Chulin 16

Today's d is and we are two lines from the top of so at the end of yesterday's daf we learned the mishna said if somebody using the smooth blade of a handicle or if he uses a it's a stone or banana or a reedic shape The was it sounds like and are only but it's not okay for somebody to ask the ver says and to answer the made ankishna that [snorts] the is talking about that were meaning and that are polished that are detached from the ground That's when the Mishna says that it's only it's talking about when it's and the digress from there and said that whether or not it's okay to with something that's or not is really a [snorts] and rebi says that it's not okay to said and after the Gmorra analyzed in depth that it's okay even with which left the sh if that's the case who is the you're telling me that the reason it's only okay is because it's we know of two and as it relates to it's possible is that it's the Misha seems to be taking an in between stance is it's rebi and to answer said that even that says that it's not okay meaning it's possible that's only if it was so something that was attached to the ground in its natural state so a reed that grows from the ground that's never been detached that type of which is would be possib an that's part of the ground that would be possibly if however you have something that's but it was previously It was only it's over there that it's going to be a problem. It's going to be in other words when the said clearly implying that it's only where it was who holds that is a problem. If it was it would be a problem even being that it was for that reason it's going to be only a problem but that's a important introduction because this is going to be the topic of the majority of today's so in the course of discussing our Mishna and this is thear brought several bes If takes a knife, he sticks it. He affixes it to a wheel. He then turns the wheel. And by turning the wheel, he was able to do a perfect with a knife. The Bryce has said the is going to be okay. You have to say that there's different types of wheels. Literally siren of deakra is the wheel that the smiths used to use. Siren of deaya is a wheel that was powered by water. The point is that if it's a wheel, we are, as you're turning the wheel, you're causing the knife to do the then we say that despite the fact that the knife is in the wheel, it's still going to be okay because it's your kayak that caused the if, however, you have a wheel that's not powered by man, but rather it's powered by water. So even though you're the one who caused the water to cause the wheel to start moving, but we look at your act as a you're not the one that's actually turning the wheel. It's the water that's turning the wheel being that it's a it's not going to be considered a same as both could be talking about a wheel that's being powered by water that says that's talking about that as you did your act to cause the water to make the wheel turn that's when the took place. that it happened immediately after you caused the water to make the wheel turn. So even causing the water to make the wheel turn is considered it's not considered a mice. If however you caused the wheel to turn and then an hour later the sake that was in the wheel did the that's already viewed as a that's going to be considered a being that it's a it's not going to be considered says and an analogy to this distinction between is something once said in a completely different context. So somebody wanted to take his friend out. So what he did was he tied him up. He put him next to water. The water was being blocked, rushing water by a wall. He then punctured a hole in the wall. Caused the water to go through the wall and it ended up killing this person. So a papa said he said that even though this person never put a bullet in his friend's head but at the same time being that he did an act that albeit somewhat indirectly caused to die that's enough for him to be and explained it. He said cuz Gir honey at the end of the day it was his ma albeit not a mess in the person that he killed but the mess of puncturing a hole in the wall causing the water to rush through the wall and eventually kill this person that's enough for it to be viewed as a we don't look at him as thus he's going to be but immediately qualified it he said what's what is says if the person was right next to the water so then again we look at as if you puncturing the hole in the wall caused the water to kill this person immediately. If the person was tied down but he was somewhat distant from where the wall was and from where the water was. Dear the is already going to be different. Bottom line is what you see from a papa is is this that sometimes an act can be viewed as sometimes it can be viewed as if it's where is the act to the person. If it's we look at it as a and as a result it's going to be governed by G. So this is aesh because what you see in this kumar is that just like there's a concept of for example. So everybody knows that if ruven is mazik what if ruining does something that causes shim to be meaning he wasn't directly right in the beginning of there's a concept of grammar. What you see over here is is that the laws of relate not only to but also to that was so if somebody kills somebody he's going to be he's also by the way but he's going to be and this is really a but the point is just like you have you have and you see in this that you also have as it relates to so if somebody shouts where we deem the as an act of gma It's going to be a and that's the BRA that says it's talking about where the happened with a wheel where even though you caused the wheel to turn but we look at it as thus it gets classified as a is if however you did it in a way where we don't look at it as a we could look it as a over there it's going to be okay and that's the price that said as mentioned the primary topic of the daff the garam portion of the daff is going to be the of someone who and someone who with something that was once and later you says essentially was giving and his two great And was sitting in front of him and Rabi said as follows. How do you know that has to be done with ash? So after learning all these and braces this way and that way and aishna we don't have a card. How do you know that has to be with a do that's why is something that's attached to the ground possible for said as follow took the knife and he was going to say he took it sounds like it wasn't attached to the ground and from here we learn it's a to alltos that always has to be done with something similar to ais it has to be done with something that's detached from the ground. So Ra hear what Rebi says. So Rab turns to he says my he says I don't understand he told him I agree I don't even understand as a matter of fact he told him there's so many holes in what Reb is saying imagine writing the letter V on the bark of a tree. So because of the ridges in the tree so it's going to be a very not smooth V. There's going to be many holes in the V. So pun intended told there are many holes in what is saying because there's no way that this could be the from where we know that with made up a and and how are you going to understand a I mean why is the not a good says because the doesn't necessarily mean that it had to be a what the is coming to say is that took cuz he wanted to be prepared. He didn't want to show up at the AKA and then realize, you know, I don't have a males. How am I going to do the Maybe he could have done it with a rack that was attached to the ground. Maybe could have done the with a a cond that's attached to the ground. But at the end of the day, at the end of the day, Abrau wanted to make sure that he was going to and that's why he took the is teaching me, but it's not teaching me that the only time you could do is with something that's detached from the ground. We'll get back to this one. something that was once detached and now is attached to the ground. So do we look at it as a or do we look at it as a said is false. It's to me that as it relates to the laws of we treat it as somebody bows down he to his own house. So a person makes his house his becomes like a house is but it was once right the bricks and mortar the house were once detached from the house and now they're attached to the house. But if you're going to tell me that being that we look at it as this is 101, we all know that something that's can't be treated as so said how could it be a it's what do you have to say that it's true it's now but it was once and as it relates to the laws of has a so said as it relates It's to me that is treated as a again it's treated as how do I know that it's a rabbi continued he said as it relates to the laws of I know that it's a so just before we see this next a little bit of background so what is the idea of in [snorts] order for food pay to become they first have to be wet. So they have to become wet. Once they're wet their afterwards a shar some other form of toma comes in contact with it it's going to be to additionally you need that when the fruit became wet the person the owner of the fruit was happy with either he put the water there or at the very least he had when he saw it he was okay with it. It has to be. But the point is is that if it became wet and he's not happy with the fact that it became wet, it doesn't become another what would happen if it's raining outside and the person's very happy it's raining because he wanted some part of his property to to become wet. And then later that water landed on his fruit. There was no for the fruit per se to become wet. But he was very happy with the fact that it was raining because he wanted the water. Even though there was never a positive that I'm happy that my feet are getting wet, but as long as he's happy that something's getting wet, he's happy with the water that's coming down right now because he has some need for it, some benefit from it. Even though his benefit his not specifically it's not pointly related to the fruit itself that's enough to constitute that the per is now going to be and one final thing that we need as a and that is the only time that's true is if the thing that's getting wet that he's happy with is but if the thing that he's happy with that oh I'm so happy it's raining because I want my field to be watered mean that your field is that would not constitute so that if later your pays become wet with that water that you were happy with they would be. So what that background says the Gimar it's a Mishn it was raining outside and somebody took a kar he took a plate and he put it on his wall because he wanted the kar to become wet and then later after the bakar be got wet the water flowed let's say from the kaw onto his payrise and now his payrise became wet is the peris because the peris got wet and he was happy with the water even though he wasn't necessarily focusing on the peris becoming wet but he wanted his car was dirty. He wanted it clean. He was very excited that water was falling on the car that constitutes so that right now when the Paris become wet. Let's say he put a car on top of the not because he wanted the car to get wet but simply because he didn't want the to get wet. He was using it to protect the wall. He didn't want the wall to get wet and then if that water falls on per the he had no from the water. The reason he put the car there was not because he wanted the water to go on the car. It's because he wasn't happy with the water. He was just trying to protect the wall to the best of his ability. But the asks the said the said that if the person wanted the water to go on the he put the on the wall cuz he wanted the water to go on the let's make a what would be if this person didn't want the car to get wet. He wanted the wall to get wet. It sounds like that wouldn't be enough to constitute because if that would be enough, why do you have to put the kara and the mishna make a that you wanted the water to go on the kara and it went from the kara to the paris? That's say better. Keep the story simpler. You can take out that one part of the story. Just say that it was raining. He was very excited. He wanted his wall to get wet and then it went from his wall onto it's mashma that by landing on the wall or wanting the wall to get wet that would not constitute the tummy. problems. What's the next part of the if he put the guard because he didn't want the wall to get wet, that's not you can make the same in the reverse. It sounds like if you wanted the wall to get wet. The point is we have conflicting from the what would be if it's raining, the water is landing on your wall and you're very excited that your wall is getting wet and then the water flows from the wall onto your Paris. Would that constitute so that right now the parents are or not? The Misha gave us two extreme cases. We have a case where you put a plate on the wall and you want the plate to become wet and then we have a case where you put a plate on the wall to protect all cuz you don't want the wall to get wet. What if I don't want the plate? What if I just want the wall? There seems to be a there's no way to answer this. You have to say the ration the two different said no really the entire is one we talk about two different types of walls one's the wall of a cave for example this is a wall that's been there from braces the other one is a wall that was man-made this way if somebody puts a car on top of a wall and the reason he put it there was is because he wants the to get wet so he has for the water if the water now falls on the Paris clearly implied that if you wanted the wall to get wet not the on the wall the wall itself then it wouldn't be but when is that true that's if it's a wall that's been there forever you know why because that wall is it's attached to the ground and if you have for something that's for water to land on that that's not considered as it relates to But what would be if it was a different type of wall? It was a man-made wall. Even though it's but it was it's only if you didn't want the wall to get wet that we say it's but if you did want the wall to get wet. So the bottom line is said as follows. Ra said that as it relates to the of here I know for sure that is as it relates to where's where's that the only time become is if you were on this water but [clears throat] there's a although it doesn't have to be for the parents itself it has to be for what about how would I do that you how would I view that so it says but really it's it's dependent on how you learn this said, "What I'm not sure about is how would you view the of other words presupposing that you can't with something that's you could withh So the question is what if it was and now it's do I look at it as or do I look at it as we addressed it in?" We addressed it albeit with a complicated in what about what we're learning as it relates to Rashi says that is from yesterday's daf really we had a whole d yesterday with a bry and a and a ste between two and a right so there was a lot of activity in yesterday's daf as it relates to this shilah but roa is coming as if yesterday's daf never happened and bu is not sure what would be the of he says the I'll bring you a and the is going to be from the brought on the very bottom of the base so it's to see the get inside it's five lines from the bottom of the days the bright said that's what this morning's started with somebody sticks a knife and a wheelch Somebody sticks a knife in a heck that way. If there was a stone protruding from a wall or there was a and yesterday said the seem to contradict themselves because the says it's okay. If you stick a knife into the wall it's okay. It sounds like and then it says if the said one is talking about the other is talking about where was going to view this price a little differently. So said the price said that if a stone was protruding from the walls. So what does it sound like? It sounds like assuming that when it says it means that was once detached. It was only right. So you see clearly that it's possible is the Bryson not that part of the bry that is possible. No maybe we're talking about with a wall that's been there forever. The stone that's protruding has been there forever. It's not it's it's always been the price going coin to rebi that something that's possible. The point is has nothing to do with that way says because the price put two cases together it mentioned by definition is something that was you ever read that grew from the ground. It was never it was so just like touch says maybe I bring you a ra from a different part of the noisel the if you stuck a knife into the wall why and this was definitely once polished right the sack hasn't been there forever you took the sack and you were not the sack into the isn't to the reverse that that if something was it's going to be I don't know if could ever be considered it's never buckled to the wall being that it's not buckled to the wall even if it's right now quote unquote attached to the wall we don't look at it in as being from the first part of the is already checkmate right it says so it's something that's the price it says Obviously we're not talking about because that's possible that's the so what does it mean here you have already says no maybe the way you have to read the B is where it never became to for such as not but if it became bottled being that now it's even though it was once Maybe we still view it as being th is going to be it's going to be one more somebody stuck a sack into the right that was one of the things that Bryce is like only time this is okay is if you put the of the throat of the is underneath the knife but if the knife is going to be a bot and Sab is going to be on top. It's not okay. So, one of the basic laws of that we didn't really speak very much about, but there'll be plenty of these is right around the corner. And that is is that when the he has to slit the throat of the animal, he has to take the knife and slit it, slice it as opposed to press against it and use his force to to sever the sim. If you're going to put the animal on top of the knife, so then there's aash that being that the knife is it's attached to the wall, the force of the animal is going to press down on it. And what's going to happen is going to cause the knife to not slit the animal but to forcefully sever it which is thus although it's okay to if the sock is attached to the wall but you have to be a little bit more sensitive to not running into a issue and the way you're sensitive to that the way you address it is by making sure that the sakin is going to be and the side of the is going to be but if you do in the reverse it's not okay okay sounds good right says no one of Again many braces that we had in yesterday's d was reading from yesterday's so what did the prizes say you could and then it says it doesn't matter if or is you have no choice but to say that the way you read the price is as follows it's not true and whether or the but rather the way you have to read it is that's fact number one you could check but and you could also stating that not every permutation is going to work the point is works different the says that you can use a sak that's attached to the wall and it doesn't matter if I we just said that you have to make sure it's you can't make it. When the price says you're being that is lighter than a so the concern of that its force is going to press against the knife isn't such a prevalent concern over there it's going to be okay. It's a B behavior you have to be worried about. If however we're not dealing with a behavior, you're dealing with a knife over there. You don't have to be worried about 26 minutes. Exhale. We're going to finish the D. But just before we go vit [laughter] so before we go v so we we began really the topic of the second part of yesterday's daf and the first part of this morning's daf is an idea that needs to be done with something that's tall and something but the basic concept that there's a that in order to you have to use an an instrument something that is but if it's going to be a problem and the told the story that rebi was giving and ra was sitting in front of and they were discussing this this is reb is the one that holds the and they were discussing what's the how do you know that something that's not okay and reborn from a pik says and turns to and he says what just say and says, "Don't worry about it." He he gave a mur, but that makur has so many holes. Try to write the letter of VV on the bark of a tree. The amount of holes you're going to have in the VV, that's how many holes there are in what's said. And this is of course is the one that argues with is the one that holds that you could but [snorts] held there was a and the was where does it say that's of course by the cash jumps off the page learns many FROM how could you that you need to is not had a dinner of a carbon. So yeah, you can learn from there that has to be done with. But how can you learn from there that has to be done with the as well is says that we know the says that we learn from that has to be done with a kali and if you don't have a k you can't do it doesn't even have to be a frank the first also said these are spread out throughout where brings a big needs to be done with a does not have to be done with a but has to be done with a that's a it's the carbon had a carbon but it says and the says each carbon teaches to the other what does teach that you eat with a ki where do you know that says we just learned the whole you don't have to use a ki to that's clear you don't need you can use a reed you can use and stone it doesn't necessarily have to be a kali clearly because we don't learn from the that has to be done with a kal how could you learn from that that it has to be and not learn from that it has to be a kal and says a terus basically says that the that as it relates to the tish again I'm not going to go through the whole but is basic says that that was because it says and it doesn't say it had of been as it relates to the of that's But had as relates to been specific to the component of so then it should have said emphasize the fact that you need it to be because we're dealing with the carbon because it's being that it says it sounds like it was the furthered and not the not the component. that fathered the carbon. But just on this note, I thought it's to digress for a moment. There's a real digression and just mention one and that is a classic is by the parish of the ander asks many kashes. One of the says that everybody knows that after comes to and he tells so what Abramu do wanted say to be mashi brings it he wanted to make something he was so oozing he had so much he was so ready to to do this mitzvah that that he felt he he he couldn't JUST LET IT GO there was so much potential energy that he felt that he he had to bring it [snorts] so he says let me take the knife and let me make a little bit of a hole. me a little bit of D will come out of and he was told no I don't want that not even that don't do anything whatever even want to do what was going on over here so he says he says that we know that had and even though never played itself out but he retained his wasn't allowed to leave he couldn't go to brings why because he he He was there when he wasn't allowed to leave. He was never allowed to leave. He had says because became lost the son. He lost his son but he lost him because he was to such a level that he couldn't be him anymore. He was he was he didn't have him. And because he didn't have him says wanted him back turns to he says I can't do the I hear what should I do I'm not going to be able to show you how much I love you and how much I'm willing to do for you by my son but then I want my son back. So you know what he said I want to do I want to be you can be. So what he wanted to do was he wanted to make a so that now he should be able TO BE THE HE SHOULD BE ABLE to be who told him no can't be I want him to remain this way says remain this way and because he remained this way on some level lost his connection to his son he says that's why the says I were very bothered Right there doesn't talk about this but says it was through but himself was in says we all know the brings different means 52 is 52 it's a son and says that had a Because after the lost, he didn't have anymore. He wasn't a son anymore. He had someone that to us looks like it was a son. So 52, Ben is 52. So through this remnant, say he has a son, but really wasn't a son anymore. And that's why it's only was through that that he had his son says that that's why tells twice in the process of the now I know you're a few later. Why do you have to say twice says because there were two acts of that show at the first was the fact that he was willing to offer his son as a carbon and the second was told don't even make a and even though you're going to lose your lose your son that was another act of that was the second time that it was I was thinking that how is able to the as soon as was going to he was going to be and if he was going to be an issue says when when hem comes to and he tells him I want you to bring my son as to the so what does he tell him he tell I want you to take for the I'm not a he says don't worry about it everybody why do you have to be a first of all This was actually where the was totally in the but but the point is why do they have to be a if he's a right why they have to be so the says based on the say that happened on that happens with the butt brings from and he brings that said because as soon as he was going to was going to beate It's possible to do the with the exception of a god is allowed to be macro. And he can do the even if you're in the like this he you'll be able to do the arcade if is maybe it's not fair because as soon as what's that >> this happens afterwards >> but but how's he going to do the but how's he going to do the though the the second part you're right the is not the is the problem the second part that's true right the itself that's but is great because as soon as it's only has the same it's only maybe he wasn't anymore if he wasn't anymore so maybe it wouldn't be either way there were five things that were said five that pertain to the stem of a reed. That's why we're talking about this now. You can't with it. You're not allowed to do briso with a read, even though it technically has a sharpness to it. So, in theory, it should be possible to do briso with it, but it's something that's not okay. You shouldn't even hack flash with it. Shouldn't use it as floss, nor should you wipe yourself with it. We'll see what that means. How could you tell me we had enough braces? You see, you could use when we've been discussing doing with we mean a very specific type of read. These are reads that grow in marshlands. Those types of reads are soft. You don't have to worry about those reads. It's the other types of reads that you do have to worry about. Why do you have to worry about that? We'll see in a minute. So you shouldn't cut meat with it. Papa says he used to cut the inards of fish the ziggi. And the reason is because as we'll see that the reason it's not posited is because you're worried about splinters. You're worried that a little bit of it is going to come out and and it can cause problems. Ra felt that the inards of the fish they you were able to see and as a result you don't have to worry if a little bit of the reed goes in you'll pluck it out it's not a problem he used to cut with it and the reason is because the meat the chicken is is a little softer than meat and as a result he felt that it's not going to cause the reed to shed and as a result it's not something you have to worry about you're not allowed to be mechanic with it says the So the is assuming that the that what the means is that if somebody goes to the bathroom so he shouldn't use the to clean himself as the you don't have to command to the fact that the may splinter as the reason why you can't be mechic with it. You can't be mechic with it anyways because kazal said that anything that's flammable any of is a euphemism. It means tissue in that area may somehow tear and as a result it's something that anyway is not allowed to do. Papa says no when it says it doesn't mean someone was going to the bathroom mean something completely different mean somebody has a open wound he shouldn't clean his open wound using this either way the said there are five things What's the reason over here in the says that the reason for all five of these is the same because if you have a kesus even though there's a sharpness to it but there's a concern that it may splinter and as a result the splinter is going to a little piece of wood or of the ka may go into the behemoth it may go into your wound to the moham of the baby. So there's a concern and as a result brings that the brings from that's a different reason that the reason but the one we need most is because we're learning right now is not because of a that you're worried a little bit of the read is going to go into the but because there was a that was that rested it hovered on these reads and as a result you don't want to do with it the reason not to do is because of brings this from the says I think it comes out a very important between and between the according to Rashi you're worried about a splinter and Rashi says the concern is that maybe the the splinter or the reed will cause a in the before and it's going to render the behavior a meaning there's a real concern in the of the concern in the if you would do it the would be possible however according to the time of the who brings from that it's because of is an issue but that's something that you only worry about on level but you don't worry about so again says the rashi said that the reason is because you're worried that there may be something wrong with the that the ka may cause a pam in the thus you may have a problem of a tra there may be a real issue here with this animal being that there may be an issue with the animal it's not just something you have to be concerned about it's something that's an issue with the as well according to the that says it's because a problem on the level is not going to be problem on the it says a very important between the two there's a from it's a is was asked that it's your dua it's brought down that a person is not supposed to put food underneath his bed. So you're not supposed to sleep with food underneath your bed and the reason is because of so was asked to what about let's say somebody went to sleep and he had food underneath his bed. So do you have to throw out your food? You have to get rid of everything or is it going to be okay? It says that at first glance I have a very obvious I have was discussing this and this brought down who says it may be a concern with and that quotes that says that there's an issue of and said it's very obvious what happens if there's then it's also going to be possible ifra then it's going to be okay. So what do you say that is something we worry about on the level it's not something that we worry about on the level it says what's the difference between the of the was talking about the talks about we discusses the on food if somebody sleeps on top of food so at the end of the day it's a problem but says that I believe that being that we're dealing with so I think we have to do a little better. I I I'm not comfortable issuing a for without finding a more tangible source. So, do we have a source anywhere? Can we find a source somewhere that if somebody sleeps with food underneath his bed? It's okay to eat the food. It's awesome from all places. The very end, nobody gets that far unless you so says as follows. The Gmorra says that one of the ways to know the difference between is by looking at his bed. If you look at the bed of all you're going to find is a pair of shoes underneath his bed. He's going to have shoes. He has his regular shoes during the winter and is he has his sneakers during the summer. But that's that's what you're going to find. You're going to find a pair of shoes, right? loosely translated. [laughter] If you go to the you know what you're going to find it's says it's like you have a dough this pepper salted what do you mean says I quote they put everything under their bed they put their food there it's the pantry it's the refrigerator it's the it's the shed it's the Everything IS THERE. IT'S ALL UNDERNEATH THE BED. It's says the comes out and that he keeps his food underneath the bed. It's now we know if you buy from what do you have to do? You have to be a it's called you have to be concerned that maybe he wasn't a but once no worries now you can eat it. Now everything is fine. FRANK, WHY ARE YOU EVER allowed to eat food from AN WHY ARE YOU WORRIED about what the says that his is he keeps food under his bed? If he keeps food under his bed, he's violating the on. So you're worried about the which is so you're worried about the maybe the TR WHAT ABOUT THE THAT'S EVEN MORE what happened to the vice like the said because only an issue when you're dealing under level but you never have to worry about a being that you never have to worry about a is for that reason it's not going to be an issue another place where this plays itself out in is that when a person wakes up in morning. So he has a incidentally incidentally the says that after the gadic the famous gadic from vn so he was executed was the second in the year 1749. after a was killed. So the vagan said grace about the of and he said that when he was killed the spiritual universe changed something changed and said that it played itself out is that the that on a person when he wakes up in the morning before he washes the is not the same that it once was. And I I don't quote me on this, but I believe that don't keep next to their bed because of this from the that is not anymore because of something that happened when the the famous was killed. But the point is is that there's no question for sure that when a person wakes up in the morning before he washes there's a stating that the says that what happens if a person so it's for that reason says that a person shouldn't touch food before you wash because you have the what happens if you touch food you touch food you wake up in the morning you touch food so you have to throw it No. And if you touch food, you should wash the food. It's but the bottom line is again it's the same thing because even though there's an issue of but is only on the level. What's the is the and a beautiful brings from the but just to digress from my digression and we'll end with this and that is that there's a very interesting it's the brings this you shouldn't keep food underneath your bed even if you're middle of eating never put food underneath your bed. Why? What's the reason? So what would you say? Right? Says the rabb because you're afraid that underneath your bed you don't really know. So how do you know that is not going to go into the food and you may not be paying attention. So, you know what is may fall into the food says the not like the ra made up a new reason you're worried about a mazik it's not a mazik's making this a practical a real life concern says the it's not a real life concern THE ISSUE IS IT'S THIS IS MORE in the realm of the metaphysical there's some RU THAT THE GO SAID THAT after the right these these are things we don't fully understand right talks a lot about zug but says there's no anymore today right because some of these these things can change reals don't change these things change but says the says that you're worried that's not the point the point is it's what's in the what's the ra interesting last week on Friday we spoke at a beautiful trooper from the we were discussing the sur and had a real life story where a woman came to him. She was marriedu three times and all three of her marriages ended unsuccessfully. Her first husband died her second husband he went to America and ended up giving her again and then the third husband died again. She wanted to get married. The problem is we pas like that once a woman is married twice and both her husbands die. She has a in the Could you could you be m is there any way she was young she wasn't even 50 years old and gives her right is there any way in the world she could get married ended up writing this brilliant with had two maybe why there shouldn't be an issue of kathlanas number one the says inazer that if it's rugan if there was a successful marriage in between the two marriages where the husbands died it could be that doesn't render a which is what happened over here. The only thing was says that if a if a man dies but he left over children it could be that's so he wanted to say maybe it's a faker he said but the problem is faker works and it's but when you're dealing this doesn't work so what was the punch line where we ended our when we went through this together on Friday the end of the was he wanted to invoke the rabb says that is only on the level but if somebody says he doesn't care he wants to stay he wants to get married and stay married we allow him to get married the rush says no just the opposite if somebody would marry we'd force them to get divorced certainly we're going to force them to get divorced but the Ram says no I'm not worried and they asked the rabb and the rabb responded in a chuva and wrote a chuva to explain the raam's chuva where basically the raam said that even though the gar says that the reason shouldn't get married is because we're worried about her mazle the raam held that this mazam is really all in the person's head and So to the extent the rabbel that she's worried worry can attract scary things and as a result says oh you're worried that this is not going to work out I we tell them not to get married but if this person's okay the person's not worried they're happy staying married then let them let them remain married he said even though we don't pos like this but at the same time I think we can be starf this ra with the faker and make the following go over to the woman and say I want you to know you have nothing to worry about you know why cuz works nor but to the [laughter] extent that she buys this ve and she's not worried so then there will be no sak because it's only a sak if she's worried but if she's not worried there's no saka this ve should alleviate the worry thus we can rely on the Rambam and we can allow it to get married. That's where we got up to and he says I don't think we can rely on this Rambam. He says you know why? Because if you think about it, this Rambam who said that is not real. It's all in a person's head. It's to me this is the Rama. This is the Ram who throughout his he was always mafarish things in the most scientific for lack of a better word but in the most practical terms and and the Rambam shied away from anything metaphysical and he brings the Rambam. You know which R he brings? The rama we just looked [laughter] he says the rabb when it came to this of putting food underneath your bed says the says you do it in what is it related to it's related to because it's on your table you see but if you if it's going to be underneath your bed you're not going to see what falls in it and as a result it's something that you it's something that you have to worry about was what do you mean it's related to why didn't say because if you look the doesn't bring one in his entire his entire that he doesn't bring one related to many that talk about but he doesn't bring one he brings this he doesn't explain it out he explains it based on something else and this is this is the ram this is this is something that is one of the themes in the in the innovation she toss it with all the other ramboms do we pas like that So the guy and this guy in the over there brings the ram who says that incantations that's what said the ra that wasn't true right the ra whenever he talks about the he calls the he calls them and people that are and referred to as being he explained scientifically exactly how worked and how worked it's the world it wasn't it was very very real these are real kas but the ram always spoke that way he said that people the fools there that that that's way the ra understood it regardless the what what did the go say about the raam he said that the reason the the rama wrote this is because he was nimshak after the philosopher ophy of Aristotle and it influenced him on some level again we can never say this but said this and he said that that's where this came from but he says it says if that's the case how could I rely on this ra to me the is the same as the who doesn't want to learn that the food underneath your bed is the it's the same ram who thinks that and all these things are just they're ridiculous it's people that live in the dark ages is what they But really it's not true. If that's the case, we don't pass like cuz we know the spoke so sharply against that. And if they're all the same that the didn't believe in the metaphysical, if he can't touch it, then then the ra was always trying to make sense of it in a more practical way. How could I be this or this? How could I allow this woman to get married based on that ramita? But then says that I believe that the the s of katlanus is different because he brings the says that there were many throughout the ages that got married and they were right there were so he said what's the he says when it comes to then how is it possible that the could say that technically is being it's not possible says because you have to say that the was Right as it relates to ah as it relates to everything else I hear that's way above our pay but the bottom [laughter] line is right I found one reash one of brings this lion that the says and then he writes there he says that that when you understand and appreciate the covet that the had for the ram it's so out of character what said over there in his we're talking about the and the don't understand these things but but the point is it says said that even though we don't like that Ram based on what the said but as it relates to the only way to reconcile the ad of the and what said is by accepting what the Ram said that is a but only if a person views it as a if he doesn't view it as a it's like used to say there's a ra says that what the Gor says regarding zug [laughter] said it to explain this regarding it's true about a lot of things is a beautiful truth it's again regardless we'll stop