Chulin 128

Today's d is and we will begin from the two dots 11 lines from the bottom of so the topic is specifically the of so what's an aul that's a limb of a live animal that's [snorts] hanging it's dangling it's almost completely severed, but it's only almost completely severed, meaning it's not completely severed. And as we've already seen briefly, and we'll see today in much greater detail, an Abraham and a Kazayas of Baser in a has a very special place in Alo. A little bit of background, we know that although certain animals are kosher, other animals are not kosher, but it's very possible for a kosher animal to not be kosher. For example, and so the animal could be kosher, but if it wasn't slaughtered properly, if somebody eats a boss or if somebody eats one of its even if it's less than a sassur, he will get malas for what he ate. If somebody eats or again, it's a kosher animal, but he removed a limb or a kaza while the animal was still alive. Even if afterwards the animal had a proper it's known as it's incidentally is not only for aid but it's one of the is not allowed to eat it. There's another called a hammed and kazermed where if somebody would eat the a of an animal that was while it was alive subsequently the animal had a but being that it was while the animal was still alive it was never it was never it was only it was only almost ever is that and become learn from the trade. So in a way and are all similar in that they're all going to be stating that there are very important differences between these three categories as it relates to not the sassur's component but rather the toah component. Again, one [snorts] thing is clear from learning these sugur at the same time they also fall into the ram of is just like is also just like a mace just like a sher is to. So if somebody comes in contact with a bos or with an is he would become what about is not to what about is that despite the fact that they're also and despite the fact as we mentioned they're very similar to but as it relates to to they are not of they are not a source of toma. So as it relates to you have you have you have they're all the same whether it's an or if it's as relates to then they're all separate as it relates to as it relates to both Abraham and Gaziah's boss are both not sources of stating that the mission said and that is that although an Abraham and Gaziah's boss are themselves not a sources of but at the same time here's the even while they're attached to the animal the is they're treated as so that if they're and then later they come in contact with like all they will now become Tommy. So they're not a source of toma, but the point is they're susceptible to becoming tummy. The reason this is a is because a live animal cannot become. Incidentally, in mamasha, which feels like a long time ago, we learned that even a benu which you're allowed to eat without being that it's alive is not subject to the laws of because a live animal cannot become stating that the even though they're attached to an animal. So they're technically alive. It doesn't matter. We look at them as if they're severed. And it's for that reason despite the fact that we don't look at them as if they're severed to treat it as either or but we do look at them as if they're severed to treat them as so that if they're the is that afterwards they will become there is one important caveat to this that Rashi spoke out of the that's going to become later in the only time that the can become is if somebody had in mind to actually eat it or feed it to somebody. So for example, someone had a mind to feed this a or this is not allowed to eat the adul and the basul. Even if you shed it properly, we said to that degree it's treated like you would not be able to eat it. But if someone had a mind to feed it to a guy, a guy would be allowed to eat it. He doesn't have the of Abraham and even though it's similar to it's not. So of course a guy would be allowed to eat it. But the is that if you have in mind that that gives it a so despite the fact that right now it's it's technically alive if it becomes then the is that it would be susceptible to the of so on the topic of we have a rather complicated on the bottom of that goes on And the truth is if you sit down and you really break down the Mishna the Mishna said three all of which the Gar discusses in great detail. The first Mishna said was which is essentially part of what we spoke out in the introduction and that is the is that they are themselves not a source of but at the same time even while they're attached to the animal we look at them as so that is insert if someone had in mind that and they became they would become that's the and And the discussed that the second case of the Mishna which we're going to discuss now is what happens if you had a or that was and now you did a proper on the so the is that the boss is still going to be as it relates to so nothing really changes because it's not it's not even it had a proper the animal did so The tum ramifications of the a and the bustel will be the same in that if it's will be it's not it won't be to mean the only that's really on the table for it to be or not to be is but if it's can become stating that the mention of is whether the in of itself is the to now become so if it comes comes in contact with it will be or not says the in of itself has an ability to be says and at first glance what's I mean why would you think that the shouldn't be there's certain mashkins this is 101 that have the ability to be something damita is one of them so damita has an ability to be we learned these in detail earlier in the but has an ability to be and is that an is subject to as long as it's why would you think that if you have an Abra and now you the animal that this is attached to that that shouldn't have an ability to be and the reality is says it does but says so at first glance remain themselves were not 100% certain what the was and it's for that reason the is going to have no less than six [laughter] and what exactly this is incidentally that's not the hard part of the I'm kidding it is what exactly is such a straightforward question and a very convoluted answer said that said is a very good and [snorts] that is that we're talking about where when you the animal only the animal became wet from the dam theo never became wet from the dam meaning the dam never made contact with the ibrado it made contact with the animal and the question now is that if the dam never landed on the Abraham so even if the Abra came in contact with how's it going to be it itself was never so you're going to tell me I understand the a this a never get you need every part of it to be what do you mean it's attached to a behemoth so the behemoth itself is but the truth is is that although the and are attached to each other but they're separate entities because you see that they're treated in separately the behem with the is the Abraham because of the drush of is going to be but the the timing that you could still argue that if the becomes that should be enough of a for the you know why this is 101 there's a concept of there's a of maybe being it's not but a discussion that maybe even could bear to the share to there was also that being that is considered part of the tomo with regards to it being if you are that could work for the to itself. So really said the first that we're the never came in contact with the D. It was the behemoth that it's attached to that became in contact with the do and the behemoth is really not one with the a and the most or the best relationship that you can draw up between the a and the underlying behemoth would be that the behem is a yad. Rabbi said, "So, you know what the tanom was? Could a behemoth be a yad for an aver?" An aver could be a yad for a behemoth. Right? When you think of a yad, so you're thinking of the stem of a fruit, you're thinking of the bone of a of meat. The bone is the yad to the meat. It's the tuffle to the meat. The stem is the tuffle to the apple. The behem should be a y to the a. So that will say that you want to d the of the a because it's the aver that came in contact. So you want to say that being that [clears throat] itself became maybe that should work. It's not so posit that that would work could be a for it's very reasonable to argue that maybe not says a different shot says that disagreed with his rebi and held that there's no way in the world that you can look at the behemoth as being a yad for the it's not possible. So if that's the case, the only way the dam going on the behem can be or even the is if you look at the and the as one and the shim was do you look at them as being one unit or not look at them as being one unit notice of physically is it one forget about is it is this one is it one apple or are they two separate entities what's the argument [snorts] so practically speaking here's the argument if you usually if something is one so there's a little litmus test you could do if two things are attached to each other and you want to know if it's really so pick up one half if the other half is going to go up with it that's a sign that's one pick up the other half if it's going to go up but in most cas it's going to work both ways what happens if you have two things that are attached to each other one is bigger one is smaller if you pick up the bigger the smaller side's going to come up with it if you pick up the smaller the bigger side's not going to come does that make it one or does that not make it one that's the and said that's It says the is if two things are attached and you pick up the cotton the and the god is not going to go up with it like in this case you lift the it's too flimsy the the is not going to come up with it there's no way if it was attached to it firmly and you're strong enough then you know you could do a maybe that's something you'll be able to do but in this flimsy case it's not going to happen and that was good for Romeo says that just because you can't lift the with the cotton that's not a reason for it not to be considered one. It is considered one. If it's considered one if the itself became that would apply to the as well not that way even though this is a bias the great also learned this way. How do you know that did really say in our mission that through going on for a minute I'll ask you aasha from so in today's doc we're going to learn we learn and a little bit of this is a mist is body that was to had to go to the mikvah went to the mikvah. But the terra says that even though the person who went to the mikvah doesn't become tar until the sun sets. So the is that even after he goes to the mikvah as in the first mich even though he went to the mikvah he's still but because he went to the mikvah the to the to is a little kish he's only quasi to but the point is he's nonetheless. So we're dealing with a who touched. So there was Truma. He had a a cake or a loaf of bread that was Truma and now it cracked and it's hanging on literally by a thread and the touched one of the two sides. So the side that he touched is for sure, right? When are they allowed to eat? So it's only well maybe it's so he's not you're not come in contact with Truma yet. So the coming in contact with of course is going to be Mama of the Tuma that he came in contact with. Here's the question. What about the part of the Truma that's attached to the Truma that he touched? This is two halves that are really attached to each other. He touched one. What about the other half? So you do this experiment. Pick up both sides. If you pick up the bigger side, the smaller side goes up. And you pick up the small side, the bigger side goes up. It means it's one. So the full touched one half, the other half is going to be as well. But if not, and asked the steer he said, "What's the in our mission said that the adul is considered one with the behemoth despite the fact that when you lift the adul, the behavior is not going to go up. Even though if your I don't care because Romeo as long as if when I pick up the Abraham goes up I don't need it to work both ways as long as I can lift the cotton by lifting the gle I don't care that I can't lift the by lifting the cotton that's here Ram says just the opposite says as it relates to the full being matruma the only time he has an ability to be mammacha is if it works both ways if I can lift the cotton with the godle and the god with the cotton. So this was and what did say to answer this? He says you have to change the names around because there's no way to reconcile these two. Now incidentally the says I don't even understand maybe there's a fundamental difference maybe in our deal with real that has an ability to be but his is not a could be [snorts] only it's not nearly as mean that it's not so maybe the mayor is when it comes to but when it comes to such as he says But it can't be because only it was but just because said it doesn't mean held that way wasn't explaining rebi said his own that there's no difference between not says you're knew that there was a way out of this the way out would be maybe there's a between a regular and a what he was saying was that according to who said there is no difference between a and a regular so that's not a good so according to if you assume held like in other words but what's the bottom line what do we want from this discussion in full we just want one piece that you see from his steer and ram between How understood that he learned that was that it is it's still considered that was the basis of the remaining regardless that is the second in the so the first in the garra was said is something else if two things are attached but they're not 100% % attached and if you lift the smaller side the bigger side will detach it won't come up with it is that considered attached or not that is the beer and the says the third meaning everybody agrees that a could be a and where it was the became not the not The question is that just like there's what about with regards to and we had this in the beginning of the par whether or not you say the with regards to the component or not right what does it mean that is to it means that if somebody who comes in contact with the he'll become even though he never touched the to itself he touched the that's the the others. If the yad of touches to it will now make the thing that it's a yad for to even though the thing itself never came in contact with it's but what about with regards to if the yad becomes wet the becomes wet and now falls on it. So do you say or not? It was a sh and says that is holds that there is a concept of y is not with regards to so if there's no concept of with regards to just because the became it doesn't mean that's going to work for a fourth is something else. What happens if you have something that needs to render it? So in and of itself is not. So a piece of bread is you don't have to think to make a piece of bread. It's because it's but there are certain things that are a little trickier. For example, there are things that the is going to say that aren't necessarily most people won't eat it, but there are people that eat it. One of the examples the Garra is going to give is that people didn't eat. Even though most is anyways, but most people didn't eat. Let's say the you're allowed to eat. People just didn't eat it. But in the in the villages, people did eat it. In order to give of you'd have to be you'd have to have some sort of to give it of an is something that requires a for it to be considered an became before you had that. So at the time that it became wet at the time that it was you had not yet had the for it to be. So the question is is it considered or not? That is the said a food that needs for it to have it was but the happened before the actual we and where's this actually it's a in the third par of used to say huda is relating an exchange that he heard from [snorts] was so says used to say as follows of an animal that in order for it to be considered with regards to people eat it but they would have to have a to give that they ate it doesn't require because the is part of an animal it most likely became during the as a result if as long as the after the have in mind that they want to eat now it becomes comes and it doesn't need what do you mean food needs those last week's the is that it was through the problem is the happened before the so this is where told so says I told if somebody gathered he washed it off in his mind he was going to take this ocean. That's some sort of plant, some herbs. He was going to feed it to his animals. And afterwards, he says, "You know what? Never mind. I'm going to eat it for myself." So, you need to be mur second time. What do you mean you washed it? You were already when you washed it. No, the ter was you washed it. You thought you were feeding it to be. Now, you changed your mind. You want to eat it. You need another. So was told by Rabuda tells him how could you tell me that the happened before the is now you see from the not that way. You see from here that you need to have that after you already had the in order for it to be the says But what do you see from this exchange? Oh, this is the shila. The shila is could you be something before you head to thus hence the is whether or not we hold like thought before he was or not. In other words is whether works or does not work. The animal the animals attached to this they got wet the animal did right afterwards you went ahead and you wiped off that dam you wiped off the damn the question is that dam that came out did that dam have an ability to be or did it not have an ability to be what's that the age-old is we've seen this so many times already. What happens when you do is it considered a half a or it's considered nothing. Is it half or is it not? Comes up in the sug and some lighter as well. But either way, that's the sh is the does it have an ability to be if it's can be if it's doesn't have an ability to be because this is in we learned this together already as well that is that has an ability to be but does not have an ability to be if it's not Shila with regards to this is not a Shil or something [snorts] before it became it's not a what's considered what's not considered this there's so many ramifications of that lumbus this is another one says one final ter and that is over here was whether what happens if you did a and no dam came out. Is it or is it not said in a in the beginning of the of course not if no dam came out how's it going to be said no the is what's says that being that is not to the extent that it becomes because before no one's allowed to eat from an animal even can't eat from an alive animal because it's so the what gives it allows it now to be eaten. So that it gives it a as well that it makes it and this is based on the basic not the lumbness. This is the 101 of you're giving it a certain food becoming wet is similar to a kay becoming nigmar as it relates to the laws of nothing can become until it's complete. food becomes complete when it's but the point said that just like a completes the food to the degree that it's now so as relates to say it's shim said it's the but the continued there and the gar said that really there's a derivative and that is there was a big shar holds that it's the that's not the remember the gumar the gumar had shim was the even without only and it's only the that's the itself does not have the ability to be hold the antithesis it's only the dam that has the ability to be the itself does not sayashi I'll tell you something so that this is how so because according to dam never has an ability to be it's only that has an ability to be masher. In this case, what do you want? The should be could the beak? No. You know why? Because the is not mad. And if it's not mad, it can't be mash. Because what's the whole of being m because it's mate and it's mate, it's murit. But the is not p on me can't be mate. So that hold is a so there's no reason saidashi why they shouldn't hold that can become with the attached to becoming that's holds down is never it's always the act of that's the act of can only be but being that there's of that they don't become with the as well. Either way all the contributed to this we had we even had the we have that is the first part of the do theory continues very much. So one of the things that came out in our studio was a discussion in the gar whether an which is attached to which the is not in itself a source of but it's subject to the laws of it needs however to become like in order to become so the of the which is now going to cause to start flowing and things are going to get wet and messy. So the question is is that work for the or not? And one of the things discussed this was Rab's beer in the right at the beginning of the Gor was do we look at the as being a for the or do we not look at it and Rab explained the as being that because he could look at the be as being a for says how could the bead for it which doesn't make sense. So if a could be a yad for the behemoth, but you can't have the tuffle the and the tuffle. The behemoth itself can't be a y. But according to Raayor, the behema could be a yad for the a rabbi wanted to know what about a what if the animal was alive while the animal's alive and then you have a and we saw in the ratio of the Mishna the first case that the Abrahamu even while it's attached to a live animal can become as long as it's what would be if the be itself became do we look at the behem as being a yad for its a or not meaning in the mishna's case you shed the behavior The behemoth wasn't alive. What if the behemoth was alive? What's the difference? The difference is cuz maybe a live behemoth can't be a maybe a live can't be a what would be the so discuss would be is because not and maybe you need in order for it to be a and is not a itself is not subject. It's not. So being that is not that's why it can't be a meaning. So now the the became an so to maybe could be a in this case it's the it's the way explain but being that it's it's from so maybe it can't be a is the obvious question we just have to speak out what do you mean every y is an I mean how do you understand the stem is is an the bone of of a piece of meat is an it's very different over Here it's bats are not a stem of a fruit is not it's not nobody eats stems of food. The bone people don't eat the bones unless there's inside but people don't usually eat the bones. So as a result it is technic it's physically not an the is people eat it you know it's not considered but you could eat it in theory there's a din that says that it's not an which is kosher but being that it's alive it's not subject to because it's so and stems are not this is thus this is worse And maybe over here it can't be. Yeah, that was something. On that note, we're going to have a whole bunch of shas now with regards to we're going to start with more. I mean, we just started with the the basic of of Abraham, but we'll see. We're going to literally go through a whole bunch a whole smogus board of of laws in all related to and all similar shas to shay said kazal said where did they say this in the second if somebody had a cucumber [snorts] he planted it in a that is a pot like a flower pot but very important it was not a perforated flower as init and it grew did the cucumber and now part of the cucumber is hanging over it's hovering over the pot and it's being yik from the ground is the entire cucumber is meaning it's not or if it was it would now become what's this we know that something that's this is 101 It's not you have to be detached from the ground in order to but anything that's attached to the ground is not anything that's is not it's for that reason if you would have something growing in a perforated it's been from it's considered with regards to being that it's been directly from the ground we don't look at it as we look at it It's not if something is in so you planted you have your little flower pot and it's growing but it's not being directly from the ground to what to to what's in the pot but not what's not the ground beneath it and as a result that would obviously be subject in this case in this you had a plant that was inside a flower pot part of it however was hanging hovering over so was being so that's part that the part that's hanging over that's being because it's not the question is what about the part that's inside the do we say that it's attached to something that's being and all the somehow flows together so maybe it's all viewed now as being nothing can be or maybe not that's over here the whole thing said, "Why? Why should everything the part that's hovering over that's been getting from the artist that's going to be but the part that's inside the flower part is going to be the part according to the part of this plant part of the cucumber? Part of it is to the part that's not really the part that's hovering over. What if touched it? It's not but could it be a y to be misma to the part that's inside the flower pot which according to could be. So I understand in of itself can't become this to and this but could the part that's be a why not it's always a again similar because here it's because it's not it's not an something that's not an could at least be a but here really it is no there's a den is that if this is the sh the is something that's could be a or could it not be and again the says take another. So we know is that if somebody bows down to something he treats it like it becomes where says that is not again a lot of in today's stuff. So you wanted to know if somebody now bowed down to half of a dalas. So not the whole dalas but half of the left side. So he bowed down to the to half of the the half of the dalas and the that half of the dalas according to Shiman is now notab the other half is to that half that's not again a similar sh the dalas is not like the it's not the bone it's not the stem it's really there's a that it's not what's the den the reason that it's not is because it's the so what about with regards Yeah, that is only an in of itself not being but it could be a maybe can't be either again says another and where's this this is also aim if you had a branch of fig it broke off of the tree and it's hanging on for dear life it didn't completely break off but it mostly broke off says that it's It's still considered attached to the tree. If you're able to put it back to the tree, even if you tied it, you can tie it back together and it's going to have a then it's then it's going to be but if not it's going to be okay. What's the shar? So Rashi says what happened over here is you have to add some information, right? The Gmorra is not giving us all the information. Take a look at so another branch over here. So you have this big branch that detached almost like the Abraham Abdul from the tree and it's hanging on for dear life. That branch now has another branch that's attached to it that fell off. And that second one you're not able to detach to attach. So what happened over here is the first one is the bigger branch you could tie on to the bigger tree. The smaller branch you can't tie on to the bigger branch. This is confusing. What's the point? The point is the bigger one being that you can tie is considered it's not the smaller one being that you can't tie it to the bigger branch is considered. The question is could the bigger branch be a for the smaller branch being that it's technically because it's so it can't be maybe it can't be a yad either maybe no maybe it could be a and again the says one final shil if you have a cornerstone of a bias that's a that's a mitz so a bias a house can become a mitzvah clothing can become a mitzvah a person can become a mitzy so what happens if there's a house that is uh that has an egg on it is that you have to remove the based on the rules and regulations of what you do with it then you remove the entire but if you're breaking it so what's happening over here is and this two is a this is in the 13th par of so what happened over here is is you have this stone this cornerstone that really made up the cornerstone of two houses so Ruben and Shima are next door neighbors they share a wall so to speak And this is the Zvis that really straddles both houses. Ruvane's house now became a Banuga. So you have to remove stones or destroy it, demolish it depending on what the dictates. Shims have not. So what about this one stone? That's that's for both. So what's say that if remove the stone then is remove everything. If is demolish it then you only break your half the person whose house is but the other person not what's do we say that the one that doesn't have to be destroyed could it be a for his friend or not or not and there too the gmorra says it's going to So again, we're continuing to discuss the where we learn out from that just like the as well stating that there's a fundamental difference between the certainly versus are subject to the laws of Tom as well is not subject to the laws of they are not themselves a source of they can become if they're first but they themselves are not to and the Mishna gave three different scenarios of the ramification of the Abrao the first was very straightforward you have the Abraham the animal's alive but this a is not doing so well And now it becomes embedded in that that was the the second case was what ends when you the animal and now is the so that if I comes in contact with Tommy should be Tommy what would be the six and the now we're up to the third case of the Mishna I'm going back to the Mishna two lines from the top of what happens if you had an Abra and now The behemoth died. It just died. So it's an avail. Now the behemoth didn't have a like in the second case. It's not alive like in the first case. It died. Those are the three cases. The backdrop of the cases are are very straightforward. The animal's alive in the animal had a in the animal just died. So the requires in order for it to be now there's nothing to be there's no meaning the only way it's ever going to become is if it is if it was the animal died I mean that the animal died let's look at it as an aa right if the whole animal is an aa why should the or the bos be different so we're going to see this in the tomorrow that the answer the short answer is is because if this sounds familiar and is is that being that while this this bosser was attached to the animal to a degree we didn't look at it as if it was attached to the animal we looked at it as being we looked at it a little bit of being didn't even have an ability to be matur when you did the it's for that reason now that it dies we say that it's not part of the animal for it now to be deemed that animal that died that it should be subject to thaw. We look at it as if it's not. That's why it's said what about anor says that it's going to be so as it relates to the a so again the what about the a is different why would the a be different why would the a be different because while the a was mulo so it wasn't a so it's for that reason it the only to it could have been subject to was it's that it was subject to that was the first part of but it is subject to that's the fact so being that it's subject to so okay it is what it is but there was no now that the animal died so to the extent that you're not looking at the a and the as part of the animal that died that you should look at it as a maybe at the very least look at it That's and the truth is if the lungus is that the mis just completes what had almost happened while the animal was alive. It was almost completely severed while it was alive. What did the misa do? It completely severed it. It it closed the gap from almost to completely. It it finished the job. So if that's the case and we look at that job as having happened while it was alive because if you look at it as if it happened now then treat it as an as it happened before. So you should look at it as so as it relates to you could look at it as makes no difference because not to anyways. So is also not going to be to this bus is not going to be the only way it will be to is if it's which is what means is just a way of saying that the only to have is not a source of tommo doesn't need hure a mace doesn't need ha to become because it's a source of to sher doesn't need to become to food that's becoming from an external source needs because that's how it relates to the what about we treat says you don't look at it as to so from here until the end of today's d what the is going to discuss is the is so said that as it relates to the a again theo of an animal that now died where the is that this a is going to be what according to says but according to it's going to be what to going to have says mayor not and the is really straightforward. It's it's a long but it's not going to take a long time and the Gar asks a very straightforward question and that is it could be what difference does it make going to went out of his way to say you know what the is going to be not is I didn't realize says to that there's even a difference between and I know they're both they're both real things so like what difference does it make says you know which to it's not a as if there's Uh there's a difference. You're right. There's no difference as it relates to the itself. There really is no difference was attached to the and now detached from that. What's the is that detaches from is not because we look at it as it's awesome but it's not however but that's so you're right as it relates to the actual makes no difference but the pish from the if you look at it as it's going to be if you look at it's going to be and that's what that's what that's what was coming to say in the Mishna that the is going to How do you know that is how do you know is the says regarding this two is in the end of pari I think after learning these it's impossible to ever look at parishi the same way so this is this is like have to learn and you know you can't look at the first part of ever again feels like but as [laughter] it relates to this is this is we learned so much of hard stuff but either way says saying that if a dies a kosher animal of but the says not which is what it should have said you know what it's coming to teach me that part of a such as teach I need it for something else say it's a there are certain animals that even though and feel like maybe they should be to still not even though it's similar to can't eat it but it's very different what's the way it's different there's no what's the again this it's only some so I already use to teach me that is how could I use it to teach me that meaning what the should have said was for the fact that it didn't say that I learned two I learned number one that has a is number two that is how do you learn two because really if the just wanted to teach me one it could have said is that would have taught me one teaches me two is one cool two extremely important and it all comes from the word either way if that's the case why is it that only is not I mean at the end of the day it doesn't say anything about a what does it say so just like is also so if why is not from the same don't even think that because we learn to say you would think. Okay. What do you see that says because the emphasis is on the word is something that until cannot be undone. So too it has to be something that detach from the animal that can't be undone. An ava that's removed there's no way for that a to regenerate. But can regenerate spoke about the bone marrow earlier in the week it could regenerate and as a result it's not thus it's not from this but has to be learned from the word itself not it says so the word is the died that's the that's the if The behemoth dies it's a but there's a minim even part of a but that min that part has to be similar to a degree to the entire okay so just like the behem is made up of senus and bones I've called the a has it doesn't have so it's not similar to behemia and says a third behe like very similar to kiva so much can even ask what the difference is but similar that has to be what makes the unique. So yaka said what makes unique is it has rabbi said what makes unique is that it has either way how you know that even though to tell me to tell me that is they all seem a little similar we start with the last two which are very similar not said the same thing as opposed to that doesn't have added it has what's the difference the lower leg the lower part of the leg of the animal so that part of the animal has but doesn't have so the question is do you look at it as do you not look at it as meaning is it to if you need not if all you need is then Yeah, had differently learned it from the word learned it from but's question is not what's the difference in but is there the kidney or the lips. So these are things that will not regenerate. So from that standpoint there is but at the same time you don't have so if the criteria is there is no if the criteria is this price that we just had that brought three how you know that even though is from but is not to even though should be that as well we have very similar right with regards to so shar only are their is their is not and the question is how do I know that it's up to your Uh it's again this is not the shar then everything is stomach we're discussing with just like this and with you have as well but either way says the has to be similar identical. The first was regards to the second regards to what's the difference between what has the question. move out the lower leg has to be again the difference is the kidney and the lip I need both of these bry one regarding and the other regarding only regarding I would have thought this whole discussion is only true by you know why the reason that even though it's not should go in because of has a or actually that it's not the size of is not enough for it to be need I would think that is more than why not why because he find the so is more than to that degree so maybe it manifests itself with regards to the of therefore so is the we mentioned yesterday that it's not only the madin for but it's the yo madin for all my It's the for all. We also mentioned yesterday and it's that the nature of the din as it relates to is very different than the nature of the den as it relates to the other nations of the world. The maos of the is dependent on his and his the and the of the are dependent on their mask. But as it relates to the entire world literally from sea to shining sea is the judgment day it's the and the question is why why is it that from the solar days of the year the chose to be the the in the sugos of den in the rash is the he's the one that asks this question. Why is it that man is judged on and the says that it's based really on that is that we know there's when was the world created says Yeshua says truth is if you go through that sugu arguing about a lot of big milestones that happened in world history that Did they happen in Tish or did they happen in Nissan? Additionally, they argued about milestones that are going to happen in the future such as holds as we spoke about yesterday holds. But as it relates to Bria, that was one of the milestones that Rabza and Rab Yeshua debated in terms of historically speaking when exactly did it happen. said it happened Yeshua said that it happened ones says that according to that it means not that the world was created in but it means that man who was the purpose of creation was created on tish in fact says that it was on the first day of tish that manish was created. Which means by the way that when was the world created? It was created on. But the point is says that according to that holds what it means is that was created. Now we know that the day that was created he ate from the and after he ate from the judged him and ultimately punished him. Which means that goes down in history as being a day of the first time there was ever the first time there was ever judgment in world history was on says dan that's the reason that became the day it's really an idea that traces itself back all the way to the beginning of time is the day that Marish was created sinned and was judged meaning there was din on Marish on his very very first day of existence which means the first day of was and that's why would go down as a day of it's interesting that says that that according to that it doesn't mean that the world was created but it means that was created when was the world created on he said that would explain the meaning in Barcelona We are everybody wakes up and they start reciting. They don't wait until rash. They don't wait until but already they start several days before and the day that they used to start was not the before not it was and says the is based on this because if was created on and he was created on the sixth day of creation that means was on therefore it's a time to beseech the and that's why the was that they would start saying but either way says the according to that holds and it means was created in and he sinned and was judged on that day that would explain very beautifully why from all the days of the year was chosen to be the but continues and the says it still bothers This all explains who holds says that Yeshua that holds the why is it that man is judged by then says another he says according to Yeshua you have to say being that we know that The den of rashashana is on rashash shana but it really just starts in rashash. It doesn't end until in other words it's a 10day trial. So this mishb of is something that takes 10 days. The idea that is the yin is a little bit of a misnomer. It's the first day of the trial, but really it's going to continue for a 10-day period. The is not going to happen until we know is a day of says don't wanted that the last day of the din should be on a day where there's so much and there's so much in the world because he felt that that is something that would only benefit the yidden that are standing in front of the coven and are giving as if to say this this judge is someone that's full of compassion to the defendant that's standing in front of him. Now he knows there's a seder of there's no other way for this to work. But at the same time the judge knows that there's a certain day where on this day for whatever reason there's going to be a certain and wanted that the of the should be on a day where there's so much in the ear and therefore working backwards. He said, "One second if I want the din to end on and the D is 10 days. Okay, so let's go back. The ninth day is going to be test. The eighth day is going to be and you get to where the starting point of the D is going to be on." So there's no inherent reason says for the to be on but working backwards wanting to be on what you really end up with is being in other words. One of the manifestations in is understanding why goes down as being the accordion. It's based on the that really was created and which day if that's the case we know sinned and was judged on that day that was the first in history that goes down with as being the according to Yeshua bam happened 6 months uh apart nois to this time of year it happened in the spring it happened it happened in the it happened in a completely completely different time it happened. Okay. So, it can't be it can't be it can't have anything to do with that has nothing to do with that. It's based on the fact that we know it's a 10day judgment and we want the 10th day to be on working backwards. we end up with it being that the say a little bit of a different it's but this is an idea that's expressed in all the is in this brings in the name of who said that really as it relates to our understanding ing of it. We're acceptable and how's that possible? Either it happened or it happened said it was to create the world inesh like rebel but ultimately he didn't create it until like Yeshua. So says on some level we take on the we're taking on but there is a of and that is although didn't happen in but it was all of to create the world in say all this say this that we know brings in the beginning of parishes that it was to create the world. But then they realized that there was no way the world would have aid. He was within but when it was to create the world was when was it to create the world it was that's why goes down as that's when it was to create the world and it was to create the world of course is again the idea that the say that the wasn't just like right we have sometimes and we're like scratch that forget about that make believe I never at it created a world and that's why there really is a world of and that's of say that's saw and first he saw his and then he saw he saw the way the Romans were torturing him and he turns and tells him [laughter] and the say what did the mean when he said that there was a world that was created with And that's the world of and sadikim are judged through that world. So it should be better for them and is one of those sadikim and in the world of in the world of it makes sense that you could be it could be and you could end up being tortured by the Romans. It's going to be a zoo. But the point is that being the was the where it was all to create the world and it was all to create it. That's why goes down as the continued and they said that that's we say throughout conceived. It's today the day the world was conceived of. Today is the deal day that it was not created but and being that it was to create the world therefore because it's not the day of it's the day of and it was but the bottom line is according to that we have the first mahal and why is according to that holds We have the second of why is the and even according to who said that we also have a a new a third that's all the of why it is that is the now as it relates to the actual what are we being judged for? So at first glance sounds like the never opened up a we know what uh we're being judged for on Russia. We say it more explicitly in the second part. Fast forwarding our whole fate, our whole destiny, what our year is going to be like is what we're judged for. Stating that it's a more complicated than that. And really this next uh begins with a well-known says in the name there are three books there are three that are open And he brought a to back up this whole idea. Chrisado said that he was from the great then on rash there's the mason there's three books that are open and every single person ends up in one of those three books one of the books are cif the other book is cif or one of the book is the sadikimur the other book is the rashim and the other book is the book of the bay if you're in the book of sadik meaning if you're if somebody is in the book of that means he's and if somebody gets put in the book of that means that we're deferring finale and we're going to kick the can down the road in 10 days from now we're going to revisit this person's mishb and we're going to determine which one of the two so every person gets written right every single person gets written child which book he's written in. Is he in the book of the sadikim? If you can visualize this, it's helpful. Is he in the book of the or is he going to be put in the book of the benim where he's going to not really be addressed until from the it sounds like if somebody ends up in the book of government mean if someone's so he's if somebody's in Russia he's if he's a which usually is understood to mean he's he's literally 5050 says somebody like that ends up getting pushed off to. But for sure the simple reading of the is that or in the words of the and debate him get pushed off all the every single ever asks I don't understand how could say that the din the judgment of rash depends on a person's as if to say that IF YOU'RE A SADIC, YOU'RE automatically going to go to and if you're a Russia, you're automatically going to go to Misa. It's not true. It's factually incorrect. We've all been around long enough to know that that's not the way it is. There are sadikim that die. Nobody lives forever, right? Let's start there. So there are that die and there are that have everything very very good. So how could say that the is and the is that it's not like that? Just explain this a little bit better. We know some people are and some people are seems to have a a very utopian way of looking at it, right? Oh, it makes perfect sense. You're a good guy, you're going to go. You're not a good guy, you're going to go. WHICH, BY THE WAY, think of a mishbane in most cases. If you're innocent, you'll be fine. And if you're not, you won't be fine. So it makes sense that corruption. That's really the way it should work. Oh, it's perfect. Yeah. The problem is it doesn't work that way. The problem is we know for a fact it's not that way. We know there's an idea of we know there's an idea of a rush of now why and how there could be a sadic veroy. That's the even say right could you explain to me please how it makes sense that there could be a person who's at who does everything right and somehow you don't stop punishing him and he's tortured and he has and he's dealing with so many in his life and then you have people that don't stop doing the wrong thing and they literally do every single thing wrong and it looks like they're being showered with sheff It's a didn't understand but at the end of the day it's the is a concept of there's a concept of so how could THE NAME AND SAY OH IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE RIGHT THE WAY YOU WOULD LOVE TO think it is when you were a little child that if you everything's going to be amazing and if you write everything's not going to be okay the Ramban in his drush on rashes on us and one of core in terms of Raman is he gave a very very long to go through it here and Raman is one of the that asks this he doesn't understand listen to his he says referring to did this did he never see what did he miss for I MEAN WAS A AND HE'S THE quintessential vero so says the I He never will say for you like where is going to live by himself buried 10 sons then I don't think there's anyone in the world that understood more than the great on himself but the bottom line is it doesn't make any sense what and the truth is there are many many but there's two primary the first is known as and the second one is known as says that he wasn't talking about the of in that memory of does not mean a good life versus struggling. What then was he possibly referring to? He was referring to he was referring to in other words every single year was being there's a on the person that's going to determine whether this person is a or he's not a Ben. people that are they're going to be people that are going to be the people that are they are going to be that they're not going to be and are going to be punted. They're going to have to wait until to figure out exactly what their fate is going to be. That's that as it relates to you can't say that a person's good year versus bad year is going to be determined on whether he's because the reality that is not that way. There's a concept of a there's a concept of a rush of it can't be what does this mean when it talks about versus the Russians means that the person is not going to have now why the reason is because why is a person being judged in the middle of his life whether or not when he dies he's going to be not going to be the appropriate time to the dinner on Hab when it's all uh said and done. But right now he's in the middle of the game. It doesn't make sense that right now there's GOING TO BE A PLOT. Did he win or did he lose? I don't know. A lot of game to play. We'll figure it out as everything develops and unfolds. So it's a very very big. But the bottom line is says it's the only way for me to understand this memor is teaching us that there's a and it's regarding that it's regarding that are immediately and the immediately the second is and this Ramb is in his also in his by the way says this mahal of the Raman very much as well and that is wasn't about the dinner. He was talking about the dinner. What's how could he say that is automatically is automatically says is when said and he didn't mean that is in the conventional definition of the word saddic. He doesn't mean oh he's a he's the god of as opposed to the Russia he's an what he means is any person that's going to be and someone that's going to be right we recently could means it's that in this over here means someone that was and means someone that's talking about the dinner is talking about the [laughter] how could you say that saddic automatically ask and we know sometimes that sadic dies because that sadic in this memory doesn't mean that he's what we think he COULD BE THE BIGGEST RUSSIA BUT HE WAS FOR WHATEVER REASON and right the person that walks away from a moment in his case being owed money HE'S THE no in that in this mishb he's the so too that over here doesn't mean that so when we say there's three that are opened up it doesn't mean one is for the and the other one is for the and then there's everybody else no one is for the people that are you go through the list of people that at Gmer in this farm you'll be pretty surprised you be what what is he DOING HERE RIGHT I THINK YOU have the wrong no and if it's he goes then if it's that reason that he's there but the bottom line is a huge understand had to understand that on one is one is for the other one is for him if you end up in the safer of Sadik and Gurim and the banim get pushed off until according to these three not it's whether they're according to according to the it is and the of the is that when we say and when we say Russia we don't mean sadikim in the conventional sense but we mean the person that was versus the person that was in other words according to me according to me according to the is that we're dealing with not according to the is that and Russia don't mean what conventionally mean there was no way for the to sit down and look at this and take it at face value was we're talking about a different was that we're talking about a different definition as relates to but the truth is that as relates to this is an inash everybody knows in the very end of says in the is that after dvening on rash everybody goes over to his friend and He says adds one word says it's not enough to say you have to say right why only you want should also be good so says I'm adding one word it should also be stating that if take a look at the goyan says I disagree I hold that what said when he wrote was he only wants you to say he doesn't want you to say why says the it's because we know the name one is the other one is now the is the get pushed off until the emmesis says it's a plea. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. HOW COULD YOU tell me that goes says the is like that what's going on over here is is that means that as it relates to as it relates to the and the den is going to be 100% sealed signed. I'm not going to say delivered because that's already that's the but sealed and signed for sure on Russ it's only for the bait and that it's going to be it says the hand is a play itself out with regards to the okay but what about which is what most people are probably thinking about on right what about so how's that going to play itself out what's the says the guy And for that one says every single person gets judged on and it's what we say in says the go that this distinction that you have some people other people. THAT'S only everybody. It doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter which one of those three you end up in. Every single person. So again, there's two going on says the guy. We knew right of course you open a so you know there's but was that there must be as well but as it relates to these two these two what you have to understand is is that where plays a role and really in general how the is manifest is as it relates to the and that's why we By the way, what's right? THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. SO, IT'S all about you don't want to be, right? You're to be that's what the whole feel is. And that's for every single person. Doesn't matter who you are. And is going to be then there's another then there's another track and that track has and it's made up of different people and there you're right and they don't even make it to relates to that for them for them it's all for that that's only the that's when you v when you go to your friend the of the and you tell him after what are you vining on that one day you should have a gaz you got smack in the face if you tell him that he's right. So of course what you're ving him on is you're vinching him on that's going to happen on that day is only because for every single person it's not going to happen that it's not going to happen. So it's for that. So why are you talking about you're giving him that's what you're going to tell him right everything you do right the whole but the point is right now what are you ving him on you're telling him now because it's not going to happen till later says the that said and SAID I DISAGREE IT'S predicted that said you know why because he was going the ballet and according to the bal it's this that you find this that you find that on like yeah like the heel that is talking about as well If is talking about as well that means for the and for the everything happens on so what's the is not you should be cuz you should be not a you should have to wait 10 days to know what your is YOU SHOULD BE THIS second [laughter] that's why you're telling him because right now on it's going to be and that's why you said it's Not enough to say you have to say. So whether you learn like the way learned whether the learned and that is is or is so said that if you take a look the is in the Torah it comes from the Torah and the Torah says we know was the right lived in Ashkanaz and they lived in. So in the world of the bal they used to say like was in the lived already in the world in the world maybe there would have been the way they learned of the but either way again fascinating discussion But the bottom line is the bottom line is another thing that comes out of his is the most obvious thing and that is that in the world of theis which is also the and by the way if you take a look at the learns this up in the as well I mean but the point is that it's the sheet of the it's the and it seems to be the of the as well that inash in addition to there being a as it relates to a person's there's also a as it relates to a person's and says I just think it's good to talk about this for one second and that is what does it mean that there's a we mentioned it earlier right you wait until after it's all said and done and we'll figure out then you know we always speak out that Briskarov in the end of his safer. It's the last D of Briskarov. He brings from his father said that we know that by there's going to be a god of right there's gonna be another in fact if you go through the in his rash so it's so clear he says there's three that every person there the he has every rashash then after he dies there's a den and then by there's going to be another and asked why is there another den by the person died he was judged so why were we judging him again so said because every single person gets judged not only for what he did but for the result and the titas and the outcomes of all the different things that it is that he did until the world ends you don't know what the are from all the a person could have lived a thousand years ago but his influence is still being felt with quoting that all lived a thousand years ago so you see it's not over until it's over right literally because until it's the still going to So it's true when a person dies he gets judged but he's judged in a way by the ultimate the final judgment is not going to take place until that brings that he heard but that's all good after the fact this is before the fact this doesn't have any why would a person in the prime of his life be judged whether he's going to be a benab or he's not going to be a benab so I think it's just to read a few sentences and mishious rabbar and this is in B. page of course from and that is even though at first glance you would think what is what does it have to do in this world whether the person's for said. He said whether or not a person's aa or not is going to dictate and it's really going to permeate the way he's judged even with regards to but for sure it's the way with him in this world because even people that There are people they get it good in this world but they're liquidating their account in the next world. Every single that they get there's a debit that's happening in the other world. that says, you know, I don't want you to have anything to do with me in the next world. He did a couple good things. So, I'm going to give you everything now. You're going to get nothing by the time you're done. He said it's also the world is filled with like says right in the beginning and we know there's an idea of so how does a person know if he's when is that THIS GUY'S AID THAT HE deserves that says I'm going to watch you you're going to be When is it? If this person's a zak or how do you know? How do you know when exactly that's going to play itself out? Is this person a zak? Is this person? You know when that's said that's the But as it relates either way, you want to know what it means. There's a big and the of this is of course you know we want more and everybody wants Yeshua. Everybody needs Yeshua. That's what everybody's domining for. But there's a big there's a big and nobody wants Yeshua is on the he might think he does but he really doesn't he really really doesn't because the Mishna says and therefore a person's really plays itself out very much is he losing his is he not losing is this person going to be seen as a is this person going to be seen as a where he's going to be so these are These are that areas on Russ and they fall into that other category. So really really the way a person is viewed from Shayim is very determined on whether or not is this person or is this person not and there has to be a has to be a mishp has to be a there has to be a and that's there's a safe and then the and if a person ultimately it ends up in the it means They're going to be with him in a certain way. And that person, by the way, might not have so much, but the bottom line is that person's going to have a because there's nothing he's getting in this world that's taking away from his and he's going to have a certain where he'll be able to. It's a whole different there's so many you can invoke in terms of appreciating this, but in terms of understanding the for as it relates to the so that's for every single person that's what we say it's a 10-day trial it starts it only starts on rashash but it ends really on oniper but there's a whole another mishb that's taking place and that mishbut could be is gonna happen on rashash shana could be it's gonna happen yum kiper by it's not even a 10-day trial because it all happens in one day. Either it's on or ends up having it's a different trial. It's neaya other things but it actually has huge ramifications as it relates to and that's why a person is going to be judged not only whether he should have as it relates to but he's also being judged whether he should have a as it relates to the truth is we're just getting started as it relates to understanding the right just to tease out the next sh there's a couple of other things I think you need to understand just pause right number When is the when does it happen? Meaning if somebody has to stand in front of a judge, so it could be Monday at 12:30, 1:30. When does it happen? Right? When does it happen? It it I mean it probably don't take that long, right? So [snorts] when does it happen? Does it happen at night? It happens in the morning. It happens fats. It happens in the afternoon. Happens like when exactly is the Another thing you have to understand is how could it be twoh right? The whole concept of a two-day yontiff is a very hard thing to understand but okay two day is just another day of at the end of the day what what's the say for a second time but two the the dinner is GOING TO BE ON MONDAY AND TUESDAY again if you visualize it it's very very hard to understand I think it would be helpful to have a little bit of better clarity in terms of understanding some of the nuance to help the visualization of the that will be the topic of the next lecture.