Chulin 103

Today's and we are 12 lines from the bottom of today's being learned as a shako. So we're moving along in peridhanosha. Believe it or not, we're holding at the very last of this very epic perk. And as the previous daf discussed not so much the laws of gdanosha but rather laws related to the topic of today's daf again is going to be a and as we're going to see today's daf just the daf itself just the shakara of the garra is very very londish we will be as hashem do what we do says the garra The great said, it says in theory, we learn from that one is not allowed to eat. The nephesh of this means any a that was separated from the animal while it was while it was alive. Rashi says that why is it that would be referred to in the Torah as nephesh says Rashi just like the nephesh of a person doesn't regenerate. So too an aver that is has no ability to regenerate. So there's some commonality between an and that's why the Torah describes it as anesh. But the bottom line said this is the when it says that's coming to teach me two additional number one not but same concept just not the rather the additionally it's coming to teach me the that one is not eater of a rashi says that how do you see both of these aarus in this So Rashi says you have to read the as follows and means if you find that somehow was removed from an animal that's alive that's by the way if this member of Raban sounds familiar it's because we spoke about it in recently in the raid in fact the on the notices but rather perish in this and that is it's referring to the so again according to that's in par that's the it's also the of says when it says who doesn't teach me teaches me as well. And when it says that's coming to teach me I learned out from teaching me only. So we have in terms of what the are and everybody agrees they're all everybody agrees that they're all what the source to these respective are That's teaching me. If you think about it, everybody agrees that is everybody agrees is what's the according to it's learned out from there are two that are learned out from that according to it's learned out from there are two that are learned out from that. Based on that the has a little bit of fun little bit of arithmetic. What would be if somebody ate and he also ate he would be twice why because he was over he was over and for he was over shouldn't whereas he would only be one and the reason is because according I'll learn from the same. What would be if somebody ate and should have been too? Whereas only one and I learned out from the same which says what would be if somebody ate and he ate according to everybody would be because everybody agrees like we spoke out that is learned out from and everybody agrees that is learned out from stating that saysar meaning even though everything we just said is back of the envelope arithmetic it's push there's almost no muck to argue but the says I have one problem you know why because we know themselves already discussed this sh and that is what would be if somebody ate from an animal that was a says only says that makes a lot of sense. In fact, it's learned out did all the math for us already. It's posing too. But according to how could he say only one he too should hold too cuz agrees that is learned out from and that has learned out from. And in fact when the did the arithmetic theor said clearly here you're only going to be said it's not fair it's true is going to hold and when the garra said earlier when the garra did its math it's talking about where it was from one and it was of another of course even according to you when says he's talking about where it was which by the way read the words it's clear it was one where it's one holds that you're only going to one and explain is worth two when it comes to There you have the high level. What would be the between two and one two behemoths? You for sure have the two. You have the and you have the one behe. Anytime you want to be somebody two is for one, you have to start asking yourself is it even possible to have one thing that's going to be forbidden for two independent reasons. This is of so the fact that there would be a distinction between two behemoths and one behemoth that shouldn't come to news as anyone to anyone that learns gum because we know that there's a concept of hence it would make sense that even though it would be true coination that if you ate a buser tra you should be malus twice. But if it's from a could be you don't have the two stating that you would still have to know why and high level I get it I don't even have to look in the gar to understand high level but in terms of understanding why holds even by one even though there is a two and according to only one that is something that requires beer in fact it's theory what is by one and the Gmorra is going to give not one, not two, not three. The garumar is going to give four tom. Not the four easiest to root him in sh but the garumar just a little bit of but the gummor is going to give four to the first three terutsim are going to be abaya and then ra is going to have the last word. Ra is going to give the fourth ter again it's not hard but at the same time we have to hold a little bit of and specifically we're going to have to juggle some of the ideas that we saw in the last took the first stab at it. He said I want to make an again somebody makes sense but accordish you're only going to be one because it's one the was where the animal became a trait as the animal was being born that's when the animal became a trait ruba is theic definition of so it became a tra as the lead was happening holds that. So what does this mean? So this we saw was a big in yesterday's and that is when you have a live animal do you already see or do you not see if then you look at a live animal as a sum of its parts and the is already there. In fact, if somebody would eat the entire animal, he'd be if you hold the so while the animal is complete, there is no when does the happen? It happens when the gets severed. So holds. Now if that's the case at the same time, why? Because we just made the So when did the animal become a when it was born that was when did the animal become when it was born? Because that's always that way. If that's the case even though that's where holds even by one he holds that aim while it's alive does not have when doesn't get when the is severed. Now the is happen when it was born. How do you know that? Because that was like later when the wants well you're a day later and a dollar short and for that reason you're only going to be one. So what's the holds? Yes. Being that we're making an it was therefore you're going to be asking it's not that way being that we made an is first there's no for you're going to be which by the way because that's one that was first that's one you're going to get from said I can learn it a little different maybe that's not the you don't have to get involved in that because it could be everybody holds that that does not happen as soon as the animal is born. In fact, it doesn't happen until the is actually severed. Okay. So, what's or more specifically, why would that you're making it? So how's the later when the is suffered whether that can happen holds that is on and the reason is because as we saw in the earlier is why is it because it's no Jews even non-Jews Ben also has the it's also that even though it's true. And it's for that reason all you can have is you're not going to have this. In other words, in the same not everybody holds the holds. Yeah. Therefore, you're going to be too. Therefore, all you're going to have is the original. What's the original? Therefore, you're going to be only one. Or you could say maybe everybody holds that which means that as soon as the animal's born. Okay. However, they is where the tra didn't happen in but the happened sometime later year later something took place. Okay. So what's the if and the didn't happen until later then for sure you should say and by the way here you want the so for sure. So who do we have to explain how you want? You know why? Because in this does not subscribe to the theory of incredibly healer and it's for that reason even though they're not it's not it's not right. I don't care wouldn't be able to be according to this third of the is whether we say in the first place or we don't hold therefore holds the was where was first was second therefore you're going to get only for that original listener what was the original listener which a deviation from the first two ter roots of the gamar in the first terret of the gammor. What's the according to it's according to the second teras was tra according to the third teras according to is going to be came and he was mats a fourth terret he said the cases where the happened at the same time that the aver was severed. So it was an aver that was severed in a way that made the animal into a tra. example would be which means that when the animal's born there is no when is happen when the a was severed. Now in this case the same second that the was severed the animal became. So the two things happen at the same time. which means that later when this gets ever it's not being now the only that's being is coming second it's for that reason all you're going to have is one so according to what's according to It's according to it's and according to the one love that you're going to be the one malus you're going to get is going to be again for the afterwards and it's going to be so let's just make go a little bit of a zik we have If somebody ate from this animal that was a one of two it's two says I would agree with you if it was two animals but one animal you have a problem because you only have one is why do you only have one is based on the doesn't in other What exactly is the and the came out there's four different ways to learn what this over here might be? The first three were the fourth form was if you do this first ter was they're arguing or is it not in the second beer they're arguing whether you say is because it includes in the third they're arguing whether we say or whether we say and then in the fourth in the which was as one and only they're arguing whether is or it's now just notice one nuance first and R is one and only or if you're keeping score the first terret of the G and the fourth terret of the Gar is really very similar that is the same it's whether or is but interestingly enough the explained it was the one that held and held explained it holds and holds. Additionally inshhat the one that according to you would be for is the is inhat the one that you would be for according to would be the so this is just some uh fun little uh things that you can uh you know put together when comparing and contrasting the full of the but really if you think about it all the are doing is is that you have this and you have a bunch of right means if you want you learn like this. If you want, you can learn like that. You know, went ahead and he had three different and one of them was they're arguing whe I can flip the whole story. I can make it that that's the holds no and holds and the bottom line is four different and how you could explain what exactly is going on over here. as we're about to see very much said the name of the grain. Okay, so there was one animal and a person went while the animal was alive and he ripped at an animal. Oh, and by the way, the animal was also a said in the name you're going to be to Malus. So again sounds like you did three it was and it's a and he says you saying that said two I heard from actually three in fact heard the same thing. So it seems like it was one of the great heard whereas and other great they heard three says what's and again this is clearly going to have an isaler type of theme because it's one and the question is could you be for the for the for If it's all three, it's all three. But if it's only two, which two is it? And what's going on over here? So the Gar says, but my and now we're not going to have four, we're only going to have three, says the first case is talking about what animal became a as it was being born that says three. Who's that and in the name of our holds that an animal while it's alive is which means in English as soon as the animal is born. Well, if that's the case all three, let's go through this properly. That's the case. This is because we know doesn't have and the because we just said that's not that's but the bottom line is that So that if you make what you have over here is then there's no problem. going to be like that says to he holds that even though it's true you're making so that and it's true but this is the is and at that point you're a day later and the dollar short so that has no ability to be for that two and not three. Which two are you going to be for? For this says or if you want you can say that everybody holds that while animals alive it's so that the is not at the time of the okay. is whether or not could be. In other words, the was where it was. So that the happened at the time of the late the always happens at the time of the late. So as it relates to the is and as it relates, they happen at the time of the late. This does not happen at the time of the le because when then does it happen at the time that the is what's the sh then whether you're going to be whether it be on the or whether it can't be and what's the reason it could be because it includes it can't be as for that reason too. You'll be for this but you're not going to be for this says if you want you can say a third test maybe everybody holds everybody holds and if that's the case then the is at the time of the and by the way the is also at the time of the is always at the time of the okay so what's the case was again the is not where it the opposite. It's talking about where it became a later. What's the And the could it be or could it not be? It could be. Now, why could it be? So thear could have simply said what it said in one of the four to roots from the previous that maybe and the name that but that would be saying good you could say better the is going to say better maybe the reason is similar to the fact that you find that because we learned of that. Now once you find that once you find that so then you can argue that it's going to be on the of so it's going to be so in the name that even though later but that's So as well whereas it's true there is you find that is but that could be as the because you find a you know but there is a it doesn't relate to all animals because there's no when it comes to but which is true for and for as well right with the exception of raor but all the other held that it's maybe over there it's not going to be the point is that it's talking about we are the animal became a trait for later so that the first afterwards and whether is whether it could on the what's that it should be able to have simply said I'm hold it was plausible in the previous should be plausible over here but the says better the says because I know for a fact so once on maybe could also be maybe could also be yeah no that's by the in this third ter of the so what's the time that you're going to be according to that you're going to be for and which won't will you not be for you're not going to be for the bottom line this concludes the first part of today's says the and this next is a classic Ben classic Ben classic came from said let me tell you what I heard. I heard that once asked the following question what would be if somebody took a he cracked a in half. He's a rough guy and uh he ate the but he ate it in two shots stating that the two parts of the that he ate he ate. So we know then in any time the says thou shalt eat or thou shalt not eat. You don't have to eat it in one swoop. you don't have to flex it, but rather as long as you do several within a certain time frame, what's known as the amount of time that it takes to eat a half a loaf of bread, anywhere between 2 and 9 minutes, ask your local rabbi. So as long as you do the within that time frame that is going to constitute asked what would be as it relates to with the iss but he was and then afterwards he ate it. Would you say that the two or not he told him? No. Is that you're not going to be what would be if the person put the whole thing in his mouth in one shot and then he went ahead and he cracked it in half in his mouth. I'm like, "Oh, in that case that you put it in your mouth in one shot." Even though you didn't swallow it in one shot then already you're going to be in other words reported that unheld that as much as in we know but when it comes to over there already it's going to be different what's the reason so if you take a look at it's the second line from the top of the it's going to be the topic of the raids let's see the rashi inside mahu what was the original shiloh The question was, do we say that like all or maybe here it's different because the whole parish of you know why? Because in when the says don't eat if you would eat the featured very prominently in yesterday's from me that when it comes to it's so that there's a in the so I would say maybe the only time is the bare minimum right whenever you're dealing with a parish that's a kadesh so we try to limit the scope of the as much as possible so I would have Okay, the term was but so if you get in one shot you're going to be because that's usually what means but if you get in two shots not and told him yeah that's the side I like I like that being that it's for that reason the two will not be stating that also said is that this is only true if the person cut it in half and then he put it in his mouth so I ate a half and then after eat another half but let's you put it in your mouth in one shot but you just didn't swallow it in one shot in that situation there's no question you're going to be because being that it entered your mouth in one shot that's already considered one you did one of course you're going to be this was Ravimi's report of what took place in the exchange between when there's very often in fact more than very often there's also when came from he said it o over a little bit differently he said that fire these same questions but this was you going to be but what was says I disagree with the second thing you said potter in the case even in the case where it was so you're going to be potter and Robin explained because that the definition of is the pleasure that your throat has when the food enters. So when you're chewing food and you're enjoying it, that's the definition of so that if it's something that you weren't supposed to eat, that's the definition of violating that if you put the whole thing in your mouth in one shot and you're chewing it in one shot, even though you didn't swallow it in one shot, but that in of itself is going to be enough to be considered one. So if it was afterwards, who cares? because according to the definition of is when it goes down the digestive system and being that he swallowed it in two swoops. So that's and we said already when it comes to so is the same thing unless it was inestive track. Okay, that already I would agree with. But the fact that you split it up in your mouth, who cares? That's not so it's no different than if it was. It's for that reason you're going to be butter. So according to what be if somebody takes the whole puts in his mouth and then starts chewing it and he swallows it peace meal are you going to be you going to be accus and here's the punch line you're going to be and it didn't go down the digestive system in one shot says according to this only a discussion Because even if it was there's a question, how you ever going to be, aren't you always going to swallow it in two shots? Nope. A big room. So was a small again. I don't know what the matas is, but there is a you can swallow it in one shot. And that's the only time you're going to be either way. Rebel Ren continued and he said by the way there was a third cheetah that I heard about init and that was the rebel's other very famous we have all the time today said that even if the person would take the eat it in two when he had divided it even then you're going to be and the reason is because at the end of day two are always press and being that these uh two ailo were very easy to do in succession of each other. It's not like after I did one half I had to do a misa to somehow bring them together. All I had to do was you know take this half a plate and that half a plate merge them and put them in my mouth. The bottom line is doesn't even subscribe to the whole theory that being that it's aesh So that there's no of two half according to there is going to be a ser. So what's the bottom line? Bottom line is we have two versions of how this went down. But if you just put it all together what we have is according to it's very straightforward. If somebody was again, we're dealing specifically with and then he ate it the two is going to be because even though it but that's only true by a regular when it comes to if it was there is you're going to be because being that it entered your mouth at the same time there's no question said that I know that was you should know that even if it was you're going to be potter and the reason is because that the definition of is that your throat has. So as long as it entered the throat and it was true that's enough in world to view it as one. So that even though you did want but so you need to swallow in one shot and if you don't swallow in one shot even if it's but at the end of the day that alone is enough for you to be the third even you're going to be says that if a person eats a he's going to be and by the way this Next is not true necessarily for this is true for all very important. So as it relates to it doesn't mean any food that's stuck between the teeth. So when you start measuring did he eat a kazas and not eat a kazayas? And by the way when malus is at stake right so you're going to really hire a lawyer and try to say that wasn't a kazhas there was a tiny piece stuck between his teeth. Right? Okay. So is addressing this. He says when we talk about it is it doesn't include what's in between the teeth. That doesn't count. No. Even if there's food that got stuck in between the teeth, you're going to be what's in the let's go backwards. Who holds that? It's who holds. So is not at a different he said everybody agrees if it's that you're going to be potter meaning even who holds but if it got stuck between the teeth says that's not even considered stuck between the teeth it has to be at least close to the pallet in order for it to be considered where it got stuck in between the pallet that's it has to be another classic said in the name of the great what would be if somebody ate a half a of this like the previous kumar is true for allurus what would be if somebody ate a half a zas of sasuro and then he spit it out. He spit it out and then afterwards he ate another half his eyes. So this person swallowed a half his and then he uh coughed it up. He got it out of his system and now he went ahead and he ate another half his malus my time. What's the reason? Because at the end of the day you enjoyed the even though he spit it up. So maybe in's world it's not considered right even though he swallowed it. Maybe it was again we'll just keep it simple right now. that would be enough for it to be not necessarily considered holds that what's the definition of so being that your was even though when you ate the second half the first half was long gone I don't care by the way right then we're not dealing with we're dealing with and it's for that reason said you're going to be so again who said this the names matter but another turns to and he tells him you know let me ask you a question what would be if somebody ate a a half a zas of he spits it out okay try not to visualize this and then he puts it back in his mouth right and He eats it again. Would he be over I mean he'll do anything to be over alive apparently. So the question is this guy right here right double dipping literally talk about killing two birds with one snow. So the question is could this person right now he's recycling. Could this person right now get malcus or would he not get malus? No. It's very similar to raasi said. Raassi wanted to know if somebody ate a half his coughed it up and then he ate another half his eyes. It wasn't the same coughed up half his eyes. So bless turns to mass and goes I hear there but what would be if he ate a half his heed it up and then afterwards right so the says what was let's try to understand what was asking I mean it sounds like what uh rebel's claring is is food that you ate and sort of digested and now you coughed it up and you want to eat it again right do you say that once the food is digested you can't eat it anymore right is that the right but if that's the case so why is he asking in such a funny case this is what he should have said somebody eats a eats it and then he coughs it up he throws it up and now the food is there then he or better right if you really want to get excited somebody else comes and eats it what's the difference right you know he's telling the bottom line is Somebody goes ahead and eats it now. Is it considered was not considered? Why the case have to be we ate a half a you threw it up and then you ate it again? Simple. You ate a you threw it up and now you ate it again. You give WHY IS HE TALKING ABOUT A CASE of right? Is that the doesn't sound like that says Shila? What's the Shiloh? It sounds like the sha is in general if somebody coughs up food whether or not if you could it be mitarif or it cannot be mitarif. In other words, if somebody eats uh half his coughs it up, so it's not in his system anymore and then he eats another half as do we say the two or well IF THAT'S MEAN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS food that he's eating now is the fact that the food's not in his system when he ate the second was so says I I don't understand toi again raasi sent name if somebody eats a halfas He throws it up. Then he went ahead. He ate another half. He's still going to be because at the end of the day the sum parts of all your was and we're not talking about talking about for that reason you're you're going to be and it's and he said what would be if it was the same half as wants to know what's unique about the the same half as oh it's because you want to know once you eat a half as ice maybe you can eat it again Right? Double jeopardy. You can't eat the same half as a second time. Well, if if that's the case, then why are you talking about this funny case? So, if you're not sure about that, then you should claim it's just a more normal case. I mean, none of these cases are so normal, but it's at least a normal case, right? So, at least that would be the share. That's not your sh you know that you could eat something a second time. What you want to know is is that being that I don't have the two foods in my system at the same time, maybe I'm not. Well, THAT WAS RAASI'S CASE. RAASI already told you. So what's going on? The Gmorra is bewildered by what was posing to Raasi. And because it is the garra says the almost learns up's question says I'll tell you what must have happened over here realized that when his was saying over in the name of that greatb he realized that he wasn't saying it over 100% the way said it over he didn't remember it perfectly because had he remembered it perfectly he would have said it a little bit better he wouldn't have simply said He would have said the same even then. And you know why he would have said that? Because he knew that said that. And if said that and wants to bring out the he should bring it out in the biggest because in if you say it in that you're going to know two things. Number one, you're going to know that the even though they're not in your system at the same time, you're also going to know that that you can eat something for a second time. So wants to remind of what really said and he's doing it in his uh in his way want to remind what really happened. This is what he told him. Why are you saying that when you ate another's eyes? Why is that the way you're saying over what you should have said in the name was that even if you would eat the same a second time you would be because if you would say that there would be a much bigger I would know two I would know two things. I would know that you can eat food a second time and it's not considered equal after I eat it the first time. Additionally, I would know that even though I don't have them in my system at the same time. Now, when asked this question, why you not saying that didn't respond? He was just quiet. He called him the says means wasn't it many times that you told that if somebody would eat a half as spit it out and then eat that same half as again you' be malus and was masked to you and he told you I agree being that the gar is is in other words had forgotten this has and Raise vibes, right? Where was sick and he forgot a lot of his learning and Abay had to remind him. It seems like this is an interesting episode whereas had forgotten what by the way something that happened several times. But the bottom line is didn't properly remember and was trying to remind him and that's why he asked him this question. He wasn't asking him an errance the question. If he was asking him a question because didn't know then he would have asked it a little bit differently like this was more of a rhetorical question. It was a question that was being posed to try to remind him of what he had really heard from and on that note. But just to end with a little bit of raid and really with the theme of the daf a little bit of lashes and that is the gum on the top of the um said that when came from above they both said over that had this very back and forth with regards to the laws of of we'll say it What would be the if somebody took Abraas of it, broke it into two, ate one half and then a minute later he ate the other half. Would he be or would he not be? What's the sha? It's the rashi explains we saw the rashi inside already. On the one hand, we know are as long as you eat them within the share that it takes to eat a press. So is so you would think it would conform to the general rules that govern or maybe is different because what's the it's not just a of that needs to be eaten but altogether are to the and being that you find this that it's maybe you should say And it could be whereas in but when it comes to there may be not or maybe not just like in so too when it comes to it's going to be the same thing and no I like the other side better. I think that being that and even though in all areas of are when it comes to over here it's not going to bear in other words being that is there's a that quotes throughout and therefore this that is not going to be true. in mitzvah gimmel and a mitzvah asks a bombasha what would seem at first glance to be a blatant steer from another and this is the over there is discussing the very obscure that the of is so we know not all was created equally not all tum conveys is to in the same way. Perhaps the most of in the world of to is that the of we know is to is but only if a person eats it and even then it's the learns it out from in fact the has for this that seems to say that the only time of is if a person would eat it it would be a and you would eat Meaning just like you call it the so tier would have to be and asks and that is that why do I need to one should be enough and for the one is coming to teach me that when we say that of the other one's coming to teach me but the explains you ready I would have being that so I would think so maybe you should be even if you ate the two within a time frame that's more than where it's more than the 2 to 9 minute time frame maybe if I ATE THEM SIX HOURS APART that would also be enough one person could tell me the is and the is coming to teach me that what's the sh the is in other words being that so I would have thought that maybe it's not what yeah I would have thought even it has to be the way Rashi was with Irish argu I have two that are flat outer each other in our being that is so suggesting could be the two wouldn't bear even I would have to do one whereas that being so therefore I would have thought that it could bear even if it's now whatever the here is and whatever this here is. Let's put aside for a second. I have two that seem to be a flatout steal when he brings this init he says this already made it onto the and as a result it's not a that I think I need to spend so much time on the says the same thing. He says this has made its rounds. It's been on the desk of the great and as a result I don't think it's something I need to be so one of the that this made it on was on the desk of the and in this is one of the that were written to the great asks this to says a little bit of a pilp but the truth is just want to bring out one point from in this kasha and that is what what lies at the core of this again had to be mash of the ste this is already something you have to be in for but what is at the core of this what's at the core of this is a in the world of what would be if there was no that what would you have thought meaning we In whenever the Tyra says eat or don't eat doesn't mean eat in one shot or don't eat in one shot. There's a a definition of what is the definition of as long as the happens within the time frame of an it's going to be considered. What would be if you didn't have that of what would you have thought could be I would have thought that you have to eat in one shot and if you don't eat in one shot it's not considered you don't have to eat in one shot and as long as that in of itself is going to be okay you could hear it a little bit differently what you could hear is that were it not for this of it would have been that I don't have to eat in one shot. Would I have to just sit and press I have to shove it down my throat all the vas? You would have thought that you don't have to eat it cuz I eat it in one shot. In fact, YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT I don't know. I COULD EAT IT MAYBE ALL DAY. I DON'T KNOW. I'm not sure what's the time frame of but I would have thought maybe during the I don't know you come up with some definition that you don't have as much time as you thought you did. The definition of means it has to happen within a tight time frame and it has to happen within the amount of time that it takes a in other words without the of would I have thought that has to happen literally I would have thought I have way more time is the of that I don't have to eat it in one shot or is the of that I have to eat it within a tight time frame albeit not a one But at the same time within a tight time that therefore you shouldn't say it's that holds that is a in that you don't have to eat it in one shot. So being that there's a mim to say that you don't have the so now you're going to go back to the status quo. What's the status quo? SO MUCH SO and then afterwards he says you're going to be pot from the it's just the opposite from the it's that being that is and the whole of you can't say the of oh you can't say the so you have to now revert to the status quo. What's the status quo? I don't know. I would have thought I had more time. the separate. So this this steer over here that was the steer between is not just a steer in it's a steer fundamentally in how that we would have understood were not for the not for the you'd have to eat it in one shot. Therefore, which is you don't have I need to do and afterwards you're going to be from it's just the opposite from that without the you would have as much time as you wanted. It's for that reason being that it's the had to tell me that you should know that don't say that there is because without that I would have thought referred to what the p this would have been and what's the paj I have all day every day can go ahead and to eat it the bottom line is the I'll pee is really the two of this in terms of what would have been what could have should have been were it not for the fact that there was a mash that it would have the definition of would have been one from the definition of would have been that you have a lot more time to eat this than you really thought you do. You know there's that we're all familiar with. It's it's quoted in the says that when a person is the mitzvah of you should eat the mats in one shot. You should try to swallow it in in one shot. Don't just eat it. You should eat it in one shot. And the says And in the end of the seventh parag that you should try to go ahead and you should try to eat it in one shot. And there's a prim where do you see in the end of I mean off the bat we just learned there's a few suggestions and possibilities. If you take a look at the smoke you know what the meant when he said Mashma. You know what he meant when he said in the end what he meant to say was he meant this because the said what was this to say and by the way why you're going to be it's because so could be I mean you're not what do you see from here you see from really means there's a you don't have the but it's that the perfect is really that you can eat it. It's a leap of faith. But if you find that the perfect of is I think when you sit down to be your mitzvah, you should try to eat. Why shouldn't you try to eat? Because you should try to go ahead and do it in the perfect way and don't rely on this of I saw some say I wonder what would be in the reverse. Let's say you have where is right you give him whatever he needs in order to besides for the to make it out alive but if he has of course he would eat let's say the doctors say this has to eat there would be a for not to eat it but rather to eat it tell what's the But just like the said that it's from the way explained it that the perfect is one shot and using the term loosely is a so when you're doing a mitzvah you don't do the you do the so too when it comes to an even though you're allowed to do it but we know the rule is you try to minimize the damage as much as possible. So why do the inway if you could do it in the way? So don't eat the but rather eat it peace meal. Eat a little bit. Eat a little bit. Eat a little bit. But the bottom line is this is a famous mug of and again you know the briskets are very mad in this mug of not just with one kazay with two kazim too. But the bottom line is this is a famous and the is it comes from literally comes from today's that's all true if you learn like is in the over here and then the and that is that without the you would have thought means eating it in one shot THERE'S A YOU DON'T HAVE TO eat it in one shot eat it in one shot that is the basis for this the other the other it's just the opposite here it's that it has to be within that time frame of but what would have been without the you'd have all day maybe to eat it or at the very least you would have a longer time frame to eat it you don't find anywhere that there's any to eat it is eat it but you don't find IF THAT'S THE CASE TO GO AHEAD and just chow down your no said he didn't say he was he wasn't again this that brings by the way brings in other places as well that He says we quoted the of the and other handled the sh what at first glance seems to be just a steer between twoaras. But if you a little bit more it's not just a steer between it's a fundamental steer. It seems to be of what could have would have should have been the definition of were it not for and maybe a maybe even two the one for sure seemingly would be this mug and that's brought down in maybe even another one when it comes to would there be a milo to not have him just chow it down tell him to eat it carefully and slowly or not either way there's another Luma are related to the end of parakeid that we will save maybe for