Bechoros 16

Today's daf is and we are 11 lines from the top of. So the topic of the daf is a continuation of the previous two and that is the miktosh is a carbon that has a m where the is that once it has a you could be it you could redeem it. You can transfer the kadusha from the carbon onto something else and the carbon itself to a certain degree will be a tucked away the is talking about a carbon and says in contrast to an ordinary carbon where the is there's a parish of when it comes to this particular carbon doesn't explain what it's referring to there. You can eat it wherever you want to eat it. Not only could you eat it wherever you want to eat it, but just like an says you could eat wherever you want. So to this carbon, you'd be able to eat wherever you want as well. Say, what carbon is the referring to? It's referring to a carbon that had a after your that's when this kicks into effect. Stating that the Mishna said that there's two types of this mikttosh where the animal was a carbon before it attained its kava and then this where first the animal had the kava and then afterwards it became a carbon where the animal got the mum before it became a carbon then it's much more the gummor brought a brace on the bottom of dv which said that It's treated almost entirely like if however the animal was a carbon first and then afterwards received it although it could be and although once you're with regards to many it's but with regards to many it's it's treated like as well for example it's there's no of there's no of either way the gave a short list of differences between whether the mum came before the hectish or the hectish came before the days on the bottom brought a bry that elaborated on that list and the garra now is going to conclude its discussion of this entire topic and specifically the bryce on the bottom of now the truth is that if you look back at the bryce you're not going to find these words so these words were apparently from the bry that the brought on the bottom of but it's referring to the saf of the safe of the bryer which discussed refers the animal was a carbon the hectish came before the moon came and the seems to be saying that if you would this animal you would not be says had a different in this line in the we don't even half his gear was that is going to be. Now the truth is the gear of makes a lot more sense than the gear of and that is because the most important fundamental principle whenever you learn the is that the only time is if this was the type of which you could have brought so anything that's to be brought if you or if you or if you etc. etc. like the discuss in detail, you're going to be but if you have a carbon that you couldn't bring anyways it wasn't royal then you're not going to be now this carbon you can't bring it doesn't matter if the hectish comes before the or the comes before the hectish or whether you're not an animal that has a m a for sure you can never bring as a a carbon so the truth is is that the of at first glance seems to be the proper says that's the commentary. He made an in the B. So he was bothered with this as well. How could the price say must be talking about a very specific type of what type of a that's in the iss that although if somebody would take an animal that has a you would have to take it down it's one of the where is that even if one of them is but there is a type of where Rauna felt that the only way to understand this ga in the is by saying that the wasn't discussing an ordinary but a where the is being that it's a that's enough to say that it's this is some real and it's for that reason is going to be meaning he acknowledged that for Most there's no way to have such a course who holds that type of that's said as it relates to the carbon that has a where first it was a carbon then it got its so being that even to a certain degree it still has so is It's And it's whether you did the before the pigeon or whether you did the after the if you do the meaning you this animal that had first the hectish then the and then after you did the is this animal that's the tumur of the animal balm is going to be messa you're going to kill it my time or what's the explained it. He said, "What else should you do? Should you be this got its from an underlying carbon?" The underlying carbon was a carbon you couldn't be. It was if that's the case, how could you be of the should you be being that it received its after you already once you it weakens the to a degree that the carbon who its has that same level of weak it's so weak that you can't be that was that discussed yesterday in great detail said by process of elimination pun intended me. You have to eliminate this animal. There's nothing else you can do. You can't be cuz it's of a carbon that has you can't be cuz it's too weak cuz the So the level of that it got is so weak that it's not enough for it to be for that reason. You have no choice but to go ahead and kill. Why can't you just eat it? Why do you have to kill this? Why can't you eat the precedence with this? If you have the of or you had an animal that was you had an animal that was these are different types of and you created a so is the of the is that if they have a you can eat it says that why is the oftim different than the and it's allowed to eat. So why should the tum of this of the safe of the be any different? Why did say you have to kill it knocked out two options? He said it can't be mak because it comes uh kadusha. He said that you can't eat it. You said you can't be po because it doesn't have a strong enough kadusha thus you have to kill it. No, there's another option. The other option is eat it. And this precedence for being able to eat the of a carbon because that's what you do with the said very simple. of is because and itself you're allowed to eat. So you can eat so you can eat the of it either. But over here we're dealing with the of ordinary notion ordinary that has not eat. You're only allowed to eat it after pigeon. When the puss says that's before pigeon, of course you're not allowed to eat it. Being that you're not let to eat it. So too the you wouldn't be able to eat either being that you can't eat it. Only if you do and we said to do is not an apple. For that reason, you have no choice but to go ahead and kill it. The reason you can't eat the tumor of the kach of this rice is because we're talking about kachim where it itself you're not allowed to eat when it has unless you so if you can't eat itself without pion then how could you eat the without pion the point is the lumbness of this is the turra takes on the status of the thing that it's a of. So if this animal is a turra of a carbon that you could eat when it's such as you'd be able to eat the of as well but if it's the of a carbon that you can't eat when it's has only with so the also you'd only be able to eat that you can't be that's not an option. So the bottom line is what was that the oft whether you did the before or whether you did the is messa why messa press of elimination you can't be mate because it comes we can't eat it like you just said you can't be for that reason you have no choice but to kill it's burnt out from a a we've gone through so many times recently. It says so this is a that talks about the of a kosher animal. An animal has to be it has to be and then the Tory says there are four animals that has one of the two being that it doesn't have both is they're non-cooser. One of them is the guml and after the tra says that you can't eat the guml because it doesn't have both the says and we learn from those words which is extra to teach me that it's referring to the union it's talking not about not about a kosher animal versus a non-cooser animal it's discussing a kachim a very abstract in kachim the ofdasha Not bad. But that is me. You're not allowed to eat it. You're supposed to kill. How could you use Tommy for that? We need it for something else. There's a something that comes up a lot in some of the makas that we're going to learn. Now, this is an idea that we're going to see a lot. There five types of carbonas with you couldn't be you, you couldn't be it. You were supposed to kill it. known as the and the argues the to the from those words to the issa from those words I needed to teach memor that in that there's really two the to this and both are the words to but to is going back on para and mala thus to Even though it's one it's because it's going back it's referring to two what's if it's not if it's not. So you have two one to teach me the and the second one to teach me the how do you know you see it's not from this not the part from the part because there's two really that you can learn from here but the parenthetically asks a question the is a which usually means so how we learning it from a are we learning it from a or is it learned from the says you're right maybe the second is not coming to teach me is really what then is the second it's really one it's coming to teach me of what do you do with a you have to wait until it gets a boom and then you pic Because the rule is all five is if you would have the equivalent thereof issue with an asham it would be you'd wait until it gets and then you would be one of the if that's the case and I know it from the same the same that told me told me So again, I don't need tell me who to tell me. I know that it's a hill and I don't need to tell me either because also really the second is coming to teach me. One of them is coming to teach me. The second one's coming to teach me. What's the I thought it's so then it's not a and if it's a it's not so says no it's a and it's oh and by the way you need both had I only had the I only had the it just says Tommy I know I can't eat it doesn't have to kill it maybe wait till it gets to maybe be p it maybe after you p it you could eat it I don't know how would I know you're supposed to kill it. So for that for sure I need I only had what would be if you eat it I would think okay you violated what happens if you violate it's but there's no that this is referring to so it's a it's meaning they complement each other one without the other doesn't tell me the full picture. I need the to clarify that when the Torah says it means we kill it. I need the to tell me that if somebody eats it he's over he's over alternatively really you wouldn't need the really could have told me the whole story rather why then did the tell to me not to teach me itself meaning is teaching me I know it from it's true I know from why is it a not to teach me the itself selfish but of to another which the other thing that's learned out from what's the other thing that's learned out from Tommy what's it coming to teach me just like the is because again doesn't say just so how do I know it's said that and how do you know it's because of the how do I know from the so the wrote in this not to teach me that I know from the hill but to be to be the where if you made the is that it's going to be exhale. So the truth is this last gamur right here even though the context is is rather complex but there's a very important underlying principle that we're not going to talk about but just to point out and that is the that is what do I need a for and if I have a then what do I need for and this was the the tum here in the last eight nine lines that we just learned the truth is is that there are gimaras where the gimar will bring and the gummorus has a from a mean at first asking a very good kasha if it's then it's not learned from a and if it's learned from a then it's not that's good conceptually but the truth is if you go through there are many where the garra says just to give an example the gmorra discusses says stating that the Gmorra says it's there's an extra an extra and an extra and that the mentions with regard to the bris that's there's many to this at first glance why is the ming why do I need a what's wrong with saying that was we have an it's not a a real it says Tommy the context is the the camel the context is paral so why can't the be as to something that's again this is a gateway to some real festern underline that either way new topic we return to our regular program really which is the if someone's from a guy so the is the of however. So what does this mean? Number one, what does mean? So once upon a time, there was a very common financial arrangement that partners would make where Ruven and Chim would come together and they're going to be business partners. One person is going to provide the product and the other person is going to do the work. Now there's different ways that you can make this arrangement. In the bar arrangement, what happens is the person that's providing the product in this case, he's providing the sheet. The that person is guaranteed that he's going to get his sheep back. So the operator, let's say Ruben is the one that's providing the product and Shim is the operator. Shim, the operator, has to guarantee that he's going to give Ruv back what it was he gave him. So if he gave him $1,000 worth of sheep, the arrangement was 10 years we're going to do work and we're going to have some sort of when 10 years comes Shim has to write Ruin a $1,000 check and it doesn't matter if something happened to the sheep, they died, they became more expensive, less expensive. What happens is he has an a guarantee of whatever the underlying value of the at the time that they they sat down and they made this arrangement. It's Barzo therefore in the sense that it's ironclad. It's rock solid from the financiers's perspective, from the investor's perspective, he's sitting good because even though they went into business together, but if you really break it down, he loaned this person money because he guaranteed it, right? Usually an investment is defined by the risk that you take. So if you're assuming risk, then it's a quote unquote investment. To the extent that the money is guaranteed, then it's more a loan than it's investment. This is important not just you know in business transactions it's very important this is 101 because is that if you lend somebody money you're not going to get a return on your money if you go into business with somebody you shook them together and then you can make as much money as you want to make but in being that this money is guaranteed so really if you think about it it's viewed a little bit more as a loan than it is an investment because the operator shenan has an he has a responsibility to give back to ruing dollar for the value of what it was that he got. The truth is it's so much like a loan that we're going to see the gar is going to say that it's awesome. But it wasn't a loan. It was we went into business together. That's not business. You you forced me to guarantee that I'm going to give you back dollar for dollar. So essentially what happens you loan me money and on your loan you're now taking interest. That's ribbus. This is a big problem. The says it's for two to get involved in a bar relationship. But either way over here you didn't do it with a you did it with a guy. If somebody took from so the guy was the investor the was the operator. So he provides the the animals and the y is a shepherd. is going to work for 10 years and then whatever grows or whatever all the produce the animals that are born they're going to have some sort of so the question is the animals that now come is there or is there no this is a little tricky says the is going to explain this in greater detail but the way Rashi explains it right here in the Mishna is that doesn't mean the of themselves that for sure is part of meaning embarrass that the go gave the if that itself now had children the is for sure not going to bear the question is what happens if the offspring now has a says meaning the if it itself was it gave birth to aar so now we're dealing with the third generation the is going to be if the anle wasra meaning the fourth generation is already going to be again. We'll see what this means in the Muhammed. If however the arrangement between the and the guy was that you told the guy that you're giving me the when the day comes that you want to take your time back based on our arrangement. Let's say it was 10 years. So 10 years come and now you want to take your your back. You can take it from the original or you can take it from the so he was he saying he made it very clear he stipulated that I'm assigning the of the as collateral so to speak for the money that you gave me. So you'll be able to be from it that's something that you'll be able to take. So now the vlad itself becomes like the mother. Thus for that therefore the is is that the vlad's vlad is also going to be potter. It's only the Vlad's Vlad Vlad that's going to be just knock it down one D. Said even up to 10 generations there's never going to be from this whole pun intended. The question is is going under or is it going under? We'll see that in the last is something that we discussed in great detail earlier in the par earlier in the A. What happens if gives birth to an R sounds familiar? The first was that if relationship with provides the is going to be the operator and they're going to have some sort of with all the produce, all the offering, everything that comes from these animals. So is there's no one two dire but for sure there's a bar says the what's why is there no presumably because the way we look at this arrangement is is that the barel are the guys so just like a guy who has his own son that gives birth to a bakar there's no kushkar so in this arrangement is not going to be bakar either and even though he gave it to aid but at the end of the day it's push termin terminology. It's still IN HIS RISH. WHY isn't it in his rish? Because at the end of the day, it's it's it was his. So even though it's not in his rish, he just gave it to this Jewish shepherd. But at the same time, we look at it as if it's an issue relationship because it's what do you see from the fact that it's see you don't look at you look at because the only time there is if I loan you money what's the definition of a loan that mean has to be yours if It's mine. If I give you a padin, there's no ribbus. Ribbus is only when Ruven gives something to Shim. Shim has the now it's his. So he can't give him back the thing plus interest. But if it's then you wouldn't have ribbons. So from the fact that we're saying that there's no isshma it's from the fact that we say that this ribb it's this seems to be a steer fundamentally how the viewed this relationship did they view it as a loan thus this ribbus or did they view it more as a thus if you take from you're going to be part of a he said there's two types of transactions where the takes upon himself he says no matter what happens to the I'm going to give it I'm going to give you back dollar what it was you gave me in that case we look at as being the in that case it's ribb if it's ribb you're not allowed to do it with a in the case where the person doesn't accept the yukula meaning the macab never told the investor that I'm going to give you back dollar for dollar what you gave me. In that case, we look at it still being the of the you number one relationship. Then it's something else. You can make up another name for it. But it's as far as goes means it's an ironclad transaction. It's not to the extent that you're as in as the investor assuming all this risk that it's not. You can't just make this up here. It says here it says you're going to start making a that this means this and that means that these are two very misleading the way you're learning in said a third that same that says from a guy you're allowed to. Now why you allowed to do it from a guy? Because there's no ribbus when it comes to a guy like listening. Why do we have to jump from here to a guy? We can continue talking about and when is it a problem you have to say that's not what said we're talking about a regul meaning who's the person that wasabraula the no the one that's giving the money wasn't mabo any all the is on the macab and from that standpoint It's technically viewed as a loan. If it's viewed as a loan, that's why this isn't its what's the cash is then why is there no to the extent that the handed it over to the it's the now it's no he just has a responsibility whenever the due date comes to write him a check. So why should he be part of an reason is because what would happen if the guy comes at the due date and he says all right the time is up I want you to give me back write me a check says so what would he do he would grab the and let's say he can't find the tough today then he would go ahead and he would grab the so essentially even though you're guy right now that something belongs to it doesn't belong to a guy but it's very possible it's very likely it's you're talking that the guy's going to end up with it or it's certainly a possibility that's enough for it to be called quote unquote and the rule as it relates to that as long as there's one sad that's enough to be the mission continued and said so the truth is that this line is a little out of context X because the next kamar is not going to be going back on that line. It's actually going to be going back on the first part of the Mishna. The first part of the Mishna was now what does that mean? So we explain the Mishna the way Rashi explains the Mishna and that is they say in when the children of the give birth to aar that is not going to have that means the itself's children when the's children give birth now to the to the extent that is not going to have any stating that as we'll see in the now it's really whether that's in fact what the means who know That's the way we just explained the Mishna had a different shot. So what does it means? Not only are the when the children of the barasel give birth to a bkar but even when the grandchild of the barasel gives birth to aar is they're not going to be bakar meaning the fourth is also not going to have bkar there's not going to be bkar until the fifth says the said in the next line that in the event that at the original signing of this deal the Yid said that the of the are going to be collateral against the money that you're giving me. So then is we knock it down another the is that are also going to be now it sounds like only when you make that arrangement is the meaning even the fourth generation of offspring are not going to have it's only the fifth generation but if you didn't make this arrangement like meaning the Mishna says the problem the say when you were explaining the Mishna. We weren't saying the fact that the Mishna stated regarding and not in the it sounds not like you have to do it's not really the of the third generations offspring are going to be part true even you why did the Mishna say were you a how You would think that in the case of being that once the guy knows that he could take the ban meaning you would have thought that once you get more than that maybe once the was the as collateral so maybe even the fifth generation is going to be potter that even when you it's command and when The fourth generation is part the fifth generation is even when ye the fourth generation is part and the fifth generation is but from the fact that the mission said that when you the fourth is potter the fifth is doesn't mean that when you it's different when you it's same exact the is that even when you it's going to be that same exact said that even up to 10 generations you because the guy could always collect from all the offspring if you're not paying him back th even up 10 dyus you're going to be part of the rahuda leari bishop according to rabuda where rabuda said that the tanaka is already discussing dyrus because according to rahuda the fourth even the grandchild's offspring is potter what's like this according to rahuna the takes the barel it's what does mean it's going to be that's what it means it's if itself gave birth are going to be we're not getting involved in dy we just said the are the way understands it it's are also meaning if the say give birth to even then you're going to be according to the sees that the mission is getting involved in the dyus the according to we're not really getting involved in dus what say he said already discussed the fourth and the fifth generation. See it was said not only the third to the fourth but even 10us you're going to be part we never discussed dyus we just discussed the now implied as dyus because the being partner means the children but the never used a word that suggests dyus soar talking about said that you Potter you should have said why up to 10us you mentioned three I mentioned 10 but he never said three you never said so he never spoke about why did you say 10 who said was going back in the first line of the mishna the first line of the didn't mention but the second part of the didn't mention the second part of the mentioned he what was when you were as collateral then is that you ratcheted down a then already the third generations offspring is from as well. So in the heid line of the Mishna even according to we're discussing dy according to is not going back on the first line of the he's going back on him. So essentially what the did was how to understand the start asking from different lines in the Mishna and the saved the best question for last the best question is the most obvious question what's most obvious question the first line of sounds like not like but they didn't ask first asked from then asked the why talking about but this is the here's the punch line here's the final right? I mean the says doesn't say could be had a different when the Mishna says the was meaning the and the are going to be part some actually had that and the question was therefore not aud It was. So really depending on what the gear of the mission is, you'd have a riot of if the gear is that's if the gear says if that's the case not but implied would therefore be exhale. So just to go back to some of the raid the digression that we spoke about in yesterday's daf and that is yamas. So yesterday we mentioned a rather creative connection between the sugis that we're learning and the idea yam is based on we don't have to go back into that right now but we were discussing the the chuva of the marshal in days that spoke about yamas and I think it's just kadai to really back up a little bit and just to go through this a little bit more clearly a little bit more methodically as far as does a person have to cover his head when he walks? Do you have to wear a yamaka? I don't mean a borcelino on top of a yamaka. We're talking about a yamaka. Do you have to wear a yamaka or do you not have to wear a yamaga? Now, one thing is clear. There's many mentions in kazal and in about yamagas. So for sure it's something that has a source in the question is is it something that you're obligated to do or is it aid and this tremendous whether it's something that you have to do or whether it's something that you're only to do. So the discussion really begins with it's the Torah says when you put on your talis you should take the talis and you should cover your head it's like this your head you're here your head will not be exposed while you're wearing the talis and of course is the had to understand in this story says that one would be inclined to think that what the Torah is saying is that when you're wearing a talis, make sure you're wearing a meaning that there's an idea not to be while you're wearing a but that can't be what the Torah says because everybody knows that you're never allowed to go. A person also always has to be. So you need the tour to tell you that when you're dabbing shakas and you wear your talis make sure don't forget your yamag every time you walk outside don't forget every time you walk don't forget every time you make a don't forget your how is it possible that you need the to tell me that to make sure to be while you're wearing what then does the mean says what the means is that when you wear your talis you should take your talis and you should put it over your head the tour wasn't telling me hilkas yamakas the tour was telling me hila's talis he's coming explain to me how you're supposed to wear talis. His Russian is that you should take the talis and you should put it over your head. that reason I used to put it over his fillin but there's an idea to put it over your head but it's a it's a how you supposed to wear your towels but of course the doesn't mean make sure you wear while you're wearing your says even though there's a mitzvah to listen to what the says I don't agree with the I think that what the Torah is saying is what the thought for sure he's not saying what the Torah is saying is is that when a person wears make sure that you're wearing a yama. Why don't you find throughout the idea of wearing a yam says that of course you find it but you find it in the context of you have to wear to wear it on the Torah that when you're wearing a talis over here it's over here it's not aid over here it's something that you absolutely positively have to do now it's interesting that at first glance it would seem to be a misus between the bio safe and between the whether the idea of is something that one is to do or whether it's really but the truth is that if you look around there seems to be steerism in the so this is very clear says without a doubt that what to do is is to wear and that's why when the tour said heal there's No way in the world he could have meant anything else. this is so the over there discusses the et all the different says the one of the that we make is so what's the purpose of the he brings from that only someone who wears a hat should make the but if you're an wear a hat there's no idea of making this says I disagree You know why you make the not because we wear hats? Because that's something that you have to do. And he says even though there's a that holds that it's not awesome, but at the end of the day says I hold it's and being that it's user. So it's for that reason that we make a because if you understand why we're because there's an idea of that we're giving for the we have to walk around with that's why we make the says why do we make the iss right here in as well that it's awesome for a person to go stating that we mentioned yesterday the which is really in the it's for a person to go with a says and a person shouldn't go and because when it came to what did the when it came to he said so it's a subtle but despite its subtlety it's a and the seems to be saying that it's not to go regular but rather all it is is it's something that you should be sensitive to but it's not something that's necessarily so it's a little bit mash from the then not in but in same person that it's okay. It's only not going to be awesome. But there's another that's and this is I'm quoting stating that the rift said that you shouldn't walk into said you shouldn't make with in other words brings this it's the same that the brings in but we're discussing this on the level not on the level but really of course everything comes from but brings this that says that you shouldn't walk into aes that that that it's only not to but in terms of it's it's technically okay stating that there's a rift that says don't walk into and there's a that says don't make a he doesn't argue with the culpo he doesn't say that what do you mean the boy said that it's only why you making he brings it as if it's okay and in right in the same he does the same exact thing says that says and then he talks about if you want to make a you can cover the over here is where he brought the problem is those shittas were not ne they were only gay in the meaning according to the rama that you don't have to wear yama it's not user to walk without but you should walk into a shoe while you're wearing That's the don't make should be screaming should be should be quoting this he shouldn't be quoting this he should be arguing he should be arguing with the it's a little bit that he's buying into all this that he's okay with this emphasis I found that and it's he says like this it's good to hear it It's sounds like it's awesome. It's mash that way as well. stating that says the that from the base not that way and from the it's also not this way it's also that you can't walk outside with any and then I have where he's bringing and all these says so what's the according to the Is it us or is it a great punish? So yesterday we said it's but really really after further review it's way more complicated than that. This is mysterious and came out that the was like the dark in that it's okay. So if that's the case, so who holds that? It's also it's not and it's not. So really it's a the in says that even though it sounds like from all the it's okay that we spoke yesterday from all the it sounds like it's okay. Meaning it's only but it's not more than stating that stating that the T says there's going to be another issue. The issue is he says that if they take a look at the they all wear hats and when they come inside they sit down to eat the first thing they do is they take their hats off. And he says if that's the case it's and if it's not something you're allowed to do. So he says to go without a hat could be a of and based on that says it's something that's going to be but as we're going to see in a moment if that's the whole is then really it's in the place and it's to in the time and it's to in the because today no one's going to say that to go ahead and and take your hat off is a is a question of they never put the hat on in the first place. So it's definitely not something that has any but if you go through the even though at first glance he seems to be the one in but this is coming from the world understood the is where he brings all the his seems to be that it's only the we spoke yesterday and even the who's the one person that's the isra is really based on on this idea. Now the truth is is that as you would expect was asked and there's two chas where a person has an opportunity to take a certain job but the job requirement is that he won't be able to wear a yamo. So is it okay for him to take this job and violate this of being aid and not wearing a yam? So the first time wrote a chuva was in 1962. It's printed in the middle of What's he said? This can't be worse than a job is called. And if that's the case, it's for something that's So if it's already if it's says in two places that it's not a question of it's a question of you have to give away everything says despite the fact that the is not so clear really you have to look at the context this whole thing is is is not something that's relevant anyways says even though it's in that it's okay to take this job but here's the caveat you should only not wear even if you go to another room even if they're going to make of him so either way says It's the gimble that it's posit. Why is it? We just want the suga. When you go through the pim hold, it's only amidas. And if it's only there's no question that it's going to be okay. The second wrote is printed in this was written several years later in 1974. But the masa it's a little bit more. But if you go through the truva, the bottom line is the same. Sorry that it's it's a question of money even for you're dealing with it's considered because it's a job is considered. So it's for that reason like to talk about but with the caveat only to the extent it's when you're supposed to be sensitive but other than that this is something that you're supposed to do and that's that we mentioned earlier in speaks about this as well. He also comes out that it's only even in the he says it's only but then he says one nice caveat says as follows. It could be nowadays there's actually more of a reason took the angle. Today there's less of a reason because once upon a time you had the task. Today you don't even have the took approach. He said that today there's even more than people that are mitzvah obviously they stop wearing. If that's the case, then when a person wears a hecker. So the turned into a So today it's a symbol that you associate as a when you wear a yam. Okay. That's a nice herbish, but that's not the punch line. His punch line is if that's the case, if somebody goes, you have to be that people are going to be that And he says, even though we don't have the ability to make up today, so I can't tell you it's awesome. I think at the very least it's more than any person that wears it'll be. So the bottom line is that as it relates to it seems to be at first glance it seems to be the and there's also this fascinating that the quotes and that the everybody quotes this which is unbelievable. The point is is that at the end of the day after the from the even everybody holds its marinas with the exception of the taz which is not something that's therefore stating that it's for sure and argued that it could be today there's even a maris issue. So it could be it's something that's going to be even more than amidos. Again why are we talking about this? The reason we were discussing this because from the where the says to take off when you land sounds for sure like it's okay to take off when you say the to me it's that it's okay to take off when you're if you're just walking down if you're just eating etc etc stating that the grace that the brings and then other bring others bring is that that same med says that I gave you the mid of to go to find but rather bring now is it okay to go take it's not okay so you see that doesn't mean that the thing that wasn't to do is necessarily to do but says that's and it comes down to the says you can eat whatever you says just like THEY HAVE NO THAT'S how much you're not limited in terms of what you're allowed to do when it comes to that's how not limited you are in terms of what you're allowed to do when it comes to this that's all true if you hold that and I can't go on the which is also either way just a little bit of a digression