Bechoros 13

Today's and we are in the beginning of a new per the second per of so the second per ofus and really the second third fourth fifth and sixth proim of msky is the next chapter of the messiah So the maka began dealing with the laws of obviously specifically the laws of proim through vav are going to continue to discuss the laws of but not the kamar but rather the bkar the bkarv or the bkar a so we've seen a little bit about the bkar kesv or a in the first barrack it came up naturally in the discussions of the Patamar. What we learned was that although there's similarities between the and the but at their core they're really fundamentally different. The kamar is a behemoth. The shifer is are the highrise because the kamar is a behemoth. Although it has kadusha the kadusha that it has can't be that it should go on the misb. For that reason the gumar is constantly refer to the kadusha of the kamar as being kadusha's. Its value has kadusha but the gof doesn't have an intrinsic kadusha. The bar of the shark being that those animals are those animals were the animals that were able to go on the misbehas gave it a kadusha a kadusha that allows the actual animal to be put on the misb. So from a kadusha perspective there's a fundamental difference between the kadusha of the kamar also known as thear versus thear the is the kaf is bkar is kush and this is an idea that appeared a few times throughout the gimar's discussion of the pakamar in the first paric of the msaka another obvious which is really one plus one based on what we just mentioned and that is the did not go on the misb the orar did go on the misb which means that there's a completely different dimension to the kaf that the doesn't have thear was given by the isel to the kayen the cen then assuming it wasn't assuming it was something that was able to go on the m would take the bakar and he would physically put it on the which meant that there's a kum element to the laws of the in fact when you categorize all the different types of carbon there's a category of carbon that's called the it is mentioned in the paragon it features very prominently and really throughout sedum and it's based on the because being that those are kosher animals those are animals that were able to go on the when they come in the form of aar they have the of the right now there's a kadusha and the kusha obligates the cen who's ultimately the beneficiary of the bkar to take this animal and to physically put it on the m that's not something that was true as it relates to the kamar what did the of the is supposed to be with take the which is and give it to the but the bottom line is as it relates to the laws of the laws obviously but at the same time that different from the standpoint of the is the And even more prominently they're different in terms of what exactly happened with it. The the owner was supposed to be with the give the to the enjoy the sad the even have from the you have the very unique of the as it relates there again the has an obligation to fulfill an with you're taking the actual animal you're giving it to the coen the ken himself has an obligation to take this animal and bring it as a carbon now what happens if the animal is in a state where it can't be bought as a carbon let's say the animals of so then is that the was allowed to keep the animal for himself he was let it and do with it as he pleased the bottom line is obviously there's a lot of that relate to the of the a lot of these are the It's for that reason whereas the laws of are discussed in one par the first par the laws of the are discussed in five so much more is many of them the kin related many of them discuss by the way the laws of m because huge whether the animals of whether the animals not of in fact the sug of bal in kachim come from the world of regardless we'll see overlap between the pakamar And between the we'll see a lot of new it's a whole new frontier with regards to that we did not see with regards to and on that note we begin the discussion of the laws of the Mishna hopefully sounds familiar because it's literally a rerun of the first Mishna of the Msaka. So what was the first Mishna of the Msaka? It discussed the idea that in the event that there's a so there's a Y that owns a Kamar the Kamar just gave birth to a a baby Kamar a boy as a result the laws of petamar are supposed to now kick in to the extent that there's a non-Jew that has some level of in this uh transaction that would negate the laws of Bk as we're going to see Now the same exact relates to the if somebody buys the of a par. So a par is a a par is an example of a. So if somebody buys the fetus of the par of and lo and behold it was a boy or to the contrary somebody owned a par and sold his fetus to even though that second thing to be you're not allowed to do that was the topic of the first half of the you're not allowed to sell to so to buy yeah but to sell that's not okay. Additionally, or if somebody buys a parf together with or if there was a that owned aid is an operator in this parish and he tells the I'll work your parro and they agree to split the so is going to maintain ownership of the mother. Additionally is going to own a percentage of the and the isrol for doing his uh work his sweat equity is now going to earn a percentage of the as well or in the reverse order that owns a and works out a deal with that I'm going to maintain ownership of my par you're going to work it and in exchange for that you'll own a percentage of the so the is going to own the mother and a percentage of the Vladis. The is also going to own a percentage of the Vladis. In all five of these cases, the Isra the owns the par the is owns the Uber. There's in everything. There's a kablon relationship whether it's the that owns the underlying and a percentage of the and the only owns a percentage of the or it's in the reverse where the isl owns the par and a percentage of the vladus and only owns a percentage of the in all five of these cases being that you don't have a that owns 100% of the par and 100% of the there's a yadas be it the mother be it Be it a percentage of the mother, a percentage of the in all five of these cases is the for his percentage of ownership that he has would have no obligation because the says and we learn from there that the only time there's an obligation for the of is if it's where the Yid owns 100% of the back trap for this. If however in that situation you're not going to have this. Incidentally, as we mentioned, this is identical to the that was mentioned the first Mishna of the Maka. Again, why are we repeating a Mishna? Because there we were talking about the the now we're talking about the additionally even the source is the same exact are obligated in the laws of the reason is because they're not part the only laws of that they are exempt from are the laws of and of and of course this Mishna is really talking to the second Mishna in the that mention that from really had to learn that Mishna whether it's talking about or whether it's talking about but the we saw in that Mishna already are parted from certain laws of Mishna over here it's true they are but only from the laws of as it relates to the topic of peric bay through pervat from these they are going to be so essentially the first mishna here of part two of the maka is a repeat of that we saw and really it's addressing it's targeting the first two mishnay that we had of the msaka the first mishna the msaka discuss in the context of there being a non-Jewish partner a second mishna of the maka talked about and as it relates to the essentially what the mission is saying is that the first of the relates to the just like he did the second that exempted that was only true in the that is not going to be true as it relates to the why is it begins with the of the and only afterwards gets involved in the laws of or in the laws of the listen. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to first mention the laws of the and the reason is because the is of a higher ilk. It's not afterwards because that's only so the really asks uh sort of intuitive question but if the question sounds familiar it's because right this was Rash's Rashi right in the beginning asked that why is it that begins with the laws of and not with the laws of feels like the is where you take the animal, you put it on the it's a higher level of kadusha. It's it's the parish of and you would think the is this unique obscure within the laws of where even though it's it still has be only you have to be with a you have this unique of the equivalent thereof to right but the point is that wouldn't it be more appropriate the star but the only afterwards mentioned. So it was Rash's gasha if you remember Rashi gave a Rashi said that being that the laws of are much shorter they're much more concise than the laws of soana sometimes is to mention the shorter set of sort of get that out of the way right put it aside and then afterwards we'll get into that and we'll spend the whole win you know talking about the other alas as we're going to see Rashi was really quoting a gumar and Rashi was quoting one of two in the gar let's see how the addresses this question why did start with not with it wouldn't make more sense to start with being that it's only afterwards mention which is they said to you could say I could to the to the more so than what would make it more it's based on what What did say right we said that was literally one of the four captions of the why is it that ordinarily you don't find and over here we decided to give it which animal is it it's over the beautiful and it's because of that there's a kivos to the t of the fascinating kivos is not the l this It's the time of the that there's something very for that reason decided oh if I enjoy something so much you know let me start with it alternatively they said you can say a different and that is being that the laws of are concise you don't have that many therefore let's say it let's finish it and then we can put it on the side and afterwards get into the so really rash that he mentioned in the mission writing the beginning of the is the second of the two that so really addresses question and that is why is it that we begin the not based on levels of you would think so shouldn't you start with and then work your way down towards the it's a good question but there's two answers to that question both came from the west. They both came from they both came from Israel. There was a kavivos to the parish of what's the it's the portion of the per and that is said from the is sometimes if you have a a short thing that you want to mention something very very long mention the short thing first and then afterwards get into that. Either way, so he said I heard from heard from also known as that paid money to be said there's a transaction a simple that's taking place between aid and ani the inudi owns a beahid wants his beha so shows up in the shook and he gives him money. Okay. So the way we judge whether or not the and the mechar took place is based on the laws of the now the Gmorra is going to have an anos literally how to exactly define the word but first what's the bottom line what is the therefore is that even if the did not do on the all he did was pay for it but he didn't physically do mashikh He's going to be and if he's now belongs to him, if it belongs to him and it gives birth to a firstborn male it's going to be what would be in the reverse if they gave money to in this case the owns the wants to purchase it from the he goes to the and he gives him money there too it's going to be judged based on the of the here too the gar is going to get into is explained and just the word. But here's the bottom line. He's going to be said, we just learned the Mishna says that if owns gives birth to you have the laws of own you're not. So it's very important to know that if there's a transaction there's some mechan that's taking place between aid and at what point is the transaction deemed to have been consummated. So we can determine does aid own it thus or does own it thus there's no said that when it comes to doing business with it's as it relates to the laws of what does that mean what it means is that did you pay for it well then it's going to be considered a transaction whether you did mash or not I don't care is as long as there's money that trade in hands this is going to be a so again if a is buying a behemoth from if he pays for it even if he doesn't do mashik now this is going to be because it's on and if is buying from if he pays for it even though he didn't do there's not going to be because again now belongs to either way this is the by the way this is going to be it's going to escort us literally until the very very end of the d until the last word on so I just think before we really roll our sleeves up now it's to give a tiny bit of an introduction so really could have been in pick it's going to get involved in the laws of it's going to get involved in some basic most notably so if somebody wants to buys something from somebody from aic perspective. The m goes into effect when a kenyan takes place. How is one ka? Well, it depends what it is he's buying. Are you buying maltin? Are you buying ka is nicknani? depending on what exactly it is that you're purchasing. There's a a whole of that dictate and determine exactly how the as it relates to a which is metalin there's uh major in terms of how that goes into effect holds that the way a person is he's with stating Kazal made a tako said that just giving money that in of itself shouldn't be able to create even is not kindness. In other words, you would think that the way you kind of something is by paying for it, right? But that's not is not only that going to feature in today's when we say is not even. Okay. And then how are you kind? You're not kina in the more obvious way which is by giving money. So the classic form of is that's not the only way you could be but that is definitely as we'll see a form of that's mentioned. So the way is if he does which means if ruin wants to buy something from shim in our case a so if ruin pays it's neither here nor there. If does mash that's when the kenyan is going to be. So when you're dealing with from Israel purchasing specifically behema because again that's the there what would dictate whether or not the kenyan took place would be was there a mashik or was there not a mash? Again there are other ways to do it but we're going to keep it simple now. If there was a mash the was if there was no mashik then the king wasn't. Shouldn't it matter whether you pay? No really it doesn't matter. Well to be fair does matter because it's kindness that's the MS but said it shouldn't be and they have the ability to do something like that according to even is not going to be but in our case in the taking place is not between Ruven and Chipman the king that's taking place is between Ruven and in any essentially what Oshia was saying was that over here the Kenyan has nothing to do with even if there was no still the king is going to be. Now we said okay if there's no how's the king so obviously it's going to be with that's how it's going to be and what said was is the reason it's going to happen is because we look at this transaction being we look at the question is what what is that word it says that gives money to that's even if there was no that took place meaning in this case these gave the money to buy's animal. So even though he didn't do a on the animal is being that he gave the money so that in of itself is going to consummate the canyon and therefore there's going to be what is the word does mean? In other words, it sounds like what is saying is that although an iss but if buys from there it doesn't happen there it happens. Therefore if he was going to be and the way he said it was meaning the way he expressed that idea was in one word he said so right the wants to know what that word means. So it says maybe what he meant to say is as follows. What he meant to say is that the I have that is who from is and is based on the of meaning the what does that mean? It could be that I learn it from the of how aid would acquire an actual because we learn from aid wanted to be kind of the so this is before Lincoln freed the slaves where there was a concept of an of an the is that if wanted to acquire an he would do so with how do I know that it's a it says referring to the he literally an inheritance goes over from generation to generation and we learn from there the word is usually found in the context of so the just like if somebody wants to be that's also known as to and he's also nicknamed Picass maybe that's where met again used this funny word to explain the idea to express a very lumpish point and that is that although acquiring an animal would be but would be acquired what does it mean how does that mean that because maybe means the den of the actual and it could be that this is the way it is is he learned it from the way you acquire if when it comes to acquiring which I know for a fact because I know and I could acquire it's not true when it comes to for sure I could be with so then I should be able to acquire the metalin of theani with again if I could acquire theani with certainly I should be able to acquire his but the says if that's really what means then the should be that the ofani should be nicknaz it's the same you could acquire himself with you could acquire with you should be able to acquire the metallin of the eve kanani or of We know that's not the case. And furthermore, I'll ask you another acquiring from because if wants to acquire a Jewish slave and evk and if that's the case, it doesn't make sense because only we know you can't acquire metalin from aud It has to be. So again, if you're going to tell me that what meant when he said the word to express the point that he meant from the fact that he can acquire himself, the actual and it sounds like a reasonable if you can acquire the with certainly you could acquire his moment with. But I have two perkas on that. Number one, if that's a real, you should be able to acquire the M of which is one that you can't do. Additionally, you should be able to acquire the M of and we know that's something you certainly can't do. Said, let me tell you where meant what he meant when he said was he meant he meant that I have a meaning to actually tells me exactly how you're supposed to acquire from. Now, where does the Tyra say that? So to be fair, the Tyra doesn't really say it. It's not a as we'll see. It's a but what the does say is as follow if you're going to sell something to means or you're going to acquire something from you have to be you're not let charge any meaning you can't fool him. You have to be honest with him. said means if you're going to buy from that's when you have the but if it's not it's not going to be what is it going to be it's going to be now this p that says is actually the reason it's the mashik because mashik means that the seller hands over to the buyer right it goes and That's what the significance of mean. So this is a PK that's telling me this is the and it says so it sounds like that you the are going to purchase or you're going to sell to that's when you're going to have the laws of but if it's not it's going to be that's the same that tells me is tells me is not so what is it if it's not oh that's how you know that when it comes to from but says all you see really from this p is that ms doesn't work when it comes to it's but you don't see that works. So if that's the case, maybe when it comes to now sounds a little bit like you can't buy anything from there's no way to make a rash immediately addresses that and says no means maybe the only way you can acquire something is if you physically take it into not just a mash or not just paying for it or any other form of maybe what the is saying is when it comes to There's a concept of economy of itself is going to be okay. But maybe when it comes to you physically have to bring it into your says answer that question. They said it can't be that way. Why? We had earlier if you could buy himself with a right. So certainly his mom and you should be able to acquire with a said there has to be some sort of Kenyon. So if it has to be it makes sense it's not it's but says remember the maybe the dick is that if you buy so all you have to do is when you're buying from maybe you have to and how does see over here that when it comes to alone is enough all he sees is not mashik maybe it's not mash alone but once the is there's something called mashik so you have to for sure do mashik maybe it's plus how do you know not mashik same if you could acquire with one. So certainly as it relates to this m you should be able to acquire it with one. It doesn't make sense. It should have to be and but the okay maybe you're right but maybe because maybe when it comes to there's only one way to do it but when it comes to you have options. So the Ghar says the of and know is that no is similar to the just like when it comes to there's one way to be so over here there's only one option and the way you do this is is with so bottom line is said related somewhat to that if gives money to buy is we judge it mayhem. What does that mean? It means if he gave the money even though we didn't do mash the is if right now it gives birth to a a baby boy the is there's going to be a this is a very big because if was purchasing the animal from Israel the would not have been in effect unless there was a fact that he gave money is not right is not so being that is not you would have to do a that's true when it comes to buying from But giving the moes is the king now it belongs to if it belongs to suddenly there's going to be a but the way expressed it was he said it's so is straightforward he explained but he prefaced it with a oneword heading it's the question what does mean and had two uh possibilities the second one was the one that ultimately stuck the first one was binam maybe as a way of saying that the that mo is when it comes to is from the parish of if you wanted to acquire an actual you could do so with it makes sense that you should be able to acquire his m with as well and there are two perks on that one was if that's the case you should be able to acquire because you can acquire additionally if this is a real then he should be able to acquire metalin from a yol also with cassv because a yrol can acquire a yol and evi with cf. So based on those two kashes said that this can't be what meant when he said everything. So what then did he mean when he said abay got the final say and said what he meant was that there's a in the actual par of the that teaches me that uh that buys from is with in fact the same words that teach me is teach me that is it says that's the and it says over there and we learn from there when it comes to When it comes to over there, it's going to be cast. All right. A bunch of cashes. Maybe when it comes to such thing as it can't be. Maybe when it comes to that can't be. Maybe you have options. That can't be. There's one way to do it when it comes to Israel and that's there's one way to do it when it comes to and that is and that is says the next part of a the gives money to be right that was the magic word that's the safer that gives money to Israel there to what does the mean say in other words said that when aid buys from iso not and when aid sells to in other words buys from the it's the same exact thing it's and it's not when the yid buys from it's neg that the is to say that theid now takes possession even though he didn't do a so he's when the buys from the it's to say that is kindness even though he didn't do to teach me that if right now a baby boy is born it belongs to already and we know from at that point there's not going to be so when it comes to in the buying from Me if the selling to the now notice used the same word in the when the is the buyer and he again in the when the is the seller. So just like we had a a discussion of what means in the first part of we're going to have a discussion what it means in the second part and as we'll see this next is going to very much mirror the first kamar so we can go through it a little bit quicker because really it's building off of everything we just discussed in the previous part of the that gave money to his what does that mean as long as he gave the money even though he didn't do that mean to say that my in the event that is selling to is from it's from the gof of the actual is mishum because I would learn it from a if can acquire the so just like a can acquire a could also acquire the of aid. It's a whole parra and how does he acquire him with as the says so could acquire aid with certainly it makes sense he should be able to acquire his m with but says if that's what I have on this and the because can acquire also with yet if is should be able to acquire from also based on the same and we know that doesn't work again it's the same he said what did re mean when he said he meant he meant it's where's right so what's the we know this is the same exact that we had earlier the only difference is earlier we were talking about the part because we're talking about a y that's buying over here we're focusing on the part because here the is the one that's selling but that is an insight into the laws of aid buying from a guy and yet selling to a guy but it says and we learn from and it says when it comes to says maybe when it comes to meaning maybe there is no way for to sell to Maybe it has to actually enter his but there's no way to do it unless he physically brought it into his house. Maybe there is no that's going to happen anymore can't be if acquire as we mentioned earlier with certainly there has to be a for him to acquire his animal to acquire his but maybe when is buying from he has to make two maybe the of it happens with one but when it comes to selling Maybe has to do two things. Number one, he has to do and number two in addition to he also has to pay for it. If can acquire a yid with one should be able to acquire his m with one. Okay, maybe he has options. When it comes to aid and it has to be over there, it's true it's one. I know it's one. How do I know it's one? Because can acquire a yid with one, but maybe he has options. It could be mash the way works. Or maybe it could be the way acquires the actual right maybe you have options. The answer is has to be just like when it comes to it's only one it's only one. Bottom line is this is literally a repeat of the previous said that even though when it comes to his nickname the laws of that's why we're talking about it now everything but one of the laws is when it comes to or so regardless of the is the buyer or the is the seller over there it's not going to be and what's the is the parish in the of that's how we know and it says it with regards to whether you're selling whether you're buying but here's the word it says right is talking to the you're selling to another or you're buying from another then when it comes to it's not what is it it's says according to held that is now the tomari says per it's the very end but there is that the way between is not like just made a big deal it's Not then and only then is it when it comes to holds that is buying or selling is so asks as follows if you'll tell me that holds we have to like that nickn so And it means so it's probably only and it's not. Okay. So if it's only according to kindness and not well that would mean it's how would then be of the opinion that when it comes to from or from there it would be not but rather it would be because because he would have the same dictator of and that is it says to teach me. What was basis that is and is because it says and teaches me there has to be a difference between the way do transactions and who do transactions here it's going to be over there it's going to be now holds that now if that's the case we have a little bit of an issue because you mess How could it be the same thing? Now tell me why can't it be the same thing? Because it sounds like the way happened with is is unique and distinct. So if that both you're going to have a problem, right? That's what's bothering the high level. says a hold that means it's not oh so he the same way does but he does it in the reverse order he says that when it comes to it's by the way even though the we said sounds like it's talking about it's kind right kindness is that it's only mo it's not. So the mo is going to be when it's what is it then going to be when it comes to over there it's going to be not with mo over there it's over there it's going to be but if who holds that no that is not what's well if that's the case Why did say the word what are we dianing from that word? So again held that is going to be how did he come to that? He held that because it says economy good and it says why write the word obviously to tell me that this is only true is only true force over there it's going to be that is we went through this holds now if he holds that is also that means why write the in the parish of telling me how can take place if it's the same for if not so why would the write the word now if holds like that and not so that means even though it says really the way the happen is that's means and is only true for it's not true when it comes to And that's the iss that we means right the way did it well if that's the case if that's the case so what would emerge is that so how could it be again is asking how could I name Behold it says what are you going to do with the word I mean if you have something else to do with it that's great as we'll see in a minute the will but how could it become the same way doesn't it say but that is really if it's very good because it's the inverse of holds teaches me is going to Is going to teach me that is but if he holds and then for the kash we have to hold this because it's going to play itself out is only true if you hold like A could hold like additionally can hold what does teach me doesn't teach me that the different teach now that mentioned So it's not like is coming out of left field was actually mentioned in the and what the essentially is teaching me is that there's to return all the laws of as opposed to when it comes to you don't have to return but the says I don't need to teach me this it says and doesn't the word already mean that the laws of apply only to they don't apply to aani says I hear and are two one is coming toani and the other one's coming to so the rules of don't apply to theani they don't apply to hectish because they're both not only said right if I'm being either the kanani or the hectish I'm removing the rights of the kani or heish I'm going to take it from the kani that's why I need twoas to teach me both but the ask This all makes sense that you could tell me that is coming to you if you hold that's why I would need a to tell me I know is going to be motor but if you're going to tell me that is really if then certainly I know is mash that if you hold gazakum is mut which is a Why would I need a to tell me that there's no when it comes to if you can steal from him then certainly there should be a so again is what am I using for what am I using for to teach me here but the says that's all good if you hold that's all good if you but if this is obvious if you hold that you're going to All the meaning if he's the one if holds that then can't be coming to you know what is coming to it's coming to be the that is not but rather it's going to meaning again let's get this a little bit of a problem with that because it says which seems to differentiate between now if you how could it be and the said if you hold okay then it's very good is teaching me it's mo over here it's going to be if however you hold the had a terret theor's ter was it's coming to teach me there's no for the last part of I'll tell you which but the says do I need a tell me there's I know then certainly I know it's going to be mut what was terra's ter was that you're right ifar holds that gazakum is m you would have to say hold like in other words in thear has two options of how to explain either a holds like that that So teaches me that when it comes to or he holds like and teaches me that there's no but that would be to and it would be predicated on holding that is to teach me that I know there's going to be bottom line is huge I mean you see how big this is huge as it relates to how we how it's with and according to it's clearly how is he is why are the two things because there seems to be an indic indication in the P that the way is coming from is not the way from the way is coming. So really is going to be the inverse of so however it happens by it's going to be the other way when it comes to the two options that the we're straddling in the are if you hold that would mean and in one side that is if you hold that then when it comes to it should be it should be which is the Gar had a weight to make a work even but the bottom line is huge but we're not finished yet. So the gumar now is going to conclude and this is really the home stretch of the da with a me. is going to ask uh accasha from a bry that's discussed in a des a repeat of a sugia des and the bry is going to be a cashia so the ask what's holds that if purchases from or purchases is not what's It's correct. Somebody was buying scraps of silver and he takes it home and he's going through his little pile that he bought and he found a real is not let have in his possession. So if the who bought the from the did but he didn't give the money yet he can go back to the he could give it back to him he could take the money in exchange it's fine meaning as long as he didn't uh give the the money yet right he's not getting money back he didn't give the money but if all he did was the mashik he could return it and not owe him the money that he had stipulated ated with him that he was going to own. If however he gave the money and he did the at that point you can't return it and get your money back cuz now you're having from it's too late cuz it's yours already. So you have to take the you have to take this you have to throw it into the dead sea or just get rid of it. So again, what does the price say? Somebody was buying, literally pieces of silver from and he found a inside he'd love to return it. It's just not so pos. So what's the could you return it? Get your money back or not owe the money that you were you had agreed that you were going to owe. Do you just have to just destroy it, throw it out the window, throw it on to the dead seat? Like how exactly are you supposed to go about this? So the person says it depends on one thing. Did you give the money? Did you not give the money? actually if you did but you didn't give the money yet so then you could return it if you paid for it and you did so then you have to get rid of it now the garra is going to ask right that's how we said this and the is going to ask from the safest again there's a lot to unpack here but let's just follow the way the garra does it we'll go along with the thread of the actual the if you're going to tell me that kindness then I don't understand the safe of the price of what did the safer say if you paid for it and you did mashik now you own it oh now you own it so now you have to you have to get rid of it I only own it because I paid for it and I did holds kindness when it comes to this is a classic once he pays for it that should be enough if you hold you want to know what's going on in this This is a very important because we'll see there's going to be an a little bit of here anyways and and is going to work very much with this. Let's get this. talking about with the made up that the way this transaction is going to work is so they said listen I'm a a lawabiding and I want this transaction to work it's so the reason you have to give the money and do even though really is because you made up that you're doing if it's so why do you have to give says this is what the means the money is neither here nor there. The is trying to bring a point even if you paid the money because the only thing that I really care about is the I don't care about the money. So the essentially is saying that is going to understand the price. So the safe of the price is really it's talking about the way it should work based on kindness. But they made up it's a private negotiated transaction. You can make up whatever you want to make up. They made up that it's going to work between Israel. They made up it's going to work and it's for that reason even though you give the money you would have to do the mashik in order for it to be yours in order for you to have to get rid of it I if it's why you didn't give the money you didn't have to give the money the price is just saying that even if you gave the money even if you gave the money I don't care because you made up to do but says so the price I understand right it's like a double almost there's an it's about they made up to And we're mentioning the ratio. Do you explain the ratio to me? I don't understand the ratio. The ratio said the rat said that if you did, but you didn't give money yet, then you got to keep it. Meaning then you could do what you want. Why? Because you weren't yet. You can't keep it, but you can return it and get credit for it. You wen't yet. If it's talking about you made up so it's yours is because there's a right in your mind you were buying you didn't think you were buying that there's a so it's as if it was never yours it's for that reason it's okay so the reason in the ratio the is you did a and you made up to is you can exchange it because it's but in the we did you paid for it also. Okay. Yeah, in the safe as well. So if in the no worries because also why said now by the way is going to answer this question but we interrupt before even gets a chance to respond let me tell you what I hold the talking about meaning they're both right because you're right it should be ain't good it's a and really the difference if you gave the money you didn't give the money it's a okay so what's the ratio of in the ratio you didn't give the money yet. It doesn't look like anything. There's no marion of I have that I own and I'm giving it to you and I'm benefiting from it because I didn't pay for it yet. So being that I didn't pay for it yet. So it's a and it doesn't look like anything more than that. So it's for that reason you can go give it back to him and uh reduce the amount of money that you problem and for that reason it's going to be initial. So rabb said I agree with it's talking about what you made up to do this is and that's why the price is all about mash that's what the price is all about the between the and the safe however is is in one case you gave the money the other case you didn't give the money well you did give the money it's not like anything it's just looks a little suspicious looks like you're benefiting from in the ratio we didn't give the money doesn't look like anything where you gave the money it does look like something by the way according to Ra is going along with the of and that is it's talking about right that's why really should uh be the thing it's it's about the even though but being that it was therefore we care about the we care about the stating that there's a stating that is also a mei. The mexi is an issue where you paid for it. The mexi is not an issue. We didn't pay for it. One piece that comes out important coin through is cash's cash was if it's talking about where it was. So why in the is the if you paid for it and you did a mash once you did a it should be enough and the give the said you don't have to say that coin it's the whole punch line the ratio the reason you can return is because he didn't give money for it therefore it's a and it doesn't look like anything in the when you pay for it now there's a so the reason the safer mentions is not no that's whole point the ratio there's no money there's no messi in the safer there's money and therefore there's a mei problem but either way was interrupted right what did say abaya said in the rat is because there's a and therefore even though you did it's going to be a problem the seemingly there's no told I don't understand what does there's no because of that said really there's in the end but needs to answer himself is going to tell in the and the reason is the because being that he didn't pay for it he didn't pay it for it and when you don't pay for something you don't inspect it so carefully and it's for that reason it wasn't incumbent upon him right you're not really responsible in the world of to inspect your goods until till you pay for it so being the he didn't pay for it so he had no real responsibility to be and it's for that reason it's a mecc if it ends up being not what he was supposed safe. So the safe is not the being that he paid for it. He should have looked at it before he did the you can't come afterwards with so you only have a you don't have a in the again. Let's uh get this a little bit clear because we had a we interrupted it with kasha and his and then we went back to so the this the setup was is that we have a price at first glance that seems to contradict raisia. Why holds that when buys from it's all about the money. Yet we have a braceer that says that if buys from and he found inside if he paid for it and he did then sounds like you'd have to pay for it and do but paying for it itself is not enough. That contradicts hold's kindness. Now to make matters even more complicated, this price has a ratio. And the ratio, the price has said that if you did Msiah alone and you didn't pay for it at that point, if you want, you're able to return it. And the question is, what does this all mean? And what we have so far is we have two and respectively. They both agree that the Bryce is talking about anime. The is where the made up of we're going to go is means that we're going to work. This is going to go into effect not by paying money. This is going to go into effect. This is going to go into effect by doing Msiah. Okay. So if Mashiah is what's going to make it go into effect, so essentially there's uh two issues over here. Issue number one is if it's about what's in the the first part of the bra if it's about because you're doing this. So once you do a mash at that point it should be right it should be about and then in the why do you have to give the mash once I do the mash now it's clear between the has something to do with the at least certainly is what it sounds like but um if that's the case I don't understand the I don't understand the why in the ratio where I did the mash could I return it we made up to do and why in the is it about the mash and the cast it should only be about the mash. So to answer this AB and RA both went with the same gun. They both said there's a mechto element over here, right? That's what's going on over there. There's a element where they differ is as follows. Abaya helto is only in the ratio. It's not in the meto is in the ratio because is I didn't realize I was getting away. Yeah, but you should have inspected. So if I pay for it, I should have inspected. If I didn't pay for it, I shouldn't. And that is the whole point of the is talking about where I didn't pay for it. dust is a mech even though we made up to do this is in the safe I paid for it there's no if there's no according to the is in the he doesn't care if you paid didn't pay the and really in the and in the you should be able to be why then in the safer can't I be because once I pay for it it looks like I'm benefiting from the in the racial I didn't pay for it doesn't look like anything in the does look something. So the bottom line is the mah is you made up to do this within Israel. Additionally, there's a element where go their own way holds the is in the ratio only. It's not in the holdsto is in the ratio and it's in the punch line between the rat and the is did you pay for not pay for it. Not like the Gmorra suggested initially. No, the whole punch line of the price is the money in the ratio you didn't pay for. In this you did pay for that is the punch line of the price. How does it make if you paid for didn't pay for it determines whether it's or not? But whether you paid for it or didn't paid for it dictates whether going to say oh even though there's I'm worried that it looks like something where you paid for it. We're worried about that where I didn't pay for it. I'm not worried about that. In other words, we're If you want to really zero down in a micro way is how to understand the which was the original. How do you understand the according to in the is even though there is is because it it is not a according to according to it is a it is a but at the same time it looks bad and it's for that reason the first two believe it or not there's another two much shorter raashi said let me tell you what's going on in this price now raashi that there's no reason to make an akima that it's talking about where the y made up that he's going to go through this transaction between it's not necessary to make that okay so if that's the case really what's that now if that's the case says let's see now inside say being that you find in the ratio is not right. What did the rat say that if you didn't pay for it even though you did and that part of the price was good at the cash is the that's perfect in because even though is usually but is really going to be so in the mik is not also if that's the case why do you mention meaning the ratio of says is a mashik is not what works over here because if mashik work then it should work in the ratio and doesn't work in the ratio so clearly this is not a mashik this is a mo so if this is Mo it's not a so why is it necessary to do the says it's really not it's all about money because you didn't pay for it you did pay so why do you that was the whole why do you need it's only about we just mentioned it was just the ratio you didn't you did the you did you should know from the mashik is neither here nor there so you don't have to make any akim is it's what was the why do you mention in the mention in the ratio we mentioned it's very misleading maybe this is a case of poetic symmetry over accuracy but the bottom line is we should know from the ratio it's not even misleading because the ratio itself should be to you that that mashik is nothing is the fourth shot ra did make the and that is talking about and made up they're going to go and it's for that reason in the you have do right that's why you have to do in other words mid is safe just the opposite of raashi in the mash is is also going to is also going to be kind so it's really about it's really uh it's really about and that's why it says what's the if it's about right if you did so why is so what was a mahal right that was had a different you know what the racial means is talking about this might sound like a that's what it means again that's not what the said that's not what it means it means it's a little bit of a discussion whether rao is editing the bra or rao is somehow ting the braer this way but regardless this is the punch line the ravino of the Now says the what does even mean? Right? And do anything. So means you agreed to move forward with this. If you want now to back out of your agreement, that's something you're allowed to do. And what the is coming to teach me is is that to back out of a deal is not so because if you back out of a deal, you're right. You're you're not you're being not honest. That's only true if it's a from a right. They have to keep their word. The old pagans were very not honest. So doesn't have to keep it either. And that's all the means. If you do at that point, you're out. That's in the as well. But when the says it really means once you make that then it's not true. He didn't do anything didn't do anything. All he did is he gave him your word. Oh, they keep their words. So, we have to keep our words. But when it comes to these old pagans didn't keep their words, this is not something that we're obligated to do either. So, the bottom line is right again that you would expect to find somewhere in Bits. But the bottom line is that uh is number one and how is it from aid held that is based on the has to bear held that is does that mean that he holds like that from is two and the but this major discussion was have to do with our sug because said actually in the context of interestingly enough didn't have to say in the context of but he did in fact we saw the whole last part of was applying to the world of right nothing to do with but the bottom line is it is a something that has some sh to that's why it's appears over here the last part of the was a bryce a ba that at first glance seemed to really contradict a price of that talks about aid buying from he comes home and he finds the question is could he return it? Why not? Because you're not let from and returning it would constitute the price says if he paid for it and he did then no sounds like if he just paid for it then yeah if once you pay for it it's yours you shouldn't be able to have from it and the gumar really gave four differentim had to explain the abaya raashi ra respectively three of those involved in aa that it's talking about with the made up to do this is so really It's ordinarily yeah it would be all about the money but in this it's all about the mashik that posed issues with the ratio of the braza which forced us either to get involved in meto which again if there's a what about the safa and or make a kima's raina changes the language of the bra so a lot happened in that last part of the bra but it was all trying to be mashia and we are going to stop Yeah.