Bechoros 18

Today's is we will begin four lines from the bottom of so the Mishna on the bottom of Shabas discussed a roal who hadn't given birth to a child yet the gave birth to twins twin boys two theats and both of them came out at exact exactly the same time. They're both thear being that they both came out at the same time. They're both the you have to give both of them to the and even though you would think only one not two says from the it's actually not that way. It's impossible for both to have come out at the same time. And even though we don't know which one came out first, but we know for sure it's only one of them that came out first as a result one of them the gets to keep for himself and it's only one of them that he has to give to a either way. So and in the event that this gave birth to twins they both came out seemingly at the same time are both of them treated only one of them according to both are according to the only one is now the Mishna gave the reason in addition to the for this say it's impossible for both of them to have come at the same time it's for that reason only one of them what hold clearly holds. In other words, is whether we say it's possible for two things to happen at the same time or it's impossible for two things to happen at the same time. being that the beer in the is whether we say or it's for that reason that the took this and applied it to other areas in as well because it's not a that deals specifically with but rather it's that has global ramifications anytime you're dealing with a where it's possible for two things to happen simultaneously so you have to ask the question what's It's aishn in the second hold stating that the Gmorra pondered a little bit who clearly holds is that only because the two things that we're trying to debate whether they have happened at the same exact time or didn't happen at the same exact time happened be sh meaning there was no person that controlled the exact moment of the child birth of these two and it's only there that the hold. What would be if the two things that are being discussed are things that happen? Would the hold or maybe the will hold what's the difference? It could be if it's happening a person can be conscious and he can try to make an effort to make the two things happen simultaneously. of is only when the things that are happening are but if it happens either way that was the sh that was posed on the top of the is going to continue that discussion in the first part of today's I bring you from the so what's the says that in the event that you find you find a corpse and we have no idea who killed this person clearly there was some sort of homicide who the was we have absolutely absolutely no idea. The Torah says the city that's closest to the elders of that city have to go outside. They have to take an egglaser and they have to perform this ritual that's going to give to whoever it was that actually killed this person. But who is it that has to bring the it's the city that's closest to the what happens if the was found in between two cities. So it's not closer to one city versus the other. It's in between two cities says the rebel says that both cities have to bring an says over here you have two cities that are for that reason says both cities are going to have to bring the says the if both cities bring the what are you essentially saying you're saying that it's closest to both because only the city that's closest to the is the one that brings the If you tell me that two cities bring the egglar two cities are how's that possible is doesn't it have to be either closer to one or the other must be now the makes two in the question number one the assumes that is going to hold so if it's ordinarily two things don't happen simultaneously in the case of ourishno there would only be one not two it's not possible they both came out at the same time. Why over here saying the this is the bigger the bigger must be that over here we're dealing with something that happened and even the that saying it's only that it's but when you're dealing with something that's over there it's going to be now at first glance why is this because the are the ones that are going to measure so they measured which city is it closest to and it came out that it was equally as close to both cities thus echelitant saying because this happened through human inter intervention. The problem is that the measuring of the zik is just to determine where the landed but where the landed is not something that was done conscientiously meaning when the killed he didn't say I wanted to be exactly in between these two cities. It would be what we would consider. What's the difference? So if that's the case, why is the gar even treating this as an I understand that it's human beings that are measuring and they're going to tell us where it's closer to. But whether or not it landed exactly in between the two cities is not something that was done. As a result, that shouldn't fall into the category of it should really fall into the category of sh. So what's you know kasha that is that's kasha you may have noticed a very longus that starts on the top of it goes into the middle of starts with this kasha on's understanding of how works and it's because of this kasha has a whole different of but either way we'll go with for now I will accept that for some reason throughout the course of the first part of today's d elufa is treated as an echelum not an absolute son saying so if that's the case again you have a price so rebel said that if they found equally between two cities they both bring now my time what's the reason because you have to add that even though the sounds like only one city brings it the bottom line is you see that holds the obviously how do you know maybe holds like who holds you could always be and if that's the case that holds that even if that would be true if you had a hold like in who said maybe he holds like if he holds and if the that's the case from that but here we have a where it's in fact you have and there's another as well and is going to argue that maybe this again according to perhaps another that discusses same equidistantly between two cities. They didn't do that says what he said in the previous both cities have to bring in must be the holds. So at the very least what you see from here is that the holds even so let's at least bring a that there's a a holds that not only but if that holds in this case where it's in between two cities none of them bring it it's because you don't know which one should bring it if they hold that's a reason that nobody should bring it just the opposite that's a reason that one of the two should bring it. Okay. How do you know which one should bring it? Let them both pay for it together. Partners that if I'm the one that has to, I'll do it. If you're the one that has to, you'll do it. But the point is is that they hold saying that's not a reason that nobody should bring it. If anything, it's a reason that they should both bring it come out with some sort of and whichever city is really close is that that's the one that will do it. All you have to say is it says does that mean only one city brings it or does that mean two cities bring there's a holds that there's really two cities that have to bring it we have a that's why nobody brings it you can't tell me make it tonight make it tonight would work. So really it's only one city. We don't know which one. So make the but being that to the contrary. So it's for that reason the is meaningless. It's just a question should [snorts] both bring it or none bring it. Thus no one brings it. What's the bottom line? tunnel bring from a third. So that also discusses the same exact case in between two cities same. It's the same revel both cities have to bring an egg. Here we have a different in the previous said no one does it. Here the saying in this price different but here the say bring one to it says hold then they both should bring it if they hold but there's no such thing as two cities bringing that glad and no one should bring it must And even though like we said a case of and it's for that reason so what do you do it's not two cities that it's one city we just don't know which one as a result make the but the bottom line is what you see from here is that according to the that hold it's not only but It's as well. So either way, yeah, we're learning that deal with and she gave birth to two babies and we're not sure which one is which and the Gmorra somehow digressed into of where you found a it was closest to two cities. So do both cities bring the rufa? Does nobody bring the roof? Do you bring one ael for the two with the tai? It seems to be a big discussion amongst the had we go from the to of it's because there's a common denominator between the two discussions and that is and what emerged is that although it's that and that's the majority opinion amongst the stating that the maybe is only true when we're dealing with but once is human intervention. Even as subtle as in the case of Eglar Ruf where the human intervention is the are going to measure and we're going to figure out which city it's closest to. That's enough to say that it's the dealing with even the seems to come out. Either way, the Gumar is going to now go back to the Mishna and the Gumar is going to have a a rather detailed discussion of the Mishna itself. So over the Mishna and the truth is that in the four very important number one that had never given birth to a child and now gave birth to twins, two boys and both heads came out at exactly the same time. holds. So the first is in the case where the two came out at the same time. What do you do? Do you say that they're bothar or is only one of themar? According to the only one next. So if one of them has kaducious, we clearly don't know which one. So which one of these two babies, which one of these two animals are you going to give to the and which one are you going to keep yourself? That's the second gets to pick the better one. Mean you have to give the better one to the says which we'll see in the means holds just the opposite that you get to keep the better one and you give the inferior one. So one of them goes to the kite. Which one goes to the kite? According to himself was a kite. You give the better one to the kite who was he keeps the better one. You give the one as it relates to the second one. The one that you're keeping. You can't just treat it as and the reason is because you don't know. At the end of the day it's a sophic. We're not sure which one is the so you have to treat it like a sophicar. What's the bkar? You let it sit around. You wait until it gets once it gets it's already and at that point you're allowed to eat it yourself. The third is so the one that you kept for yourself which was technically a after I could eat it do I have to give this and gave it to or not according to the is going to say is says you don't have to give us that's the third is the fourth is what happens if one of them dies so before you had a chance to figure out what to do one of them was dead so by the time you came to there was only one of these two sheep Which what do you do with that? In the event that gave birth to twins. One was a boy, one was a girl. And again, you don't know which one was born first. There's there doesn't get anything because it's a barak. You're going to keep overrides. Again, there's four in the number one. Do you give both to the kayen or do you give one to the kayen? Number two on the sad that you give one to the kayen. You give the better one to the kayen. Do you give the inferior one to the kayen? Shil. Number three, the one that you keep for yourself. Are you in? You have to give not have to give. Number four is if one of them dies, what do you do with the other one? Already discussed the first. So the jumps right into the second one according to the that you keep one you give one to the coin said you give the better one to the coin said that says you give the better one to the time that the healthier of the two the better one is probably the one that came out first because it's a that the stronger animal was the one that was able to push itself out of the of its mother quicker it's for that reason that you give the to the it's not a give the better one to the when you don't know what to do. It's actually says it makes sense because it makes sense that the is the strong for sure but it's that that's the way it is and if it's the way it is that's the one you give to giving it to the not because the better giving to the because we assume that that's the one that's actually the what does mean what it means is that the ends up taking the inferior one the way we explained it in the afteran said is doesn't sound like that from the what does the say doesn't sound like you give the kind inferior one so says that what he was telling her was that while you were eating your good food you were eating and you were you know enjoying yourself and indulging in some of the pleasures of we wereing init and at that point. You know, we figured out already exactly what this means. And and how did we know that what meant when he sent was that you give the inferior one to the I know from the one of them if holds that you don't give the inferior one to the but means something else such as maybe split the difference or something along those lines. that here too in the should be the same thing meaning said that the word name is very ambiguous clear it's not it's not clear what it means but said I know from the holds because we're dealing with said if one of the two animal dies what do you do the is gets to keep the one animal that's alive so you see in this holds so just when one of the two animals die. So to there's a better one and one you're not sure which one to give to the says then I'm going to keep the the better one. What then does the mean didn't just say give the one to the he said what it means is the difference between the better one and the inferior one should be meaning they should go to court and what's going to happen if you go in front of a's going to tell the tell the point is holds that it's the one you give to Whereas says it's the better one you give to the guy said clearly you give the better one to the used of which almost sounds like some sort of that's what understood said that it's true although the words are a little like you but from the safe of the clear holds you'd have to hold that in the ration as well what then does mean not split the difference but go fight over the difference and if you fight over this difference is going to resign this very simply. They're going to say right now the scrolls the you want the better one. Prove that that's the one that came out first. You can prove it. That's what he do with the second one. You can't just eat it. You have to treat it like a there's really no but clearly the say could come to this he could tell him if it's a bakar if it's a bakar then it's all mine and if it's not aar then It's regular. The only sad that you shouldn't give the mat is because you're treating it as what's the other it's a mat because what what are the two possibilities with this animal? Either it's the Bakar or it's not the Bakar. If it's the Bakar, the whole thing goes to the Kay. If it's not the Bakar, it's then at least go to the sad that it's you don't have to give him. It's not because it's an or it's because it's a if it's a you have to give the whole thing to the which is another way of saying and for that reason says it's why you have to give him my time says you don't have to give them is coming with a good time. of us a major lumist that really there's a third possibility and that is there is a time where oral for example you would not have to give the to the meaning it's true if a person has a so he has to give or he has a bakar you have to give we said and gave it to either you have to give the whole thing to the or at the very least you should have to give misus What would be if you gave an animal to a cen and now the gave the animal back to you? So in that case we saw this in the end then you wouldn't be anymore to give the but once you get it back from the at that point you're not to do it held that for whatever reason and it's mysterious but for whatever reason the decided that we're going to look at this that you're keeping as if you got it from the and if you got it from the you don't have if I have the safar it was born and now I have a suffic the matter I have to give but for some reason the didn't want you to give we'll see in the course of the but the punch line at the very least just to understand the is they made the never got that animal he got either the better one or the worst one depending on but the one that the kept for himself they made it as if he had gotten it even though he never got it. It's as if he got it and now he sold it to the and if aid buys an animal from a he doesn't have to give anymore. So mayor said you have to give what was the because either it's or you have to give the whole thing to the if it's at the very least you have to give there's a third side here. You know what the third side is? I got it from the kayen. No, I didn't get it from the and actually before we see the gar inside cuz I had to speak it out outside. What do you mean he got it from the k I never got it from the kay? What what's even the the the the logic of this illogical situation. So what's mu and the gur is that being that you had two animals and you gave one to the kayen, we look at it as if the one that you're keeping you bought with the animal that you gave the kayen. So there were two animals. The cyan had a on both of them. I gave the cyan one. I got to keep the other one. Now the reason I only had to give the cyan one and I got to keep the other one is because I only had to give the k one. But the way we look at it is is as if the one that I kept I actually acquired from the kayen. How did I acquire it? By giving him the one that I ended up giving. Either way that segue everybody's in a classic case of where there two and you gave one to the you kept one for yourself in that case everyone's going to be that you're going to be like who's the obviously it's said in the Mishna that you popped it from the mat in a case of a classic he's going to be that why the is It's why it's all because we look at as if the had it already and that the Israel got it from the ken. Had the get it from the ken when he gave the one animal. He was essentially buying back the other animal. at when it was not a classic sufficar where there were two and you gave one where this where I gave one to the but in a classic case of there's no I didn't give anything to the to allow us to look at it as if the I have I bought back from the so you don't have the that I got it from the so of course I should be if it's aar I have to give him the whole animal and if it's not a at the very least the question is not I don't agree with you is saying that is only true in this type of bkar but in your classic conventional is not going to be true the whole is based on we look at as if the god I got it from the co that's why I'm putter that only makes sense with were two animals and I gave one so we say that when I gave you one I bought back the a classic casear where I didn't give the k anything. I'm just keeping the safar and so how could you say it as if I got it from the what was that? There was no there has to be something for us to be able to be the the what are we being in the you only have a in the case of our mission you don't have it in the regular case because I would have thought maybe has nothing to do with maybe that's not really in what is saying good is saying that how either You owe me this or you owe me the whole animal. But you should give me right that's the coins the holds that even though really you should give this we're going to tell you not to give because if you give it's going to look like it's and if it looks like it's people may treat the animal like and really you can't treat the animal like because this animal so people are going to come and it's going to be a so maybe that was the rais willing to take away this from So that people shouldn't call me but the point is that maybe over there you would have that had to clarify meaning it wasn't so that was the time is but felt that there was there was another way to understand the other would be that maybe said don't give lest people confuse it with real this is not real this So you're saying but if you're going to say that suffic may lead to other people may treat it as it's not it's also so that's why you had to clarify but say could you have made a mistake and think that that's do we need to clarify that that's not the The point is says you see it has nothing to do with this idea that we don't want a that you should give matus because you may be with you may treat it like it's clearly only in this type of suffic It's of clearly what for is clarifying if all you saw was our but there's a second [snorts] from the second mission it's already clear you could have said maybe that in the second is going maybe the reason is we don't want to be because we're afraid you may treat it like and you're going to be with but according to you you don't hold it at the very least admit to me that in a case where it's again it's even though gave a reason you could have thought the reason was only so it's not clear what holds maybe is based on the fact we don't want you to give by suffik because you may be makeo by as well. That's where had to clarify that no only said based on it's only it's only by this type of by a classic he would never say everyone's if you have a you have an animal you ask you you have a suffic if it's if it's not you don't have to give who's the one that's even said that the not but over Here is going to be why because comes with a tin of micer. What's the difference between you have to give to a you don't give to a keep for yourself. It's a very big difference because something you have to give because if it's you have to give and if it's you have to give the whole thing to the something if it's you have to give if it's you don't give anything to the what you do is you bring it as a carbon but but the doesn't get the it's not one of the he gets the he doesn't give the so it's wouldn't work over here the is based on so why do I need to tell Because you could have made a mistake. You could have thought mayor is not because of but it's maybe the reason mayor holds you have to give it's not because it's it's because he holds even he was so even in a case of he want and if that's the case even that's the could you say that for what and says now what does it sound like? It sounds like the revolves around do you say you have to give this royal by the bakar or is there a third side the third side is we look at it as if the is got the from but it sounds like that's what the the is revolving around the axis that this is revolving around is this says you have to give the because either it's you give him the whole thing or you give him and what does say he says inst the side is that even though I have it but I got it from the kay and if I got it from the ken I'm going to be potter the problem the garra is saying is that if is really based on a whole new some new abstract that is even by a sophic he's supposed to give it doesn't sound like he's talking to a mayor is saying right it's very nice it's a very nice but mayor's timing at the end of the I think you should give it is coming with a see he said there's two and on both you have to give it to the no there's not there's three and the third side you don't have to give it to the but is not coming from the said where you don't have the you have one side not certainly not it's based on this new that it doesn't sound like and talking to each other so saying there's a third do it the third side. The point is no you can say philosophic really you're right really this may has nothing to do with and has nothing to do with it's a it's a more general it's not even only safar with the two were born at the same time it could be a regular safar even safik and for that matter they could argued and why are we getting involved in in this sh of and making this a complex where it could have been very straightforward. The reason is it's coming to say that even with you think for sure with that you should give the third son and that's why you don't have to give what was the next if one of the two animals dies. We're going to where the two animals were born seemingly simultaneously. So the question is what do you do with these animals? So the is according to you give both of them to the according to you only give one of them. What happens if one of them died said why does holdin held in the beginning of the which one do you give the kayen you give him the better one let's see which one died if the better one died the one that he has is his and if the weaker one died the miss theas is the one that died right was very self-confident in the beginning of the mission of what you're supposed to do with these animals. He said the stronger one is the one that comes storming out. The better one is the that's the one you give to the then when it dies from if you know which one is thear now one of them died just see which one died and you'll know which one you're supposed to give what you supposed to do with the other one said this is such a good this is there's no way out of this in the is not the same as the if that's the case you have to now revisit the ratio what would repar hold in the ratio in light of the fact that he was didn't know what to do. So whereas and it's the same as it is in the what do you do with the one animal? Which one are you supposed to give to the when both of them are alive? According to So if one is worth $100, the other one is worth $200. Together they're worth $300. You have to give $150 worth to the Cayenne. You keep $150 for yourself. According to No. Give him the $100. Prove to me that it's the other one. I'm keeping the one that's $200. Now, what happens if one of them dies? Same thing. It's always it's always going to be I'll explain to you with a usually a mush supposed to make more easier. There were two [snorts] people that both had animals and they gave the animals to a a shepherd and they asked the shepherd to to watch the animal. Do what shepherds do. The is that in the event of one of the animals die and now at the end of the day it's 5:00. It's the end of business. The shepherd shows up. He only has one animal. So he doesn't know whose animal was what. He just leaves it and he checks out. He leaves. He goes home. He's doesn't that's then they have to figure out between themselves what they're supposed to do. What are they going to do? I don't know. Maybe but the point is to such a case how would you explain that if one of them died I got to keep it that's a case where someone gave a bias someone who himself owned a sheep his sheep to watch. So right now I'm watching two sheep. I'm watching mine and I'm watching yours and one of them dies is meaning if two people would give it to a shepherd this shepherd's the innocent bystander he doesn't own any sheep he's watching ruining sheep and shim sheep and now one of them dies so there's no why not cuz he's not a doesn't own any of them he's a for just like he's for so he says I don't know figure it out in the case where one of the two belongs to the person That's the if the owned one of the two and now one of them is not here. So now there's a sh already have a because the one that you want to take is mine over there. It's going to be different. Now the way you understand this is that the gum is saying that makes a lot of sense in the case where two people gave the sheep to somebody else to watch and makes sense where the himself was watching the sheep as if the gumar is making in. They're not talking about the same case. You paraph was talking about where the owner the person who had these two twins these two sheep that were born. He took the two sheep and he gave it to and now one of them we know belongs to the cen. The other one belongs to the balabas. They showed up. One of them was dead. There's no why is there no mik. The bay is not a mik because he had given it to the client's not a mik. He never even got it. The is the he doesn't own any of them. It's for that reason. Whereas case was where he never gave it to. So the himself had the two sheep then one of them died. Now the client showed up at his front door. That's like the case where the owns one of the two sheep is going to be. But the gor says if that's the case if that's the case then in fact there's no over here. So what's then the going to argue with the case of no way everybody agrees you're right in a case where two people gave a one of them dies the could just leave his one sheet and he can check out and the equivalent thereof in our case is if the balas would take the two sheet give to a royal and then one of them died, everyone would be would hold. The same is true owned one of the two. Of course we would say if he never gave it away there'd be no so what's the it's talking about where this is still the shepherd however was a and was shephering the sheep inside the he says that the assumption is that this person the was to the because he wants the to watch his sheeper it's something that he very much wants I mean that it's something that he wants we assume that he was at him if that's the case we look at now as the being in the field it's true and from that standpoint it would makes sense. It would be reasonable to think that the balas would be Makna in his field over to the Cayenne. However, he's not going to do it if it comes with an invoice. And in this case, it comes at an expense. What's the expense? The expense is this case. If one of them is going to die, instead of the being the it's going to be that they're partners, there is no it's like it's for that reason the person was not Akna his field therefore is love simple daf exhale either way I think it's kadai to go back just to lighten up the daf a little bit to yamaka's part three so again this is a digression from a digression from a digression already at this point but I think it's kadai and just to go back and just two more one more and the other one a little bit or from a from an perspective and that is that we spoke about the that the discuss everybody knows that yidden they cover their heads we wear a yama but if you go through the sources in it's not clear at all where that that's something that one is obligated to do now again just to be clear talks about it and it's something that's brought down in there's no shortage of that discuss the Indian and it's a that it's something that's very very important that's not the discussion what we're discussing is from a pure perspective is it is it what exactly is it and what seems to emerge from the it's in the it's pretty clear in the that's the it's extremely clear in Masha in B and come out all the place can go with this and that is that the idea to not walk the concept of isidas. Now again just to be clear again and that is is that usually when you think of amidos so amidos is it's it's one of the pros when you get up to so then you worry about midas but there's a lot of majeras that you have to get to before you get to that. This is clearly a very different type of this brought down says it in so it's a midas on the one hand but at the same time it's aid that's brought down which in a in a sense is a little bit of an oxymoron but the point is it's a midas that's brought down and the treated it at the end of the day as being amidosid and for that reason we spoke out two chas from one is inishbat Alfisha wrote in 1962 where Mosha was asked that there was a Yid who applied for a job. He got the job but the criteria was that he would not be able to wear Yamaha. He wanted to know is it okay for him to take the job if it means he's not going to be able to wear yam said yeah he said because by you don't have to sacrifice more than for he said this is not a mitzvah it's not even a and all it is is all it is there's no question when it comes to a person's which is treated like a we look at it as being said so there's no question in the world it's not something that you are going to be obligated to Ramosha said the same exact thing in but in both chasa had to address one and that is the satas we went through this quickly at the end of last week but I think it's to spend a little bit more time on it right now and that is there is one in the that says clearly that it's not a that it's user to walk and that is the sheet of the taz the taz is in which is really where this whole begins and the taz is as follows that there's an but from a different perspective being that the minute today is amongst the non-Jews that they do this as soon as they sit down they take their hats off it falls into the category certainly this which is something That's related to Tom. But the point is he says that to everybody wore hats and when a a person would come into his house, he would sit down, he would take his hat off. So that act of of removing your hat in certain settings is something that the Gentiles do. As a result, it falls into last week's it's actually not only but it's a very and says the past [laughter] it's to me. They were all coming. Is there a a pure is to walk? The answer is no. But do it. There's a new reason. It falls into the category of there's a lot of things that fall into. But at the end of the day, it's going to be a problem. Says if that's the case in both Jews, he addresses this then how can I go is one of you can't go if you can't go. So if that's the case to go with that is a question of not only do you have to be but says in two places you have to give away all your money it's referring to all so for every you have to give away when it comes to giving up your life but when it comes to your money is only the big three That's true for every so is it say so what about the says and he dismisses it very very simply with he said this to me that this is not something that's relevant he says once upon a time there was such a taz he says but today people are not mb in this this formality I wear my hat and then I sit down I take my hat off or when I pray I take my head off it's not something that people are makb in anymore and it's for that reason the kosha said even though there is a taz that's hovering over this whole sha but at the end of the day I don't think at all that it's going to be a big deal the problem is another chu from a third chuva it's it's actually the first chuva in it's so the very first chuva printed in is about and he began with a very big said this is a tremendous argued with all the heel that you have to wear. He said, "Now do you have to wear but the has to cover your entire head and if a small part of your head is not covered with the not if you look it up it's an it's doesn't r but it's an it's very short. He says that and he says doesn't say what the cashes are. He says all the cashes in the saas that there's two types of yamakas that covers your entire head which says maybe right of the head would be enough and then there's the yam that only covers a part of your head but regardless that's the wrote a whole truth about because he asks a lot of cash on it he says it's very tu and but let me skip all the way to the end the last paragraph so what's the bottom line what write in this is the bottom He says it's to sit even with like says sounds like he argues with the I don't really understand it could be even sit because that's the when they sit down to eat to take off their hat but to walk outside being that that's the doer then it could be it won't be a problem to take it off he wants to say that maybe it's more based on the to sit with than to walk with because the will wear hats when they walk it's only when they sit that they take it off but the bottom line is just one part of this it's a little confused but one part And then he has a whole what does the hold and he comes out clearly like the the last words of the first chaos misha. What are the last words of the first cha misha trivia question that's how he ends. So what's going on over here? You have three chuas two famous the truas everybody knows and everybody quotes. you have to wear when you work that it's it's only and you have to read the fine print it's only when you're in the place and if it's only because you're embarrassed that's not a good enough excuse but the point is there is two chuvas like that for he have a third said very clearly but I think the answer is and and the terret was inspired by last week and that is the first cha this cha white hair when did write elin it was written in 1956. So you have three truveras. The one where he says yes was written in 1956. The two truvers where he was maker were written in 1962 and 1974 respectively. Now forgive me but what happened between 1956 and 1962. A little bit of American history. Laavdo John F. Kennedy became president of the United States. And he became president. He did something which was considered to be a big precus oil. He didn't wear a hat at his inauguration. And a lot of people believe, historians, that the hat became unpopular and non-fashionable outside of Orthodox Jewish Kryen from that point on. That was sort of the beginning of the end of the hat, right? You look at pictures from the 30s, the 40s, the '50s, everyone's wearing hats and then all of a sudden no one's wearing hats anymore. And that was that was the beginning of the end. The point is it could be I don't know. This is way above my pay grade but it's very possible there were moist in 1956 you know New York City in the 1950s everybody wore hats and at that point it was still there was certain protocol that people conducted themselves with and 1974 the world had changed already a little bit at that point it could be was already going to be a little bit different just that's the part as it relates to the So we mentioned that there are that talk about this idea of not going outside without one of I'm going to get a lot of one day. You know why? Because I don't walk. It's interesting the same he would have walked out. He said now incidentally oh you can't go down. Is this a that it's a it's a it's a foolish that it's [laughter] because he said I'm going to get a lot of that I don't walk what do you mean if you're not allowed to walk down why getting a lot of this what he's supposed to do he didn't do it why he used to say sounds like this was his either away two gar I'm going to tell you a button something that we've spoken about a lot over the years and that [snorts] is there's a bryer you may have heard of this it's called we've spoken about this one of the brings it one of the to this is at the end of he brings it If you go through the see he brings the number two he didn't walk and after Rav was nifa took on this mimic and that's based on the idea that the bryer says that after Rav was nifer his tida wanted to perpetuate his memory. So they took it upon themselves that they're going to keep these there were 10us and after he was tell they wanted to perpetuate his memory. They decided that amongst themselves they'll divide it and each one or few tell me them they're going to take on this the second that's mentioned in this I saw in the he brings that the rebreher on I had it in my house once for years ago for a short period of time he writes in that he was going through a a court case And it was a very serious time in his life. And for a he wanted to write a safer say he wrote a safer on of and he wrote a pish on this. But either way in that safer he says that I think that maybe the gear in the is wrong because the gear says Rafa. He says there's two gumaras in Shas. One is a gar. The other one is a kadush and raun of Yeshua never went. So if that's the case, it's that it's the same. The problem is raun is not of Yeshua. So he says I think that it could be there's a in that probably wasn't a perfectly edited bryer and I think that it's really not supposed to say Rahuna. It's supposed to say Rahuna of Yeshua. But he says I have one problem with that because of was not a RA. I mean that he wasn't at RA. doesn't work because it says that his tal that was that's the whole theme of the rabb were the ones that did this. So that's right. It's true. I didn't think of that. But the point is says that I found a tremendous also brings this price and he says as follows. He says according to this G, it wasn't just aid of it was the of as well wasn't a of but he was a of a not sure which but it was a of a and if that's the case says it could be it's not but it's in other words that is with Because after was his and according to the sc his they perpetuated his by taking on these it's but then he's he says something is beautiful he says that if you look at that theor what's the theme of the gar mentions different who said tasty I'm going to get a lot of for doing certain things so one of the tasty lees in the gumar is tasty kindness said that I'm going to get because I used to keep and that's for he says why was so taken a back he was so disrackish he said tasty I'm going to get you know why because I kept people sud it's very nice he kept gash from the gar that there's ways out of of the third whatever but but that for sure see but the bottom but the point is is that says why was he thought he was going to get such a beautiful for what he did he says because if you look in that one of them is it's number three and you know what the says and followed did the same thing that means kept this of being very very in whatever that means exactly of being in it wasn't just in the he was perpetuating of his grace ra and says the that's why Rav was that's why was so he was soish because he felt that by me doing this I'm keeping up's and it's for that basically I'm going to be rewarded not just for the gimmel I'm going to be rewarded for the fact that I'm keeping up this minute that went ahead and did says that the said about that one of he said but the truth is if you go through that he says five of The are mentioned over there in that different said tasty are related to five of the 10 of tasty said he was very if you look at the brides was always probably most famous how many times does it say that in said the kindest that was one of the that never went of course was a he speaks out five of them. The fifth is even though says that it was but it's says based on the doesn't have to be it could be his that really it was and that's the theme of that you have a tasty at first glance it's a bunch of that are mentioning random things but really the rest of the stories is that these were of and rav had this and they took it upon themselves and they were veryish by what they had done for their reb and it was for that reason they felt hasty they're going to get gavalar not just for the actual but also for the fact that by observing this they're perpetuating the memory of that but one thing is for sure one thing is for sure if not walking without is mentioned in the of it certainly sounds like it's a midas C bus.