but if the second case is talking about then the third case is probably also talking about meaning call that to rise car and you can make the of of anything but you can't make the of a dark where do you find you can't make dark what must the last case of the price to be talking about the the price that says it's not talking about making a dark because there is no way to make a dark. It must be talking about if you found a cave and it had on it the of a dark it's going to be all the except for dark. What's the precedent for that? Our mission okay the cave of Adam with the hammer The law here is that it's going to be also. We need the etc. So it's also so the mission that says is also and that's probably what the safe is again. You had a price over here where the price is at three all is except for hammer of Adam. All parts of except for Adam. And all is except for dark. The ratio presumably is talking about What does it mean mutar also? Mitzsei, we're talking about the laws of avodah zarah. Somebody found kayli and it has the picture of mazalois, it's mutar except for cham al avon. That That's the only thing it can mean. The mitzsei assur that says kol ha partzuf is mutar except for partzuf adam is not talking about avodah zarah cuz you don't find anywhere that there's a halacha that if you find a kayli that has a picture of a man it's going to be assur for avodah zarah. What it probably means is the halacha of Rav Yehudah bar Rav Yeshua, we're talking about the issur of making something, creating a tzura. Lo sasoni ti, lo sasoni oisi, kidlusi, that's probably what it's talking about. That's partzuf adam we find is assur. And then the last case that says kol ha tzura is mutar chutz mi pas darkon, that again is probably talking about our mishna because there's no issur to make a darkon yet we have a m'foresh mishna that says if you find a kayli with the tzura of darkon it's going to be assur. So what are you left with? Reisha v'seifa b'mitzsei u'mitzsei assur b'eisa? It's a hard braisa, that's why Rav Seishes collected it. So Rav Seishes, what's going on? The first part is talking about the laws of avodah zarah. The second part of the braisa is talking about the halachos of maseches Rosh Hashanah of lo sasoni ti. And then the third case again is talking about bein adam l'avodah zarah. I'm going to buy you incorrect. Reisha v'seifa b'mitzsei u'mitzsei assur b'eisa. Rav Huna bar Rav Yehudah said a different shita, kulah b'mitzsei. Really the whole braisa is discussing our mishna. What was the one problem? The mitzsei assur. What was the issue with the mitzsei assur? Mitzsei assur said that if you find a kayli, the way Rav Huna is understanding the braisa, and it has on it the partzuf of an adam, it's going to be assur. Our mishna said cham al avon and darkon. The braisa now was saying cham al avon in the reisha, darkon in the seifa, and it's adding adam in the mitzsei assur. So Rav Huna is another tanna, u'mitzsei assur Rav Yehudah tanna d'bei Rav Yehudah moisef af musminik. Rav Yehudah was moisef, if somebody finds a kayli and has on it the picture of a woman that's nursing or basar apis or a a master or a sar, as in here we have it with a samach but as if it's a sar with a sin, a sar that's giving people food, the halacha is those tzurois are also considered kosher. We assume that the person was worshipping those tsuras, and the halacha is, they're going to be awesome. The reason is, the idea of menika is al shem that was menika, it's a reference to her. Sar apis al shem Sar apis al kulai. Yosef tzadik who supported the world, thus it has a we look at it as if it's considered a caveat. It is the only time the Sar apis is considered a tsura, it's considered is if this person is actually holding a he's actually supporting he did not communicate. The only time a nurse, a woman that nurses is considered something is if she's holding a child and she's physically nursing, but the bottom line is the whole said is talking about our halachas, so whereas our missioner said What's the fourth? It has the tsura of a menika or the tsura of a Sar apis, a woman that's nursing a child or a a person of of power that's supporting his underlings. Same idea, but the bottom line is that would also be something that once upon a time the pagans used to worship. Exhale. So before we end, just to go back and speak out one other halacha regarding the sugia of stam. Yesterday, you know, we went through spent about 45 minutes going through the sugia a little bit as it relates to the halacha of Yisrael, akum, stam, companies that are in our country, and the feeling was that, you know, obviously in order to properly understand the sugia, you have to go through the Gemara. So the learns these Gemaras once every seven and a half years, so we're not going to go through it now. When else are we going to have the time to go through it? And really we mentioned that you know there's a Mishnah obviously that says is assur. Then there's Mishnah that says is going to be muttar. And there was a big discussion in the Rishonim and and later in in the Acharonim, the Pri Chadash and the Radvaz and the Chasam Sofer and many many many other gedolim that discussed what would be the halacha if you had chalav shechut b'yom akum the Indian straw but there's a very strong umdana that there's no chalav tamei that was nistarif in this. And the reason is because you live in a shtetl where there wasn't a beheima temeia to be found. As far as we know, it's almost beyond the realm of possibility that there would be a taruvus of of chalav tamei which was the sibas issur of chalav akum in the first place. So the question is in that case would it be muttar or would it be assur? So the Pri Chadash said that it would be muttar. He says that the Radvaz wrote a teshuvah about it as well. He says that he was noheg eating in Amsterdam himself. He saw people there were a few kedoshim that were nistar but most people that were not were not. The Chasam Sofer came very very strong on this Pri Chadash. And the Chasam Sofer says that yeah that kehilla that the Pri Chadash found in Amsterdam was a Portuguese kehilla. They followed the minhag of the Radvaz but as relates to the Ashkenazi world it's pasht that based on the Mordechai and the Rabbenu Peretz and the Sha'arei Durah and Rashi and the Chasam Sofer said it's a Rashi and Abodah Zarah and chalav akum and alif. And he said it's pasht that when the chachamim asked the chalav akum they asked it as a davar sheb'minyan and even if you can tell me svara why you think there's no shocher it doesn't matter. It's just like gevinah. Gevinah akum is assur even if they're not maymin b'kashrus because it's a davar sheb'minyan. Right? Davar sheb'minyan is assur. The tamei could be battel the issur is still going to be kayem. It's in that same vein the Chasam Sofer held that chalav akum even if there's no chashash at all it's going to be assur. He spoke after the Rosh Hashanah very very clearly. He said at the end of the day roiv gedolei Yisrael poskim held like the Chasam Sofer not like the Pri Chadash. He doesn't mention the Pri Chadash and the Chasam Sofer by name but he says that roiv gedolei Schorr held the shittas of the Chasam Sofer that it's minyan and it's for that reason he says you have to be machmir and he was koid to tohorah. I listen to him and he even told a story about someone who was meikel and he found out afterwards that he was being machshil on macholos. So the bottom line is is that the past this certainly the minig ashkenaz was that you go al derech the Chasam Sofer not al derech the Pri Chodosh. Stating that Rav Moshe wrote a a game changing teshuvah. Rav Moshe wrote a teshuvah and the first teshuvah that Rav Moshe wrote printed in Yoreh De'ah it was siman ches gimmel siman mem ches mem tes where Rav Moshe said that today in America it's different. And really people misquote the teshuvah, but if you understand the teshuvah properly Rav Moshe was trying to say was that today in America because when people buy milk products they're not buying it from some mom and pop farmer, but rather they're buying it from some company some corporation that's governed by the federal government USDA FDA. There's inspections etc. etc. There's an umden demuchach. There's a mirsas. There's an anansa chadi which Rav Moshe proved from different sugias and chazal bleeds keriah ba'almah. We're clear that there's no way in the world there's taruvos of of cholov tamei. And Rav Moshe held that that anansa chadi was much stronger than anything the Pri Chodosh and the Chasam Sofer ever discussed. Meaning Pri Chodosh and the Chasam Sofer were discussing when there was no beheima temeiah in the shuk. I hear. It meant that chances are there was no taruvos of of cholov tamei. But Rav Moshe felt that the mirsas that exists today is even more than that. That mirsas is keriah. It creates such a level of certainty that there's no taruvos of cholov tamei that it's as if we saw the milk being milked. We literally watched it throughout its process until it got wrapped in the wrapper and you actually ate it. And Rav Moshe said if that's the case then I don't have to come on to a Pri Chodosh. We don't have to go kineged the Chasam Sofer. Who are we to be being actually right? We don't have to go down that road. But today all of companies is all of Israel. It's all of Israel because the definition of all of Israel is either it's all of Israel or all of Israel the Israel and if all of Israel is all of Israel today is creates says in the clearly just have to take a look go through it like a mensch. That's what was saying. He says all of Israel says very very clearly it's going to be because all of Israel is going to be somebody told me I heard this from a kosher he said that he once thought to say that you know people have a not to eat all of Israel as the Israel. But the if you hold like could be there's no even for such a because all of Israel is all OF ISRAEL. SO IF the is you're going to be all of Israel let's say okay so all of Israel be all of Israel for the all of Israel all of Israel but that's not what you're doing. All of Israel wasn't saying be all of Israel. All of Israel was saying that today in America all that literature everything that we have all the that were written are not applicable to a certain degree because today everything changed the all of Israel creates real. So it it's all of Israel. It's it's all of Israel which is all of Israel. Either way that was all of Israel but the emphasis is that all of Israel himself said and and the reality is is that many many many many tremendous they don't eat they don't eat all of Israel and they're not and and the reason they don't is different reasons. Some people don't want to be all of Israel. Then all of Israel and and they don't want to be all of Israel. It's not all of Israel they don't want to they don't want to go all of Israel or all of Israel himself said all of Israel. All of Israel himself already opened up the door for their being the word of somebody feeling that he doesn't want to take on the cooler and he wants to be additionally in the specifically in the crisis is different as it relates to the so just really bring out the other side so to speak I think it's to speak out of and this is it's the Jewish holidays calendar of which I think is a is a very nice liquid so to speak of the says yes I mean it's people that rely on the people who rely on the people who rely on the spoke to that yesterday the said it as well I didn't say it as but definitely said everything said yes that was the I heard going that's all P the told him to avoid the elderly or you're allowed to motion didn't say that said that but I have starts with the which is essentially over and that the said that he only meant it for the elderly he also only meant it for the elderly if there's some level of then you could do it so that's the first thing said he wanted to go with this cooler if you're being on the the only meant it in those circumstances that's number one number two he says you do the said they said I believe we just spoke out the grow with regards to my master with the grow they bring the and the grow said because anytime the when the time of specifically that was the context of my grow We stand up in the truth is discussing my McGovern, but he said there's always the time Nikola and there's the time mister, but there's many, many, many time and that's why they going said that even though the Shash my McGovern is no longer applicable, but that's because you know, there's no Hashim of an angel, but there's the time minister. The time minister is applicable. So says McGovern come back on the inner time machine call of Tommy the bottom. Hello again today the son of the idea of McGovern was also related to being marvelous. The value of God again or the whole of God after the mirror. So there was like a huge volume component to the whole of of McGovern. The same of a board comes at all. The way near a time to machine call of Tommy. The course of McGovern and that piece of McGovern as well. The McGovern McGovern of the world and the nation of McGovern in the day that's the McGovern that we reference. So number two says McGovern there's always there's always the time Nikola and then there's the time mister. So from the time mister perspective, from the time mister perspective, you have the idea like the guy is going to want to drink McGovern McGovern so McGovern McGovern we spoke about different time and even though maybe there's more that worried about is irrelevant as my name and he said still you have to watch my McGovern because there's always a time mister. So the time mister be here and he snatches that there's a McGovern from McGovern in the name of his the board time that it was related with a huge volume thing. Even though we went to the it was clear that it's not from the huge volume. It wasn't mission it was mission call of Tommy. It wasn't young and was, but there's a McGovern that it was related to that in the time mister, not in the time Nikola based on that says McGovern that's another reason you have to be McGovern. Then he says the age of McGovern out of Easter McGovern the McGovern McGovern McGovern McGovern McGovern. the ball is so much putting it in the office very very very sharp and he says at the end I don't even want to end off by saying what he says he says he says very very sharp in terms of the idea but either way what he's saying is number one has help don't just be so it's true it's a true he said you love him and he said he wouldn't be but he felt that he felt that companies in Medina somebody you could be but it was only but it wasn't he wasn't willing to be mad at said additionally you have the whole idea of the time mister and the fact that it relates to we have a from in terms of what the time was he said in the name of and then he brings from the who said that there's a that someone drinks from the pure standpoint but at the same time there is an idea but the truth is that he wrote in 1972 where the was they wanted to know is it okay should they serve companies or maybe they should spend the extra money and serve Israel so much told them to to serve better Israel he said let the children know that there's an idea of being of being when it comes to that's the truth of what would respond would say that it's Israel when if you make and you eat whole of companies. You're not eating whole of that. Whole of that one is putting them in the moon up. And you eat whole of companies. Again, this is a way above my pay grade, but you know, yesterday we got all excited. We spoke out of shiva that many, many of cloud Israel are are are saying certainly all the machine in America that give on whole of some products that all say on the most of shiva, but of course, there are many, many that are and leave it at that.