Chulin 107

Today's is and we are two lines from the bottom of so we're in the midst of a digression. We're learning which discusses the but digressed into of why because one of the things you have to do if you want to eat and then immediately eat is wash your hands regardless because there was a mention of the digress to other of that note some more interesting a person could wash his hands in the morning and make a stipulate and say that I want this to work for the entire day. So the person says that rather than washing my hands when I eat breakfast and then washing my hands again when I have my tuna sandwich for lunch and then again for supper I'm going to wash my hands once in the morning and I want that to work for the entire day. So said Rav surprisingly that it works as long as he stipulates it as long as he makes it tonight and he says that I want this that I am washing my hands in the morning to work for the entire day it works. Now you have to read the fine print literally. Rashi says you have to be careful during the course of the day to make sure that you don't make your hands dirty and that your hands don't touch up area that would otherwise make it. But if you're able to be careful, we trust you and from a pure perspective, this tonight that you made in the morning is going to work. told the people that lived in this people like you who don't have a lot of water. I'll give you an idea. Wash your hands in the morning. Make it tonight and it should work for the entire day. It says that the reason issued this was like he said because these people just simply didn't have a lot of water. meaning it was so as he allowed this to happen. And if that's the case, he's arguing with Rav because from Rav's statement, it sounded like this is something you could do. What did Ra say? It didn't sound like from that he only said as if only issued a to the people living in this because they were although it's the same but if you go a little deeper into it he's actually arguing with Raf because he needed it to be a there were others that had a different version in they said that it's okay to do even and if that's the We'll come back to this a little bit later. Said was said a few that involved the same context and that is there was somebody that had a canal of water took a pale put it into the canal of water and he was pouring it into another body of water. The question is can someone now put his hands in that other body of water from where water is coming via this pale and and wash his hands. So really there's two Shilas we discussed yesterday that in order for a person to purify his hands he can either do which is the more tangible conventional means or he can do is you take a cup and you wash your hands. is you would treat it like a mikvah, but instead of immersing your entire body in the mikvah, all you're doing is you're immersing your hands in the mikvah. So I said ra that if somebody goes and he takes a kale, he takes a paleo and he takes water from a canal and he now pours it into this other body of water. You cannot go into that other body of water and use it to wash your hands. And it doesn't work for it doesn't work for let's work backwards. It doesn't work for because it's not a mikvah. The only time you could do is if it's a mikvah that you'd be able to be matire your entire go. If somebody was would he or she be able to be mire herself or this if the answer is no then you can't do in that mikvah. The question is maybe it should work how means you take a cup you pour the water on you. So even though you yourself didn't do that, but maybe the gavra of the person who put the pale in the canal and now moved it into this body of water, even though he didn't do it directly on your hands, you put your hands into the water, but maybe being that the water got to this body of water via a nil. Maybe that natila is mitarif to you putting your hands in the water and it's as if you did. So it's true you need a regular mikvah of that you don't have over here but maybe it works from a perspective said that doesn't either work and the reason is because although it's true there was an act of natilo but that act of natilo came to an end as soon as the water landed in this new pond in this new body of water at that point that you put your water your hands into the water it's not coming anymore that's why it doesn't work says continued the If however this person put his hands right next to where the pale dumped the water and at that time soil didn't happen directly onto this person's hands but it was in close proximity enough that you can deem it that the water ended up on this person's hands that would be enough in order for it to be okay said a final If the pale had holes in it and the pale was taken from a canal and put into another body of water and the holes were so big that not only could water seep out of it but water could actually seep into the pale that's considered a a she as it relates to laws of but the point is is if there's holes in it then we say that the pale connects the water of the canal into this new body of water that he's putting water into and then a person would be able to in that body of order because even though in order to be needs and in the case this case he didn't have a mikvah but the pale itself is able to be the mikvah this canal to this other body of water the bottom line is said in that case it would work not because for that you need you don't have but in that case it would Any kay that has a hole in it that's so big that water can come through it. It's not going to die. I mean, it has to be a kali. If the hole is big that water is seeping out, it could still be kosher. But if it's so big that if you put it into water were to be able to go into it, that's a bigger hole. In that case, it's not a doesn't have a re of water in it. You can't use that true that doesn't contain what's it sounds like that if it can contain even if it doesn't have it's going to be so said twoas which at first glance seem to be the same but if you look at a little bit more carefully it's actually a steer and that's the kasha ra's first was very important by that if you don't have a ra of water in your cup, you can't use a you have to physically have a re of the theory is that said again it's re so at first glance it sounds like maybe it's the same but it's not because if you look more carefully what he's saying is the cle has to contain in it or has to have the ability to contain in it or as long as it's a big it's a shear in the clay not a shear in how How much word do you have to have? In fact, it sounds like so we understand that is associated with but what do you need a re? You need a re of water or do you need that? Even if you don't have a rever of water ra for one person you need a raas but if two people are going to use the same cup to wash their hands the second person doesn't have to have a full re of water and as long as the kali is that in itself would be enough time to the very big. So you do need a re but that's only if one person is washing his hands. There's a specialish as the Gar is going to clarify now that if a second person is washing his hands he can use the of the re of the first person that's going to be okay. So you're right the initial has to be from a cle that's mic re it's a sheer indic and you also have to physically have a reas of water but if a second person wants to use that same exact ki that a first person already used so he's going to be using the shim of water that the first person used even if he doesn't have a on his own it's going to be okay as are you on he He said, "Are you that the water that's used should look like water?" He said, "Are you on the relay?" He said, "Yeah, absolutely." He's on all three of these things. Some say that the conversation went a little bit different. He asked him, "Are you said that it should be a that the water shall look like water?" But he said as it relates to because you see that you can use a re even for two people. So if you use re for two people obviously they both didn't have a re right they obviously both had less than re. So if that's the case, do you see from here that you don't need but says was incorrect for proving that from this but there's also a special that the of works either way a very interesting you need a reas of water but if two people are going to use the same cup the second person doesn't need a raas because he can rely on the shim of the original re says We were asking he had that was a ra and he would use it as a an example of what a raas is. So people would come and they would bring there cups and they would measure it up against what could head and and if it matched then they knew if it was smaller it wasn't ask did the same thing with that's an earn word said if somebody takes the cover of a of a cask and he modifies it in a way where you can now use it for So usually the cover of a cask is flat but he shaped it in a way he fashioned it in a way where now it has a receptacle so you can use it. So is it okay or is it not okay? So continues and says if somebody takes a or these were bottles that were made out of says they were made out of liquid and you fashioned it in a it's in a way now that you could put water in it. If someone however takes a sack or a basket, even if there too you modify it in a way where it can now hold water, it's not going to be okay. What's if somebody wants to eat bread, not wash his hands, but he's not going to touch the bread. So, he's going to eat it with a map. There's going to be some cloth that's going to be separating his hands from the food that he's eating. Is it okay or is it not okay? Now at first glance you would say maybe it should be okay because the whole issue of why you wash your hands before you eat is mishum gave two reasons but the primary reason seems to be because hands are considered shen once upon a time people ate shuma when people ate truma if you would eat truma with hands that are sheni you'd be because as a result for We didn't want them to get confused and say the you could eat without washing your hands. But the truma being that your hands are that you have to wash your hands before you eat because it's going to get confusing. So they said the khan should wash their hands even before they eat because sometimes they eat truma. And then they took it even a step further and they said that everybody should wash their hands before they eat. Everybody and nobody eats maybe only the kayan. They said no. And this should be true for for everybody. But the point is is that the reason you wash your hands before you eat bread is related to the fact that your hands are to and when you touch the bread you're being the hands even though you're not cuz it's but if it was true it would so the question is if somebody's going to eat bread he's not going to touch it. So, so do you say that we're concerned that even though there's a but maybe by mistake he's going to touch or we're not concerned that he's going to and the over there discusses they came to visit and when they saw he was eating outside of a mika he was eating a very small share it was less than the size of He didn't wash his hands, but he held the bread that he was eating in a bench. Says my love. It sounds like why was he holding with a map? Cuz he wasn't going to wash. But it sounds also then like the reason he ate was because only could you eat bread with a map without washing. But if it would have been a sha even though he was holding it with a mappa it sounds like he would have had to wash his hands. So even though it sounds like did it says oh he just held it with a ma he didn't wash his hands. So you see it's okay to eat bread without without washing your hands as long as you don't touch the bread. But the being right just the opposite because saying that it sounds like only did it for it sounds like had it been a then maybe it would have been okay. So let's prove from here that you're not allowed to eat bread without washing your hands. Even if you're not going to touch the bread, how do you know? Maybe the reason he ate had nothing to do with washing his hands. Maybe would have watched this. It's not a big deal. Maybe he didn't have to wash his hands being that he had a mappa even if it was going to be more than a why then did he eat? There's a few reasons was outside of a suka. Outside of a suka he could eat paka. Additionally, he didn't want a bench. So you would have required. So it could be the reason that the Mishna emphasizes the bay is not related to component to the but it's related to the component and to the again the question is is somebody allowed to eat bread without washing his hands if he doesn't touch the bread. And he found that he was eating bread. His hands were wrapped in this ma in this cloth and he didn't wash his hands. Is this okay? Meaning for sure the reason ra was doing is didn't wash his hands. Mean why was he so m not to touch the bread presumably because he didn't wash his hands which then means that it's okay to eat bread without washing your hands as long as you don't touch the bread. Was very taken back. He said is that so he told him back it has nothing to do with there's no I I wash my hands. Why do you touch the bread if you wash your hands? said, "I'm a little bit of an istanist. I'm a little bit of a mafunic. I don't want to touch the bread." But really, it's not because of the fact that I didn't wash my hands and I hold that if you don't wash your hands, it's okay to be. No, no, no. I washed my hands came from bubble and they were eating bread and they had worn out skin bottles wrapped around their hands. So he said, "Wow, he was very taken back." Meaning they're being on this that they didn't wash their hands presumably and that's the reason that they're wrapping their hands. But the point is it's okay to eat bread without washing your hands as long as you don't touch the bread. So said he goes, "I'm assuming the reason you're doing this because you heard this of they happen in the bubble." Right? So comes there at he meets Raasi. He's great and he sees that they're being on this where they're eating bread as long as they don't touch it without so he said I'm assuming you're doing it because you probably heard this story that happened in bubbles from bubble so you probably heard this ma that happened in bubble with ra that ra used to eat bread without touching it and you're assuming oh probably because he didn't wash and as long as you don't touch it it's okay that's not there's a there's a there's the rest of that story we're rav specifically that he did wash his hands when that used to happen. And the reason Rav would do that is simply because he was a mafic. He didn't want to touch the bread. But the point is is thought that Raasi were basing their on that they just didn't really understand because they weren't from. So is clarifying the story that happened in the Bible but the says but really this whole exchange was a made a mistake because he said in the name of even though was upset at Rav initially when he saw him eating bread you know without touching it based on the assumption that as long as you don't touch the bread it's okay himself said that people that are also known as they're allowed to use the map. It's only it's only people that are non but are allowed to use the trumo. What's the reason? The reason is because reason. Now when it comes to khan, we're not concerned they're going to touch it. Meaning really if we know for sure you're not going to touch the bread, it sounds like it'd be okay. It's just that we're concerned that maybe you are going to touch the bread. So it actually works as have to do with this story. For them it actually works. Were allowed to eat bread without touching it. It was something that was going to be okay. What if somebody's feeding somebody else? So the person eating the bread is not actually touching the bread. He's being fed. So does he have to wash his hands or does he not have to wash his hands? Meaning when you're eating it, you just have a map. So maybe there's but here you're not even feeding yourself. Somebody else is feeding you. You're literally completely hands off. So the question is is in that case do you still have to while you're eating it or no? If you're eating it where someone's feeding you maybe that's a whole different subcategory of eating maybe of was once in front of and he prepared food for he roasted a piece of meat fed him together with bread. Everything was eaten with bread and ate it told if not for the fact that you're the greater I would never do this. I would never feed you my time. What went on here? What happened in this story? It sounds like he fed if not for the fact I would have never done this. presumably because didn't wash his hands. And he was telling him that ordinarily I would never feed someone who doesn't wash his hands because I'd be afraid that the person would touch the food but you're a you're a I'm not worried about you. I mean that I'm not worried about you. It's only you that I'm feeding. But what does it sound like? The point is it sounds like ordinarily it's like initial. says, "Well, maybe the what he meant to tell him was the reason I'm comfortable with you is because I know you're someone who definitely washed his hands." Meaning, had he known for sure he didn't wash his hands, he would he would not have done it. Even though he's raun because at the end of the day, it's not okay. So, what did he mean when he told them? I mean, it sounds like even though you're and you didn't wash your hands, I'm not concerned you're going to touch. It's just the opposite. because you're I know that you washed your hands and that's the only reason I'm going to do it because if you don't wash your hands it's really not okay. Two ways to interpret that story. This is an interesting right. So one thing we've seen from learning a little bit of these of the once upon a time the meals were a lot more formal than the way they are today. So one of the formalities were there was a there was a shish there was a waiter. It says the a person is not allowed to feed the shamish unless he knows that the shamish the waiter washed his hands. You can't just put food in his mouth. You have to know that he washed his hands which of course is going to be the punchline as relates to what we need. But first thear is going to digress a little bit. Aish who drinks during a meal has to make a for every glass of wine that he drinks. So ordinarily if you're going to have three glasses of wine at a meal you don't have to make three ber priagans make one ber priag but the shish if he has three glasses of wine he has to make three ber priagans additionally but as relates to the bread that he eats he doesn't make a special for every piece of bread so he has to make a special for every glass of wine he doesn't make a special for every piece of bread no he has to make a special for every piece of bread that he eats as well Now at first glance what's in the why would the shamish have to make a special of every glass of wine and why according to would he also have to make a of every piece of bread he eats is very simple when a person makes a on a glass of wine the reason he doesn't have to make a bro on the next glass is because the bro that he made on this works for that I when he ate this he didn't necessarily have in mind that he was going to drink another glass of wine even if he didn't have kabana for it but you sitting at a meal you know that the wine is flowing you're going to drink whatever you know you drink but the point is is that there's this implied das and kavana that works for everything that you're going to eat during the meal. But that's because you're a guest at the meal and you can eat whatever you want. The shabish however is at the mercy of his host and as a result anything that he's given to eat right he's very thankful for and he doesn't assume that you know he's going to get anymore. So as a result as it relates to the shamish he has to make a special of every glass of wine because for every single glass of wine that he drinks it's there's an assumption that there was never there was never for that and as a result it requires its own as it relates to the bread however there said in the name of it sounds like it was just a question of you know how things were once upon a time you have to understand sociologically what it was once like it sounds like for a glass of wine it wasn't understood that the shavish could drink as much as he want but pretty good but there's it sounds like for sure between like this it's not a meaning could be there's no say what this means that say is that when there was an at the meal so a lot of food was prepared so it could be And Rav said that the Shamish is talking about meal that there was so much bread. So it was understood that the Shamish is going to be allowed to eat as much bread as he wants said there was no. So as a result he he can't just go ahead. It's like wine. You have to assume that there's not that much bread here. So the gives you some bread. That's that. But the point is there's a way to get out and say that there's really no between. Okay. But what do we need? What's that do with us? We're not learning those now. Well, we're not learning. We're learning. And what we need is that when you feed the shamish, sounds like he was fed. You had to make sure that the shamish wash his hands. He's not touching the bread. You're only feeding him. So say me, you see from it that even when you feed someone, that person needs to wash his hands. But says it's not a shamish. It could be ordinarily we trust the person that's eating. As long as he's not touching the food and you're feeding him that he's not going to touch the food. We're not concerned. But the shamish is different because the shamish is busy. He has a job to do. So because he's busy, he may not be careful to not touch the food. So could be the shamish is different on that says a person should not give food to the shamish whether the shamish is holding a glass of wine is holding a glass of wine because we're concerned that that something bad may happen during the meals. Take a look at Rashi. actually plays out a few different scenarios of what might happen. One scenario is the balis is going to see you feeding the shamish. He's going to get very worried. He doesn't have enough food. So if he's holding a glass of wine, when he sees that he may drop the glass and you know use your imagination either way and then the bry concludes it and says that didn't wash his hands to put food in his mouth. Again it would seem to be that as it relates to the shamish I'll call upon him also but was very said that it could be the shamish is not a riot to a regular person is so mean that he's even though you're feeding him we're concerned he may touch the bread but maybe a regular person you wouldn't have to be concerned if somebody's feeding somebody else the feeder. So till now we're talking about the eater the person who's eating someone else is feeding him. So the person who's eating, if he's not eating on his own, but somebody's feeding, does he have to wash his hands? What about in the reverse? What if somebody's feeding somebody else, the one that's feeding the food, does he have to wash his hands? This is and it discusses a woman who was feeding her child. So she should wash one hand and use the one hand that she washed to feed her child. Ordinarily you're not letting him wash your hands on you but to feed a child then it's okay. It said regarding that he did not want to feed his child even with one hand because he didn't want to wash the one hand and his came and they were that he should wash both of his hands and that he should feed his But what do you see from here? It sounds like or what does it sound like? That if you're going to feed somebody, you have to wash your hands because if there's no that you have to wash your hands if you're going to feed somebody, then what's the problem then? Why why why are we even having this conversation? So the idea that used to wash or said that a woman's allowed to wash one of her hands on your kipper and the story which doesn't that suggest doesn't a suppose that there's an idea of if you're going to feed somebody but the say that's a whole different that has nothing to do that has nothing to do with the regular is is you can come out of the shower out of the mikvah you can sit down now you're going to eat bread you have to wash your hands something called the mitzvah of that had nothing to do with the mitzvah It could be the mitzvah is related to eating. If you're feeding somebody for sure don't have to wash I there we were talking about you don't wash your hands at all. So that you don't wash your hands at all. We're worried about the called shifa. That's what shifa means. Shifa is the name of a of a refers to it as the the mazik called basel. That's two names shif. But the point is we worry about this that on a person's hands when he wakes up in the morning and if he's not going to wash his hands he's going to have on his hand. So this is more about the because you didn't wash your hands period. This is not related to the that's either way says one final note interesting story asked that's father once saw his son crying he told him my why are you crying so he told him the rabbi my father hit me my so's father said not my father sorry my rebi says my rebi hit me so he said why did your why did your rebi hit you cuz he told He's very upset at me. It sounds like was feeding the Reb's son bread and he did not wash his hands and he was upset at him. He said, "Why didn't you wash your hands? Don't you know you have to wash your hands before you hit bread?" And he not so father asked, "Why didn't you taco wash your hands?" He told he's eating. Why should I wash my hands? He said, "I was only feeding him. I wasn't eating. I know. I I would never eat without washing my hands. But said I was feeding him right. So's father said it's not enough that your rebi doesn't teach you. I mean was right. And apparently he didn't know the so he say it's not enough that the doesn't know the but he hits you also. So it's one thing if he hits you for something that you should have known where he knew it. But here the and he hits you. That was comment. It's interesting told that to his son told his son says if somebody's eating even though somebody else is feeding him he has to wash his hands however the feeder himself he does not have to wash his hands just a few just very short straightforward as it relates to so we started the d with said that a person could wash his hands in the morning and he can make it tonight. He can say that I want this natila to work for the entire day. So he washes his hands in the morning. He says I don't know if I'm going to get around to washing my hands for breakfast and then for lunch and for this and for that. So he can wash his hands once in the morning and he can make it tonight. The the fine print, however, is is says just to make sure that he doesn't get his hands dirty and and he's careful with his hands. But as long as he's careful with his hands, that's going to work. And all the ask they all ask from that's brought down that everybody knows says some say they don't have to be careful not to be mickick to make a half sick between when you wash your hands and you make a but no you do have to be careful. You can't make a sick right between when you wash your hands for bread and you actually make and you're supposed to be careful that's a very old then I don't understand how do these two here you have you can wake up in the morning and you go wash your hands you wash your hands anyways morning and you wake up tonight I want this to work for lunch it works ra says you could do it and here we have a that says that that you're not even allowed to be mouth sick between when you wash your hands and your bench. It sounds like unless you're going to go noo-noo new the whole day raids is not going to work or rav seem to say no it's fine just be careful just hey just wash your hand you know take you know wash your hands but as long as you do that wear gloves then then you're going to be fine it doesn't sound like it's going to be an issue and say is it's a because this is brought down says this is a person can wash his hands in the This is not just this is something you could do. So the question is as long as you're careful. So so what's going on over here? You have ask the place has a few roots to the but just to say over one terret that and other say and that is a very important lump this in this and that is that there's a fundamental difference between washing your hands in the morning and making a that should work for the entire day and what we do which is we wash our hands before we vent before we before we make when we wash our hands before we make the mitzvah it's not maybe a concept of but the isvah we're and when you do make incidentally the rabb they're both it sounds like So if you hold there's no but that we spoke at yesterday is there is so if that's the case why do you make a and in two places says it says inf says that being the whole purpose of it was because you don't make a when you do something so if you're doing a mitzvah for the sake of doing the mitzvah then you make but if the whole purpose of the mitzvah that you're doing is to prevent something dangerous from happening in that instance. You don't make a ask what that's the big everyone asks. Why do you make ais? So the nitiv says in his you know why you don't make a a and any mitzvah that you're doing you don't make a that's why you don't make a but really it's a mitzvah being that it's a mitzvah you're supposed to make a so say the and others that when you wash your hands before before you make your sitting down to eat bread and the mitzvah of requires that you wash your hands immediately before you breath. So much so that if there's going to be a half sick, it's going to be a problem. You're not going to be when Ra said, you can wash your hands in the morning and you can make a and he didn't mean that you in the morning for the sandwich that you're going to eat for lunch. Of course not. For that, it has to be right before you eat. For that take what did he mean? He meant to say what's the said why are you because people are not careful with their hands. So he said if you wake up in the morning and you wash your hands and you're careful during the course of the day like Rashi says so then we can assume that your hands are not tummy. If your hands are not tummy tummy you can eat bread. You know why? Not because you wash, but because you have no to wash. So that a person can make a in the morning and wash his hands is true, but not I'll be my that I do in the morning. It's be I won't have a when the time comes for me to eat bread cuz the whole is predicated on a on reality. The reality is that my hands are to they're only because I didn't wash them and I wasn't careful. Oh, wash your hands and be careful. If you do that, you won't have that. So, if I have no to do with the with is if I want to be I have to wash my hands right before I eat. If I don't do it right before there's a right says, we spoke this not so long ago. We talked about this. That's what the he gets learned out from the but the point is the but this is what but but the point but the point is that that's all with regards to if you want to be the mitzvah if you want to be the mitzvah has to be taken right before you eat the bread in fact had nothing to do with being the mitzvah just a very that's the the first the second is we mentioned is as it relates to the So said that there's said there was a contradiction and the came out very simple that if you're going to wash your hands you have to have a stating that the of the has a so if somebody else wants to use your he can go ahead and wash his hands. There's a lot of just focus on one. So the shar of is and this is brought down and this is in it's in actually it's in it's in your lot of you have to make sure that you have so that's a that you have to make sure that you have a re of inside your inside your cup that you're using just to make you You have to make sure of your if you don't have your it's it's not going to be okay. The stating that Mr. Bruce speaks out he says that this that we say use a review and that by the way the second person can use the that's also brought down that's only something that you should rely on when you don't have that much water. But if you have a lot of water, you should do a so what is what's so if you take a look at that says like this even though the is says the what is that so bites either way but at the same time says there's an idea You should take I used to use a lot of water when I wash and because of that he became a big was a tremendous right in fact the says when that used to said that he used to d him for three things one of the things he used to d him for is that he should be liked ended up marrying's daughter. But either way, so maybe that feel was answered. But the point is is that said he used to d to be like like married, right? That's used to refer to his wife as but regardless regardless. This is what said. So he said why do you become he said I used to use a lot of water. He said that's how he became a big but the truth is there's another rest of the story. said if not for the fact that I owned a brewery I was in the beer business I went and became so apparently the schol was only one part of the equation there was another part of the equation had a very successful business and that's how he became too I don't think I don't think it's a ste but either way regardless so this is where it's interesting if you look at right before that in So it's interesting that is somehow associated with so says that even though the is and of re the second person can use the even if it's re but this is only but as it relates to the school the mishing sends you said that he became why surely you should try to use a lot of water and of course yesterday we mentioned the we mentioned yesterday also very important that's in the end of so we're jumping from to but the last says that this is a skin how much of your hands you have to wash according to rashita which is the second day in it's up until the second joint on it's up until your knuckles according to the which is the it's up until your wrist so mean you have to wash up until your wrist so says the that even though you can use a ra but you have to make sure that the reas is going to match your hands and that you're going to be able to wash your entire hand with the ra but in the event that it's not going to work out then you have another problem right says says to wash your entire hand. Again it's a re but at the same time we have two reasons to use more than a re number one you have that washing of the is a school ofus for sure a good reason and number two you have says that being that we're that you wash your hands up until your wrist so just to make sure you get your whole wrist that's also a reason to get the what about is there a sheer for what about till now we're talking about so okay what about as it relates to so the truth is stating that the quotes who quotes from aer called that's the name of the it's the name of the so is in which is in You don't have to have a as long as there's enough water to wash your hands. Whatever you need to do and your mustache. Exactly. That's okay. Hanoga is a re and the miserab they bring that the vigor used to use use a re so we have a the is and it's brought that this is all from the right the is the of the hel there's always nuances and you have It's a mitzvah like so the held like which is the even today that we don't have it doesn't matter still it's a mitzvah just like and then the guy said it should be done from and it shouldn't be done with one of the said what's shot in the grove. Where do you find that? Where do you see that it should be done? So if he held that it's so maybe it's related to that there's a that seems to be permeating this very short in my but they bring very because we had a duet we learned this two days ago where the discuss differences between one's a mitzvah the other one is a here you can wash even on top of ka you can't wash it on top of ka so there were a few nuances that were discussed in the gam differences is between and it didn't mention anything about the so it's a little bit that the is the same and the held that the one and the same. So there's a reve so that's not the stating that that was to use a just one final we thought the end of the gum talked about if you're feeding somebody do you have to wash your hands so the garra said that you don't have to wash your hands I think the gumar there was a a story there that a woman who's feeding her child should wash at least one hand before she feeds you have nothing to do with washing your hands has nothing to do with the with the related more to a that on a person's hands when he wakes up in the morning it's the called so it's really based on the it's a very important this is also but it's just to acknowledge the also where says the last four lines of the ing places. People are not careful today when it comes to not feeding a child without washing their hands. We don't have today. We don't have we don't have this and just grows in just like today. So what's zuga? Zugus is something that discusses in that once upon a time it was considered dangerous to do things in peers. So you don't want to have two glasses of wine. You'd have three glasses. I think how could you have says you don't have to worry about it. But really you don't want to do anything appears. There was a concept called you have a over here. in two places in where says that you don't have to worry about because that the the mazic that's affiliated with and then he throws in all the came up in this comes up over and over and over again right the mul are considered there's no when it comes to tom you have in when it comes to ordinary because mulum is when it comes to mulum incidentally even that we always speak out the in the beginning of whether there's when it comes to even the hold that there's but it's in the it's when it comes to it's more so is more than regular is you can have this massive barrel if it was left open overnight and there might have been a little bit of aris even though the amount of erys that he would have deposited into this is so bottle It doesn't matter does not work even if you hold it works for and not for that's in the beginning of but regardless regardless it's not because today we don't have today we don't have today we don't have now of course the vag was very brings in the beginning the villagian was very mb when it came to mashkim the stories with the vagian the question is was he also mbug was he also mbifa right why the guy on why was he on so because the guy used to say that in everything that the said is also there's the tamister so even if it's the so even though the tama is bottled but the tanister may be prevalent so based on that I don't what should be the difference between mulin or zug or shifa right people and into the like areas of different even though maybe the time is I mean that you have but without all the lumbers of but the point is you're going to say you have you have this guy who said that even if it's even if it's the bottle what about the so here you have a tus that throws zug and mulin and shifto all together so if someone's mid on the as it relates to mulin does he also have to be mbbit on zugis something to think about either way. The Gomorrah tomorrow is going to return to the primary sug and that is the