Bechoros 6

Today's is and we are at the Mishna about 20 lines from the top of today's being learned as Miriam Basel. So we're moving along in the first per of dealing with the ofl and the of a female cow that gave birth to a baby maztov. That's the good news. The bad news is the baby was a sauce or gave birth to a is the laws of do not apply as the says it says twice in the idea of and we learn from there. You need the mother should be a and the child should be a mother is not a the child is not a you need both of them to beam in order for the laws of to apply parenthetically and this by the way is one of the all-time great digressions because in the world of the sugis of sasuro in the sugis be it be it cherry cask whiskey etc etc. If you remember is a huge and really it comes from two lines in a in these are the lines right here. What's the as it relates to the of that comes from a par or a that comes from etc says the gives birth to an animal that's is going to be in the reverse if a a non-cooser animal would give birth to a kosher animal would be and the reason is is the rule to anything that comes from a is anything that comes from a is hence we don't care so much what the child looks like we care more about the mother of the child so in the event that was going to be why because this is from a and in the reverse if a wasra it's going to be a problem because even though the animal that you're looking at right now is a behemothy, but it came from a too and as a result that would be a reason that it should be an issue. Counterintuitive to a degree, but then again, what makes somebody Jewish? It's your mother Jewish or is she not Jewish? Are you a men or are you a miname? In the same exact vein, when we determine whether the animal is Jewish, right? whether the animal is kosher. We care less about what the animal looks like. We care more about who the mother of the animal is. Either way, the Mishna that we just learned discusses uh a very unique situation where you have an animal that gave birth to an animal, but the mother and child seem to be different species. One is one is and the misha discusses these both from the standpoint of specifically that's why we're having this conversation right now. Additionally from the standpoint of that's something that's super important in very often quoted in truis and in contemporary law but at the same time it's being thrown in. Now this general class where you have animal A that gives birth to animal B is what's known in as a nidma. That's the classification. We're learning the sa of nidma. Today's DA is going to deal overwhelmingly with the component of it and then towards the end we're going to see a little bit about the so a lot of that are going to take place now in today's talk we learned over there and where's the more uh pointedly where's there it's in the second part of that deals not with the laws of but deals deals with the laws of the so again we know which is subject to and we also know that or afar that's that has a component that you have to give to the assuming it is aim you're on the if it's you can check the but it's two distinct parts of the world of in the ma again first rashi we discuss first then we discuss the next set of this mishna of nidma appears inn we just learned it also appears in the world of and that's the tan is literally the equivalent there of albeit in the second type of over there says so is a female sheep that gave birth to a boy goat or in the reverse you have the female goat they gave birth to the sheep is you're not going to have the laws of very similar to our so too in the world the same exact is going to apply but here the Mishna adds a line in the event that this mix so the mother's a and the child is an a but at the same time this a looks a little like a ra I see his mother in him a little bit. Right? So to the extent that it's more than just in that situation, there's already going to be a what's the to what's the enidma is going to be. So we're not focusing on we'll get to that a little bit later. We're focusing now on the says how do I know that so learn from the following it says in the learn from there means that the has to be the and The mother has to be the is all one and the same. I would have thought that even if there's even then there should be no says is always in this case the is teaching me the so is in the it's a carve out in the that the only time I'm telling you that it has to be is if it isn't if however it's then that's going to be okay. is a the bottom line is the said you want to know what the is to this whole relates to because it says they have to be one in the same faith the obvious is coming to tell me I mean that's what do right half the gash of is telling me and you know trying to source And the problem is this Mishna itself gives me a already gave us a Mishna told us and from the two mentions we learned that the mother and the child and the assumption for sure is if the true is going to be true for the so why does need to give me I know it already from our Mishna and really it's a onuda is not making it better by giving me a new he's because it sounds like was of the opinion that never gave us a hence he had to give us one it's that already gave us a 100% right is not in line with what the Mishna said and has no basis to say anything that in any sinuates not like a misha but at the same time this rahuda was not his own in fact was quoting although he wasn't the way we had the messiah but he was quoting something that one of the tan said one of the great tan it was the great I mean all the tan are great we have a rabbit bite was ly mace right he's in that small category of tanom We have a but either way. So this was really quoting obviously if it's not because that's what they do. They argue the whole night to the brideg said who's the time of the is the great hence you see that really rauda was quoting a tanis it's not saying not like a mishna because he's really expressing the opinion of In other words, we have now what exactly the is to the town of holds in the clearly says it's if you think about it it's not just two according to the it's learned out from the and from there we apply it to the to the according to it's learned out from the and from There we apply it the other way to this par says okay what's the soar states the obvious holds refer to right you don't put and from there I can learn the terror Either way says the two from the but the Gar is going to refer to as the sometimes will refer to it as but that's like the and then there's the that's learns it from which is the which is the from he learns goes the other way around which is in the which is a case of and he learns from the next part of this sugar is going to now do what it always does in this type of situation you can even look at the and know what's coming right and that is okay so we have two has something is extra okay he learns from says something extra here. He learns from there doesn't. So what do we have to figure out? What does the do with all those and what does do with the that's what the that you see in front of you right now is all about. But before we do that, let's just to be a more familiar with this PK the of So if you take a look at the PK, it says as follows. This is the carbon. You can't just be can't be p because what do you do with it? You should take the blood and you should do and you should take the and you should do with it. So the Tyra specifically in this that has these extra words. What the is telling me is take the do and do it says what does he do with this Paul saying he uses it for why have to tell me the fact that you're supposed to be the of the of the and of the you could have told me by one and I would have known says he only known I would have thought maybe has and the reason is because you find that the has more than does the cast and the how so the has and they have and being that there's more so you would have thought maybe there's also right is on the I only noted by the I would say because if you learn and you go through the the of the you'll see there's so much way more than the so if the would have only said I would say it makes a lot of sense by the you give so is a big massive animal so you take more of it and you give it but maybe as relates to the not okay now and had it the only you find in the world of these three animals there's a part of the go on the where that same part of the other animals don't go and that's the al the tail only the tail of the goes on the as opposed to the as opposed to I would have thought because you find in the so maybe that's why it's and had it only said So that's brings a that's his ordinarily a person that has to bring has an option to bring a kiss or a but when it comes to you don't have the option to bring a kiss but it has to be a we've mentioned over the years that could be it's related to a parish the was the embodiment of of the shade she says and as a result demon worshiped involvement could be that's why the is the carbon that going to bring right take that and put it on the so to speak this is like classic but the bottom line is that you find there's a certain as it relates to the a and that is when it comes to so maybe that's why the the of the maybe that's why it has said why have to tell me the by the should have said it by one and I would know he said no it's not true had said it by the would say because Had it said it by the cast, if I would say it's had said it by days, I would say it's continued. He said, "Okay, that's easy. You can't learn one from the other." But I should be able to learn one from two. Meaning, I understand if you would tell me one, I would never know the other two. But tell me two. Once you tell me two, now I have a mahhat, right? Why do I have a mad? Because if I would tell you, and I'm going to want to learn a What are you going to tell me? is not if I would tell you you're going to tell me I can't learn is not you'll tell me what do you mean is not so tell me to once I tell me to so I can neutralize the other person's what we know as a I should be able to learn now one so says I have to tweak my question I understand why couldn't tell me one but the should have told me to but he says it's not a because Which one shouldn't it say? In other words, which one do you think you can learn out from the other two? Shoulder have not said shoulder have not told me and I would have learned from the are the two possibilities by a carbon can't bring a carbon that's a shear that they have over the because if 101 one is they don't bring the they bring a but it's a and and an ace. So you see clearly that that's the doesn't have maybe it shouldn't have said a and I should learn a from they both have it side not the same side but they both have it the side and the has a it's for that reason we needed all three to be mentioned but the bottom line says the we have a that already told us why the had to say the had to me because had it not told me I would not have known that there's a mitzvah by all three let it say one impossible two also impossible there's everything so it's for that reason tell you how to say again what's the learns from not likely who learned it by all the different don't you need to teach me how could you use it to be my says the very obvious answer right you could have said that was the right was the word wasn't the mention of the animal. I know you need the mention of the animal because I can never learn one from one or even one from two. But the word doesn't have to repeat it so many times. Either way, this concludes the first half of this uh equation and that is what does he do with now what does he do? He needs it for the following price. And by the way, who's the T of this very holds like right makes sense. So this is one of the big that we've seen already a few times in the parish and it talks about the concept of right why is talked about in paras right it's mentioned so many times but always for a reason obviously right it's because after he's shown by to be the I'm sorry after he's right is shown to be a problem but after is shown to be the So the says all the all mentioned over there in the context of the the aftermath of but either way mentions the laws of and this is how it mentions it. We know that now we know that that word there is way way over simplification of really what it is cuz it sounds like every we know it's it's only a now we know it because we know it the question is how do we really know it maybe not I don't know it says so maybe a firstborn camel and donkey and any other animal would have the same is addressing this in the he says I would think even a sauce or it says and from the fact that the elsewhere says right what's the first time it says that's in the end of parishes I learned from there The truth is even if the says there's no that when the says means only that I was to you because I could always argue maybe when the what did it say it said there there's a unique the way Rash explains maybe it has this is going to pointed even that would have but the bottom line is just because it says that in of itself is not necessarily basically the continuing that's why the said the terrorist said it a second time where's the second time by the way this is for those holding the is by the second by the one of the mitzvah that is that's the second time but the mentioned did a second a time to teach me. Ah, this is full stop. So from one mention of I know that only I need the to teach me that this is only this is not going to be but either way what does he do? He already addressed it in a who learned the use for something else is going to be malfful a little bit in the second of that's the next over here as he said that I don't understand this second because I would argue it's false had the said one mean I would have thought that that is what's that every has now it's one individual of the clearly but what's the rules one of the And if that's the case, it could be every is included in the of and not just that every single one has a only said it by yeah but this is one of the if that's the case it would make a lot ofense. sense that when the says the second time, what the is trying to say is that only as it relates to says I love what he's doing, but I think the mas should be different because if you want go down this road make all the that made I think what you should emerge with is I need the secondar to tell me what clearly thought the first petar is telling me because one I think would be a gill on the cloud THE SECONDAR THAT'S WHAT the me is but at the end of the day I don't see how two meaning I understand needs two that whole part I got it's not for but I I don't think that the should get you to the basically got it to he got it to the point that that's how I know that the in is an oversimplification not every is included in the laws of it's it's only the why it says twice I think you needed to say three times because the fact that it says twice that in of itself means that maybe only the but as relates to everything else there is but the explains basically because in the answer is that if that's what the second was coming to teach me then what the could have said was and then the second time meaning it could have said the is the it's the it's the that's what the is coming to be but the bottom line is do with what he does with it is he's from there what's the know how does he know it said it says and the where's this is also by the so again we just read the first part of the whole literally literally by the story of the right if you're looking for a connection between Yum Kipper and this was it. We found it a few days late but this was it. But either way says uh Raapa that you want to know how Tana knows that it's only the and it's not all the other behemoth even though from it sounds a little bit like it should be is because if you look at that it says and the words everything and then it says next right so is a now this is also one very simple. So the reason he knows it is is because it's a doesn't have to come on to two. It's a right. It's it's straightforward. It's like an easy, right? Not so easy because basically it doesn't hold. What about him? It says and before it says it says and that is a because ifamar here's the the logic behind it was just another prat and the setup of the is a prat. So really the kamar would go back on the so it should have said why do I have the second? So that throws off this whole thing and this makes it not a classic. It could be a but being that I know there's more than that from is not included in the I don't have a clat. So basically he says at the end of the day I don't have a because a what are the going to answer to that? It's true. It says and the word p sounds like a half but the is and the v says even though it says but I'm bringing it back sorry no if the ter wants it to be a don't tell me like I don't need the I don't need the would be good no that's not fair because grammatically just the the way the categorizes things it makes a lot of sense it should be a second because I did what's that what's that that's the wanted because it's inappropriate to to merge them together. But at the same time, I want you to know it's a way I tell you it's a but the bottom line is according to the you know how I know I know it from the fact that there's a clip. to the bottom line is we had a a Mishna that tells us the as it relates to that's a coming up that talks about the relates to the as it relates to relates to the question is what's the we have two is from the we have the which says the is the par and and then there's the who says it's according to the it's learned from and from there I learned the I learned from according to the is and I learned from I learned from what does the do with gali of what he uses it to teach me is that by all three because had it said one or even had it said to I would never know the others. What does really do with he learns from the extra mention of that the of the says twice it's only it's true but there's this this general that's actually very misleading sounds like right it's the that's how I know this the only other part of the said how did the know to bear said they know that from a so at the end of the day right sidebar how do you know that the of is only true by the maybe it's true by other right after learning that he might ask so how do you know that so for that also there's two answers there's two answers address the can't use for that how do I know that that's it from a product either way the next leg of this had the following So let's set this up a little bit. Our Mishna discussed the of the of the as it relates to as it relates to the child is the but the mother is not the mother's but the child is not. Either case there was a that discussed identical regarding and that's a little different because are subject to but they're different animals and the says there too and according to it's same I learn the from the Mishna brings But the added suffix there's a in the event there's a mix between the and the in that eventuality is there's there's going to be a by the way we had a mak to it if you remember in a in the we didn't have a a to is in the side of the equation. Could be the answer to that is going to be a little evident in the we're about to learn out. But the bottom line is that there was a safer to the we did not have over here. What the wants to know is is that safer even true as it relates to our maybe the only time of is in the maybe it's not true. Why would you say that? Because the Mishna mentions it there. It doesn't mention it over here. Now what's the ah that's the next but the bottom line is the setup is that it's the sameish one is the other is the question is that of the is it only true there or is it like why it's mentioned there not here that was really the premise of what the were haring over that day first say maj says That was which by the way was the first case of the Mishna. But this they look a little like each other. What's is it going to be? Is it not going to be? We know that when it comes to the and the a and the Yeah. So what would be the difference? So the says, "Let me explain to the there you have the but I'll tell you why." Because number one, the mother and the child are both. So even before the on the same page because they're both not just that they're both subject to DNA of Over here the over here the mother is a par and the child is a the mother's a and the child is a and not just that even though the mother and the child are both subject to but different types of fundamentally different types of because the mother the would be subject to the type of the as opposed to the child which is subject to the so maybe over maybe being that day they're both subject to so they have a huge common denominator and it's maybe in that case they're going to be right it could be the only time you have is the and the a where they have two things very much in common right this is going to be very nuance these next number one they're both and number two they both have but even the same type of as opposed to we really it strikes out on both of those things. Number one, one is and the other one is and number two, even though they both have but one is the other one is if you're going to tell me at the end of the day they have something very strongly in common is they're both subject to and I don't care that one is the other one's at the end of the day they're both subject and that's enough to say that if this mix of is going to apply over here but what would be in the other case this was the next case in the sauce. What would be if was the alderman sauce where again the Mishna said it's what would be over there over here over here. Why is that? Because here the source which is the child is not subject to the laws of the mother is subject to the laws of the but the child is not or perhaps being that end of the day they have something in common. What do they have in common? They're right they both are. So that actually gives them something that makes them similar. By the way, something that makes them similar that the didn't even have because the one was a the other one was a over here. over here they're both would beades if it's and finally if you're going to tell me you'll tell me yeah because they have it they're both and as a result that's to say that if there's mix it should be subject to the laws of but what would be in this case and this was not one of the cases of the Mishna but what would be if a was over here the iso and not just the as opposed to the child is not. So over here for sure at the end of the day maybe that in itself would be enough. In other words in three there was three questions and if you think about it it's the three questions where we know where it's but at the same time there's a lot of common ground and they both have and not just they both like but it's and they're both subject to the laws of and as a result even though it's maybe that would be enough to to say yeah in fact you're going to be okay so what are the three cases that we're not sure about the first was has something in common in that they're both subject to what do they have not in common one is a one is a the second child was that's the exact opposite opposite the have in common that they're both right. What they don't have in common is one of them has the other one doesn't have. And then finally the elders they have nothing in common because one is a and the other one is a and one of them is subject to and the other one's not subject to that's the the three questions the it sounds like in the order of the is the one that it makes the most sense that should have because at the end of the day they're both subject to the laws of even though one is number one but that commonality should make very very fast. The wants you're right about which doesn't have that fast the commonality but at the end of the day there is a commonality that's in yeah even that's enough. So the because they both are subject to and the because they're both the same types of what about which doesn't have any of the above. be over there says this is a gishmaka. The reason it's a gishmaka because it's very very general and because this is so general so really it gives you the opportunity to you know maybe do a lot of things with it. Now what does the bryer say? The Ber says if you have a that was now my laugh says the what does it sound like of the three that we had two of them were that gave birth to right the sauce is a so no not the second case but the third case again but it sounds like even the sauce even the 30 which is the biggest because they have nothing in common but even in that case it sounds like if there's and by the way in the of the three are if I could be number three I could be one and two as well so this is a all three says the but maybe not maybe it means even though it says you and based on that it sounds like even a par maybe it means a specific type of means If that's the case, there's going to be no way to be say it from here. That was the first that was the second. Okay. So, at the very least, I should be able to be po the first two, right? This B is specifically the first two. Right? This is nuance. Let's do this again. was the first and both have but one is a one is a what's the second case they're both but only one right in both cases you have one and you don't have the other and the says and it sounds like it's going back on see I can't be po the 30 doesn't talk about the 30 that's the If I know one or two, I don't know three, but at least let me be able to be one or two. when it says in maybe it's going back on the first of the two cases it's not going on the second case says the well if that's a case that it's not going on the second case why even mention the second case then what is to tell me that you're going to be right the after told me is wanted you to know the first case which we said has the most in common why the because they're both subject even though one is one but they have the most in common not is going on both cases so the reason I'm telling you the more obvious is not for the in the for the if however you're going to tell me the is only going on the first case not on the second so the only of the second case tell is I know the first case but I know the second case is as well is not true it's not true is not true I need the second case as well I would have thought maybe in the case of maybe over you know why because the of is a much more nidma than a sauce right let's be honest we're not farmers but most of us grew up in Brooklyn but at the same time at the same time the difference between a and is more drastic than the difference between and is I know the zoologologist probably not happy about that but that's very very similar as opposed to the it's like completely no shas right this one makes a moo sound and the other one's an isles no sh says had I only known the of paralamar I would have thought that maybe their the hooves are different right the the horns are different the whole thing is different so I would have thought over there's a over here as it relates to they both don't have so I would have thought that in the event that you have a kamar that was the older sus I WOULD SAY IT'S IT'S A KAMAR THAT LOOKS A LITTLE LIKE a sus Everyone's trying to figure out whose side it looks like, you know, but you know, it looks a little uh doesn't it look a LITTLE LIKE YEAH, BUT WHATEVER. IT'S A kamar that just has this funny lookam that is a nid over there. You would have thought is not even a it's not even a nid. It's a it's a looks a little like a sauce. So you could always have thought that kamashan bottom line is bottom line is you can't be pushed the second sha from that brace. You can only push the first at the end of the day. So what do we have here? What we have is we had these three superas. We had two bryes and what emerged from the two bryes is that really can only be pushed to the first as the second and the third. This is not something that could be pushed. We now turn our attention to the next part of the part of the d theor part of the we're going to start it now will be in tomorrow. Either way, the mission continued and the Mishna said, "What's as relates to of so you have a kosher animal that gave birth to what looks like a non- coach animal vice versa? How does this play itself out?" So the Mishna said, "Well, you look at the mother that gave birth to a isra that gave birth to a is going to be." And then the Mishna ended with a rule. Why do you have to say those words? speaks as a very important. Why does it have to say this is one of the one of the cornerstones of of the ofas? So of course you have to have it. Please say that's not cash. We're not asking why do we need this principle? We need it. This is a crit. We could not get through the day as Jews without this line. But the reason it's being asked is because it doesn't seem necessary in this Mishna. Meaning once you tell me the it seems like a pretty straightforward. So the cash is not in a vacuum over here and the says the only reason it's being mentioned over here is because it's a right you shouldn't forget which way goes which. I remember if the mother's one way the child's another way. I just can't remember how it works. You shouldn't think maybe it should go the child right because in in logic you could very much hear that it should go the other way around. So we're taking this principle that underpins a lot of different areas of cash and we're applying it as a good way to remember the you know what I mean. What is the mak to our Mishna? What is the mak to this that if you have a that gave birth to a the animal's going to be a and a that gave birth to a the is that the animal's going to be a ton on we learned in a now the background to this is a p that we spent a lot of time on in parake the second half of parakefus which dealt not with the laws of traphus but with the laws of the sim of kosher and non-cooser animals you know be it an animal be it grasshoppers be it fish right that's the whole second half of parake but the over there says so we know what makes an animal kosher if it's mala and if it's says the but you should know there are animals that have and the first one mentioned is the camelu in this if you learn right now but the is saying as follows that there are two sim that make an animal kosher and the only time the animal is going to be kosher if it has both of the sim but if you have one of the sim you're not going to be kosher and then the goes and gives me an example of an animal that has one of the specifically it's and as a result it only has one of the and What's that animal? That animal's the guml. And by the way, the next person goes and tells me animals in the reverse. That a mafus paras like but it's not malagra. So thera is setting up that although I'm telling you that being a maliger and a mafres is a sign of kosher but you could have this iman and still not be kosher. When if you only have one of them but that's pure. If you have both of them you're going to be kosher. stating that if you look at the words of the PK in a in a very literal way, in a careful way, there's almost to see uh as if the Torah is telling you that if you have both, he's still not going to be okay because what does the say now? You're supposed to go why so what then did the mean when it started as what I meant to say is if you have one of the two you're not going to be able to eat it such as the glob which has one of the two and you're not eat but if you take the first half of the ping in a vacuum it almost sounds like misleading wanted us to know something and it almost sounds like there's a concept of being a mal that's still the Lord's going to be says the says It's a great there is a situation when you're going to be eat what is that if you have a even though it's a it has all the of a kosher animal that's what mean in the context of animals so you see clearly that it has this but Why? Because the mother's a you know the that gave birth to a it's going to be says the o it's a great but maybe the mas the punchline of the should be in the exact reverse maybe the punchline over here should be that in the event that you have a they gave birth to a ta maybe then the should be that it's going to be Tommy. Now, right, it sounds like the whole point is that you're going to be treated as Tommy. There's a concept of this way you're supposed to read it. Maybe the is right the map that there's a concept that if you come from a maligator so is and it makes sense cuz you're not a maligator meaning every maligator is you do it even if the mother's a what's this if you're me if you're me you come from if you come from a mal maybe that's where you're going to be excluded z we know that's not the Because the says to it says regarding the and the word who is extra and we learn from there who the el that the who himself doesn't have the two is going to be but if you would have that was in that type of situation is it's actually going to be so that's we know is really how do I know that I know that from the para of the if that's the case must be coming to tell me the reverse case and that is that in the event that you have a a that gave birth to a is you're not going to be able to eat it. So again a that gives birth to a you're not let either that gives birth to a you are let it's all has nothing to do with the mother doesn't even know why the mission mentioned it's just a sim right we're just telling to think of if you want to remember this Mishna that's all the mission is saying right but uh the point is the of the is really learned out from realases a bra the fact that a ta that gives birth to a is going to Tommy is because there's a rem that you can be a mal and still be but there's a to be had and in the reverse that gives birth to a would be because but there's something else that's going to be now as it relates to the second brings the says the gum twice. Twice it says that it's not kosh. Now it's interesting. Where does it say it twice? So it says it in and it says it in par but it says it twice and from there says I learned from there in either situation is that it's going to be so the regular is but even the which means it's a that gave birth to and holds that is that too is going to be he says Shim learned it from the actual word guml is that is even another type of guml that you might have thought is tar because the mother is tar no is going to be what do with the actual word is coming to teach me that the guml is and the other one's coming to teach me that the the milk of a iser for how does know that the milk is it says The word S is coming to Marba. It says S in it says S in par times. It says the word S. And is the rabbis. It's coming to not only is the gum a problem, but the milk also. So I don't need gum gum to teach me the because I know it from what do s and this is one of the few places in chassar brings us in the conversation of the most famous meaning this debate whether you should is something that was discussed in we don't all the he was told him What's going to be with all your just like I'm going to get now that I'm walking away this way it was until came along people stopped but then did come along and he taught couldn't be anything being s is alwaysful somethingful taught this is something that's tough and that is the again the amount of raid bites that we have on the the related raes the what's that all about but the bottom line is we just need one thing you want to know this conversation no this is one of the age-old questions So according to the raan guml guml is needed to be of a guml. Hence I don't have guml guml to teach me a guml that was born from a kosher animal. according to shim I don't need guml to teach me the cause holds like his who is so going to be ready if that's the case what's g teaching me that which is that was born from a is going to be off limits again can never read that line the same But only that of is not because it says who doesn't learn it from guml where did he learn it from one thing that and seem to have in common is that were not for the fact that there was a be it mean I would have thought I would have thought that of is going to be kosher why is that different than what we learned at the following price. And we know this price because we just finished. It says regarding the if you have something that's anything that comes out of it is going to also be. So if that's the case, why do I need a special of a non-coosher animal? I know anything that comes out of anything non-coosher is going to be a problem. So this is a very important it's so I would have thought that the whole concept of what does that mean? It means the of is really because said the context over here is a has and wanted to know why does have where a woman that's not a not said well there's something else that's unique about she doesn't have damito. So what's happening is the dam is in some way converting into and that's why the has the in other words it answers both questions she has she doesn't have oh now is something you're not let you are let is really the whole concept of is being really milk should always be not kosher because it's so why you ever let eat and drink milk. Maybe that's why I need a beautiful reason doesn't have D is because of the fact that the D became a doesn't have D is because something happens to her after she has a baby that doesn't allow her to produce D right 24 months it takes for her body to recover. So if that's the case, you tell me therefore you would have thought that it should be true even by what's if it's not. Yes, it's still a it's thought there's nothing that comes from a living animal that's kosher, right? What's it known as? So this really is like that. Therefore, what emerges is it's so I would have thought it should be even by that's the that no the bottom line is when it comes to even that is kosher fascinating again when you learn the it has to start over here obviously right but again but the bottom line is that there's in the world of even by the is because at its root is something that's very much prohibited by the or it's at its root which is something that's also very much prohibited by the it's the one example of that applies even to but the bottom line is that there's a special uh in the whole institution kosher milk is a a real kesh real this was like an Indian. But the bottom line is therefore you could have thought that when the was maybe the alid is a special where in the of the we're in the gum either it's the gum gum or it's from the fact that it says what does it depend on if it's gum goble or esag well it depends if you hold like shimsi when he was holding in the disha part of his life or in the pisha part of his life I mean then there is uh but the bottom line is again but as it relates to raid as it relates to raid going back to yesterday's daf one and that is a lot happened in yesterday's daf the latter part of it had one general backdrop and that is a conversation of iiku that took place between kruis who was a roman sar and The great Rabenzaki. One of the questions that countus asked Rabra Zakai is that he did the math of the big Mishkan campaign that's discussed in Paris Truma and he thinks that the numbers are off meaning he literally audited Mosher Rabo and he flagged the accounting in a very very significant way. In fact, he thought it was off by more than half based on the 300,000 plus shekels which are come out the 200 plus kickers and 11 right without going into all the minus but inus's mind took a massive fee or something went on over here as it relates to how all the accounting went down he tells you know either he was a thief or he was a gambler and had to do things that were unethical to pay up some gambling related debt or he just simply didn't know math because the way I see it he raised all this money and he kept more than half of it for himself and responded to the Roman he said and let me explain to you exactly how the arithmetic is supposed to play out. Bring an envelope, flip it around, and we'll work through this together, which made up almost the entirety of you know, you read this that this Roman can look between the eyes and tell him like, how could words like this even come out of his mouth? What came to mind was the over there says it's a it's a hill says what does it mean? What it means is that every single husband warned his wife said, "You know, if I see you having a private conversation with Moshenu, I'm telling you, I'm going to take you to the Mishkan. I'm going to make you drink the me. I don't trust Mosha and therefore you better be very careful when you're around. Can you imagine this? every single and again how could we say things like this about now is a he's a Romanus right again but says that the day even they went ahead and they were and at first glance this is a the first thing that came to mind was that we've mentioned so many times. This is in it's where was talking about a that says may that there's an idea that aid has to be knock in the eyes of hem and he has to be knocking in the eyes of the and writes that I want you to know it's much easier for a person to be than it is to be who knows what's going on in a person's heart. And if your heart is in the right place and you live with you live with and you live with and you try a person like that could be even if he's not doing everything 100% right but he could be but to be how you going to be people are flawed people's judgments are flawed for you to be you would essentially need that every single year there's going to be how in the world is that something you're even going to come to. And he says not just that if a person is so that he's it makes it even more complicated to be any Israel. You know why? Because the more a person is the more people like to try to find nitpicks about that person. Just to read a little bit of he said unfortunately you find today that people say things as follows. London. This guy is such a London. I look at the way he behaves. I hear this all the time. People talk this way. And very often big deals. What did he do? It's baseless. It's based on a Now think about that London. Let's say that Lambda did nothing wrong. And that London was perfect. And he literally is serving Hashem in a way that's that's incredible. But he wasn't careful enough. So that that get drunk and start spewing. Those people could didn't somehow know to be done every single thing this person did. The he was caught in their trap. I say the crier should cry. People that take things seriously should be very worried about this. They should be very troubled about this because at the end of the day it's says something frightening. I've thought many times. This is what was holding in says I wonder I've thought about this many times. Was there ever a person in history that was able to come to a where he was? Regarding this that said these are the words of could be could be again we can't say this out of our mouth but the garra says we're just quoting a mut and to a lesser extent the garam the there is a concept that sometimes as it relates to the the greater a person is the higher the a person is on the more and vulnerable he is to be caught in these trappings and maybe that's a little bit of a a mah really to what is saying and a little bit of a shot in howenu in is being accused of and howenu in is literally being on some level of ish but is there's a whole another approach to this and this requires a tiny bit of an introduction fascinating it's sort of well known that rais lipits the b to pherise Israel the classic commentary on Mishnay one perish that he wrote was called Yen the other perish that he wrote was called Bayaz hence for the last few hundred years we've had the gift of the but at the very very end this is almost the last piece it's on the side of the it's on the ironically that says but over there rais lipits asks Aasha he says a terret and his terret he bas is on a neck that he saw somewhere doesn't give it in a source but he says I want to share with you a we read inside all the nations of the world heard about it and they were very very frightened and they were very uh intrigued to know a little bit more about there was one Arabian king that had the inspiration he had this idea that you know what let me send an artist the greatest artist in the land I want him to draw a picture of I want him to bring the picture back and then I'm gonna have all my all my kish makers all my smart people, they're going to look at this face of and they're going to be able to tell me, I'm just so intrigued by this person. I have to see him, but not just cuz I want to put a name to the face, right? But I I need to see him because I want to see if I can tap in through myim into this person's essence. Either way, so this king goes and he sends and he literally metu draws a picture and he goes He brings it back to the king. After the king received this picture, he went and he brought all his smart people. He said, "Can you please analyze this face? I want to know the secret behind this great." So they all got together and they did what they do. And then they returned to the king and they told him as follows. He said, "If we're going to assess this person based on what we see, we're going to have no choice but to tell the truth." And that is a very very bad person. said there's every bad me that a person could possibly have singled out. I'm struggling to say these words, but this is what they come back and this is what they tell the king. And when the king heard this and got angry, he said, "Somebody is uh somebody's mocking me. Somebody's making fun of me, right? I've heard just the opposite and all his all his people they got very very worried. So you know the artist turns to the king and he says you know king can I have a word with you and then the turned to the king and they say can we have a word with you and each person went and pointed a finger on the other person. They said uh listen I drew a perfect picture. I'm telling you, I'm telling you, I'm not mocking. I This is him. This is Rabbenu. They're obviously playing games with you. And these and they told the king, as I'm telling you with, we know this business. We have PhDs in this field. We are the worldleading experts. We know are parts of I can read literally every crevice on a person's face. I'M TELLING YOU EXACTLY WHAT it is. The artist is playing with you. Anyway, the king didn't know who to believe. And finally, the king decided says, "You know what? I'm going to figure this out by myself." So, he gets on his horse and on his chariot and he goes with his whole entourage and he decides, "I'm going to travel to the Midbar. I'm going to meet when this king arrived in the Midbar." He started running towards him and he pulls out this picture. There wasn't one here that was off. He got it 100% perfect. So he enters the oil the he enters the he bows down to him. And he told him, "What's going?" He says, "I don't know." You know, I had artist come. He drew the picture. I see it's you. It's exactly here. It's mishu. But my question is, are they making fun of me? Like, what am I missing here? What's going on? What's going on? I'm I'm very I'm very very confused. I'm not sure how to deal with this. So responded to him. He says, "I want you to know your artist is clearly perfect." He says, "I'm skip a little bit. They're incredibly incredibly competent. And the report that they gave you, the evaluation, the analysis that they did was spot on. What they described me as is exactly is exactly who I am. I'm stating that. But at the same time, I want you to know 100% everybody would be better than me. Could be. It's even worse than that. I want you to know that everything that they said was 100% true. But at the same time, I was able to overcome all of that. And because I was able to overcome all of that, that's why the fact that they wrote that report really has no bearings on who I am today. Because at the end of the day, I was able to be Muscap. And somehow or another lipids in his uh pirish used this to answer his kasha that he had in the tab from. So the was a very very popular Mishnay during the 19th century. extremely extremely extremely popular and as a result of its popularity this story that Rabi Lipshitz told about Mosher Rabenu you know started making its rounds and there were people that were very very disturbed by it how could anyone talk this way about Mosher Rabeno is is is the kadashim of Kadashim how could you say I mean just let's hear these words again it's it's just unbelievable How how could you how could you say things like this? And then in the late 1800s there was aid. His name was Aaron Rapaort. He was known as the mag of who at that time had made aliyah. He was living in. and he decided that I already have to take this uh piece of the and I have to put it where it belongs and people have to understand that it's it's a horrible story and I don't care who's the one that brought it in in his parish. This is this is a terrible terrible story to be told. And he goes and he writes a whole pmic. He writes a contress he calls it right that's an appellation that you find in the context of and he goes and he writes his perish to ferris and the idea is that we're going to be this is what he writes and he says just like were called that because they were I'm going to be of and in the year 1895 he prints this 20page contress to show the world and to prove to the world that everything that's being said over here is 100% it's a fascinating little contress 20 pages I went through it it's made up of several proim each per has its own agenda per alf which is the first per he goes and he brings rise from kazal that this can't be true this is something that categorically can't be true number one And then the says few days what does it mean? So it's a big the whole HOUSE WAS FILLED WITH ART. DOES IT SOUND LIKE WHEN THIS CHILD WAS born he was etc etc says it says what's always it doesn't sound like he started off literally on the other side of the spectrum and then he had to make a 180°ree comeback to somehow go ahead and figure it out. This is this is how you supposed to give with that literally from the day he was born he always had he quoted another desire desire is fire desire says that we find that a lot of it their names are mentioned twice in the but every time a sadic's name is mentioned twice in the there's a right there's a line that separates separates the two names. It starts already by Hashem. Hashem, right? There's a between the first Hashem and there's a after the other. But either way, it says there's always a between the two names. I know what's the reason. wasn't always aim says in the beginning was together with his family but later he became a then at some point he became where he had there was the first and then there's the second and that's why there's a is the same way is the same way I'm skipping Because from the day that he was born, he was already a from the day that he was born says the only one where you don't find us sick. Why? Because it brings when was born they saw they he was born and he brings after many zars. It's poshit that this is not a true story and if that's the case this must be as if this must be as if he goes on in one of the later proim and he says you know I've seen people already quoting this the pharisees and other I've seen that unfortunately unfortunately fell for this ze this forgery of a story and it bothers me very very much one of the he quotes is from the s that we've quoted many times over the years from he wrote a kadush is an epic classic four volume work and he says in his because it's based on which believe it or not we learned last week feels like a long time ago but we learned this together last week says and says it says oh why is it that name is it's a funny thing. So he says he said how did become how do you come suit to a moenu IT'S BECAUSE moisha was baser and he quotes the says and ra was a able to overcome his natural tendency of busha and remma to reach great heights and when a person is able to overcome natural tendencies AND BECOME GREAT THAT'S WHEN YOU BECOME A moheno because when you're born perfect you can't BECOME it's half of a fellow brought it to say can you imagine such a hearten was BISH THAT'S THE THAT'S THE pmius of this that because raenu was so That's how he was able to was he had from the day he was born. There's no between you find this by you find this you find this there's no even there's no before and after by because the right in the says was from the of the midbar maybe the biggest miracle of the midbar was from the pokes upon him upon him says the maggot from vil I'm I'm this it's a beautiful it makes for a good rate back but could you IMAGINE IMAGINE THAT BISHOP that's the he writes in one of the later pro that he discussed this mish with the guy at the time one of the great there was living in he goes to disc and he tells him from this piece that's brought down in the heard it and he was so disturbed by it he was so takenback he said it's 100% a And then he brought three rias. I mentioned two of them. The first riot was so tells after the advice says let me ask I'll get back to you. He says I want you to go and I want you to voice the people that are appropriate to sit on this says what does mean I want you to use. I want you to look at the face of the people and you're going to know who's who by you knowing who's like this you're going to be able to go ahead and pick says is the ways of works it's not based on who a person was when he was born BUT IT'S BASED ON WHO THE PERSON IS BECAUSE IF YOU CAN BE AENU AND LOOK LIKE and be full of m THEN THIS IS A WORTHLESS PROPOSITION AND IFENU HIMSELF WAS TOLD THAT means of course we know you can change your nobody's arguing no one's debating that but the question is WHEN YOU CHANGE YOUR HOW YOU GOING TO LOOK SAID IT'S THAT THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE IT'S INEVITABLE AND then said I'll bring you another learn THE END OF PARASA WE JUST LEARNED it together we literally just learned it together what happens in the end of parasa when comes down from the mountain for the second time what happens when mobu comes down from the mountain the second time he had a masva he had a mask The only time he took the mask off was when he spoke to the Israel when he spoke to he said I don't believe this Arabian king he was definitely not when he was there when he was talking to even when he WAS TALKING TO HE SAT DOWN in chair and he listened there's no way lo that's not WHAT HAPPENED OVER HERE HAD THE MAS NOBODY WAS ABLE TO LOOK AT HIM AND this artist this Leonardo D something was able to look him in the eye and somehow draw a picture of HIM IT'S IMPOSSIBLE THERE'S NO WAY IN the world something like that could have happened. SO SAID IT'S positive if he had another ayah as well. Either way in this made a huge fact he has a the from the so and they all had theirs of how we know it was as if he said there's no way in the world this is a true story. He said it comes from a non-coosher source it's different it's different and he writes in the safer that what you need to do is do one or two things. He says either cross out go to that piece because he's the but at the same time that piece you have to go ahead and be or if you want he says this is a good marketing plug take my contress and attach it to that piece. So like this you're going to know you're going to know that this is as if you're not going to have to worry about it. Classic right? So I'm going to tell you something fascinating. I saw from and this is infu starts with and he brings it to and the fact that it wasn't received so favorably by everybody and then he says as follows but I want you to know truth has to be told that in as much as the magi vilmer wrote this very very strong diet tribe against this piece from and even though we had a from the and from this piece was considered this was a piece that you were not allowed to learn and needed to be addressed either by crossing it out or just by the put it there. He said, "But I want you to know their holy swarm." So as much as it's true, this was a seer that was off limits. But at the same time they tell me they have bashed and he goes on like only and he brings mus I'm just going to tell you some of this for him that he quotes the py which was written by the bala told us the safer who was a bash he brings this story the mo in the prior in the sadik the hos the in the he brings this story from the his brings this story brings this is a story that a version of him is brought in every single one of the to the point and everyone said it in his own way that I saw in this piece from is in the in the end of you can see why it would be in the end of he brings that he heard from his the holy he said that with this medish that is brought down you could understand who is one is a and the other is a says in they told their wife I don't want to see you talking to I don't trust AND TURNS FROM SAYS EITHER HE'S A GUNNER OR HE'S A GAMBLER IT CAN'T HOW'S it possible so the holy bump said this is Quoting from the de is the mostious harm in the world. He said over that he heard from Isa that Isa said the is because if you looked at him there was some there was an audo over there that epis made people a little bit suspicious because mitadawenu was not the we know but was midasenu was AND that's how And the theme of all the is that a person thinks who am I? I'm going to go and I'm going to reach a I know that I'm know I'm know that I have all these. It can't be a person like me. I have tas this and I have tas that. Yeah, there are certain sadikim. There are pets. There are people that are literally there are people like that. But someone that's born with a mid someone that's born with to to want things that are not okay there's no way the expectation from that person is to reach any maj but but to to reach a maja and to reach a level that's not something I'm shy to and say look at the history of mobenu was really somebody that should have been the opposite of raenu but worked on himself that's how he was able to overcome it. Now how would all the answer the good this but at the same time I think the message is clear you know whether the story happened or didn't happen whether it's a ze or it's not a there's an element here probably of but at the same time the message is 100% true the message is and that is that not only is a person who maybe has and he has nist and tendencies you know maybe for not only is a person like that capable of accomplishing in life but it could be it's just the opposite it could be it's dafa a person like that a person who has such to if Hashem gives a person a to the dark side of the world that means the gave him an equal level of to the bright side of the world and if his is so strong the pull is so powerful that means the push is equally as powerful. That's how it works. It has to be there's always an equilibrium in the world and it's the person sometimes that has the nit sometimes that person who naturally is that person dka has the kayak to accomplish great things there's an element of either way this is a little bit of the rest of the story as it relates to that exchange between and the Great rev.