Menachos 6

Today's and we are about 20 lines from the top of the two dots. So the topic of the previous two was the of the that was brought from the it would appear that it's included in all the with the exception of the stating that we saw we saw that it could be that the is going to be The reason the would be different is based on the fact that the was a little bit different than a a regular carbon. The purpose of the was not to be not to be but rather to be m what was it m it was the true this is an idea that we talked a lot about in the previous two daf and today's d is going to begin with a bry that's actually not talking about anything that we've been discussing in the beginning of in fact it's not even talking about a ma it's a little bit of a cryptic bryer it's one of those but at the same time the gum is going to be mafful in the bryer and included in the pille is going to be something related to the specifically the fact that it was the so it's in that vein that we have a little bit of a digression we learned in when it says in the so this of is actually the third inra the says carbono and and feels that the word min in minhabakar is extra truth is that if you look at the right before that inra so the says that if someone's bringing a carbon if it's then this or this and all the men of that is coming to tell me that Not every single animal is cautioned to be brought as a carpet. So it's not every it's some it's not it's only so as it relates to that it says which is all the word this is discussing why does it say the word min for all the things that needed to be from the previous means. We were already that's what was that's what B was. So the question is when it says in that next what exactly is it coming to teach me it says the it's coming to tell me that an animal that's a tra is possibly to be brought as a carpet. So what's the technical definition of a trafa sounds like an animal that has some wound that's going to cause it to die. More technically, if it has a a wound or a that wouldn't allow it to live, that's the definition of a tra, you can't take an animal that's a tra and put it on the says the I don't understand. Why do I need a word to tell me that a is not let able to learn from an animal that has a that is allowed to eat, right? You're allowed to be and eat a put on the aful with a says not let it eat it's even if it's certainly it should be to put on the so why do I need a certainly that's should be so the price continues and says I'll tell you why you need a I'll tell you why that's not a because I could always ask a from the of an animal are yet but you're allowed to put them on the in fact you had to put them on the and the dam is the part of the carbon. So you see already a precedent that just because something is doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be so could be but maybe it's going to be but the says is not a good because of a carbon that went on at the very least came from an animal that was right the rest of the animal was as opposed to a is more than that part of the behem is also but the rest of the is not as opposed to the which is and as a result it's not a perfect so why do I need a possible I should know from the say another of that has what would it be if you took an of you would Malik it would be in a you wouldn't be allowed to eat it and you wouldn't be allowed to eat any part of it. Right? So the entire animal is right and it's something that is not let and it's so maybe a would bear says also not a good it's not a good comparable it's not a good and the reason is by malik it's the mala itself The gets that makes iter as opposed to itself doesn't make it awes that not only that says that this animal is is so problematic that even a head is not let it's reasoning that if you have a that's such a that even a not let it then certainly certainly it should be a reason that it should be as well is when it comes to hence it's but as it relates to it's not a that doesn't affect to the contrary it actually gives it kadusha that's why Despite the fact that it's also it's still something that could be the point that thear is making is that which is if it's how do I know it from which is not yet it's considered what are you going to tell me which is the reason it's because it's not to the contrary it's actually it's and That's the reason it becomes kesh. The bottom line is is that the is sort of leaving us with a right says the why do I need I should know it from so certainly I'm sorry certainly which is should be and if that's the case I shouldn't need aar tried That didn't work out. Tried. That didn't work out either. Based on that, we should be left with a stating that the Bryce continues and says that if you're going to have meaning you're going to knock out the well then that would explain why it is that you need to be. So again, the price is written a little bit cryptically. The price starts off that it says all the it says that what's the min that it says in the next fate the price why don't I need a pos I should know it's from a then the just says that if you have a then we'll have this but uh I don't know I to me it sounded like from the price that there was a kimer we even tried knocking it out unsuccessfully we tried twice both were not good knockouts. And then the Bryson just says, "Well, IF YOU HAVE LIKE A THIRD KNOCKOUT, then you would explain, I mean, if you have a third knockout, tell me what the third knockout is." And I don't know, do you or don't you? It's a little bit cryptic. And that's really the segue of the next part of today's what did the mean when it says, it sounds like there's some truth that maybe you could have. What is it? And for this, we have a because you could say you want to find an example of something that's the topic of today's that's why we're discussing this right now was but at the same time there was no problem you're allowed to put it but say okay Maybe is different because you find that has a special it could be being that it's why it's despite the fact that it's also these are all spars very very subtle spar this whole which the does sometimes in the world of the right says so these are but the bottom line is but says that at the end of the day is so that it's maybe that's why you find this anomaly despite the fact that it's also it's going to be multip Tra is not there anything doesn't mean that is not there anything it reasons to say that if it's also it should be also as well says the what about where there is no because you're not let except there's no on comes out wasn't matter they still brought the so you have a a case of that's also a it's despite the fact that it's not being it's not true. Those were the things that grew spontaneously. They grew on their own and as a result too was you see it's it's even on it's being but the says not everybody holds that immedi It's still but at the very least what are we saying? We're saying that there's no really to be on because you're not allowed to have on because the areer and you're not let grow on. So what exactly says I hear but end even if you're going to tell me this you're not going to eat it whatever but if there wasn't at the end of the day would be so at the end of the day isn't the if that's the case if you're telling me that at the very least you have an example of something That's because when we say it's going to be then at the very least I should need a to tell me that is also because without a I would think that and at the very least when you the should be m the of it's very hard to even say the words of the garash take a look at and the kerra but that is the is says you're right. That's not the is you want to know why is not a good because don't tell me it's true. You have an example something that's you're right but but what's the what's the under what's going on behind the scenes? What's the rest of the story with the you take some of it and you give it to so it's true you're giving it to before you're eating it. So it's despite the fact that it's also but that's the mitzvah that's that's the way that's the way you're supposed to do it. So the says he writes says that wasn't when we say that you need a we don't mean because without the I would have had I couldn't have known because I would have said is not let the so whatever the mixture of the was not let to do it but you're allowed to do it. says talking about the person the person is not he's just the person we mean the itself itself you can't make the foray but it's so you have an example of something that's also right you don't have an example of something that's I have a perfect example is also you can't take the and use it but you could use it so you see something is But it's the same that that's for that reason you're allowed to do. Bottom line is is we're left hanging here to try to understand why exactly we need a to tell me that a is something that's which is a smaller that's certainly a which we would think is a bigger if it's which is so such a big that is even certainly should be now we're up to the third you know what the is you want to know why it's not a again. What's the which is which is should certainly be says I can bring from allow to do any once but at the same time there are in the mik that you were allowed to do even on chabas. So you see that shabus is they put carbon on but at the same time all those were so you see a concept of maybe a too even though it's maybe it's going to be but says you find that as well and involves big which is being done when you do that's a whole different discussion. But the point is whether it's whether it's maybe but that's a whole different discussion when you learn you learn but the bottom line is is that just like you find that shabas you find it but the says is not considered. So the bottom line is is you find in or you find in something that's maybe also which is you don't have a thus you would need the says that can't be the because it's true that you find that certain the carbon was and the mus were but the carbon had to be brought on shabas there was no other option. because atonement had to be brought every day. Chabas is one of every day. As a result, there was no other way to do it. The mafab had to be brought on chabas. So being that it's true that you find something that's you only find in the context where it's you have to do it as opposed to a you don't have to be of you can be of another animal. So it's true there is an idea of but only when it's you can't relate that to because not so as it relates to you would have to argue that once I know it's doesn't make sense it should be so again it can't be that is thus we have so what's the price of saying if you can have a you understand why I need a what's the says the You know, but at the same time, which was one of the big was made out of but the says you find sometimes as well. It's not a perfect always whereas sometimes it's mostly as well but it is we know that if you have a bag that's made out of then you could put on it and we'll say that of is going to be of in fact the is from but the bottom line is that you see could be for as well but the says ultimat is mitzvah that's not considered. You want to know why is not a riot for the same reason the big had to be made out of. So it's true you found an idea of an but that's the only way to do it. The Tory said that biguna have to be made out of it's not a riot to where there's never going to be a go of the thus it would argue it would reason to say that if it's you want to know what the is again the price is suggesting that if you're going to have a a on the it's for that reason if you're going to have a on the on the you'll understand why you need the we're trying to figure out what that is says because you can argue that I should be able to learn as a we're trying to explain the that maybe the is that between and says the gar you're going to tell me is an example of ahead. So what did the GRA say when it initially brought Malik that the reason is because of its and that was the and has nothing to do with you tell me that was the bride had previously brought that come from an animal where parts of the animal is mutter I'll tell You don't have that. So it's interesting. Usually the mahad would be brought to establish the here we're bringing the to establish the so the price is saying that really I shouldn't need a buck I can learn but being that there's a on the that's why you need the the what's the is but that's not a good the that's not a good but and would establish the thus I don't have a if I don't I need a but says it's not a good because here as well but you have to put the on the you have to put the on the malik but you have to do malik theory says that's the only way to do it you can't of you have to do malik so it's true you found again an example of but only when That's not a necessarily. It's not an analogy to which will never be. So, it makes more sense to say that if it's you're right, where it's where it's the only way to do it, you do find the concept of but it's not you certainly don't find it. The whole maybe the was suggesting is not a good till now we had a which we thought it was a great which is which is certainly should be and we've been trying to find on theimer says the gumar now I think that what the bry meant when it when it seemed to raise doubt about this kimer was not that it had a pir on the kheimer But maybe there's a flaw in the maybe there's something wrong with the there's something wrong with you're arguing that I could argue maybe animal is pos so just like the thing that's going on can't be a so to the can't be either as opposed to so it's actually a coolant. You're telling me says you know what the Bryce's insecurity with this was cuz maybe it's not a good maybe is more than because you see can't do the we know could do the so then maybe the if it is a would be as well told if that's the argument then even though it's true. It would mean that the kab from balm is not a good but I can make a different kab. I could replace the kab take out the word and insert the word. What's a yen? That's a an animal that's born ceerian. So is also possible stating that a was born to Syrian is he's allowed to do the you don't find such now it's certainly should be and you can't tell me because it's not true because if the reason that the is not a good because really the is maybe than the trade I hear that would be a reason to not get the but you would very easily be able to replace the and the B didn't do that the B so again that's not the but the says again says no that's not a either Because of because an animal that's born doesn't get an animal that has a does have so is unique that even if it has right we had that it's the only where even though it has a it still has and you're still supposed to go and give it to the so you see that has a over has a so maybe it's for that says has and it too has the same. So again, what the GRA is suggesting now is at the end of the day, I don't see the because you're going to tell me that there's something that's flawed with the from and even if you'll tell me that there's a problem with what's because has this that it's not on but at the same time I'll tell because there is a so I could make the be from between and so what exactly is the so it's again says that if there's a which we've since edited and we have now it's not just the from it's from together with but at the end of the day what's the why do I need a bicycle Why can't I just learn it from the You know what the problem with is you never find anywhere. You never find anywhere that there should be or there should be is always as opposed to which you find as you find that Do you mean maybe that's where you find it? Because anytime you do malik in theory, you're rendering the animal a still there's a to take the and to be mate. So you see that the is so again that's a over that maybe that's the how could you learn from on the one hand has a but then again it also has a you find it's a before you put it on the as opposed to but the says You find the same exact example no less where there's a because there's no idea of when it comes to an also no that's what we need there's no when it comes to an so just like you see that it's okay to put the that's a tra after you do the you also find that it's okay to be m an that's Because ain't so what are you going to tell me that is has a over because has the same it just it's in the same example where's your where your has a when it comes to is also okay because Thomas says maybe it's malik maybe the malik to eat it even though it's a so you see this idea of being in the context of which was completely so you see that the was allowed to eat it after even though there was a idea even though there was idea of you see that but as it relates to the animal that has a that's where there was a you never find and the reason you don't find cuz no that you can't eat from an animal that's there's no you can't eat from so you never found when it comes to I found the of that I found but the but the which didn't go on it was that I don't have because doesn't have so if there's no how could I a little bit of a says a real line that we're going to just gloss over really really quickly and that is that that's true that was but all that were eaten by they really got from meaning the way we look at the lumbus of is that an animal supposed to go completely like even a even an animal that had a that was really it not Hashem out of his kindness said that some of this carbon that's supposed to belong to me I'm going to give to you but when the eat it they're really getting it mean that they're getting it migav and you find that it's considered as if you found it even as it relates to which is either way says the so again you have a good over here what's the let's learn that says I'm going to tell you what the and it's not a good is by definition even a nicker because even though if you meet someone you don't know if that person it was but at the same time but at the same time it's nicker because there's co sometimes that it was so it's considered something that's nicker is not considered to have a thus you can't learn from and from thus it's not a good it's for that reason you need a exhale only for a moment but either way so that's what the so what theor is saying is is that we had a bryce says that a plus That's why the what do you need a buck for? Why can't I learn it from a says it's because there's a what's the is that really you can't learn it from directly. you would need to learn it from and from it would have to be based on and have in common as opposed to a traum. So being that it's a maybe it's not as as again I guess there's an idea that a that's is less to give as opposed to a which is so maybe I can't learn from that reason I need a do I need do I learn that from this I know from somewhere else it says in the topic yesterday's and we learned from that that the only time you're allowed to put something on the m if it's something that a person would be able to eat. By the way, the the deeper understanding of that is very simple. Because we always refer to as right there's a parallel between the made and the bos that was put on the they were both considered and so there's an idea that what's considered kosher so to speak what's considered kosher is what's considered to the so if the was allowed to eat it was allowed to eat it wasn't allowed to eat it then the then the then was not allowed to eat it either so being that a tra so that's the limit of is is that conforms with the guidelines of it's an at the end of the day it's not some esoteric being that you can't eat it It's no it's there's an idea of is that is what it is. I mean that it's you have to learn to know what you're allowed to do and what you're what you're not allowed to do either way. But is that what do I need? Why don't I learn it out from there so many the whole applies to so is included in there. So again, additionally says the have even another is that it says the way Rashi says it that being that a has no it's not considered that it's being because it's lacking. So it's for that reason we learned that a tra is if it's shouldn't it be what comes to mind now by the way is famous right asks of if this is not hard enough so in that talks about an idea of right that the only time you can establish an animal as having is if we know for sure it's the 10th animal but if there's any sophic it doesn't work and the rush famously says in the of that even if I have a roy is not doesn't establish if can't establish how could you ever bring is that a is that a is excluded from if a is excluded from every animal there's a suffic maybe it's a trait that roid animals aren't a tra there's a higher standard the standard is and it's of 101 that doesn't establish va doesn't establish that's an oxymoron 101 so if it doesn't establish if it doesn't establish then at the end of the day how do I maybe every animal's always right between where the is coming exclusively to establish I'm using the room the more globally like for other things this others say that the is between the rush was only talking about the he never said it regarding the come up but we digress but either way so why do I need a pos I understand there's no there's no because of all the but at the end of the day I have two in the one inco and number two inash says number one had only I would have thought maybe only an animal that never was kosher examples would be but if the animal was once kosher and then only later something happened very the only time and by the way learns that this is true that the only time you say is if it was never but to the extent that it was once kosher it had a that's a real term if it had then it's going to be okay therefore that's why had we only had I would have thought that was only if it was a first and then it became hectisher what happens with messer what happens with messer is the says that when you're going to establish the animal has to be an animal that can go on its own as opposed to a that's considered to not have but the point is that the point is that at that time that it's becoming is where the is saying it's not let it be a tra let's say it would become a tra later maybe it would be okay so it's That's why bottom line is is that at the end of the day, how do I know that a with regards to why do I need three? Because we have to literally cover ourselves. We have to be able to cover all scenarios. We have to be able to cover a scenario where it became after it became hact where it once had a even in those two cases that's when at the end of the day is coming to teach me and now we could exhale either way before we go v two one or more and the second one a lighter. So we just concluded the first suga in the beginning of Makis and that is the sug as mentioned that the the beginning is really the first 25 it's a it's a it's a little bit of a recap almost the sequel so to speak but we're going to go through a lot of the sug here in in the first one was the you can't learn the without mentioning albeit briefly the brisker of so really The sun of in the world of lus begins with the grizzer and but first so a carbon that's so when you learn when you learn We saw there's a little bit unclear to try to understand exactly what is but the bottom line is in the best case scenario going to be like in the worst case scenario it's going to be completely pos which means you can't eat the you can't put any of it on the bay there's no there's nothing but that's the of what are you supposed to think he's supposed to think that means when the is doing he's supposed to think what's the definition of you have to make sure you don't think the wrong carbon you have to make sure you don't think the the wrong says what would be if the didn't think anything he was spacing out stuff he did the but he did it stop so it wasn't it wasn't It wasn't instead of but he also didn't think he did it. So it's the topic of and comes out and that's in contrast with is not but when it comes to is clear. Why is it that when a client thinks the is that it impacts the carpet either or it's going to be possible is the because have to be done like the learns out from an has to be done. Thus there's a of that needs to be inserted into an avoid. If you think shalishma then by definition it's not lishma and being that it's not lishma it comes out the or the carbon is missing an integral ingredient as a result it's going to be pos and said although it's true that is kishma that just means that is also going to be okay meaning it doesn't have to be lishma it could also be st but when you think shalishma it's not and it's not lishma So at the end of the day I don't have an ingredient that I need in order for this carbon to be cautious. So again a carbon has to be done the of the carbon need to be done with the and think of as a a as a as a living organism. It needs to be placed into the carbon. So if I think I have it that's but when I'mma I don't have because it was I don't have either because it was so it's not it's not at the end of the day I'm now missing the if I'm missing the middle of the carbon is going to be possible that's not the way you're supposed to understand but rather the is not what I'm missing but It's to the contrary. It's that I put something inside this carbon that's possible. Mean just like there's an idea that you find is throughout have an ability to disqualify a carbon bringing bringing a carbon and you have a different have an ability to impact the carbon. could be the of is that it's a and of has an ability to impact the carbon in the same way does of in other words the of why a carbon that was brought is possible is not so much because what I'm missing but rather it's because of what I have I have something that's possible that's making the carbon There's a positive thing that sharing the cautious of the carbon just like a has an ability to make a carbon ple to a has an ability to make a carbon puzzle. Either way, the risk of entertains three possibilities. It could be the first side. It could be the second side. It could be the both. True. It could be that when you have number one, you're lacking the you have to have. And from that standpoint, the carbon's a problem. Or it could be and it's possible as well that you have a you have a that's going to make the current impossible. But says the risk of that the emphasis is that if you understand the of how works you would realize it's that the real is the and said that is that what is mean? What's the definition of stomach? is in that if a person if a is doing the and he's thinking it's as if he thought meaning is kasher and stomach is also kasha. So it's true that when the does the it wasn't he never thought but he doesn't have to think is okay that's maybe and is also okay maybe it's more but at the end of the day just like a that's done is a that that's done is also a not that when you do it st it is as if the avoid was done. It's not. It would have to be done positively in order for the to have been considered to have done. And there's no lambd that's going to be able to tell you that if I did it, it's as if I did it. No, I didn't do it. It's as if I did it in the sense that it's okay. It's kosher. That just like makes if I do it, it also makes. when I do it there's no the is that just like is okay is going to be okay as well the way works is that when I'm it's the carbon was nonma as if to say that you don't need to think to create a carbon is also is also going to be says I have many and that's the that we're not going to go through this morning that when a that the way stomach works is that when you think stomach it's on the carbon that means is that even by the not thinking the carbon is still considered if that's the case at the risk of I'm not sure how can remove that meaning if there's some lus that says that by stomach means that even without thinking it's in the carbon you know what that means that means that is part of the DNA of carbon that means a curtain wakes up in the morning. If it wakes up IN THE MORNING, I DON'T know how could uproot that. And if that's the case, it must be that the lumbness of how works, it must be the leness of how works is that it's a it's not the when you think you're being because in you see that is part and parcel of the it's part and parcel of the carpet. It's in the carpet. So if that's the case, there's no way for me to uproot that. You can't say, "Oh, now I thought I removed the carbon." You can't do that means that it's part of the DNA. It's part of the carbon. I can't uproot that being that I don't need to create the I can't remove. So what then is it's just like there's a when it comes to so when it comes as well many rise from the says there three and the says that if the is not that there's a that's posing the carbon but rather the ver is that when I I just don't have so it's not the the lumbus is that I'm missing an core ingredient to the carbon it's what I'm missing it's not what I have it's what I don't have from the is it sounds like it's a right if it's a that it's very moving why the refers to but if really there's no such thing as it's just that when I think I don't have it's just that when I think I don't established woman that it's not the I had that's staring the carbon. It's that I didn't have that'sing the carbon. It's what I'm missing. That's not what I had and brings that there's a way when it comes to right it says in the learns from there that there's a to think to think have piggle so much so that theor says according to that holds of according to you're going to get malus from piggle rash says that just like you would get malcus according to rabhuda from mak's pigle so you' get malus according to rahuda from mash said if it's a then I understand why it's what's the problem with it's the bad it's but if just means you have to think so when I think it's not a positive if the issue is not what I have the issue is what I don't have so ifs what I don't have the issue is not the why should that be included in the truth is there's many rights of the brisk grow up. We'll just mention a few of them very very briefly. Number one says that the only time is a problem if you thought a different carbon. So for example was a problem is not a problem is not a problem. What's the means? It is the of how works. What's the is it has to conform to certain guidelines of but the point has been that it doesn't conform to the to the guidelines of this not but if the ver is that I need to think or at the very least it wasn't it wasn't so how could be okay should be a problem another riot says the only time there's a is if the person I thought about So bring he hasn't sh but if it's not going to be at the end of the day even if I if the instead of thinking was how could that not be an issue at the end of the day I don't have there's a need and I don't have a and this has and one of the it has to Another that we learned right in the beginning of that is not was the first brought and said the problem is who cares from today till tomorrow at the end of the day I didn't think the proper so I don't have it's not either I DIDN'T THINK I THOUGHT SO HOW COULD IT BE CAUTIOUS the term I have to be with there's no problem from the from where says it has to be but if you only think it it's not a problem means I could think from today until tomorrow but if I didn't say it out loud it's not a problem so that if saying really means but if I have to think you need a positive if I thought at the end of the day I don't have and it wasn't either because I thought so how in the world could this carbon be the kasha that they ask and share they struggle with this very very much but the risk of is that there are that ideally in a perfect world you should think lma and not rely on stumble even though the says it was a night not to think But in the perfect world, in the perfect world, the you were supposed to think lashma. The kasha is what's this mitzvah to think. Why? If the lumbness of stomach is that st is not lishma, but stom is kosher just like lishma is kosher. Okay. So it's ideal to have the lishma and not to rely on the inferior grade of stomach. But if the lumbness of stomach is that when you're thinking stomach, it is lishma. the super duper London of the risk of that is in the garbage. Then what's this of thinking? Why it's lushma anyways? It's anyways. If there's two levels there's and there's kosher that's kosher with the best in the world and then there's maybe I don't know then there's another level of okay so it makes sense do the and then okay it's fine if you're traveling but I don't understand what's if the is that isma it's it's the same thing what's the DIFFERENCE OKAY IF I get it this way if I get it that way I'll give you an example just to just to bring out the point mas It's it's a little bit confusing. know we're we're comes to a lot of things on mitzvah based on that said that that anytime it's obvious from what you're doing that you're doing over there you can rely but really in it's but but there is such a stating that already brings that mitzvah is that makes a lot of sense because you could do a mitzvah with I could do a mitzvah without see even if you hold mitzvah or you're going to rely on whatever it is. But at the end of the day, the proper way to do it is with I could do the mitzvah with without doing it with. But so that WOULD MAKE SENSE. I could do it with lishma. I could do it WITHOUT DO IT WITH BUT IF even when I do it without I'm essentially doing it with it's always considered to have been done because there's something called that's what's this idea of doing either way. So this is the second being discussed here whether it's or whether it's a different type of so we're going through this quickly but this is essentially the mission at the beginning of the second par of so all the we had in all the different types of that are not allowed to do these same the same exact list these were not allowed to do with either possible did with his left hand. It's possible has to be done with your right hand says that if you did the with your left hand you could put the back and then do all over again with your right hand. You could undo it. tomorrow we'll discuss this and he took a rack in the was a grain of salt it's possible has can't be too much and can't be too little there's a she of what is and in this case the iser because the has to be completely of the and here you have other things there foreign objects here so that at the end of the day you have what's called aer So what's an example of if it was like a heap, it was there was too much would mean instead of doing the full you only folded your fingers as opposed to bringing it all the way down to your palm. obviously speaks out that this that the Mishna that the that the case that the Mishna gave was also an example of a of a bottom line is is a whole bunch of as it relates to says the Mishna began with that apostle went ahead and did the it's going to be a problem asks the obvious question why singling out why is now in the first mission the per was singled out why because it was the exception to the rule that even though it's going to be possible but over here it's included in the so just say that it's not possible said that really should require why why is it that the didn't have and It doesn't make sense. So his cheaper. Why? We're trying to get let him get off the hook. But why is it that there's no because make the carbon more beautiful and we don't want to beautify his carbon. He continued because the wine is going to make the very very nice. says being that there's a when it comes to the I would have thought that maybe that should impact the type of carbon the type of person the type of need to do the so I would think that if apostle does the maybe it's going to be why mudra even though ordinarily you need a cayenne maybe it's better you don't use a cayenne mudra That's the but if that's the case listening then why don't we have this in the as well when the says that let it say and why don't we single out there as well the reason we're singing out is to tell me that even it's going to be a problem you would think again you see it doesn't bring that at the very least it has to be a what do you see from the fact that we didn't sing means everything if it says that's when there's exceptions but if it says and it doesn't say you know it's all inclusive but the says it's I would have thought I would have thought that being that the maybe the is here there's there's a half a minute to think that the mission would be like had the Mishna said and not singled out I would have thought it's not why because the first mission was right the first start the top of why is not because the says that it's always has a whole different so that the first I would have thought the second there's no reason to think the So we don't have to single out to teach me that the is like but over here there's a good basis to argue that the we need to single out so I should know that the really is like so you could put the backn says sounds like it's disqualified there's no way to undo it so says means it's possible until you put it back. That's again said if you did with your left hand it's posit with your left hand put it back and do kima all over again. So what's the Garra's kasha again that how could Rav say that that does put the back isn't that it sounds like from the now was talking about we did with your left hand ra is talking about what is but what's the what are the two things have in common it was a puzzle so you can put the back and you could do it all over again so says isn't that the rabbon seemed to argue with that how could ra and the raban say that if he did he could put the back that's no because Rav held that if the is around there's really no agree with that's what Rav was coming to say that you could always put the back keep pleing what's this and the whether you could put the back and do a new you can't put the back in the what are they arguing they're arguing where the is gone you can't take a different flower and replace the question is can I go home take a new put it in and now do a new that's the says if that's is not that you could do the all over again but is that you could put the back that's what he should have said right I mean why did he say that I'm sorry He should have said that. It's not what he said. So the says you have to say that said that does put the back and do it all over again. He was only going to it's true and he was going to be that said you could put it back is going to hold if you could put it back as well. Why is that? I would have thought I would have thought only said but when it comes to and we are going to stop here but before we stop just end a very intense stuff on a rather light note and that is that said that the was unique in that although ordinarily were made up of three ingredients. There was there was she which is oil and there was the had no she the had no oil either. And the reason is had no either. And the reason is truth is there was another carbon that also had no she and no that was the was the same thing. It was a carbon. It came from as opposed to there was no she and there was no either. Why was there no she and was there no? So says as follows the three unique characteristics of the number one okay it was not and the reason is he being that she acted like her carbon is going to be the say there was also no oil in the why the we just learned is and she acted in darkness and her car doesn't have because the were considered and she didn't act like the so the reason there's no the reason there's no and why so that we know he which just recently came out in this that discusses the he makes a beautiful observation. He says in the same breath that we're looking to sat in the eye and telling her that she acted like a behemoth we're also being her why did you act like the im it's unbelievable she was a be that's what she did she was misana it was considered a tremendous pirates gather it was very very bad what she did is for that reason the symbolism is we give her you know what dinner is going to be tonight what we give bahas you know why you act like a beaver we're going to give you this is what you imagine you serve dog food and that's what's happening. You're giving that's what is it's a symbolism and then in the same breath we look at and say you know what you know you could have been you could HAVE BEEN LIKE YOU COULD HAVE been like and they're called you weren't like that is for that reason it's going to be symbolic in this carbon as well you're not going to we're not going to have either he drew a parallel to the bener we know the bener was a sire he was a mer and the raan we spoken out this raan many times talks about what the significance of is and what the significance of is but one line in the Ramb this was a you're dealing over here with a who's giving everyone a real run for the money and he's in such a bad place that were able to be and say there's going to be a time that this person is going to be Mrs. And in the same breath where we call him and everything else we say there's a you know what the t is to you could have been a kadesh but I think the beer is so the beer is anytime a person wastes a life it's tragic. So a person gets involved with something that he shouldn't get involved with. Whether it's addiction, something else, it's it's terrible. It's tragic. A wasted life, it's tragic. But the tragedy is so much greater when this person had potential. And the potential that a person has is something that exacerbates it. It highlights it magnifies the tragedy of that person not being able to realize his or her potential. I mean, just to draw an analogy, and I apologize for the analogy, but example, you have a professional athlete who's destined to make hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and he gets caught up with silliness, and as a result, he loses his contracts. He never every person understands that. That's tragic. It's very, very It's unbelievable. What a what a waste of a life. A lot of people wasting their lives. But every now and again, you you hear a story and you're like, "Wow, that that silly." I mean, seriously. I mean, how dumb could that person be? And and that's something that's something that intuitively we always understand. And that's what the Torah is saying. The Torah is saying that every single is and with their daughters of and every single is we're all put on this world with potential and sometimes we recognize it and sometimes people around us recognize it. But the reality is every single person has a unique potential. That's why an says, right? That's why says kadesh after a loved one dies. What's the reason? It's because every single person has his unique way that he's able to be in the world. No, Ruven can't serve Hashem the way Shim does and Shim can't do it the way Ley does. We're all unique. We all serve a specific t when a person dies that that person was able to provide sometimes in a very simple way is lost from the world. And that's the that let that void be filled in some other way. That's what we're asking that that was created by this person. But the point is every single person is unique. Every single yid in his own way can achieve godless. Every single basis could be like the every single pent could be like the and it's for that reason that's what the terra is coming to emphasize that this is standing now in shikm she was misanas or potentially and she acted definitely in a in a promiscuous way in a very terrible way she acted like a behemoth but you know what emphasizes the tragedy of the fact that she acted like a behemoth that she could have been loving her look at what you lost look at what you gave up yeah if somebody's brought in this world and doesn't have that much upside. There's some people the expectation level is behemoth. It'd be biggest if they acted like an but but from and the daughters of that's why what we tell her is is you act like a and oh by the way you know why it's so tragic because what you could have been is you could have been Levina.