Zevachim 65

Today's d is and we're at the Mishna the second Mishna on so the first discuss the of the second Mishna discusses the of so most carbon that were brought were stating that there were carbon that weren't rather o even carbon that were how would a person bring a carbon that was. So if it was an the Torah says right in the beginning of parik if someone's carbon to Hashem he could bring it. If it's it could be or if he chooses he can bring an inferior animal he can bring it. Another way to bring a carbon that was an was if somebody did an a which required a carbon. So depending on the financial status of the bala vera that would determine the value of the carbon that he was bringing. If he can afford to bring an animal he would bring an animal. If he couldn't afford to bring an animal he would bring to birds. If he couldn't even afford birds, he had the option to bring a mk and there was an idea of that wasn't related to an a depending on his financial situation could also sometimes bring or that's a woman that had a baby that was bringing a carbon to Hashem also had the option to bring or regardless although most carbonates that you learn about parishes safer are discussing There are certain animals that discuss and really the now through the next per is going to go into the details of exactly how an carbon that was brought. So the truth is that we're up to the second Mishna which discusses but being that there are nuances that the Gumar is going to discuss between the way the was brought and the was brought it's to just quickly see the first Mishna. It's a short Mishna of and that will segue into this morning's the says exactly how was the brought. So the first thing that every child knows the first difference between the way a behema was brought as a carbon and an was brought as a carbon is that whereas a behema was brought with a mahita an wasn't brought with a mahita but rather with a ma malika and it's a very big because really that if you want to eat it you want to eat chicken you don't do malika you do is it's also that are being that is for that reason every of also require that's the the essence of the whole purpose the whole function of the when it comes to is really the same function that it serves with stating that an although of required but of kachchan were prepared differently they were prepared with malika and the difference between And Malikica besides technically the way it was done is number one was done with a kali malik as we'll see wasn't done with a kali it was done with the fingernail of the kay additionally as a result it was and as a result it had to be done with it was done from the back of the neck of the bird and he had to be sure not to be the had to learn the rashi learns means that whereas ordinarily means you have to the trachea and the esophagus you have to sever both of those pipes in order for it to be rendered across when it came to the was in fact the says you're not allowed to be m completely one but not two we'll see was different then the would take the itself there was no there was no cliches he would go to the wall of the misbeh and he would do a but opposed to a regular animal where this was done from a clich here this was done directly from the itself. What about the after this was done? This too is different than a behem. Whereas had a mitzvah of here too the sh went to the but it was through a different it was an avoid of fact as we're going to see towards the end of the whether the of the was or the was not according to most was not there is a there are some scattered around say that whole was but the conventional wisdom is that wasn't If this equivalent thereof regarding a knife was a little different, it wasn't it was the would take the burn and he would literally crush it, squeeze it against the wall that would cause blood to ooze out. And famously there was no when it came to the was completely which is in stark contrast as we'll see to the which was like all is completely consumed by the and it went to the how was brought just quickly. What about the would go up the ramp upon and he would turn onto the that was the ledge that allowed the to come to the corner of and that's the place for him to bring the there was aim for where the Mishna said there were three things that happened there were three things that happened. One of the things that happened was the but if you remember the Mishna said it was only when there was too much going on in but little place for the to be brought was which is also a little bit of why is it a kadesh because what was unique about the Karan Disra that was the one corner that there was noite which is interesting because the gar said that needsight remember the garra thought Maybe it's worked out from a and then the said I know it from so that's certainly need and here you have the in the corner of the that had no there's a from the brisk and where he speaks out super duper lumbus to explain it he says that the whole idea of tun is related and made sense when things were being done but was being brought so you can't connect what's going on to the and as a result it was to do it phenomenal this but either way so the would be on the because he's going to be and he goes to the one corner that has no so this is the first between the and so by the Mishna said he had to be careful not to sever the second sim when it came to the to the contrary he had to make sure he had to be careful yes to sever the second sim and then he would do he would take the and he would squeeze it on the wall of the and the dam would come out and this is the second between the because by the Mishna said first Maza he would do a not from the itself and then the over here there was no he went from straight to but we weren't done not then he would take the head the heal says he would push the head of the very very hard on the and that would cause mamm to come out then he would take the head and he would soak it in salt He would throw the head of the into the fire. He would burn it. It's going to be completely burnt, but it's going to be burnt in stages as we'll say. So, first he burns the head. The go then he went to the of the he would remove the mur. The mur is the crop. That's the way it's translated in English. It's a little sack inside the bird that's like near the esophagus, near the digestive system of the bird. So he would take out the mur and the will say what means he would burn them on the then he would cut open he would slice open the gof of the birds he already burnt the head now he's busy with the bird he would cut it but he wouldn't cut it into two pieces he would just like tear it open so he could take things outdist sever it into two it's okay he would take the go he would soak that in salt and then he would burn What if he didn't do everything he was supposed to do? For example, he didn't remove the that's the crop and the or he did soak it in salt. So what's the So the following rule of thumb, pun intended, the is that any of the that happens after the is so being that these things were supposed to be done after the so it's going to be kasha and the reason is because the of the is the equivalent thereof of the of a regular and just like the is what's but anything that happened after this with a regular carbon such as or those things are you can't have a when you're doing those things we don't really care what happens it's I mean we care on the left but we don't care on the level we don't care level the same is true when it comes to the anything that happened after the is going to be cautious so those things all happen after the being that they happen after the mitz it's going to be okay So the Mishna had said the previous Mishna that when you brought the you only supposed to sever one of the two not both the it's really based on a by the is just the opposite you have to sever you have to knock out both of the so what if you did is going to be ple why is it pos because that's a shinoi that happened before the any that happens before the before the equivalent thereof of the renders the the the possible if it happens after the mitz then it's going to be cautious what if he did for the but he didn't do for the damag that too is going to be possible that's going to be caution and what's the for that theor for that is is what the Mishna said because the Mishna said that the mitzy happened in two stages first he did mitz with the go and then afterwards he took the head and he pushed pushed it very very hard against them. Which mitsy is which mitz is the equivalent of the it's the first mitzy. It's the mitzy of the golf. So any shinoi that happens after the mitsy of the golf is fine. So if you didn't do the mitzy so that's like mitzvah that's going to be okay. But if you didn't do the mitz of the tag that's like not doing this. If you didn't do this of course it's going to be possible. Now the Mishna continues and discusses different regarding and everything that we're going to learn from now until the end of the Mishna which is going to take us onto is going to be because the same principles that apply to apply to. So for example we know that the first mission in the is possible is also possible is also going to be the laws of all those some of the that we spent a lot of time in earlier in the all apply to the just like they apply to the carbon. And the Mishna here is going to really take us down memory lane and go through a lot of these that we've already spent a lot of time on. Or it was done because it's possible. And the reason is because is possible. What about an oil that was brought to somebody like and he did the and he did it with the like a regular carbon pal but they aim like cars. pigle somebody eats the bosser of a carbon pig. Okay. So what does mean if he did the without of and he did the or he did he did the definition of is that the did with but the only thing wrong with this carbon was there wasn't an additional meaning it wasn't in addition to the also or in addition to the all there was was in this carbon if that's the case then it's the definition of it's not we're discussing piggle obviously something very very wrong went down but in in in addition to the pigle there's nothing else wrong and that's the requirement in order For carbon to be or if it was and it was brought because over here in addition to the there was also or there was also a if there's There's another in addition to the even though there was a of pigle it doesn't matter the carb is not going to be bigle because in order for carbon to be pigle you have to have what if the had in mind to eat of this but he also had in mind so it was as in all these cases is the same idea because it's even if he had a full of but he also had a star renders it and as a result this carbon isn't going to be said it's not so simple Of course, if the man came before the then it's going to be the only time first of where it's going to be by cars by car. So this rabhuda was discussed earlier in the was one of the more difficult in but the discussed went into great detail of exactly what was that the only time is the first you had the other so first you would have and then you would have so then the is that the wouldn't make the carbon pickle but at first you would have the and then you would That would be what if what if to do but it was a it was a combination of a half of half of because and are not. You can't go through a Mishna like this. Even though the topic of the day is really and some of the technicalities of the but so much so much piggle you have to speak out one so just one that we didn't speak out yeah just one in the beginning of the maybe two that regarding a very fundamental sh of so we know that is the first meaning all carbon with the exception of if you had a which is defined as either or is it's meaning you can continue bringing the carbon you could eat the you could be you could do this you could do it all the mitzvah with the carbon however said he brought now the brought to this of is is that Ruben's going to have to bring another this is stating that the said the very first that was it says why did it say why did it just not says didn't say in the beginning of not an extra word it's one word but It's an extra word says the is telling me that you would think that if someone brought a carb in so once you thought maybe you can continue to think was brought. So at that point you could do the same but as it relates to everything else there's you cannot have a of stating that there's a fascinating sh in the in fact it was a between the briskar and they traded letters as we'll see in a moment and they discussed this sh when said in that that's brought that's even though you it's also continued to think is that only true or is that true as well? Meaning that's understood that if was brought now you can't continue to think you have to think the same that just because you had by the first doesn't give you a right to continue to think but what about is there a problem if you would think in the second or not meaning is bringing ruins and whether it That's not the point. Now is this is it's not going to be anymore being that it's not going to be not if not the then maybe now the when he does the can have in mind that he's bringing it's not going to be is where's the and you're having a mind sh but once the of this is so it comes out is not the it's not for him anymore. anymore. So it's not for Ru is not the so maybe there's no anymore of so maybe the is only discussing the maybe it doesn't mean because once anymore and this was aky's argument he wrote it in a letter to the briskarov briskarov wrote back to Abramsky and he told him I disagree with you I hit the lum this very gushmak but I don't think it's emis and he had a riya one ria so this is the brisk I mean he is the mo of he scans do I have a riot to this and he had one riot from the discussing we know had to bring three carbon he did it to and he was done with his nazer it's okay right it's not to bring all three carbonas one carbon whether it's the once he brings one carbon he could do his he's not going to be a noer anymore the discuss says what would be if the was bringing the that's what the is discussing the that was bringing the for the is that considered a for the could be now on the and complet it's the garra says yes kind of to brisk if you're going to tell me that once a carbon is brought to being that So the is not considered the anymore. No, it's not the If it's not the How could he be? How did he complete his but there's no exception for of course and that's the condition of that even though it was brought still it's considered of as it relates to this as it relates to the idea of but if you're going to tell me like understood it to the extreme And as a result, you don't even have the shim anymore. And you could be Mash the could think it doesn't belong to Ruven anymore. If that's the case, if it's not Ruven's carbon, then in this case, it shouldn't be the Naz. What's the Hina? It's a work from said and he says clearly the lus is that even though it's and this carbon still has a to pay up but the carbon that was brought is his carbon I mean that it's his carbon he's the bum if he's the bum it's posit this is a fascinating letter incidentally that the briskarov wrote to Abramski because apparently the biskarov wasn't doing well at the time Andramsky begins his letter, you know, asking the Briskarov how he's doing. He told him, "I heard you're doing a little bit better." So, it's just interesting. So, the Briskarov writes back to him as it relates to my health. The rumor that you heard lived in London. So, what you heard in London that I that I'm home, I'm not in the hospital anymore is true. Although I returned home, but you know, I I'm not back in my regular form. Ra, the only reason I went home is because they told me in the hospital they can't really help me now. I mean that they can't help me. So they gave me rush to discharge me, but I'm I'm literally at home. I'm in bed. I'm not doing well. As a matter of fact, Mr. Garov says that the situation has gotten worse. I never expected it to get this bad. Then he writes to go says I got a letter from who told me that there's a doctor in who's a big to the that was suffering from he writes letter in the letter that he was suffering from asthma and he said that told him he knows a lot of people that went to this doctor and they had tremendous Yeshua the problem is the doctor moved he's not in anymore he says Raghaznitski. So there was a Yid Ragnaznitzki who lived in Leer who wrote me a letter and he told me he thinks the doctor is referring to as Dr. Adler who recently moved to London. So he told me to look into seeing if we could track down this doctor in London. Subscribe writes you live in London. So if you can do me a toy, you can try to find this Dr. Adler. He says I'm not really sure what he can do for me because I'm not going to London and he's not coming to me. This letter was written in Brisk in 1939. This wasn't written in Ursula. This was written in Brisk. But the bottom line is he tells him that, you know, he's not really sure if he could help him. Bottom line, it's a fascinating letter. At the end, he writes to him. He apologizes. He says that I'm not writing the letter myself. He said, "I can't write. I'm too weak to write. Somebody's somebody's writing it for me." And then he tells him that told me that you're trying very hard to help me. And you know, with my rafu, he gives him a grac bottom line. But as it relates to the lumbus, that's what we need. We need the lumbus. The love this is this that doesn't mean that now the carbon is the violent there would be no problem of here two for no said of course he's the carbon and is one riot from the entire was actually from the it's where the says that if was brought the was able because if it wasn't there's no way in the world you'd be able to there's a part two to this if we have time at the end of the we'll get into it Sunday style d on Friday is a little tricky so we'll say so the is now going to go through some of the details that were discussed in the Mishna with regards to the of the and really in order to really get this you need to know two things number one you have to be really familiar with these beginning to be familiar with the anatomy and physiology of birds. So not sure we could check off any of those boxes but the bottom line is we'll do what we do. It says the entire first it says it didn't have to say it says you know whatever you find bring us you always find two certainly with regarding the I would have thought I would have thought Even you need to bring at least two. It has to be how do you know that one bird is okay? It's for that reason it's even one is going to be enough. It says but it says and really it could have just said why does it have to say to me that Malik has to be done with a kite. Why would you think it doesn't have to be done by a I thought all the were done by a of course I would have made that's being brought from which is as it has you don't need a bizarre so that doesn't have I would think certainly doesn't need that's why the terror has emphasize don't think like no but is not I would have thought that when you do the coin should use a knife and it makes sense that doesn't have requires a says between the word teaches me that it's done with the himself and there's no clue explains the so the fact that it says and then it says added a nice element he said that why did the have to say that Malik has to be done with a so the Gmorra had said because I would have Just like is kash bazar maybe malika should also be kasha bazar but there's a fundamental difference between malikita was done in the azar malika was done on the misb and wasn't allowed to go near the misb so being that can't go on the misbeh so shouldn't it be posit that it has to be done with cayenne why does it have to save the cayen the emphasis of cayen is not that the cen has to be the one performing the malik but the emphasis of cayenne is is that the cen is doing the malik with his it's doing the malik as opposed to there being I would think that you could do the so who was the part of the was supposed to be brought it was right we said amazingly it's the part of the doesn't have but I would thought you could do it has to be which doesn't mean literally the top of the but it means on the behalf have to be on the on the upper part of the as opposed to doing it. What it means is the back of the neck. Maybe it means the front of the neck. And doesn't it make sense? It says by the and it says by the and just like by the means so too by the I don't know if you can learn it from there it's a different type of as we saw the just like the as the mission described was done in two phases. There was the of the were done separately. So we learn the malik severs the animal and it's done in a way where the how do you know that the of the was done in two phases. How do you know that you didn't just take the whole life and burn it on the How do you know it says twice and the two times that it says in the Torah it teaches me the two parts of the that had to be burned. It says and we learn from their needed and this is in contrast to the kus. The kus was done in two parts. First there was a and then there was a mitzy the is the equivalent of the whereas by the all there is is it doesn't say in the anything about so the iso doesn't say it says all the it's the upper part of the wall Doesn't it make sense that the other should be? Why? Because we are the certainly the then it sounds like first you do the malik Then you do the and then you do the is there first then that's caution 101. First you do then you do the is coming to teach me that had to be similar to the and just like was so to the had to be done even though you would think that was certainly but you have this that me was so what was the setup If however says the expounding on the if the would bend down and he would do the underneath his feet a up to an amma would be what's the he's standing on the underneath one is still because the was the exact midway point. So five from the ground is where the was. Six from the ground is where the was. So there's one that's the upper part of the misbeh that if the is standing on the is actually underneath him. So the whole says the in this that doesn't mean from the it means from so it's actually possible for the to bend down and go underneath him to do the brother. Could you do a make could you do the on the condition that says that the had to be is that the had to be brought the had to be done to the so if the is on the top of the literally so then you would assume that means at the very least on top of the but if you can do the on the so the is then it makes sense that you should be able to do the underneath the as long as it's because despite the fact that it's beneath the it's still the is the then it makes sense that the should have to be done. If however the moto is then it makes sense that the could be done beneath the soy sauce. So one of the things the said was is the had to take the we said that's the crop and he took it. What is that? What does bin mean? Zoo zc. So the crop is the zec. is that that's that sack that's near the esophagus near the digestive system of the bird. I would think that has the he removes it surgically, right? He goes in and he he takes it out without making too big of a mess. Which the understands means the feathers of the animal. If you're taking the feathers, it means you're not just going in and taking it out, but rather you're you're removing it from the outside with the feathers that are surrounding it. nightmare that means something else doesn't mean feathers but rather it's a part of the animal that has the digestive food says that's usually what it refers to and over here the digested food that's inside the iss that you should take the take this crop together with that no means with its feathers What it means is made a little bit of a hole around the area like a very very you know surgeon an incision was made and you remove like a window. So without making too big of a mess you take out the mur together with its feathers. It says she then the would slice open the g of the with not with a with so that is by it's one of the talk about the supernatural strength and power that had it says that he ripped up this animal like like somebody with tear upd when it says in the it's like it means with his beer hands and the lake. So the Mishna had said that by when the did Malik so he had to make sure not to be mal. What does it mean not to be Mavd? He only severed one of the two sim but not the second theory says not to be ma was just the you're supposed to be and the Mishna said what would be if he was by the or if he wasn't by the was very clear the says it's going to be possible that says that the laws of are in the of meaning if you get it wrong it renders the possible that's the I heard now he didn't hear that because the says what he heard was is that it's okay that if you said that it's fine the compos meaning it's not so that says it's the what's the meaning between Why is that? says it's not the is going to give three that are going to take us to the bottom of the might is a whole different so there was malik then there was and after that there was mitzy so we said the mitzy was really the equivalent of the right where was the done by the so it was really very similar to the to the and the is as a result is the mits of or is the not if it's similar to so it makes sense it should be or maybe no maybe is different maybe it is and it's this is really in this holds so being that so when the brings he's going to have to do because it's so it's going to come out that if he's going to be he's like bringing because he's being like and he's doing like right what are the two unique characteristics of the of number one you both sim when you do the malik and number two you do mit as opposed to the we only m one sim you do and maybe you do mitzah But if you're going to do now the malik of so you're doing the and now if you hold you're going to end up doing the also so it's going to come out your mish did everything that you're supposed to do with ana and that's a problem you want to know why the tanama why the mishna holds that if you're it's an issue with it's not because there's something wrong with being that's not the is that so when you bring a you can't do and when you bring you can't do and if you're being and you're inevitably going to do because the holds is so it's going to come out he is not as you don't have to do the oh if you don't have to do the just because you doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to do a because it would only be a if you did you know we're going tell this year to do don't do the mitzvah which is telling him not to do the mitzvah but being that it's not he doesn't have to do the comes out of so when he cut that second he just cut a little bit of meat I cut a little bit of meat it's not necessarily that's why it's going to be meaning the the reason why it should be pos if you're is not because there's something inherently wrong with being the second the reason it would be possible is because it's going to come out you're doing a but you're only going to be doing a if you're going to fear like an oil. So if you're fearing guys like but if not it's not that you're going to fear went with the same methodology but he said a little differently is they were both and there's a whether you're allowed to be you're allowed to pause a little bit between the now speaks out very lengthy that is you're not allowed to be between the two. So when you're you have to do it in like or whatever the is but but you're not you're not wait you're not going to pause too long is that requires are you to be or not what are the two on the one hand anytime there's you can't be but then again his ration here it's a little different is that when you only have to one sim meaning there's enough between the purpose of the second sim by a school versus the malik of the second sim when you're bringing an the of the second when you're bringing a school is part of the of the animal you need to both in order to render that this animal's dead so that it should be considered a it's for that reason you can't have but by being that you find by is you only need a one sim so you see it's with one sim why you doing the second one and it's that you're supposed to do the second one but it's not part of killing it being that it's not part of killing it could be there's no problem with but either way said it could be over here so that even though he did it is possible being that he was so what happened was after did he would remove a lot of the bos from the animal. That was the next thing that he would do. And the assumes that even in the case that are arguing about and that is when the person the bring ended up doing with the second sim he probably after he did the first sim did what he was supposed to do he removed this what the refers to as he took a lot of baser out. If that's the case it comes out he was sh between the two sim. So if the whole problem of doing the second is because you're doing a so you have to ask yourself did he really do a because he was so ifia is so it comes out you didn't do a is not it comes out he did do a whole s should be a problem is so what it boils down to is not said a little differently give me you know everybody holds and everybody holds that is the is something else the sh is do you have to take out the baser if taking out the baser is so it's going to come out you're not doing a because even in the case where you did both and you had to take out the which constitutes a so it comes out it's not a it's not a it's not going to be pos but if you hold that is not then it will be that this whole discussion amongst exactly what the beer is really once is but really principally what it boils down to is not could you make the second could you not that's not the point the point is is you can't bring like so if it's going to be to by that's when you run into issues if it's not then you're not going to have an issue but the says everybody holds that after the did he would remove Is that true? Yes indeed. And it's a first day would be the shedra the spinal cord the spinal cord. I'm sorry. They would take out. If you go through the braces that discuss exactly how the malik was done, they would take out the bosses. So this entire exchange the entire was related to said I don't understand this whole amongst we're all trying to figure out what exactly is who holds that even though it says in the but still if you would be it would be shouldn't the not know that himself used to explain his and he used to say I heard that that even though it says in the doesn't mean you're not allowed to be md if you want to be you could be what then does mean what it means is you don't have to be but at the same time if you want to be m you can't and it's for that reason holds that if you both it's going to be had the law you're not allowed to be mauved then it could be it could be would agree to the he would say that if you both simon it in fact would be possible but the reason holds that if you're both is because he holds the never said you can't be mavd says not you're not allowed to be mavd but if you want to you can't say the and this is where if that's True. If doesn't mean you're not allowed to be it just means you don't have to. But if you'd like to, you could by the where it says in the if somebody digs a and he doesn't cover it. So the Torah continues and says that's the mazic of that we're all familiar with from the ordinarily how do you read the words somebody dug a barb he didn't cover it meaning he was supposed to have covered it and he violated his his obligation to go ahead and cover it but now the bless says that when the says the word it could mean sometimes that maybe by it means the same thing. Is that what it means? Is the ter saying that if somebody digs a barb you don't have to be says the not over there doesn't mean ain't given that thera says that if somebody digs a bar and then the bar causes the has to pay for the fact that the says that's the biggest in the world that isn't optional that it's something that the bar has to do because if he didn't have to be the bar, how could you suddenly obligate him now to pay if something happens to his bar? If the Torah is saying you don't have to cover it then if something happens from the fact that the says that's a when it says it doesn't mean that's but over here as it relates to the says here felt that he had a that it meant not you're not allowed to be m but rather why except it says It says and we learn from there that the meaning that has to be different that's how you know that is if you take a look at Rashi the last Rashi in the peric very long rashi and rashi is not sure pup shot what this gumar means very difficult gammorra to understand the Rashi seems to like the most is that the says that from the word we learn that and their have to be different therefore says the requires means so then I understand if there's a contrast between the theory says what does therefore have to be and that's how I would know from the you have to be both but if means thou shalt not be that you're not allowed to be md then how do I know from that needs to be all I know from is that the and the have to be different if by the it's so extreme that the says he's not allowed to be mul then maybe the between the and is whether you have the meaning that by you don't have the of if you want to be md you could be md but you have to be md if the teaches me that by you have to be md it must be that by the it's only one lower which is so and is different than I know but if it's not but it's Then the fact that I now know that is different than the would only allow me to pick it up one and that is teach me that from the fact that I know that that's the is not that it's but rather that is actually again a little bit of a confusing Rashi already addresses that is not happy with this either none of the really are so much in the But either way that we had a whole a whole lengthy discussion among what's it says in the means you can't cut him yet says that if you did cut both sim no worries it's okay it wouldn't make the question is why not if the says shouldn't it mean that if you the carbon is going to be possible and the had different from different said that it's a it's very surprising to me that were discussing and debating what exactly meant obviously didn't know that himself had explained this and is because he holds that when it says in the it doesn't mean it's what it means is the never said you can't be if the never said you can't be then if you're it should be possible to the contrary and you want to do it you could do it. The is not required by an if it's required by the it's not required. If you do it that's okay not a reason for it to be possible. If it's an isser, that would be a reason that if you do it, it should be possible. But it's not something that's interesting that when the introduced what himself said to explain the what it says in the it doesn't mean it's but rather what it means is says the if that's the case I have another place in the where it says and maybe read the same way there that when it says what the means is don't worry about you can Leave it there. Says, is that the only other place in the Tyra where it says lie? What about What about What about all the many places that the Tyra says the word? Is the one place in the Tory where it says the word. Maybe when it says silverness, it means you don't have to wear, but if you want, no worries. How do you know that all those other in the mean thou shalt not? Maybe they also mean the only kasha the garra had was is that if you're opening up the word lie for interpretation and you're willing to be open-minded about what could mean what about that's the one lie I mean the itself has how many lies says because that's the knew that when it says in theor for example obviously what the is telling you is that thou shalt not do those things is not saying you don't have to steal it doesn't make any sense? Why would first of all it doesn't make sense but but besides for that why would the terror have to tell you that? Obviously, if the Torah is introducing a regarding Geneva and the Torah says, what it must mean is an is you shall not do it. And every other law in the Torah would conform with that same that obviously it's just based on the context. It's obvious that what the Torah wants to do is the Torah is telling you that thou shalt not do this. stating that is a little bit ambiguous because by it could be that when the Tyra says it means or it could be to the contrary is telling me that really the person was supposed to have covered the bar he did not cover the bar and as a result the same is true by when the Torah says the second is the Torah saying you are not allowed to be the second or maybe the means I can hear it both ways. says the only two laws in the entire where I could hear that maybe it means or maybe it means thou shalt not and therefore the scan the entire and said I have another example where it's open for interpretation and if you're going to say maybe but all the other lies in the it's very obvious based on the context that what the means to say is that thou shalt not do it not a sar to to to steal and ain't to be a and a s to wear this doesn't make sense and as a result it was pion and that's why the only found one direct parallel one equivalent thereof to and that is when it says in the that's now a little bit of lumbus that is that the garra says how do I know that means you have to bear as opposed to so the garra being that it says in the is responsible to pay. Therefore, it's obvious that he has an obligation to be because when the means if that would be what the meant, you can't now expect the to have an obligation to pay. If the has to pay, obviously he had through the bar because if the Tory said he doesn't have to cover the bar, you can't now impose upon him an obligation to pay wrote a it's a commentary on and on says a major doh when you sit down you remember so the yeshiva they introduce you to the how you do it's the with the that permeates the entire beginning of that is begins and the underlying principle is is just like a person is responsible for his own actions a person is responsible for the actions of his m as well. So if you own a sh and the sh damages you're light a fire and the fire damages you're if you dig a bar and the bar damages you're going to be it's what's called and that is the first mishna really the first half of the in lus in mechanics what's the a person is responsible when his m damages is the that a person has a responsibility ility to watch his mom. If I own a shark, I have a responsibility to watch my shot. If I light a fire, I have a responsibility to watch my fire. If I dig a bar, I have a responsibility to watch my book. If I didn't watch it and it was mazic, I now have to pay. The reason I have to pay is because I did not watch something I was supposed to watch. The way they say it is the is the fact that I didn't watch something that was incumbent upon me to watch. That's the reason I'm or is the more simple my possessions are like it's like an extension of me and just like I'm for what I do I'm for what my m does now if I would watch my and then my m would be I would be the is not going to make you responsible for something that was out of your control even though when a person's you don't have so if I watched my m I'm going to be because So I'm only going to be when I didn't watch. But the reason I'm when my m is masik and I was not watching my m is not because I didn't watch. It's more simple because my m was mazik. And if your M is you're gonna be and there's a lot of in this is that the reason a person's is because he had an obligation to watch and being that he violated his it's that of him I understand this the said that maybe if said that it says means that then Maybe when it says it means the how could you tell me that he's not obligated to watch his bar. The terrorist says that the bar is so if the terrorist has the doesn't that mean that he has says in one second if the is that the reason you have a is a direct result of your so the is saying the garra is saying if there is a must of must be doesn't mean because that by definition would mean you don't have to watch it and if you don't have to watch it there's How could it be? Except from the fact that the Torah says that's a that's a doesn't mean but if has nothing to do with that I violated the reason is cuz your mama was so maybe when it says in the means is really I'm not obligated to watch but at the same time if the bar damages I'm going to be why am I going to be because the has nothing to do with the has to do with the fact that it's my m and if my m is mik now I'm going to be now it's true had I watched it and it would have been maz I would have been cuz you have but who says that because that that necessarily means that there's maybe from the fact that the hell checkmate that begets of that's a it must be that the way this works is that I have a and when I violate my I am thus if the Torah says it can't be that means that's the first of superus the second a little lighter and that is so the is somehow is entertaining a possibility that when it says maybe it means the says it can't be you know why because it says we just spoke out the lumness if if the must be must be that there's There's but there's a moment in time in the garra if you go through it in real time where the garra like entertain the possibility that the says you dig you don't have to watch it to me that's a tremendous we're all familiar with the says in the what does that mean if there's a blind person don't put a in front of him don't cause him to stumble is a neighbor people when they walk in right the says above they don't look down on the floor and as a result that's why is a problem this is not the proverbial barb this is the literal so how could there be a when the says wouldn't that be a direct a blatant steer to another in the parish where the says So the truth is that really I think in order to answer this we have to take a step backwards and that is if you take a look at that says what does it mean for we're not talking about a literal but rather the is saying is that if you meet a person comes to you asks you advice and he's assum He doesn't know what I'm supposed to do. Rash gives an example. He comes to you, he asks you, should I sell my or should I not sell my and you know that really he shouldn't sell his but you want to buy it. So you tell him sell the that's the is referring to we don't mean a literal e don't put a something in front of him that's going to cause him to fall. We're talking about someone that's a and you now give him an that's what the means when it says the says that I don't understand Rashi meaning I I agree I understand what Rashi is saying and Rashi seems to be saying that in beyond the literal there's an additional meaning literal would be don't put a stumbling block in front of a blind person in addition to that don't give a incidentally takes it a step further, right? said that you can't give someone don't hand in the beginning of but that's all in addition to the you would think don't put a stumbling block in front of a blind person why was the why Rashi who's always a person he always gives the basic so Rashi should have said don't put him in front of an Then Rashi could have added he could have said in addition to that there's also an idea don't give a person again it's because doesn't mean it means even and by the way don't give somebody but Rashi seems to have jumped to the and Rashi seems to have bypassed the shot says the because the concludes and says and Rashi says that wherever the says the words we're dealing with it's something that only you and Hashem know what's going on. Meaning you would may think that I'll go I'll be people and I'm not going to look bad. I can still be a shiny Eid. I can still sit mis I can still do all the things all the perks that come along with being a shiny Eid. I'm still going to get I was just saying the who knows I was in the because I told him to sell a field and I thought it was the right thing to sell the field. It's a anytime the Tyra introduces that the spectators don't necessarily realize is the has to emphasize fear because over here there's no all it is that's what the says and says over here you know why the like because who knows if you're really giving the person bad advice that's knew that the iss don't put in front of an is don't put a front of an either. Why is that? If you go put a banana peel in front of a person, he's going to go flying. That's not everybody realizes that you're doing something wrong. And the fact that the says we erase says the punch in the naive is not don't put a front of an rather what it means is don't give a person that must be the in the says because if the is what we think the is then the would have never said it's interesting if you look in the and they don't bring the nobody brings this of a lifel and how do we know this is the says so has to be something that's muscle and that's how we know that that stating that stating that and a And says that I don't know if this is true says it could be that the inashi this is all add-ons but as far as the he's not mim says to walk away from all this raid and say that if somebody would put a literal in front of an he's not going to be says it's right here in parish If that's the case, somebody digs a barb he's going to be because the bottom line is what comes out is is if somebody digs a barb is he it's not so before I think you'd be able to make a very very compelling argument that you're not it says like we just said it's not what means don't give an again don't be somebody it means a whole different idea. It doesn't necessarily mean don't put a in front of somebody else. If that's the case, it's not a steer maybe. We ask the how could it's not one has nothing to do with the said that I disagree. I hold that it's posh that if somebody digs a barb he'd be able to evil a little bit of the if the is entertaining it's sad that means the rejects it based on the lumbus that if the is it must be there is a why can the same how could you tell me you can leave the bar there the says suggest that you're not allowed to leave it there either and the Misha discussed exactly how Mitsy was done with an the said it was done in two parts. First they would do mitzy with the g of the and then they would do mitsy with the of the mitz that was done with the g of the was the that was done with the of the was how do you know that it's learned that from the following it says who in the context of so from the fact that it says we learn is a that tells me that if you only did with the he didn't do with the dar it's considered a of the damag I would think in the reverse as well. If you did with the but it would also be okay who was always a mute. So we have a boy and a the boy is mar if you only did with the mute is if you only did with the so with the and with the is with the and not with the is going to be possible. How do you know which one to be? which one to meet with the mat there's more in the of the than there is in the so says the it just makes sense that if one of the two the one that has more dam is probably the one that's the one that has less is Cotch Kasha.