Bechoros 17

Today's is and we are at the second wide line on the top of so the topic of the first part of today's daf is the curious case of the nidma. So the nidma who made some appearances in the end of Makusen has resurfaced here in the beginning of Makus. In fact, it's [snorts] mentioned in two in the beginning of the mak in the first par and in the second paric it was mentioned in the context of the andz was mentioned in the context of the so what's the nidma a nidma is where an animal is born however it does not look like the same species as its mother. In the case on In the case on the Mishna said that in the event that you have a situation where an animal is born and it does not look like its mother, it looks like a different species, The is it's going to be now we already had a very lengthy discussion with regards to the nidmma on specifically with regards to what is the makar what is the source to the pur nidma meaning just because an animal is a midmma that means it should be exempt from all the laws of and what emerged then was that there were two very distinct mahal amongst the tan The Mishna on said that the to the is the fact that it says in the Tory and from the extra mention of the parish I learned that is going to be and once I know it by in the words of the Gar. I know it by it to the IT again in the words of the Gar to the other was Rabio who was mentioned and who said just the opposite the to theidma is the para of the in fact it's learned out from the words Oar teaches me that you need that the should be to its mother its mother or its mother. I know then from that par that there's aidma as it relates to the I know it as it relates to and once I know it by I can go backwards I can learn it with regards to as well. So really part one is and isma part two. So let's just set this up. The Mishna said, "And then the Mishna concluded on that note from came and he brought with him a so comes from and he says, "I have a gift." What's the gift? It's a Bryson no one ever heard. Okay, we're listening. Now, at first glance, this is a huge to the says it's a mission, a mayor. It sounds like it's the anonymous and unanimous position. It sounds like everybody is in agreement that that's stating that now we have a with the says that this that we were taking for granted as being so obvious seems to be true but is and weren't willing to just take this price at face value. Meaning is the takeaway from this mayor's on is the takeaway from this would be presumably that that whole first part one is not going to be applicable in the world of raor. So the Gor says told now don't confuse and he's the one who brought this price and now with a hey turns to and he says when you go to your I want you to present him this and ask him what exactly this means in other words mayor when that price says that and is going to what exactly did he mean and explain to what's bothering him did he mean it can't be does not hold the now it's interesting is whoa's for the same price raia could have told Rabba veles the ram That was a whole in the first but either way. This is just one of two examples. This is just a way of referencing that entire meaning at first glance. I don't think that's where a may could mean. Hello lures. Maybe this bryah is not talking about the laws of Bkarus. Meaning we immediately connected this toy. But that's only because we're wired now to think because we're learning. But the maybe has nothing to do with. And by the way, we're saying good. We could say better. The lion of the Bryce is the has to be a bur can't even be in a so from the of the almost sounds like we're probably for sure not talking about but either way told that maybe I'm willing to entertain before you even walk into Rafuno and hear what Rafuna has to say. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that maybe this has nothing to do with the ink. What then could it be referring to? Maybe it's discussing the laws of a so we know a is a that's only sheep. Goats don't have rages. Sheep have racial. And perhaps what Rome is saying in this price is that if you have a or an say you're going to be from in other words say just like and a basel is potter from where it's not a bas where it's a Ben snow to the world of ra is going to be potter as well. Ra's that there's a tornid when it comes to the laws of because just means with regards to the laws of but told it can't be that either because does not hold of the taught in the yeshiva of it says I guess in yeshiva they report that in the event that you have a sheep, a real sheep, a gah sheep, it's a sheep, it's mother's a sheep, the baba's a sheep, the alaba is a sheep. We'll see. We're going to get into all the dy soon. This is just a little bit of uh foreshadowing for what's coming. But in the event that you have a sheep 100%, but it's kasha, it's wool is very very hard. It's based on if this sounds familiar because we saw this in there's a that the only time one is is if the gaze is such that if a person wanted to warm himself on a cold night in that wool it's something that would work. So it's not even enough that you have a sheep and you have wool and you have gaze and you shear it. You need that it should be What's the kasha? The kasha is that uh a basel is an a. And because it's an ace, we're assuming that the physical qualities of the wool quote unquote would be thus of an a. And an a's wool is not so that would be. So it can't be that because He came with and what he came with was a started tumbling. So Raishia and Rabba specifically they were in Bish together when this Bryer walked there and Raishia turns to Rabba. He says you know this Bryer we have to hear from the Rabbi Rafa is a raun. So he says the next time you go to your Rabbi Rafa you're going to have to ask us I have no idea what MV means. In fact I could throw out two possibilities but as far as I'm concerned they're both dead on arrival. Did and then you'd have to say okay we can live with that but does it mean maybe meant with regards to [snorts] so either way I go the two options that I have don't seem to work says turn to and he told him I'm willing to go to my rebi rafa but at the same time before I do that next let's see if we can come up with a little bit of an understanding let's see if we can come up with a little bit of abot let's let's work on it ourselves you don't just immediately run to the reba you'll go to him when you need a lifeline but perhaps we can spend the first and we can come up with uh a possibility in fact as we're about to see the garraar is going to actually you know come up with a few possibilities three of them are going to stick. So by the time all is said and done, we're going to have so we're going to end up with three possibilities. But this is talking it through. So he said maybe what's going on in this price is so this is uh a real case where gave birth to a child that's an ace the father of the child is a goat so a goat married a sheep and they gave birth to a a goat so the mother is a raal was yol so from the mother's perspective This animal is a nidma because it's a but the father is an ace. So if you look at it, it's actually not a it's actually not a okay. And this pricer was discussing the of which we're familiar with from the end of and it was disussing which also featured very prominently in that is not in other words told maybe this is not a that's discussing It's not a price that's discussing. It's a price that's discussing. Okay. And what's the what exactly is the is okay. What's the case? The case is we are it's uh but at the same time this child is to the father despite despite the fact that it's not to the mother. So first things first what does it mean? So this is a big that comes up uh again very prominently in the ruin and the of the is whether animals have or they don't have people have they have for example you're a Jew if your mother's a Jew not if your father's a Jew but you're whether your father's a nothing to do with what your mother's is. So human beings have and they have an animal for sure has it comes from the aim. So for sure it has the father obviously is a in the child but stating that in the context of there's that maybe one of the places where it's in the so the says and the question is is that true only not the mother and her child what about a father and his child is it considered when it comes to the father or not if then yeah if then it's going to be no says the maybe that is the is between this price [laughter] in the event that you went and the the father and this on the same day for because there and hold that in that situation you're going to be part. Now when suggested this he made was that the only time it would even be that a mayor would hold in the case of aid would be in the situation where the father is to the child. What's the beer in that? So but the way Rashi seems to learn is because in the event that the father and the child would not be one and the same. It's there wouldn't be the only time it's even a gay that there should be is if the father and the son are similar. So you have to make the father and the son are similar if you want to be for but maybe that's what's going on over here. What's going on over here is that just like there's of when it comes to the laws of there's of when it comes to the laws of but what would be a situation where I have but it's not and I went in and I the father and the child on the same day if being that it's not the father you but then you wouldn't be so this is a little bit of a anime But at the end of the day, I don't know if it means maybe it means what's the I mean there's a very long- winded way of getting to the of but at the end of the day we know that's a big maybe that's what's going on over here. So the says like this very clever very creative but at the same time if this is what the means this is the way you argue in you're making an assumption that there's a nidma when it comes to what would be if there's a but not a and the father who's a a goat that had a child that looks like a goat from a this is a a Super duper if you want that should be. So let them read talk about this and in fact the says that is the so they should have argued in all the places that argued about they should have argued as well. So it can't be that's what's going on here. Meaning we can make it work. We couldn't make the work. We couldn't make it with regards to work. We can make it work with regards to but the question on it the invoice that that comes with is is too big to pay. And as a result, the garra says it's very very d and again even though this is a bryson and when it comes to bryson we're willing to think the unthinkable sometimes we're willing to edit. were willing to be mad. But this is already pushing it too much to say that they argued the case. It's very very hard to fathom says and this is going to be the first of the three that are going to stand. We're going to go back to what we thought this was talking about initially which is why we're having the conversation here and that is the regarding the is talking about and by the way if that's the case it's not a bas it's a ben and it's not an it's an and there is a regarding where and it's true everybody in the world holds this up to agrees with part one and he agrees with there's no so again everybody agrees to the premise that there's a and here we have whether it's possible. So here's the it's talking about basel. So now we're ready. We're pulling out the brief. We have to see from this. So it's talking about with this role was a basel again basel but it's really ben rockl. So this was a raal who is the offspring of a raal that's not a nitma. However, the mother was a nitma. The mother was a bas holder. Romeo says this child is a rabbas. I rather have so happens you know they were goats. They weren't sheep. I hear but at the end of the day this is a and a is not a nidma wears it's not enough to just look at the the [snorts] mother you have to look at the baba also the highm and at the end of the day this is a strange situation because you're going to show up to the baba and then you're going to see a goat when it's a whole family of sheep so this is that's not going to work so you right at the end of the day you have to take into consideration not only the mother you have to take into consideration the baba as well and that's what's going on over here. So again the remain is with regards to everybody agrees with the premise that there's a nidma the sh is how far it goes how far does it go according to mayor as long as you can zil and it's not going to be a nidma it's a that in itself is going to be okay according to the if there's a nidma that's already a problem and it's for that reason a is going to be an issue alternatively you could say and the truth Truth is the as we'll see is very much to the first term in fact that it could be there's no at all between these two roots but these are just two different as you can make to be of this and that is again we're talking about and agrees with the premise that there's a okay so where's in a situation of an it's talking about basel the reverse case where this ral was a bas but the a herself the mother was a basel in other words you have a family here that's dus of ra and then somewhere along the way there was a deviation one a was born but that a went and uh was and gave birth against to so this is a ral mayor that when this was born. So really what this ra was doing was it was reinstating the the lineage of this animal that they're sheep and then not goats. So as a result this is not a deviation the mother was the deviation. So the mother, yeah, that's a different story. But this that was born is is taking this family and putting it on the right track. And it's for that reason there's no reason to look at it as a that's not the way we look at it. At the end of the day, you're and if you're going to be out again is a little less sensitive when it comes to the world of Nidma. agrees with the macar of nidma but at the same time he's willing to allow something with a sad nidma to be considered a bakar in the first of the gamar the rabbas is not considered a nidma because even though the z the would turn this into a a nidma but what we have the rabas in the second case it's a but being that it's a so even their I'm willing to not look at it as a nidma and the reason is because at the end of the day you're reinstating this proper lineage and it's for that reason it's going to be okay are s the first the second because the hold seemingly in both aas that as long as there nidma that in it of itself would make it into a nidma the have a broader definition of nidma. Remair has a narrower definition of nidma. In the first they're arguing in the does the grandmother make this into a a nidma. In the second case they're arguing the over here it's aid the mother. But then again there's a to say that it could be being that this is historical way was in fact what we're doing is we're we're reinstating it. Either way, so the first two tom of the gar that are sticking is that is with regards to the laws of how could they be arguing whether there's a nidma? They're arguing in the definition of nidma. How broad or narrow is that definition? Rameor is of the opinion that there's a narrower definition of nidma and therefore he's willing to be somewhat liberal. He's willing to have a situation where is it where it's still going to be subject to the laws of whereas have a broader definition and as long as it's going to be okay as he so often does gets the last in the I'll tell you a third maybe the case is talking about where we're dealing with and we don't have to come on to one of these uh super creative cases but rather the situation is where this was a regular nidma however the child had mixed of the mother. Okay. And if that's the case, we understand. Why do we understand? That's the Okay. So, who do we have to be now? Now, we just flipped the whole story. Now, we actually have to talk about the for a second, says, "Who are the And the is between is going to be that is bottom line. Let's do a quick secum. We're not done. Here comes part two of nidma part two. So comes from and he brings a brio with him. [snorts] Rahi and Rabba the two heard this price and they said at first glance this price is uh is very problematic. What exactly is uh this Bryson discussing? Where is it that a mayor said that the quote unquote is going to be did he mean what he doesn't hold of the Nidma? It can't be Elm maybe meant not but that if you cheer its wool you'd have to give the ra to the but he doesn't hold of maybe it means and it's talking about where the father is not a nidma to the child and the say the says I hear but this is like a very very very long scenic way of describing the which is a simple which is many so came out with three between all three is the price is discussing the we thought initially was discussing and that is the laws of another between the three is that there is no with regards to the it's agrees with thema okay so what exactly is going on over here in the first terret It's talking about where it was a according to Romeo. It's not a nidma because it's a according to the it is a because it's a throws this off very similar albeit a different and that is the case is talking about where it was says that even though it's a but really the a was the deviation so I don't look at the A as being In fact, whereas say no at the end of the day. So I'm looking as a nidma and finally said it's talking about where it was doesn't everybody hold in that case you're going to be in the everybody holds that way but there was a price that held that or that's the over here between and now as it relates to the first two of the there's with regards to the breath of the definition of nidma according to ram a nidma is much narrower in in scope according to it's much broader in scope according to raor there could be a sad nidma but it's not going to be a nidma you're going to bear you're going to be it's a nidma true but there are situations where even nidma quote unquote you fall under the general umbrella of the you're still going to be according to the the minute there's a little bit of a a deviation that's enough to throw this completely off track. We had two examples of it. One example was the even though there's a the other example was says as it relates to this that was born onesh and by the way this is the way all the speak out but rather this is true for all the that were brought on the yam be it on yont be Be it the first days or the last days. So we know in all the we literally just lame them for the last bunch of days in all the so included in it was a right. So it was a cocktail of carbon and included in it was one goat and that goat was brought as a a sayson raor who has this very narrow definition of what a nidma is. He's going to be that in the event that you have a ben that the is that if that is not a a then the is you will not be able to take this and put it on the to be part of the mus what's the reason because the says and means means unique it means special talk about. But either way, this has to be a goat if you're going to put it on that could trace its all the way back to the first goat that was uh created on the sixth day of creation. And unless you can trace it all the way back to well then that goat can't be put on the meaning what's the point even though holds that when it comes to when it comes to the laws of the definition of nidma we said is a very narrow definition and there's a situation of nidma maybe that really is not going to be considered nidma but when it comes to taking the animal and physically putting it on the misb when it comes to that It's and if it's not going to be a it's not going to be okay. Now just in the says that it's clear that statement is referring to the second of the three of the right the second of the three was that there's aim where you can have a that's going to be subject to mayor. What do you mean? The S of course has to be Ben. When did Ramor say is not ama? That was the second. The second was right. In the first Ror said a is not going to be considered an Akima. He never said that a would not be considered a a nitma. He said the baba that's not something I care so much about. But in the second R said there are times I don't even care about the mother. You could be a nidma. the concept of not when it comes to putting it on the with regards to and say all the places that it says which is by the way by all the so it's for that case that even though you might have thought right we got to speak this out good you might have thought that in the world of just like the is not considered aidma with regards to because so maybe the Ben to the extent that it's not a Ben right if it's a Ben even if the is you would have thought in that situation you could put it on the as well or not and it's based on it says and we learn from there but asks is this learned out from the world I know it from somewhere It says in the pro and when it says in the oidmo so in one of the that talk about carbon it says ov and ov teaches me and teaches mema the bottom line is from that Russia we learned that a nidma is always possible to be put on a car on the so if a nidma is always possible to be put on a nidma is always ple Oh, based on that, shouldn't it be obvious that Ben's because and to the extent that it went on then it's that you would never be able to put it on the to the extent it's because a nidma is never able to be put on the well let's explain this a little bit better our in all theas that's whether there's there's not ra saying that in the event that you or it's going to have you have to give it to the but no one ever said that you have a right to go ahead and put it on the for that says which says that you can never put it on the so it's posh it's a anyways so if it's anyways not putting on the even mayor that Romeor says that this type of nidma is going to be included in the laws of mayor's narrower definition of the exclusion of nidma but that's with regards do I give it to the do I not give it to the but when it comes to right if you have a you give it to the even though it can't go on the so it's true I'm going to give it to the going on the that is a general of so why do I need where it's a nidma of these sorts that it's going to be exempt from the laws of theesh and all the other for that matter anyways you're not putting it on the misb and the reason you're anyways not putting it on the misb is because it's a nidma a nidma never goes on the but answers the the pretty obvious answer and that is you still need both had I known I would have thought the whole point of is is coming to tell me that when Rome says that the Rashi said that was talking about the it's one and the same that said in those cases you could have thought it's not aid at all and if it's not aid at all so then you might have thought that you can go ahead and you could uh put it on the misb and if you can go ahead and you could put it on the mak And there's no shik is to the fact that there's a that says nidma that's when it's a nidma. But the whole point mayor is that it's it's not a nidma. Now why would it be not a nidba? Because if you look at the dus and you see what's going on over there. So maybe it's not going to be viewed as a nidma. Therefore it's posit understood that based on the pratlin nidma which is a drussa. I wouldn't know that when it comes to the because maybe even if it's not even if it's maybe that would be enough in order for it to not be considered. So with regards to the even though I know there's a okay so then is in the reverse once I see there's a when it comes to uh when it comes to the so why do I need the general says no that's not a either because I would have thought maybe it's by the or at the very least maybe by a carbon Who said it be true by that's why I need to know by that's true at the end of the day there are these two that tell me that the nidma can't go on but really I need each one it's a classic the reason is because had I only had the general o then I would have thought mayor's cases where he's not really considered a nidma at all even with regards to going on the misbeh And had I only had the I would have thought that even if there is such a even if there's a in terms of it going on the maybe that's only true with regards to a situation where it's a regular where it's a carbon but maybe if it's a carbon not it's for that reason I had to come on to both of these either way. So up until this point we've been discussing the laws of Nidma primarily as it relates to right we threw inma as it relates to as it relates to but the general focus of the was clearly the laws of the now is going to discuss the laws of as relates to some other areas of meaning that the is that you don't get malus for shness if you're using the of a sheep that was a nidma now meaning didn't argue if there's a din as relates to as we mentioned so many times they argued with regards to specific aces but Here's the point that even in the cases where Rameor said that I don't think it's a nidma, Rome's narrow definition of what a nidma is. Therefore, things that you might have thought are nidma are really not nidma. It's only with regards to the has but with regards to this other areas in there's aid but even is going to be definition. So really there's two we're saying over here. Number one with regards to shness is even a nidma. Shan is and you should know not only is there a mayor even mayor who in the world of is a when it comes to meaning he has the narrow definition of things that you would have thought mayor held you're really going to be but when it comes to over there he's going to say no it's going to be excluded from the laws of shness how so and what would be the reason for it because it says in the shness Right. That's what says it says just like is never a right is the same from no such thing and something else is going to grow. So there's no concept says there's no when it comes to so has to be the same way in the same vein. So who was the first member said everybody agrees and agree that there's a concept of in the world of and even definition of nidma when it comes to to what's the context of so is uh of fame of course and we know that had to be wool right it had to be dyed but it had to be wool so when you talk about you're talking about seam So says papa everybody agrees that the of a nidma even the nidma of the is going to be possible because the says and then it says so the same exact right everybody knows that there's a between the of and of is one of the most important in has learned out from That's but just like you have pish mention next to the of the you also have pish mention next to the of the of so just like as it relates to the it can't bema at all too as relates to the same thing said is saying good I'm going to be on that and that that everybody agrees that the of is not going to be and even the that's going to be as relates to as the says there too with regards to a that has a puts the pish them together in the same breath but we're not done always gets the last word. He said, "I'm going to add one more thing to this and that is that sounds like a if somebody would take a and he would be on top of a so what does that mean?" So we know grape vines have lives of their own, right? They they grow all over the place. So when people operate a vineyard, so they they try to control the the vineyard and they have it, you know, wrap around different things that are going to be good for it. So in this uh case of Ravashi, the person took a gaffen and he was madly it on a he was madly on a fig tree. It's an unnatural thing to do. It's not the way you would usually do it. as we're going to see, it changes the smell. And you know, if you're a wine producer and you do this, you may devalue your wine a lot because the the connoisseurs are going to pick up on this. So this person went and he did something a little out of the ordinary. He took his and he was on top of the any that's going to come from it you were not able to use for the if you wanted wasn't going to be my time or what's the reason. I'll tell you why. Because it says in the this is in the parish of the it says right and just like we just mentioned it earlier you have the same as not right ask according to you what would be If somebody took pishon, this is like aasha. He would take a pishtan vine and he would wrap it around thorns. Would you say that this is a shinu of some sorts in the piston? Meaning what Raashi say? Raashi said that if you would take a g and you would be mad on being that you're doing something out of the ordinary it's like a nidma version of so therefore even though we don't have a but you're going to be out well you would just to me that there's a way to create a deviation as it relates to plants well if that's the case if somebody would take and it would be madabi or right we're not farmers we don't fully appreciate this but it sounds pretty similar to me right so if that's the case that would be a deviation well in you can't now suddenly say what said what said they all said the same thing that there's no when it comes to shness because it says because there's no such as said with regards to it says so if it comes from you're going to be out because you can't be said even with regard to because it says but all three of these massive No one anticipated these kadushim, right? All three of these kadushim are predicated on the same uh premise and that is it's impossible to change pishna. But if you're going to tell me that you could change piston, what would be the case? And why would I assume that's a says because it's just like well if that's the case didn't we undermine what the said it's not a butigabi is not a shin. What's the difference? In one, it impacts the in the other it doesn't. To understand this, we tak do have to be farmers, right? If you're not a farmer, this is the kash. But if you are a farmer, you appreciate that uh or at least the wine connoisseur, you appreciate that this is not one and the same. Your piston's rayak will not be impacted by it wrapping around the hagga. However, your gean will very much be impacted by it wrapping around the fig. Again, it's for that reason it's not fair. And this concludes the first and by far the longest part of today's daf. And that is again the of the nidma part. Whenever you learn about the nidma, it's always uh a mind exercise. But really, we know there's a concept of a nidma. It's nice in the beginning of in the first with regards to the type of in the second with regards to the the concept of is something everybody agrees with whether the is that was discussed in detail in that And that is the fact that there's a nidma that's axiomatic universally accepted in the world of stating that as far as the scope of it that was going to nidma has to be but any way to wiggle at it now all of a sudden you're going to be in the laws of [snorts] what's an example glad you asked we have two one is the and the other is in both of those cases according to you're going to be said no as long as there in of itself is going to be enough for there to be a problem some other is that came about through the latter part of this and that is number one the nidma itself is possible to be put on the fact that's a that says that a nidma is never allowed to be put on the and it sounded like from the could be even Rome's nidma that is not a nidma being maybe to put on the misb you would not be able to put on the misb another thing that emerged was is is that nidma this actually surfaces in areas that you would never expected to surface the laws of are impacted by nidma the laws of are impacted by nidma and even the laws of ngoyam as it relates to the beodim are going to be impacted. And by the way, the laws of that was the last are going to be impacted as well. Either way, the second part of today's D. And this also will sound familiar because it made an appearance already in the first pack. A sheep that didn't have a child yet. Double. He gave birth to two boys. And not only were two boys born, but their heads, which is the definition of lea, both emerged from the of the mother at the same time. says they both belong to the says you give both of them to the is an impossibility. There's no way in the world they both came out at the same time. One of them is going to go to the for sure but the other one he's going to be able to keep. In other words, not arguing with in the that's usually how work they're arguing in the mits. Usually we can agree to disagree and agree to agree. Usually you start a but that's not what's going on over here. Over here the are very open to it. But there's no such. It's impossible in the world to have two babies that are born at the same second because Absolut when seemingly the two heads emerge at the same time the owner keeps one and the other he gives to the now what's the question which one does he keep and which one does he give to the says the gets to choose says which is a very fancy way of saying that the owner is the one that gets to choose regardless What happens to the second one? Meaning the one that's not given to the cayenne. So you'll tell me what do you mean? I I get to keep it. You can't just keep it. The reason you can't just keep it is because it's a suffix that maybe that was really the one that came out first. And if that was the one that came out first, it has we're dealing with which is so I would never be allowed to use it. It might be something that actually has to go on the So you would have to allow it to graze in the field until it develops some. want to develop some you'll be and then you'll you'll be and at that point you'll be able to use it but just to go ahead and use it that's not something you can do by the way this is in contrast to the equivalent theor of that we had in the first paragraph with a discuss a case of that gave birth to a suffic and is that wherever it's wherever the is that I can keep it I can do whatever I want with it and I could be and then do whatever I want with it and the reason is because the say And at that point it's not going to be an issue. But over here this is regular. You can't just be now you could when it develops a which is what the says either way as it relates to uh the one animal that the owner is keeping what's there is no but it's a suffic that's why you're keeping it right that's why right you are keeping it if you're keeping it you're going to have to be inva says he's going to be from this royal what happens if one of them dies. So before the owner had an opportunity to go ahead and give one to the keep one for himself. One of them ended up dying says in that situation the is not going to get anything either way. This Mishna feels like a Mishna in the first. And by the way, by the way, right, when you learn the first parag and you learn the and the and you learn the in terms of how exactly works and it's but why is it and all the everything you learn in the beginning. What is what's the crown jewel of the beginning of uh Mits at least uh you know back IN MY DAYS WHAT WAS the it's the right what's the case of it's a so the fact that just came off at a second time here in the beginning of should not come as news to anybody because when you learn the first parag is the case and the case of is a case of but either way Again, this Mishna is something that will be discussed over the next uh several uh but in we need to focus on the very very first part of the mission. In fact, a very technical part of the Mishna and that was so what's says they both go to the he has a says not only say I hear I'm open to the it's impossible something like this to happen and based on that this is something that's out now the truth is this idea of or but it's global right it comes up in outside of if you take a look at the sash so this is something that definitely shows up in and certainly in the world of and in many different places and this is one of the big that the debated So if you going to make a chart of all like the top and this is one of them or what's the shil the shil is do we assume in that two things could happen at the same second or it's impossible for two things to h something's going to be off by uh a millisecond so to the extent that this is only what happened first or what happened second so It's impossible to assume that two things happen first or two things happen second etc. Says no two things could happen at the same second and says that we're never going to assume that two things are literally going to happen at the same second within the world of there's two subcategories. One is when the events that you're trying to determine whether they happened at the same time didn't happen at the same time happened or whether they happened and the maybe a little counterintuitively maybe is that it's more to say than it is to say meaning if I'm observing something I'm not doing anything I'm passive and I'm trying to figure out that the two things happen at the same exact second or did one thing happen first? There's more of a to say if I'm doing something being that I'm trying to time what it is that I'm doing. I'm doing this. I'm doing it in a mindful way. So then it could be even though ordinarily we would assume the same but if I measured it and I timed it and I literally calculated every single nuance. So then maybe it would be so again one short to just get the going which will very much continue into tomorrow's stuff says the so of the was sitting together and they said as follows according to who holds saying right that is we know he holds How do you know he holds because he holds that even which is not a person controlling it's coming it's literally so being that this is happening I don't know about but being that this is happening so you know for sure certainly based on the we just mentioned a second ago it would be true As it relates to we also know that they hold the same right with regards to the latest what would hold in the event that a person literally went and tried making something happen at the same exact second as something else. Could we assume that maybe that actually occurred or not? says the I'll bring you from a mission. So we know that the right this is the the big so there was a there was that went around the midpoint of the why do you have it right this was not but saying if you're going to tell saying even where it's meaning what's the point? We know that in the world of Zikas they weren't all created equally. Some had to go to and if you mess it up it's a problem right? You have to get it right. So whatever has to go has to go whatever has to go has to go. In fact, there's many and that talk about because what's is supposed to go and what's right? This is the way it's supposed to be. So, you got to get it right. Here's the problem. The problem is I could have a shell that's going around, but if then how do I know that the is literally in the midpoint? So to the extent that the hood is not going to be in the midpoint. So maybe I'm going to go assuming that I'm putting it but really it's why because it's on the lower part of the mb. So again let's get this a little bit uh more clearly the definition of lama is not from the or from the [snorts] lama means the upper part of the misb means the lower part of the reason there's a for us to know how am I supposed to know what's every time you do a you pull out a measuring tape so you have to know what's what so the is there for us to know but at the end of the day the sikra is what we would call a sim not a sa IT'S IT'S THE UPPER PART OF HIM IS BACK OR IT'S THE lower part of his back. The is just my way of knowing what's what. Okay, so here's the question. If the is in the right place, but if it's in the wrong place, we have a problem because then maybe I think I'm really and vice versa. Now, if so perfect, I'm going to get it right. But if it's going to be a problem now, sad they ever do if you'll tell me that even that it's only okay I'll be I'll be I'll be to get it right but if you hold that if you hold that hey you going to do a propos is in the right place and for the that's a good but a very short simple obvious answer and that is made in a wide way it wasn't this tiny thin string. It wasn't like a It was uh a little wider like it was like a little like, right? You ever saw it was a little thick and because it's wide and it's thick and it has a little bit of height, it was done in a way where you know for sure the top of the iso and the bottom of the is if you have to get it right literally to the then you may get it wrong. But if you give it a little wiggle room like this, you don't have to worry about it. >> [clears throat] >> What does that mean? It means just open the end of learn those paras also right go through all those paras and you'll see the had to be or the the had to be very very precise. I mean the really had to be precise of the so you know that it has to be so it has to be how you going to get it perfect that doesn't bother me either it's not a meaning it's possible imagine this it's possible that the but it has to bear YOU TRY YOUR BEST. THAT'S LIFE. You know, perfect is overrated, right? So, you try to get it as good as you can. But maybe they didn't get it perfectly. And then the mysteriously quotes a different this is a general that talks about how all the and the right we know that there was the there's going to be a and gil and they weren't all the same but it always had to be done ali what does this have to do with what we just said rashi says nothing in fact rashi says don't be gir this was put here by mistake takes the first third crack at it and he says I'll bring you right now is discussing the laws of so that becomes there's no way to be mat what do you have to do you touch the says you have to break it you destroy it and then it's going to be now in the event that you go ahead and you take let's say that's what this price is talking about and you break it into two parts if [snorts] one part is rife of it which is probably what it's going to be. It didn't break into a bunch of pieces. So that part that's is going to remain to because being that it's still so I look at the kay as still being intact. So says the what would be if somebody took and he cut it into two he did it perfect both going to be and the reason is now this is this is obviously and over here was the person tried doing it in a way where it was going to be and what's the both why they both of that each one might be the right. Right? If we assume he got it right, then none of them are the right. Then you're good to go. But the reason is because we assume that he did not know how to get it right cuz it's inevitable one is more than the other because I don't know which is the and as a result. Okay. So they're both out. But if you're going to tell me that so then why don't we assume that and none of them should be because none of them have said is different and the reason is by and the way Rash explains this is you know has like these little parts that protrude and then there's this crevices that's what a goo is inside some of them so if this was like a perfect square and I just had to go and take a saw and you know chisel out two sides of it. So that echelates I'm saying that's something I would be able to do. But when you're dealing with something that has all these little uh pieces that are popping out here and they're coming in there. So to figure out exactly that this has 50% of the matter and this has 50% of the matter that's that's above the pay grade of this guy who's in his backyard who's taking his of and he's trying to cut it in half. That's not something you can do. And it's for that reason there's no from here that either way. So we're leaving this with a sh we're up to the fourth that we'll see in the beginning of tomorrow's from seven and a half years ago. But the point is we're up to the next and that is and the held maybe is different. Okay. So what's the question holds for sure the whole with regards to we thought we had some uh pretty the next is going to be from the elarfa but we are going to stop