Chulin 12

Today's is and we are four lines from the top of the two dots. Today's d's being learned as a forz. So yesterday's daf was a daft that required as we saw not one asterisks but two asterisks. one kgazak and one kg is in today's raid we're gonna revisit some of what we discussed yesterday but for now we have another that deals with basic related let's talk said in the name of his great if somebody watched somebody if he watched him shack literally from the beginning until the end and he saw that everything went okay. He's allowed to eat from but if he didn't watch him from beginning until end he's not let from his soar says what kind of person are we talking about? It sounds like it's someone that you have to watch him. He needs adult supervision. At the same time, Rav is saying that you have to watch him. We need some more information. says the if we're dealing with someone that we know knows the why would anyone have to watch him if this is a this is someone that knows he's a so no one should be having to watch him not and if he's a person that we know for a fact doesn't know the is then the of is meaning it's then if you watched him and you saw everything went well it's kosher and If not not and it's also posh you would have to watch because anywhere from the you can possibly mix up says the maybe we're talking about where we don't know if he knows or doesn't know. Well, if that's the case, then the should be that it's okay even if you didn't watch him because we should invoke the principle of we should say that and as a result it should be okay didn't learn in a found that was in or if somebody went over to his butler and he told him go for me and then the butler came and he saw that it was already shak and we don't know We assume that everything was okay. What do you see from here? We say that most people that are considered well if that's the case here too we should say so says the I don't understand somebody saw somebody he watched then you're allowed to eat it. If not you're not allowed to eat it. If this person we know is gummer, then you should always be allowed to eat it. You shouldn't have to watch him. If we know he's not a gummer and if we don't know whether he's gummer or not gummer, we should assume that he is g. And again, nobody should have to watch him. Now, why are you assuming he's g if you don't know if he's gummer or not? [snorts] Should be that suffic for us. How do you know rife works? That's yesterday's d. But the bottom line is I'm all confused terms of what exactly is talking about a case where we know for sure that this person is a okay. So isn't it then that you have to watch? No. It's talking about where this person in the good way that even though he didn't see but being that was good you could be that the was good as well that was the you could always assume that maybe punct got the first part right as relates to the latter part maybe one of the other mistakes took place but the bottom line is is for that reason it's not going to be okay. So again is talking about a person that needs the supervision. He's a we know because again if we know he's Gummer he doesn't need the supervision and even if we don't know who in the world he is he doesn't need the supervision because it's talking about we know for sure he needs the supervision because we know for sure he's someone that's if that's the case isn't it? It's not that you have to see and that was the which by the way jumps off the page. He says you have to see. So it sounds like whatever is he's trying to say that the alone is not enough. You have to see and that's the whole point. You saw that was good. There would have been a maybe based on that the was for sure also good. Maybe at the beginning, right? But there's no that does would be right as the following question. If somebody goes over to and he tells him go for me and then he went and he found that it was already meaning somebody went over to his and he told him and now the went he found the animal that he told his to and it was shak now he doesn't know for sure whether Shak did it because he [snorts] never reported back to him to tell him that he did his but he came and he saw everything was okay. So asked what's could eat from this animal or could he not yes what would be if he had a similar case where someone and he told it and then came and he saw that trumis had been taken and he doesn't know who was the one that was he told him you can't assume that it was done in the proper way says I don't understand if we assume if there's a if you tell someone to do something then this person's he takes care of it well then so why is it that if you toldum you now assume that the truma was good why because I don't know that the did it and as a result it's okay well if there's a then you should assume for sure he did it he had the authority to do it should be okay if you're going to tell me there's So let's play this out. So that means if you tell the to go ahead and be mus but you don't know for sure that he did it and now you see that it's you have no right to assume for sure it was done by the who else was it done by some stranger who didn't have the authority the power of attorney to do it which means it's not a real true which means you can't be on it. Well, if you are of the opinion that you don't say then so then why is it if you told your to go ahead and for you and then you came and you found it was you're allowed to eat it. Maybe your is not the one who did it and if that's the case maybe some strange guy did it. You don't know who that strange guy is. Maybe he's not proficient in the laws of maybe he's not included in the and if that's the case maybe you shouldn't be able to eat it. Seems like there's a steer in whether of the opinion that you don't say from his he says you want me to answer this question no problem but comes with an invoice. I'm not just doing it for free. He told him you go and you measure for me a cur of salt. He once spoke at a rabbi from Ruv Margolus who explains this gumar and similar such gumaras that you find that sometimes am were only willing to [snorts] explain something in the event that the person that wanted to hear was going to do some shirus. He was going to provide some sort of service for uh the person from whom he was trying to get this. But either way, very mysteriously tells him, I'll explain it to him. Okay. Apparently said, "No worries. I'll get back to you." And he goes, starts measuring a C of salt. He says, "Done." He told him, I'm of the opinion that if somebody sends a to do something, you can't automatically assume that this person went ahead and did it. [snorts] And it's for that reason as it relates to chum if somebody tells go ahead and be mafumas from it and you don't know whether the did or didn't but you see you're missing that's so you know somebody was mafa well you have no right to assume it was maybe it was someone who didn't have the authority to do it and as a result it wasn't matter all your what's the if that's the case why if you tell your to go ahead and sh for you eat from it maybe the didn't do Because as it relates to even if you're going to assume that somebody else went ahead and did it. So it doesn't matter if the did it or if another guy did it. Either way it's going to be okay. But by very wordy over there could be a different person heard who went and he was the one that was and if that's the case he's meaning he's aim that doesn't have the authority to be he's doing the owner of the so the bottom line is that told if you have a steer in what I said that. But when it comes to Truma, it's based on two important. However, if you think about it, two huge that come out of these eight lines of number one of the opinion of which has global ramifications which by the way related but we once spoke out from right whether we say or we don't say is dependent on whether we're dealing with and most seems to be of the opinion stating that it's a little bit more complicated when it comes to the but either way that's one grace that comes out of this and the second grace that comes out which is very much the we're learning and that is says the so we had already twice both in the same context where If somebody and we don't know who the is we don't know if he's a gummer if he's a not we don't know anything about him we assume that and as a result from a perspective you could assume imagine all you see is a that's all you see but you could assume that the was a proper for sure but again every is technically a little bit of aesh. The bottom line is says the it would seem at first glance that this is somebody lost his goats. Somebody lost his chickens, right? Goats and chickens have a mind of their own. So you could see how they would get lost and he was searching and he did whatever he can to try to find them. Lo and behold, he found them. That's the good news. The bad news is they were somebody had slaughtered them. [snorts] So the question is could he eat them at the very least or not? matter. So the great Tuda says you're not let to eat it and who was the son of the very famously he says no you're allowed to eat it so whether you'd be allowed to eat the and that you found or not now clearly you don't know who right they were lost you found them in a state of and we have a tan whether or not you could eat it or not eat says the rebi said that you know I heard this I thought about a little bit and I want to be he said I prefer the sheet of in the event that we're the of the found his animals was inside the ashba and the reason is because if he found it in the ashba probably it was discarded probably because it wasn't avail so again you give it to the dogs you give it to the you throw it into the garbage so if you found it in the garbage it's mabber that it's probably in a so Who's in that situation? But if you found it in a regular domesticated place well in a situation like that, I would think to the contrary in that case I would think it's M. So the bottom line is we have with the case is talking about where somebody lost his he lost his he found them and they were the question is he doesn't know who did it. So is it okay? Is it not okay? Now came he was ashi and he said that I think if you find it in the there's a problem and if you find it in the but let's go to the original between and what are they arguing about meaning what is that if you found this or this girl and it was you have no idea it sounds like says don't touch it and it sounds like says You could assume that everything is okay says the iss that this is what the over here would be. said I will tell you that everybody holds like and like the said twice in today's d and already a few times in previous everybody holds and in the event that the gi or the was found in a house called the everybody would hold this m because what's the shil who It is by the way continued and said it's part to me that if you would find it in the in the everybody would hold like said if you found it in the we revisit how with saying but for now the for sure if you found it in the everybody would agree it's a problem because why would you throw a good piece of meat into the ash ple what was the If it was found in the garbage that's in the bias holds that people will sometimes take an avail. throwing it to the to the extent that you found it in there's a looks a little bit like this isn't a veil and as a result it's going to be a person would never take his veil and throw because it smells so you'd always throw into the in the not in the and if that's the case it's if you find it in the or if you find in the bay you're always going to assume assume that it's not in a very you don't know who did but the bottom line is said even though if you want to look at it in very broad strokes it would appear that oh they're arguing whether or not it's not I'll tell you everybody holds which is the you want to know what they're arguing about they're arguing about where it was found in the hel that a person will take his law and throw it into the and if that's the case that's in the fact that this is kosher hence it's for that reason it's going to be the son of then no a person wouldn't do that and therefore being that and if you find it in the bias it's going to be okay if you find it in the bias it's going to be okay as well is not because everybody In fact, if it was found in the bias per se, everybody holds it's going to be okay. He added to that if it's found in the everyone holds it's for sure not okay. Why does he need that? Because that ties in to what is the is where it's found in the do we say it's like the bias where everyone holds it's okay. Or do we say it's like the where everyone holds it's not okay there is where it's bias right this is an oxymoron and the question is do we treat it like ash or do we treat it like bias so this is a a nice novel in the it's also a on the suggestion that could be whether or not we say or not but the says that it's not so poshet this beer from the reason is because there was a third Tana that was mentioned as Rebi Rebi seemed to address a little bit what is talking about. So now is going to see how could we make sense of what Rebi said in light of the parameters of this that was just laid out by Dr. Rebi said in the I'm going to be ash what ashah was rebi referring to mean that's what we thought when we read the price in real time well you just said you meaning to everybody holds it's if that's the every if you found it in as if there's a but I prefer the opinion of he just told me if it was found in everybody agrees then it's going to be right sometimes says we like speaking this out and sometimes says there's no other way to learn you have to say that what Reb is referring to is and there there is a between that is where there arguing. So when he says he means very very but the problem is said the words of in the off that it was found in the bias my bias what bias is referring to does he mean literally the bias you said again who's you that in that case everybody's going to hold the sheep It has to be. What did he mean when he said? Well, if that's the case, just said I hold and I hold like and if that's the case, I have a between these two. In other words, I don't even know cup is feast. I have no idea how to make sense of what is saying. I can't even read the words. So the says in light of you have to say that this is what Rebi meant to say. He meant to say I hold of the of Yehuda as opposed to the as it relates to a case of you know why not because I like that's my no that's not why because even was only where it was found. But if it was found, he would be and then he continued in the event that it was found. And the reason is because he was only was in the bottom line is you'd have to do a little bit of a reconstructive surgery in order to make work in the but at the end of the day according to the between is not whether because everybody holds what they're arguing about is a very specific case where it's found in the here Do we treat as the or do we treat like the bias is bias? So which one do we treat like it sounds like they're arguing arguing and if he means in both cases then he's just contradicting himself. It doesn't make any sense. I like and I like right here he said first there he said first bias but it's all the same thing. How would you make sense of it says you'd have to do a little bit of a a little bit of an edit and you would have to say that Rebi was not being rebi was explaining that's really all he was doing he was explaining the he was saying that you know you have a over here you have this open you might think that is something broad what might you think it is probably whether or not is addressing what was saying that's goof what he's coming to say but and what he's saying is that no everybody agrees everybody agrees but bias this is a very specific nuance is how would we treat the bottom line is to understand and is whereas something that's the it's not really Either way, moving along, we return back to the Mishna. So, the Mishna said, and then the Mishna said, why says the Gar. So, and the reason is because we're concerned that they may be asks a very very subtle question. It doesn't say we're concerned maybe they were maybe they're going to be that's a problem. Why? So Rashi [snorts] explains that if you go back to the you might recall that the first words of the seem to suggest whoever is included in is only right then the said immediately follows the words which is discussing which suggests that who are excluded from are excluded not only from but even from which means even it's not okay. So really what you just said you just said can't even now you also said they can't but what's the bigger that they can't not only can't they also can't [laughter] mean they can't sh when the now says It's explaining what it just said, which is that if they even is not going to be okay. Well, if that's the case in grammar, what the Mishna should have said, you know why it's not okay with the because maybe they were what does it say? That's if you're discussing is the appropriate way to say it. But if we're discussing which we are cuz this immediately follows the words of very subtle what's going on over here you're saying good say better you should have said that maybe they were in it for that reason oh my said there's a we have to prove from here and that is it okay to go to give and go ahead and watch as you could have thought yeah now why would you think yeah like where would that even come from that's the next line of the mish continues and says so as much as it's true but at the same time so maybe I should be able to go to and do it it's for that reason we said the lashian not because the lashian is the most appropriate way of saying it grammatically clap what we're saying relative to what we had previously said but it's the more appropriate language as it relates to what we're saying what we're about to say because we're about to say and here you would had maybe I could go by the way says and you should go ahead and you should uh be able to allow him to do it as long as you're watching and you're inspecting and you're supervising everything that's going on. That's why we said is always where's it's more appropriate. That's a big if nobody was watching. I'm telling you a big that if somebody's watching then you should not go ahead and give it to him. That's why we said so the reason we said the is so that you should we're always concerned the person might be so that even if you're going to want to go and appoint and assume oh now it's going to be okay this is only something that works when it's never going to work Right. Certainly if it's not that's why we said the that's why we didn't say the rash over here is one that is if you remember in the beginning of the when we went through the six different in every one of the six at the end of its discussion it circled back to the end of the Mishna the said, "Right, what exactly is Vakulan going on?" And according to many of the according to Robin, Raashi, you couldn't make the work. You couldn't make the work. It's referring to the It's referring to the to right back the beginning of the par. But the bottom line is the was not referring back to the now this presupposes that is referring to the rash according to the in the beginning of the par that that's what it's referring to. It's good. But if you hold that is not even referring to the going back to the right what was the deal because should have said not well if that's the case how do you understand this says it's from the fact that this is a and we know all the that we had in the beginning of the which was not so long ago even according to the was referring back to the beginning of the it means that it's also referring back to the beginning of the but for sure is true for meaning at the end of the is and that's why you need to say to know that it's only but it's not going to be because if you're going to tell me that is not referring to in the beginning of the then according to you of the and it sounds like this is of the is true according to all must be that according to all is referring to the I the had a problem with that only had a problem with it only referring to the it must be maybe it's also referring to it was mentioned in the beginning of the buton says right here that you see from that hold that if this rash sounds familiar to spoke out this it was a rashy we don't have a few days on the days. But already spoke it out and when he spoke it out, you know where he was from? Read the inside says over here. But either way, it's based on this. You have to say that it's referring to this as who is the T that holds that does not require sounds like that means that you don't have to have to. So we know are limited in terms of the level of that they're able to have. We'll see this very much in the beginning of tomorrow's just starting the but that's clear that are considered if includes again well that means doesn't require who's the holds that doesn't require who is the youngest of he said if somebody took a knife and he threw it into a kisel. So, he's doing uh target practice. I don't know. But he takes a second and he's throwing it trying to get the bullseye the and lo and behold, it got a animal and it checked [laughter] it perfect. That's impressive. But the bottom line is this guy's a sniper. He was able to do from long range says it's kosher and the say it's fossil. Now clearly Ramnas is of the opinion that you don't have to have in order to do because this person is uh right he's practicing uh this is target practice he's not practicing he's not doing like they hold no you have to have so you want to know who is the forget about whether he knows how to do doesn't know how to do what about the oh vice you don't have to have it must It must be the says I'm sorry. Continuing that you should know the which is good by the way is like the it's going to be okay has one technical issue not on our not on but on that price of right one of the of is you have to be a I mean this person can have bullseye range but at the same time he threw it and he was so says yeah you have to be a little creative in your imagination what happened was he threw to it and then it hit some uh wall ricocheted off. Boom. Nailed him back. He got the Mik on the way there. He got the maybe on the rebound. The bottom line is that's how he was able to make it work. And we are going to stop here. So as it relates to raid surprisingly not such long laugh. So yesterday we learned which is the discusses the and what emerged from the gar to do a very very brief recap is the primary is the para from all He says additionally we saw that clearly was not accepting that as being a and according to the way that understands the then would be so really I think the takeaway if you learn is there's two potential to it's the is Then there's a that says according to what about that's easy it says in the question is what about the so if you learn the gum without it sounds like there were 10 potential to the either it's learned out from the of the carbon the carbon the of specifically because who said on someone that that person is and who had the last word that in of itself would be the Mar. But we saw but we saw that rashi based on the way the gum comes out said that that is only a or those are only in the plot room because we have 10 of them to the extent that it's but you see from any one of these cases that you could go bust what then would be the sash had two suggestions either it's learned out from or it's learned out from and just like teaches me is it also teaches me and even though the held but you have to say after further review we have no other option and therefore that's going to be the another possible mar we saw was suggested that could be once I know that you go bus I know that you're going to go bus well based on wasful in this a little bit but the bottom line is if you do aum in terms of all the possible that you would have you would have number one there's the 10 and then you have and it could be from so again two mus that emerge just from learning on a very superficial level as it relates to and four categories of as it relates to the 10 musk is between the and finally from in other words it's also learned out from the emmesis you know in terms of what direction we go now the inim of and are literally from anyone that's ever spent a little bit of time in yeshiva knows that so Much of certainly the blat that I learned in medish revolve around these ideas he shared with me yesterday two places where talked about the suga of one is in his that he wrote on unbeknownst to many because it hasn't been printed in many many decades wrote a pish on. So writes as follows. Quote, I'm not so comfortable handling sugis of Kazakus and makes us all feel a little better by the way. But I'm not so comfortable dealing with these because they require when we're going to learn This is what wrote. He said to sit down and to be able to go through this Indian a little bit because this is an Indian that's so so hard. Now this wrote in the year when the was but this was while he was in his prime years in [snorts] the bal and this was written of these are the last months of the life of the wasif And this is of he says, quote, so he says, I'm I'll be honest with you. I'm very lost in the not a spec all the puns. So that's for sure. That's not something I'm obligated to do. But again, just to bring out from the base of the way he viewed the Indian of who was honestly but this was augi that he felt was very very overwhelming. So again, it gives us a little bit of an idea of what we're learning and what we're discussing here. But just to speak out with that [snorts] one tiny bit of and that is the the also known as the kavistas unbeknownst to many wrote a safer called now the safer is benims. It's from the great [ __ ] onish and on different the part that's unbeknownst is that there's a bay of that's very much not and the bay there's different there's also several chu in sim again that's from the lost chu from the nivas the nivas wrote a letter to the great goyan and in his letter toker in the middle of the he says I had a that always bothered me discusses what's so let's think of the sug if somebody loses in a va and he delivers a sim obviously he can claim that veda based on the sim there's also concept doesn't require a sim because a has a so even if I don't have a sim per se I can't say three cm from the left corner you're going to see this and that but he has a no this looks like mine so has an has either way the in the end of is discussing versus with regards to different not per se regards to different areas of and the is trying to figure out what's bigger and what's better says I'll prove to you that is from a counterintuitively also betray if two would come and they would say I saw ruining kill shim how do you know it was ruing that killed shim I mean shim we found dead on the side of the road but how do you know it was Ruv that killed Shimon because I have diss Simmon that Simmon the person that did it had a certain scar. He was wearing a certain bag. Bez would not kill Ruvane based on the fact that two Adam said that someone with the sim that Ruain has is why because maybe there's somebody else that has the identical sim said but what would be if two walk in and they say I saw Ruven. You know I know cuz I know Ruv I know it's Ruil. We would go ahead and kill him. So says the gamari you see for me that is all from sim because if you don't have a and ruin all you have is a sim that ruin shares you wouldn't kill ru but if you have a already you look I see in this that you can't kill a person based on yeah and this is from the end of the third time that we're referring to here in the beginning of But the discusses what would be if a man went he left his wife back as an one day an aid or two Adam come and they say we saw your husband dead. How do we know your husband died? Because uh we notice this and this simmon on the person that was dead and we know your husband had this simmon. So based on the sim must be it's your husband. Tal is she's allowed to get married. That's why one of the of the because based on is this woman would be allowed to get married. What would be if this woman would now go and get married to somebody else and then she would be she'd be great. Why is she How do you know that she's because she married this guy? How do you know that marriage was kadas of Israel? What do you mean? She was a woman that was not married who accepted a kaducian under the kba. So why would you assume she's not married? What do you mean? Maybe she was married to the previous guy. Maybe her husband is living on the other side of the world. Maybe he's really alive. What do you mean? And aiden came and they saw him dead. They saw him dead. Tell me more information. They saw a simmon. Are you relying on a sim? That means you're using a sim essentially to go ahead and to now kill a person that you can't kill a person based on a sim. It's not true. You could kill a person based on a sim because in the event that a woman got married based on isa and she got was dead second husband THAT IS WE WOULD KILL HER EVEN though we only know she's married based on a sim because to the extent that we can't be then that whether or not she was misan now we have to assume maybe the husband was alive if the husband was alive then that means the original kadusha wasn't a kusha now you're going to tell me she Mana now, right? Either she was misne or she was miserian. That's not true. Maybe the husband died since that was 10 years ago. How do you know? Maybe he's not alive. So, what do you see from here? We say that when she got married the first time or to this second person for sure that marriage was a marriage. Why? because therefore when she's we look at her as a regular first husband the second husband even though all we have is but the bottom line is what do you see from here you could use says that she said is better than you can use that you can use this is It always bothered me this kasha. It always bothered me. I never understood. He says why not? He said because why is it that sim? What's the simmon? Why is it that sim says to me that works me didn't ri? It's because if you know this person has a simmon and you know most people in the world don't have the simmon and now all of a sudden you see a man dead on the side of the road and that person has that simmon. So we could assume that it's probably this person because being that roy people don't have the sim and now all of a sudden you found someone with a matching sim. So this is probably who it is. But if you think about the says the what you're going to arrive at is that it's working with the concept of if that's the case it's flaw. So the was apparently related to and he says to do what wrote and this is one of the most famous ever it's in the end of the first and we've spoken about this many times over the years ask everybody knows that and we ask if that's the case break he says I don't understand is that if someone is or shame according to he has to pay right who gets the father gets the right he's the one that's entitled to theas how could it be that you would ever take money from somebody and force him to give how do you know that naira is really the father of the naira the ter on the base. It's based on the fact that how could there ever be a parish that if somebody goes and he hits he has to pay right if a is a and somebody would go ahead and he would hit the tra wouldn't be to pay just like if someone kills a person that's a tra he's not if someone's You shouldn't have to be. So why do I have to pay? Maybe the animal is uh tra the terret is animals are not but over here you're forcing a person to make a financial payment to swipe a credit card based on a what happened to he said if someone's a and then he's watching a and the was stolen maybe the animal that the was watching was a trafer and if it was a tra there's no way the sham is going to be >> [laughter] >> you're going to go bust and goes and he asks after all in this vein and that is it's true but that's only if the is only being so if I have right now a question do I owe you money or do you maybe owe me money right so if it's a sh of can't be but IF I HAVE A BIG picture over here that I'm trying to figure out that is nothing to do with money. Listen, everything is money related, right? But a sh that's not money related and now all of a sudden there's a to be once is the big picture you can use the as it relates to the mus as well meaning once is to use the lotion now it's that we have this and once I have the now I'm allowed to go ahead and I'm allowed to carry it forward now I'm allowed to use it this is the tru It has to be this way. There's no other way to understand. Unless if that's the case, I never understood that you can't use as relates. If that's the case, what would be the woman went ahead and she got married. She was giving her Mrs. Bzin. Why you giving her Mrs. as in maybe when she got married her husband was still alive which means was never really typhus could be that first husband is not alive either anymore at this point she's a that was she's not the only thing you're hinging the fact that she's that was but you can't use as relates to this MUCH WITH THIS IS SO POS IT'S THE FLAW THAT'S the is when I need Simonas is this guy the or is he not the can you use but over here the pasu that's what the pasking and what's that at that point just like but that this animal's not a trains this is the father so once I know it's the father all the other so good then it could work for you're going to have to give it but the point is it's so posh that's what was bothering he said this always bothered me I think you have to say this is what we're getting at here's the punch line and that is it could be this proved his that once works for the big picture then you can apply it even to things that ordinarily can't be applied towards. That's only true if you have a roy that's not being contradicted by a kazak. But when you have a and connected that there's a over there over there, you can't say the of the when the is not going up against that is a better and that we say establishes the mits. And therefore if you want to apply it even to something that doesn't work for such as M in the cases of the that's something you'd be allowed to do with the is going up even though but at the same time is what is able to do and that in that situation that in that situation the is that even though the works, but you would not be able to say, "Oh, the established this as the mitsas, and you now have a right to go and allocate this and work with it and to anything that you want to that you want to." All the cases of the were cases where there's no there's no there's no that this animal is a tra I don't know I have a is not going to it has the right to pin once a pas it's the father once a boskins that the animal is not a tra I can apply it to even though like however when it comes to the case in your vis. True there are simony and simony works with again is not how you understand that sim works with this is a side point but that simony works with the concept of but this is going which is this going this is going the woman was an ases cuz last we know she had a husband who went on a business trip he just never showed up so being that she's so You don't have the YOU DON'T HAVE THE AND THAT'S WHY said how do you have a right to go ahead and use at the end of the day the sim to give this woman when she's going to tell me oh because once the sim and the paskin that she's mutterously I'll say that would have been good if the is not going to like in all the cases of the but being that over here the was going to kazo over here it's it's going to be different if you go through in the words that he uses is that when the is not going up so all I have is a so then the is that this is the way it is when the is going up the is I don't have that same level of I'm still and it's for that reason mikl it's going to be a little bit weaker now whether makes doesn't make that of course is the rush and the tuk in again it's very easy to get lost every time you learn the of of so it's very to have recourse and focus every time we go through these it's always but it's even more when you learn something that already prefaced is is something that is requires but the bottom line is this is what the told and he holds said the is the is the way you understand it's not the toasha but it's in terms of why had a cash and was forced to go ahead and say a but I think it's posit that we could be one to this just said that there's a between a that's not going up and a that is going up and even though but it's not the same a that's not going up against that doesn't have that his nagdus That's then that's going up. If you hold that the way works, specifically Kazak is that it's a beer like we spoke about in yesterday's share. Well, then I understand why it would make sense that there's a between a that's not going that's going up. [laughter] A RE that's going up KGA nothing. So the only bearer I have is the but if the re is going up against as much as I have the bearer of the I also have the beer of the no. BUT let's be HONEST THE FOR SURE TAKES AWAY a lot of the oomph. It steals some of the thunder of the and as a RESULT YOU CAN'T EQUATE a that's not going up to a that's going up. [laughter] But if you're going to tell me that doesn't WORK LIKE WE SPOKE yesterday from the B like we said over if you're going to tell me that is not a what is that I don't know what to do you just leave it ON THE SO HOW IS THE IS NOT I LIKE to have one bearer I have the BEER OF I OKAY IF THERE WAS NO RY, YOU WOULD HAVE SAID if a So now my beer of Ry is going up against another beer. So at THE VERY LEAST THAT OTHER BEER IS MLISH, IT IT TAKES AWAY A LITTLE BIT. IT'S NOT a shut out because there's someone else that has a voice over here that also has something to bring to the table that also wants to say that, you know, maybe I'm right. So even though Roy is better, you're right, Roy is but it eekes out a victory at the end of the day. There's something to be said about the fact that there is another side to the story. And if that's the case, even though it's not and over here, you can't say the grace said in the end of the first. If you're going to tell me that doesn't anything, IT DOESN'T ADD ANY BEER. ALL is is that so how in the world would THE BE IF IT'S A bearer it's but if it's not a bearer it's not going to be I think it's posit that this whole that wrote to it's in this rate if you hold is a bearer then it's why would be a between a that's not going versus a that is going even but if you hold that is if the is going to if it's not going to there's no beer on the other side to be I think it's what's yesterday we mentioned that asks the and then the says So what I know let's go from that is not a bearer but all is is SOASHA because how could I learn which is a m from that's not a m if they're the same thing it's and I couldn't learn one from the other It's true. But it's not because they're the same. This is better. It's because THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I can't learn from the fact that when I don't know what to do, just leave it at the status quo THAT THERE'S SOMETHING CALLED that's soar. But if not, you can't say that. And that's the even though he doesn't go but at the same time he does go based on the has no under the terrorist TWO SEPARATE TRACKS IN THE BEAR of he holds it's not enough of a bear but when I don't know what to do he does agree to yesterday's raid is one of two things. Either holds that and are both beers or are both not bearers that both the latter of the two is the pus is that is that and are both beers. If is that and are both beers that means inb is not then there would be enough between a that's not going to kazo and a that is going to kaz when it's not going to all I have is the p of but when it's going kazok I have these two burim that are going up against each other and even though ruba but at the end of the day it's not guaranteed it's not a lock and as a result I have It's not in the words of the in the end of the first. But here's the point. The point is this was all said in what? This was all said in what is saying to be right there's no to what the is saying but the wasn't saying what he was saying in a vacuum. said what he said to explain and it's he doesn't hold the rebel this well if that's the case that told and we will stop Yeah.