Chulin 15

Today's is and we are three lines from the top ofash today's being learned as so we're in the middle of a Mishna on the top of said if Even though he's for what it is he did. If someone's if somebody is stating that says the Mishna said that although the Mishna says but at the same time on Shabas itself the food is going to be awesome. We mentioned that Rashi speaks out based on a kumar that we're going to learn today that the duk that Rav saw in the Mishna that was in his mind stating that was the fact that the Mishna equates and because that's not let it eat from what he did on there's a mitzvah. being that it's going to be also has to be either way. This was what Rav said. Mark continued and said yes all said that when Rav suggested which he very much saw in the it was going in accordance with as if to say not everybody would agree it's which would then mean that the is in an implied way saying that even is really going according to and then the Gmorra asked the grace a question which yesterday we saw four failed attempts in terms of trying to in sh to the suga that we're learning now most of the attempts three of them if you're keeping score were related to rahuda's of mtzah and you could see where mukta would maybe play a role because the Definition of muks is that anything that shabas on some [snorts] level you were mata from yodas you had cast away and in your mind you weren't going to use over the course of shabas he now let it use on chabas well a live animal what are you going to do with it on chabas so right out of the gate without even thinking too much you can very much intuitively see where this would intersect with mkt and being that the mah so for sure but at the Same time the Gumar went through the exercise in a more nuanced way and that is which specific it isn't even the MT did the mean when they said that our mission is going to now the first that they was that if an animal dies on shabis you not let it feed it to the dogs and the reason is because before it was and now all of a sudden you want to use it for something other than it wasn't and therefore it's not going to be okay. So the thought in the same vein a live animal is not so that even if aita somehow happened but at the same time it wouldn't be okay was that the second that the is that if a kay breaks on chabas the only time you're allowed to use it on chabas is if it can still be used but if you can use it it has a but not the same that it had shabas it's not going to be okay and theor saw from here that has that even if something is m but to the extent it requires a tick that makes it so that if that happened on based on the laws of you wouldn't be able to use it a live animal even if you want to view it as being but it requires a tick it requires it requires and as a result would be the was that as well the third suggestion that the garra said was that if you have and comes out from it by itself is you're not allowed to drink the because we're afraid that you may go and do on which are things that are usually. In the same vein, if you have an animal that somehow on its own, not literally, but proverbally speaking on its own became kosher, maybe it shouldn't be allowed to eat the meat, not but the Gmorra rejected that as well. And finally the Gmorra said that maybe the meant was that something that's maser is considered and being that a live animal is something that on chabas is quote unquote. So based on that muter would be the reason that this would maybe be an issue. The Gamarra rejected that as well and as a result we're up to the fifth and in our case final in the Garra and not shockingly who is the that gives us this last says the soi says you want to know which we're referring to it's in the bishel and as we're about to see right now this of raashi is a very very direct hit as far as sush go. Meaning as much as we thought for sure the rabbi was going to be mutzah because from a high level made a lot of sense this is for sure where we're going with this right but the truth is there's a better than the and that is a final says the so what's this about the it's a notice in this everyan was a and every was aan above my pay but either way says the gammor we learned in a mashab If somebody cooks on shabas, that's a bad thing. He just violated one of the 39. So the price says as follows, if he did, he's allowed to eat from the food on Shabas itself. However, if he did a then the is not allowed to eat it on chabas, he's allowed to eat it on Shabas. And Rashi says even then you have to wait the share of which means you would have to wait the amount of time that it would take to do this bish after Shabas and only then would you about allowed to eat it after Shabas and the reason is because if you're going to eat it right after Shabas you're benefiting from they did on Shabas now it's not okay says if somebody's it depends on whether you did or said if you did perfect I mean not perfect very imperfect but we just added a dish to the menu on Shabas this afternoon. If however you did it then on it but if you want to have it that's already something that you're allowed to do as long as you do which means you can't do it right after Shabas said if you did so then you would be allowed to eat mean you can't eat it on Shabas even if you did a if you did a mean you're never going to be allowed to eat it agrees there's a distinction between However, it's a little different than the way Rome has it. According to even you're not eat only if he did it whereas said you could eat it on never going to be allowed to eat is a third and more stringent he says like you yourself if you're the one who did it even if you did a gig you are not eating from this evenab So would be able to but you yourself would not be able to let it ever and not anybody else. So let's get these threeas clear because it is going to escort us through the first half of today's dash. We're discussing someone that cooked on chabas. Our mission to discuss somebody that she did on chabas not to be confused. We're discussing somebody that cooked on Shabas says the with threeas amongst the what the is in terms of you let this food you're not let this food between the threeas are everybody agrees between the question is what is the says itself says you could only eat it you can never eat itler says you can eat it but not you only meaning you yourself can never eat it and as it relates to nobody is going to be allowed to eat it but what we need is right we're hunting for said that if someone's so what's Let's focus on hold that if someone's what does that mean? It's a that means on Shabas itself he wouldn't be allowed to eat it. Oh, that must be what the meant when they said that. Oh, it's probably talking about we was done. We is regarding it's here too. It's also going to be now this is a little bit tricky. It's extra credit but it's so we need to speak it out and that is that at this point in the gum when the garra is saying the gar is really making an is talking about and it's not talking about mid why [snorts] so you'll tell me because which means that it's at least mut at night and according to if you did it mid it's it's never going to be mut that in and of itself is not such a dick The reason that in itself is not such a because where do we know we know it from the position to meaning all you need really in order for it to be for it to be today the fact that it's also tomorrow I don't know if the kipper really cares about that but where the gur is going to subtly say it in the course of the gum is you know it from from the fact that the Mishna says That means you're allowed to eat it. Doesn't just mean it's not doesn't just mean you should know. It also means so if the Mishna is telling me that it's can't be talking about inud's world where you did amazed because to the extent that you did amazed you'd never be allowed to eat it. So then the Mishna is talking about what you did at Bashig and then it's really that's what the case is being. So what's regarding which essentially means good you're allowed to eat it but at the same time today it's going to be or when you is going to do a little bit of work over here why do you have to make an that is going according to and we just said what's the case it's talking about where you were why can't you say that the is talking about where you may and it's going to what mayor hold if someone's you could eat it right away but if you do aid then the is it's so you're making that the mission is talking about where it was why don't you just make an ali and say it's talking about what you did at not because if it's not there it's not going to be but anyway's making anime in you're telling me that it's why is it because if it's not so you're making an inud by telling me that it's so like ra by the way and you'll tell me that it's talking about the can't say that because at the end of the day the says that similar just like if someone it's going to be that day whether you did so when it comes to it has to be has to be not okay so to make an akint in the Mishna that the Mishna is talking out and it but if you you're going to be allowed to eat it that has an issue with because then it's not going to be but in the reverse this is the tricky part you're going to make that the Mishna is talking about where you not where that's going to be fine because at the very least at the end of the day whether you were or whether you It's going to be only it's always going to be no thinks that the beyond the boundaries of what the Mishna specifically is talking about teaches me that just like has to be the same thing and being that according to mayor you're allowed to eat it during that day would be the same thing and as a result this mission can't be going but continues and the says okay so you're telling me the mission is going we're talking about could you really say that that's what's going on over here in this if it's talking about right so you're not so this is what the means being that this is such a that had it been I'm amazed. You would have been so I would have thought that maybe no at the end of the day here you only did a you only did by the way if you did you like we said it's not going to be the same thing but has another why can't we He said it doesn't matter if it happened either way the is that it's going to be okay. So it's something that you're not let you're not let it. Now, if that's the case, let's make that. That's easy why it doesn't work in light of what we just mentioned. Because even though he has a but where does he have the he has it where it was done, right? And it's where you're not going to be able to eat it by day, but at night already you are going to be able to eat it. And that really if you're holding would be the way we would be able to apply right again now is let it be. How could it be? According to Rabandler, the [snorts] is that as it relates to it's always going to be it's never going to be right. So where's no we did it here? It's and that's what the is going to be. So really what you want is that this should be and when the Mishna says being that it's true. So and that theor says doesn't work and the reason is because again according to there's between it's only true but from the where it says it sounds like that is going to be for everybody and that's not true according to because it's only it's for that reason there is no way to be able to make this work. So again the said and that it's at the very least it's going to in the fifth attempt which is where is you can eat it our Mishna will be talking about where the person And when it says means had you done it, [laughter] but it's talking about what you did at but at the same time you're not allowed to eat it until hence it's going to be why can't it be and be talking about where you is that if you do a it's exactly like a coin if you So just be like the reason is because according to and the Mishna seems to suggest that in all cases if someone is going to be on that day why can't it be going according to according toler if someone is exactly the way we were is at night. Let's be the same exact way we were. But instead of being true for everybody, it'll only be true for why [laughter] did it have to be why couldn't it be like the answer is because the part of the suggests that it's for everybody and if suggests that it's for everybody it has to be even it's not the only one that it can work with is and that's why that's why they said that inash's world was the perfect you have a Mishna that talks about whe [snorts] you have a bra that describes him whether this is obviously the comparable which one of the three shittas can we make this work with only one of the three shittas and the only one of those three shittas is Rabuto now from a super high level we could have really made it work with everybody but there were certain parameters that we were working within and if you follow the guidelines lines that you're given. Well, then the only shittita that this was able to work with was the Rabuda. What were the guidelines? Number one, there's no question in the world that the town of the Mishna holds that if someone doesn't matter if it's one guideline and the other guideline is that it's that for sure without a question in the world that if somebody whatever the case is it's going to be mut at some point well it doesn't have to be mut that day it's user that day raet but at [laughter] the very least at some point it's going to have to be mut so when you take those two parameters into account. Then by process of elimination, we eliminate being the T of the Mishna. We eliminate being the T of the Mishna. Hence the either way. So the Gmorra now is going to continue on this theme. We've clarified who the T of the Mishn is, but the Gmorra is going to bring a discussion regarding Bashabis and Bashabas. And as we'll see, it's going to force us to revisit a little bit. There was a that was in the presence of Rav and he said over the following sounds familiar. Those are the words of this is the first of the threeas of the of either way. So Rav hears this and Rav told him to be quiet. So in the last mak we made a big deal about the fact that Rav is always shik right is the shaskin and over here ra is not just being aik but ra was he made other people be quiet ra told him don't say another word so says why did rav force this person to be quiet is it because doesn't hold like is it because holds like he holds Is that the reason? But the says that's not fear just because holds like that's not a reason to be mashik someone that holds a gram, right? Mashik means don't say this again. We're allowed to respectfully disagree. Mashik is disrespectfully [snorts] disagreeing. Is it even true that meaning like used to teach the he would teach them like but when he would give him so then because of the he didn't want to issue any lenencies right in this so therefore he would go and he would da be a little bit more but what do you From here you see that Rav holds like so why in the world would he bear says tell me okay maybe he told it to you see that when Rav was he was with the then he was very very sensitive to the way he said it because it's there and he didn't want them to take it the wrong way. Okay. So maybe that's when this misa happened and there was somebody burk and there was someone who was eavesdropping on the conversation that's not supposed to hear and that's why he's being that's not the way the gatherings theas used to go. The way it used to go is is there were a bunch of you know learned people and they would talk amongst themselves but ultimately the people that came to partake they would listen to the mager the amay he was like a speaker he was a murman the bottom line is if someone comes to Rav and he's telling him something no one is listening to it it's being done privately and even if it's in a public area it's still being done privately and being that Rav held like gramor privately So it doesn't make sense. Why would he be mashed the clay? So again doesn't understand why you'll tell me because he holds number one that's not a reason to be mashed. Number two may and this was so if that's the case why would it be says let me tell you the rest of the story this what he had told Rav was not but what he had said was what did he tell him he told him it with regards on. So Rav turns to the Tano and he tells him, "Oh, in other words, what you're doing is you're telling it makes a lot of sense to say is the same way. You want to know when Ram mayor said that it's okay in the event somebody was to eat it on Chabas. That's of the and the reason is because the food that was cooked was at the very least able to be chewed or eaten on some level raw being that it was back to comes that there is no issue. What's the issue? It's going to be okay when it comes to where it was. Why? Because it's a and it's something that's awesome etc etc. So over there it's not going to be the case. So in other words, what Rab was telling the Tana, I have no problem with number one, I have no problem with it because why have a problem with it's besides I happen to hate like what I don't like is is that you're taking as if to say that when it comes to it's going to be the the same way Ra never said it by Rome said it dro by Bishop but he did not say it when it comes to freight Well, if that's the case, let's go back to our and that's why we're bringing this now the names matter said it's also that dayam say it's going according to but according to ram which ra that says that sorry it's going to be because you're going to be able to eat it that day. But Tinus the Gimar Why did why did the Gim have to say that it's going if you're telling me now that even Ra mayor who holds why? Because at the end of the day otherwise there's going to be a problem. Okay. So let's just be mim let's let's just be the Mishna. where there's a problem and it's aua the ram and if that's the case why did the say that the time of the mishna must be why couldn't it also be ra and again the kasha is ra himself it's the [laughter] ra and they're saying that when rav said he must HAVE MET OF WE HAVE a miser pun intended we ra him himself self said that is only true is not true because when it comes to why not because of the of but simply because but at the end of the day then can very much work just like it can work and if that's the case if that's the case why do you have to be Rome. By the way, the Mishna would be even better if it was. Why would it be better? Because then the could be talking about according to the Mishna had to be talking about because it said which because it said sounds like we're talking about where it was or at the very least also. And now you tell me it's also told only but mayor it's going to be very good because which means which means is the same thing. You can't eat it that day. You anyways can't eat it that day. But in both cases, you'd be able to eat it by night. But either way, why then would you have to be said? I'm telling you, the meant he meant could have meant according to ram as well. answers when would be and what was the reason that said that it has to be going because there is a time that it's going to be it's talking about where there was in the case where there was a this house had in it that means when shabas came at that point there was not going to be a m issue because for you you're allowed to any that you want to do. So being that at that point we knew already that there wasn't going to be a issue. So in that situation it would be it would only be us and that's why they made the that it's going according to if we were talking about a situation where there was no there'd be no reason to say it's going according to but we want the to be talking about even when there's when there's there's a problem then stop then it's going to be awesome. if it's talking about where there's then what's the problem over here? If somebody goes ahead and someone you know if there's a right then you're even going for the so the says the was that's why it was never but now you're not because now he was hym and as a result that's why you're going to have this issue when the says that a precedent for this that when there's a that changes the equation I mean it seems obvious but has himself said if somebody is that is not allowed to eat it but if somebody cooks for then what's the difference because the situation of a you were able to eat it technically. So it wasn't. So what's the problem? You cooked being that you cooked for as opposed to when it comes to that was something that was not able to be eaten and as a result there's a problem being that there's a problem. Obviously you could do it for but for a it's not going to be okay. Papa said there are times that this is what we needed. In fact, there are times when cuts like and the vent you had a gourd and it was attached to the ground. It was going to be a problem. But what's the bottom line? The bottom line is that you see very clearly this distinction that when it comes to for or you also have to take the into consideration how do you take the into consideration was not so you see was there's a problem was that case there's no problem the reason it was is because the hel that the was talking about even when there's If there's then there's no problem. What is there? There's a problem. So, it's going to be and if the Mishna was talking about where there was no then you could have said that the is going to but the talking about where there is now asked a very obvious question. the bottom don't even know how to read this. Right? That's why we were struggling a little bit to read this gam but you almost can't read the I don't understand why can't you just be the Mishna that it's talking about where there was no and then they let it go according to when yes heard Rav say one thing and they all jumped together in unison they said oh the must have meant why it could very easily be we know for a fact that Rav holds that is not true No, because the mish is talking about where there was I mean that's a pretty dramatic and if there's then there's no and already said when there's there's no problem where there's a problem oh then it's going to be very good why would you make such an so what's the terret we can get this terret the terret is because what was the impetus to We said because that was the whole impetus over here. That has to be if somebody and is the now going to be that if you want to go ahead and eat it, you're going to be allowed to eat it. Of course not. You're never allowed to eat. Whoever's is allowed to eat, but nobody else is allowed to eat. which means that the that's for sure is going to be even if there's a that's going to be in all situations and if that's being how we have to tie that's it has to be true even when there's a even when there's no issue over here oft has to be true in all cases it's for that reason yesa said that must be what's going on again the were coming from the fact that was coming from the fact that there's a very subtle that that are one and the same and it's for that reason they understood that it must be in every single situation it doesn't matter if there was a there was not a in every single situation has to be just like it doesn't matter if there's a in the house not in the house the is but nobody else is therefore the only way this can work There's no way to make this work. Now this very last that brought the discussed a little bit as it relates to soar now is going to bring another opinion as it relates to this. So this is the if somebody for the bur is allowed to chew on the food it's okay my time but what's the reason being that it's impossible to have a boss without so when you're the fact that a bur is going to go ahead and he's going to have a little bit from it doesn't bother me but if somebody would go ahead and he would cook for in that instance it would be because you may be if somebody is for so it's one I'm going to more if someone else is going to eat from it so once you're allowed to as long as there's no a problem so in that instance right as long as you can circumvent that wants to eat it the bar is going to be allowed to eat when it comes to mash there's another thing you have to take into consideration you also have to take into consideration this concern that so that's another thing that needs to be. So really when someone if you do the little bit of the over here so what emerges really is is that there's three things that need to be taken into consideration. Number one, there was a that was done on chabas. Number two, there's a question that needs to be figured out. Additionally, there's like another thing that needs to be figured out. But regardless, this concludes this that really is a twoy over here in the said on its fifth attempt. Got it? And that is it's that holds There's no difference between a and between a hence that's what is going to be. How do you know? Because we equated to shabas. Could the not be? We thought, yeah. Could it not be? There was a possibility. The gamorra rejected it. really what emerged masa saga there was a real way to make ram work right number one you could have made ram work by be making the mission is talking about where happened in me but additionally you could have been making ra work where it's talking about we had a bash because raita is that if there's no in the house you're going to have a muk problem and by the way then it could be working bashik and it but we wanted that in every single situation even where there is a is going to be and the only way to have made that work amongst the three is by being moving along next part of today's which is going to go much quicker to if somebody with a hand sickle bit sore if somebody with a stone read It's going to be okay. Talk to Mishna. What do these three lines mean? The Gar is going to talk about [snorts] cuter. So this is not a hand sickle but a harvesting sickle. Ask your local farmer for the difference. Vig is a saw teeth is a nail. So all these things are not good. because if you're going to use it the animal, you're going to end up choking the animal, noting the animal. And we know that's not going to be okay. Mishna said it sounds like what the evidence is already I think the third time that we've had this says I understand why because we're afraid you may end up using it. So what does this even mean? So a sickle picture's worth a thousand words has two sides to it. One is smooth and the other one is serrated. If you use the smooth side, that's good. If you use the serrated side, that's not good. So, I understand why the Mishna would say that if someone is obviously with the good side cuz otherwise it's going to be a problem. But that it's only good because of we're afraid you may end up using the side that you're not supposed to use or but as it relates to stone or as it relates to a read. Is that true? I'll ask you a [snorts] right and it says so you see things you're allowed to use. I understand I also have no contradiction to it. But is only it's only I have a says and it mentions those two things. It mentions and it mentions the soar says when we say is talking about with or the was it was detached. When we say it's only that's where it's attached, where it's attached. It's much harder to operate. And as a result, then it's only going to be okay and says there's a precedent for this that if somebody or somebody it could be only this not statement. This is Rafana really saying over a Bryce if somebody shacks with says it's says it's going to be when said it's kosher he said kosher what does kosher sound like right again it sounds like it's not going to be okay the bottom line is that you see over here there's a who holds that when it comes to you're only Rebi holds that even it's possible. Okay. Obviously according to we can't make this work but according to there's an idea that you can't so our that says it's talking about where it was who holds that it's going to be how will we just And we said it's talking about what happened. Hello. Let me ask you a from another. So it doesn't matter if the knife is on top and the neck of the animals on bottom. Now this says we need the first part. Who is the T of this? It can't be can't be and the does the work for us if it's the we just said only holds the works but the and if it's going coin to the even doesn't work. So what's going on over here you know that price is going to because you said it sounds like it only works. The reason he said is to teach me to teach me the rebi holds it's a problem even says you want it's holds that it works even says one second holds it works. Let's revisit our mission now. Our says it works and not and we will the it's talking about where it's because otherwise it's you are allowed to use who is the t of our it's not and again the gar does the work if it's so how you going to make sense of our if holds it only works like it's mash from the words so our mission be going But if you're telling me because I have a that says that well then who's going to be the says really really it's meaning the not the says is going to the says which we were is talking about where it that's going according to and rebi is then going to hold that it's going to be okay but the says if that's the case we have a rebi I thought you just told me holds that even it's not okay how do you know holds it's not okay because the said only said for because according to based on The price that says we know it's called so why do you say you said it to make work that means holds that what holds that it doesn't work how could our says be talking about first and the second is that it doesn't work even says it's not When it comes to there's two types of there's something that was always [laughter] and then there's something that was and then you went ahead and you if it was that's when holds it's not even going to be good if it was something that was that's what the mission is talking about that's when it is going to be okay is there to make such a you're making up this no if shacks with a wheel is going to be that's what we need. If somebody shacks with going to be caution, not if somebody took a knife and he stuck it into the wall and he shacked with it. Let's say there was a stone that was protruding from the wall or there was a reed that was coming out of the grounded with it is going to be puzzled. What's the one bra said that if somebody then you tell me if there's a stone popping out of a wall or a cutter popping out of the ground is it's going to be puzzle. Why would it be puzzle? OBVIOUSLY IT'S BUT YOU JUST TOLD ME A SECOND ago must be you have this like either way what happened in this last is we had a discussion about if somebody [laughter] that's the that comes out of us and that is that there's an idea if somebody then depending on what type of it is it could be kosher but even then depending on whether you like only if somebody with something that was always that's huge problem if it was something that was not then it was attached so then already could be it won't be an issue is it's going to be is that in that case even it's going to be this felt a little bit confusing it was because we were juggling a Mishna and two bryes that all seem to [laughter] you know contradict each other. On the one hand where it was on the flip side which sounds like they're arguing it's going to be not like what we said in the it's going to be. We have another price says which sounds like it's actually going to be and by the way just for good measure at the end we had another price WHERE THE PRICE ITSELF contradicted itself and then we said what's the answer that's the answer but the bottom line is we are going to stop here so as as it relates to raid. Going back one more time to the raid of the last few days and specifically that we mentioned yesterday and that is the Mishna Simmon test says is going to be caution. Why is it so in that if the is going to be caution? We know there's a [ __ ] in sh that holds that assuma is and even though we don't like but there's aim that says that we do pass like and the say that we're like of that assum now that it means he's not in the laws of if that's the case he's If that's the case, just like the say that why is it that is because it says and only someone that's is able to but someone that the did not say you need to in order to be able to eat does is not someone that's allowed to And being that is not in the laws of so it's for that reason he is not well that's should also not be a bar and if he's not a barger then we should have to be that maybe his not going to be a good how could the say that and What happened to the what happened to the is not about but he's not about should not be from this [laughter] that even though it's only from say that he's going to be but from say he's going to be which means that is obligated to observe the negative commandment in the of thou shalt not available. So if he's not that means he needs in order to be a that's why this is not an issue and he says it's a to this idea that even it's only from it's not from we mentioned as we've mentioned over the years says a lot of all had but in the world of this was a tru from The fact that we allow and for there is no when it comes to he's not the he's only excluded from he's included in hence there's no question he's going to be a bar. Now yesterday we spoke a little bit about this from and we wondered out loud that had a that should not be every is going to be are also part like they're considered the terret is whatever The ter is why is it different than whatever the terance is going to be for why we view him as that's why we would view assum as well so we said yesterday and maybe it's and maybe it's even that could be understood that the reason are considered even though the mitzvah is like the said in his first cha in Madura and Kim and the primagods on standing of the and that is because even though the are not obligated to keep the laws of but at the same time there's a and being that the is included in the parish of from the standpoint that the in his parish of was told that this relates to to as well because you're not allowed to be of you can't be to unless you are going to shak that would be enough to make him into a if that's the case that this that is alive in the could be that's only who but the reason they're put is because they don't know how to be by themselves YOU COULD HAVE SO YOU BE CAREFUL for them but assume that that's not because he has no assuming that's based on he's and if that's the case despite the fact that he has the terror says don't WORRY ABOUT IT YOU CAN EAT THE VE the terra told him he can eat the ve so why would the terror now be mazer the guzzle or somebody else and tell him you make sure he's allowed to eat it himself but I have to be more careful for him then he needs to be careful for himself if that's the case wasn't bothered with understood is based on but is being to us in this IS THAT IT DOESN'T PASS BY AND IF IT DOESN'T pass so if that's the case he's not because he's not he's not you don't have the you don't have the beer in the so if that's the case what's that assuma is considered that saying this is a to that but as it relates to the kasha of maybe we can say alkle gel based on ra that we actually spoke about not so long ago. We mentioned this gimmel. It was for the ages from the [snorts] and that is as follows. The invad brings that It's one of the asked him that is we know that has a mitzvah according to many when we say it means only from but from he's going to be one of those is buton Islam didn't told the that we know that according to many many is from but not from so he's not part if that's the case he said I [snorts] have a bombash why in the beginning of says that if somebody violates the isra he gets malus says you get malus isn't it is something that's done that yes it is but the Gorra says in different places that ordinarily you don't get for this is one of the exceptions that's why you get but the Ram says have another problem isn't always and the reason is because if somebody violates the says that's called and if that's the case break the why do you get malus for the why is it not and the was says the rama The only time you say is if the lab and are if they're 100% equal. If however the are not. So the is more inclusive than then you don't say if would be they would violate the of but the based on the itself wouldn't be the of is more inclusive than the of and anytime you have a and that are not because one is more inclusive than the other you don't say the This is the so the lambd went and he told the he said if that's the case according to every lab in are not sha because every lab in the world includes a suma and every does not include the suma and if that's the case how could you ever HAVE A GLASS SAYS THE only time you say is if the are one and the same but if it's not ONE AND THE SAME like in the case of you don't have it is Not because the LSA is more inclusive than the essay. the Lo say ALL 365 include the suma the two but the OLD 248 DON'T INCLUDE THE SUMA and if that's the case how could it be that something called and he went and he said don't tell me maybe doesn't know of because the if someone's there's no malus and it's why and says that you want to know why there's no malus by the lab of because it's because the says that whatever is left over in the morning go ahead and burn that is for that reason AND WHO SAID SO WE KNOW something called which means only FROM NOT SO IF THAT'S THE CASE not like the in the beginning of this is the said the same vo asks the over there brings that can't do what do I need a to tell me that a woman can't do the [snorts] says take which means had to happen right before it had to be done during the day if had to be done during the day that means also had to be done during the day couldn't be done at If that's the case then women are from so why do I need a pos to tell me that women are excluded from typically it's the truth is and asks an expanded version of this the over there brings a whole bunch of different avoid that women are excluded from and the gar brings up and each one of those avoid says why do I need a macar for this and a macar for that and a macar for the third thing and the fourth and the fifth typically all avoid had to be done during the day and women are potter from so the same brings a that we've mentioned many times over the years the mumm says it in his and the says it in his classic on and that is what's the women from the says it's because we know women are part from is iskish within thus women are from is iskish So we say that any that is women are also going to be part from is only so based on that based on that the says we know that women from said what emerges is that the women are from is a that's being we from that when it comes to there's a rule. So these two even though it's true women are always parted from but you know why because we know we can't and based on the fact THAT BY WE CAN'T WE CAN'T apply now it's a little bit of aish because you would say that this that when it's aish so I have hakish. So it doesn't work in the kach. But if I have a global hakish that's not kachum, it's that already I've establish right like the end of the first bar that we spoke about earlier in the week. But when I have a kuladig that works for everything and I want to now apply it to you would think you could. But the two epic 19th century both were to the same and they said to be that know [laughter] that means not only where it's an exclusive [laughter] but even if it's a global act I can't even apply it I can't even tell it to when it comes to the world of if that's the case [laughter] is not by kin said he said what's the what is the says it says and we learn from Someone that's included in the par of he's included in but someone that's excluded from the parish of is excluded from is excluded from the parish of because it says and it means someone who usually could see not pi didn't see that assuma can never see. So it's for that reason he's excluded. But the garra goes v and the garra says okay so I know from there that is from but how do I know that assum from mitzvah because there's another it says someone that's included is included in mitzvah but if not not NOW NOT SAID YOU KNOW WHAT the of mitzvah is IT'S A I LEARN from and then I learn from that said that whenever you have a it can't be even where it's not exclusively even WHERE IT'S A BUT I CAN'T EVEN apply it and relate it and to the application if that's the case what would emerge is is that even though Yehuda holds that assume was mitzvah but shiny when it comes to kim over there would already be different said the same what was the lambda len asked he asked him he said I don't understand he said holds and say that it's only from essay it's not from which emerges then as meaning that according to every essay are not the includes the suma Where is that doesn't include the if that's the case how could there ever be the says in par whenever you don't say every doesn't hold himself said with regards to you know WHY YOU DON'T it's because shiny And being that is a lav of oh BY THE LAB OF HERE THIS IS the and also if he's going to BE THE COMES OUT BY there they are if there over there it's going to be different if you would find a place who WHERE IT'S NOT KACHUM that would be a GOOD KASHA BUT WHAT'S YOUR MAR is kachum when it comes to kachum over there it's going to be different so maybe maybe I'll pee this pill we could just add one more anaf And that is he said what happened to he SHOULDN'T BE EMBARRASSED AND DON'T TELL ME like said like the garden LEARNED UP IN THE DOESN'T HAVE A SO IF THERE'S NO HE'S NOT A BAR YOU KNOW WHAT THE TERRET IS he is a bar he's a bar what are you talking about assum You mean I don't mean says he's a bar where's you know he's [laughter] the fifth mitzvah is the mitzvah that's where that's where if you're going to tell me that the is not true when it comes to you want to know where you find these you find these when it comes to because like the said to answer and like the same said to answer the maybe we could also say to answer Cutin shiny.