Chulin 120

Today's daf is 120 and we are about 20 lines from the bottom of so the gmor is continuing on the topic of the first mission and that is the of as it relates to and the brought the first with The Mishna said that if food has an appendage depending on whether we deem it as a yad a handle of the food a protector of the food or neither a handle or a protector of the food that would determine how we view it from a standpoint. Ayad the Mishna said is and for and for however it's not mitarif to the isa if you only have the together with the yad the yad wouldn't be mitarif is more than a thus a is into the a is also mitarif to the sh if something's not a yad or not a shy then it's not for sure. It also wouldn't have the ability to be as it relates to the one nuance which is something that the mentioned right here is the first and that is that although a is when it comes to the is not when it comes to the of either way today's daf is going to begin with which is going to take us into and the backdrop of that is the Bryer that the Gumar brought in the beginning of yesterday's on the [snorts] bottom of so it's a difficult but we already went through it yesterday so to a degree it's to a two bones and each bone had on it a half a zas of boser is that a kazas of boser Mace is treated like the mace itself with regards to Tomas mace. So if somebody is under an oil together with a kaz of bosam he would now become the house would now become m because the kazayas bosam is like the mace itself with regards to all of m. So what happened over here was there were two bones of a maze. Each one had on it a half a of a and two heads of these two were inside the house. Thus they were the problem is that which side of the was under the hame? It wasn't the side that had on it the halfer. It was the other side. And for that reason being that it wasn't the kazayas buster itself but it was the other side of the bone on which there was a halfaser we have whether or not it's considered that there's a ber inside this house with regards to or not that it's not possible for the to be what's the is that over here you don't have the inside the bas what you have is the other side of the bone which essentially is the handle of the and the question is is the yad considered a yad or is it not considered so we saw yesterday the made and that maybe the mission doesn't even mean yad maybe what it really means is but for now we don't have to go back into that says on this this whole sha with regards to the other side of the bone was only if it was in fact the bone itself. What would be if you had a bone that had on it bas and there was a nema there was a here attached to it and the here the here of the person let's say that's attached to the skin which is on top of the the flesh [snorts] right the here itself was inside the oil over there you said you wouldn't have this this was said regarding the that's attached to the bas but a here is different and the reason is because the reason that has an ability to transmit to is because we look at it as a and that's the first that a is considered like in this case is considered like the as it relates to but and being that a here is not considered a so you wouldn't have the even if you would have a here that would be enough this is the according to the first version of the gumar we'll see there's three versions but either way the first version of the is very straightforward Here is it considered a yat or is an appendage but is it a says from later in the parish says the context over there is not which is very similar to but the one difference being that it's not So the says of the head on it you had the whole you don't need the or anything on the to bear to get you the if somebody would touch a little bit of meat that is protruding from this that's what we need or somebody would be touching one of the here that on the other side of the arm he would become tom now the question is if somebody touches is the here. Why is he said probably he didn't touch the what he touched was the here the ter that's the first that is there's a concept of a but you see that a here is considered a how could you even entertain a possibility that a is not a it's a weird And that the reason the here is considered something that has the ability to be is because the here of the animal is considered a sh of the I mean that it's a sh of the it works. So if you need the here to work me a here is not considered a but if you want it to work it can work. The here has an ability to protect on some level. You're covered with hair to a degree. The hair that covers you protects you a little bit. But you want to know if one strand of here is a handle. It's so thin. It's so fine that you can't look at it as a says how could you tell me that here is a shy in lie of what we saw at the end of yesterday's d on the top of the sh. Could you have one shy on top of another? And in this case, the source of the to is the basa. The skin, the hide that surrounds the basar is a shimemer. The here is on top of the hide, which would then mean it's a shrab because the first layer of protection is the R. The second layer protection assuming here is a protection would be the so it's dead on arrival. The whole notion that here should be a because how does it stem with the idea of there's no to which told him he said that the skin is porous and mean that it's porous to here although it's on top of the skin it also is considered a to the direct mean it's on top of the skin yeah but it it's able to connect to the skin through the pores it's able to connect to the buser through the pores in the skin so it's for that reason we don't look at it as thought that they hear in that par is a y if it's a yay that he could be a yad says no in that it works it doesn't work if that's the case if what's the case that the skin of an animal is considered porous so much so that the hair that's on the skin is considered a directly to the baser because it makes direct contact to the baser not merely as a gabi on top of the skin if that's the case how could you have a right to fill is that when you write fillins, you have to write on a cloth. Cloth is the height of an animal. The height of that animal kosher animal of course can't has to be complete. There can't be any pores. There can't be any holes. If you're telling me that the skin of an animal is by definition pores, then how could you have a right fill in every single cl of fillin is going to be an issue of the says that question is a mistake. that the only time there's a of is if the skin has such holes in it that the can't sit down and he can't write a straight line. So if theer can't write a straight line on top of the or that's considered an issue of however but if it's there's a hole but the hole is such that the nev doesn't stop the pen from doing what it does. Meaning the cyher could just write over it the not nek. And of course in this case these little microscopic pores aren't a nek enough for us to now deem it as if the do is not ivor. As a result, they're really poor. Therefore, the siren could be viewed as a understood it's not a problem. If that's the case, how does it reconcile within? Oh, everyone knows they said this inro that connect of another terret another which was that how could say that is not considered isn't it the says that if somebody touches the here of an he becomes why is he the here is not the oh see that here The first ter was that means it doesn't mean really does mean he said in a different context will tell us soon what that context is that we're not talking about one bristle those were the words of but rather a bristle amongst other bristles meaning many we don't mean one here that means where there was several here if there was several here so in that case it was a whole clump of year together that would be considered a Soami holds here is not a yacht. Yeah, the mission says here is a yad. Okay, it's not one strand of ear is not a but if you have a lot of here together and that's what the is talking about that [snorts] would be considered says something about bristles amongst bristles. What was the context they hear the bristles that are on top of the ears of grain? They're considered an appendage to the mitarin. However, they're not meaning they're viewed as a yad. They're not viewed as a thud, right? One means it could be the other one means it could be but it's not mitarf because a is not says what do you mean the bristles? The bristles what they're how are they? What? You're going to take one bristle. You're going to lift the ear of grain and it's going to fall. It it's not practical. We don't mean one bristle. We mean many. If somebody touched the whole cluster in that case, it would become either way. same parents here is really not a bottom line is the first version of the is that whether here is a is not akish is says here is not a says here is a or you could look at it as if it's a it's more involved in the but the bottom line is is holds here is not a says here is a yad isn't it that here is a yad two roots of one says that means the second terms talking about many here a cluster of here there's a lot of here together that it's considered one here on its own is not considered a clearly from this version of the it sounds like hold that even one here would be considered a even one here meaning is telling I agree with you if there's a lot of here and that's the right I only said my with his one here who's talking to I mean they know what they're saying respectively so he obviously holds even one here is considered That's the first. The second disagrees with that last point. So the was presented initially the way we mentioned it said is considered a said is not considered and the from the paragraph that you see the hear of an is considered enough to create tumish answered what he said in the first over there means and continued said I'll prove it to you because if it's How could one here be a answer? No, it's not a when I said that here is a I didn't mean one here. I meant what said many bristles many here said this is all it doesn't mean one bristle it means many. The point is according to the second of the even who said that the is only if there's many but if it's only one that's not going to be enough. So a similar and a bridge version of it to what we had in the first but a very important nuance and that is that according to the first by one here says one here is not considered says even one here is considered a yat according to the second of the one here nobody holds is considered a yat that's how is here a yacht said I agree I meant a bristle amongst bristles here amongst here meaning says where there were many here together there was a third version of this and this is a completely different version it's going back at our said one of the things mentioned our is but here is not now ourish the first of the paric was talking about it wasn't talking about how do we know the was talking about being only that's but [snorts] either way so that's clear that we're talking about and it was on the where does here fall in the Mishna give the whole list it's starting say notice what's missing in the doesn't say anything about the here. Oh, so you see the here of or the hear of has nothing to do with that and said I disagree. But if they're arguing in our Mishna, it's clear in the words of they're not arguing whether here should be. They're arguing whether should be they agree it's not a that's not the question. The question is whether or not it's a on that note. So now is the one that goes on the offensive in the previous two over here. It's just the opposite. How could you tell me that here is a no this pores in the skin? Thus the here is making direct contact with the boss. If you can tell me this pores of the skin says that's not a no that's not considered a poor a poor a hole as it relates to means the cipher can't write but as long as which these little pores aren't going to obstruct his ability to write that's not considered a neg over there talking about and there was oil on it and you had either a little bit of meat protruding that's not the part we need we need is there was a here that was protruding said you see it's the here my probably so he told him back wow so here it's telling that really here is not a but over there it means so how could one here be a he told you're right I don't mean one here just like said not one bristle of the ear of grain has the ability to be it's says These have an ability to be answered. But the point is that according to this the was stated not with regards to whether it should be a regarding that price of the two etc. Rather it was said with regards to our Mishna. It wasn't said with regards to of it was said with regards to of if that's the case they're arguing whether Nemo is a or whether is not a and how does it relate though with regards to Yad. So it comes out from the if there's many here everybody would agree in that case that it would be considered a Yad. If there was only one here, everybody would agree it wouldn't be considered. The bottom line is three distinct versions of the same and if you go through the as we did briefly, but if you go through the there are nuances in each one of the nice but it's getting late. So the again said the second thing mentioned the Mishna was so what does mean now usually means gravy right that's the gravy that is in your pot as you cook food stating that the Mishna says it means the fat that rises to the top of your pot. So when you're cooking meat, for example, there's sauce in the pot, the top of the sauce will eventually turn into fat. So that thick fat, that's what the means when it says and is said why is any less than the meat itself? People eat that. People eat that fat. I mean that people eat that fat. What do you mean it's to the sty means it's not food at some right? The bones. The bones is not really food. It's the hooves of the I'm assuming people don't eat that. So it's it's but it's the that as it relates to so it has a significance in the of but this gravy the fat that rises to the top of the p that that's on your menu. So if that's the case it's why is the Mishna suggesting that it's [snorts] not it's only says you're right. You have to say it means something else. It means it's referring to the liquid that comes out of the meat that congeals that particular liquid is what we're referring to. And when it congeals, it's called and our Mishna anyways and that's what the Mishna means. When it says that right your why did have to say what does it have to be what does it have to congeal for me even if not that if you have sap that comes out of vegetables and you eat a vegetable together with that sap the sap is to which is the usually it's a different it's but the point is is sap that comes out of the vegetables is [clears throat] so why should the sap that comes out of vegetables be any different than this liquid that comes out of the meat even if it doesn't congeal why did say the only time the is so says it's very different there's a fundamental difference between the definition of as it relates to versus the definition of as it relates to this is says in many places primarily when you learn these is and that is the T says eater but really the T doesn't say what do you mean it's the most basic you can't eat onioner it's not true it doesn't say thou shalt not eater what it says onioner it says says you have to inflict pain upon yourselves said one which happens to be don't eat but it doesn't say anywhere in the don't eat that the emphasis the dish of what the wants a person to do and not to do is to bear. That's the point. It's enoi and it's for that reason the definition of is determined on what would be considered enoi and what would not be considered enoi. The sap that comes out of the vegetables if you're fasting and it's you know it's already time and you're very hungry. I guess that has an ability to be it has an ability to ease the pain a little bit and that's why it's considered as it relates to the and with regards to even just that the little bit of that you can get from that would be enough for it to be considered that but over there's a different this is based on is it or is it not if it's congealed it's considered for being if notify means what it always means and that is the sediment of the food that falls to the bottom of the pot. So on the bottom of the pot you can have spices, you can have a little bit of meat. So the we discussed in the that's what means in this asked the same question who asked me well why is the keepa not it's only to it's papa papa said you're right ten you have to say that it means spices it doesn't mean the meat that falls to the bottom it means the spices that falls to the bottom that is already a little bit different those spices that remain in the pot is not in it of itself. That's not the way deemed those. It however is and that's what the Mishna means when it says either way is going to digress now to a very interesting topic. a topic that lends itself to a lot of raw we learned inno this is really a if somebody took the blood and he turned it into a salad and then he ate it or he took which is a solid and he liquefied it in either case he's going to be so really the end of paracabasa discussed and that was the last mission of paracabasa bottom of Sunday's are both parts of a kosher animal that the terrorist says he not let it eat very if somebody eats it if he doesn't amaze it he has to make if he does and as similar as there are some nuances and that was what the said only applies to a and only as opposed to which is but the most basic difference between and I'm just scientifically speaking is one is a solid one is a liquid is a solid it's the fat the non-coosher fats not all fats of an animal are non-coosher but some fats of an animal are non-cos these are the non-coosher fats of the animal dam is naturally a liquid so addresses what happens if someone would take the dam and turn it into a solid and then eat it or somebody would take and turn it into a liquid and then eat it. So the B says very straightforward. It doesn't matter which way you did it. I understand that if you turn the D into a solid given doesn't just turn into a solid. You probably did something to make it a solid. And that act of making it into a solid shows that you want it to be a solid. And being that you showed that you want it to be a salad, you're giving it a kash which in matters. Thus, it would make sense that it doesn't lose its status of dam and when you eat it, it's no different than drinking it from a perspective. But is going to focus on the second part. If somebody takes and he liquefies that it it liquefied you drank it. You didn't eat it. You said, "Oh my cross, the says when the talks about and the Tory uses the word nephesh and the word nephesh is coming to me and not only someone that eats it, but even somebody that drinks it as well." So the word is the we find a similar idea by somebody took and he turned it into a liquid form beer. If it wasn't it was so if [snorts] somebody liquefies these grains it's if it was grains and he ate it he's going to be no different if it's solid or a liquid. If it was matzah, he can't be says and this is not why it's because that it's in a liquid form. It's not but it's says the so why you get the same man. So my brother says it says in the par of and we learn from there says there's a third that is talking about of which has a very special place in the eats of while it's in his base and makes the clothing that he's wearing that's the if it was liquefied through fire. It still has the ability to be if it was in the sun. It says with regards to etc. So again it says the word nephesh and we learn from there the rabbi says parathetically the asks become why only if it's liquefied in this does it have the ability to be why if it's liquefied in the say it happens in the spoils I mean it spoils it doesn't have the ability to be metam anymore the bottom line is is that the we brought three braces that discuss something that's typically in a solid form that was now liquefied you went ahead and ate it so how does that relate to the food is usually in a solid form. If somebody eats liquid, is it going to be or is it not going to be? Somebody eats liquid which is usually in a solid form. If somebody takes the eats it in a liquid, is it? And the answer is yes. Yes. Yes. Check check. Why? Three. It says it says by it says I have that word by all three is going to be by the same the obvious question what's the obvious question I need three for let it say one and I'll learn the other two from the one you know I need all three only said I never be able to learn from why not doesn't is only seven days a year, eight days in but it's it's just one week that is ordinarily it has a is always you would never be able to learn from either is way more than is only so it's you would never be able to learn out [snorts] or from because I wouldn't be able to learn Because as much as it's only one week a year, but for that one week, it's 100%. you can't eat as opposed to which is always but it's in that not all the is going to say which but of for example that was the end of it's only the that's but all the other even all those other are usually you can't learn from the same reason you can't learn from because is also and underscores. So it's why you can't learn and from because and had it send you wouldn't be able to learn and from the either why because that's easy has not is not bottom line is you need all three says the one second I understand I can't learn that one from the other but let the say two and I'll learn the third from those two so the plays it out for You tell me you learn from and scars as opposed to not you can't learn from those and let's learn from the common and that they both don't have That's not from as opposed to which we said is that reason the mention all three but the digresses for a moment and says when we say that is where do you find that is so we spoke out but the gamarra plays this says doesn't mean maybe in light of the fact that wasn't that long ago that we were learning and in the not too distant future we'll be learning and but either [laughter] way either way so we know is but the of the now there's a rule in called which says that anything that a person is not allowed to eat you can't put on the How do you let her put on his why isn't that an issue of you see that is that even though is usually there's a special that the can still go on the so is that what the means when we keep on saying in these that is that what we're referring to we're referring to the that goes on the which although the refers to and of that you can only put on the something with a So is that what we mean over here? You see that the fact you could put on that's where can't be because you find that by as well we're saying only was not and is not if putting makes then is also because you find that they did on the went entirely on was completely but the of went on. You see the same exact what it probably means is the way we explained it even that is is if that's the case as well you find that the of which was the of was the entire but of was so he says says you're right dude You can ask me how could that says that's not called why another major principle in that is it's true get to eat part of a carbon but the way it works is is that if you just follow the paper trail really the entire carbon goes to and then Hashem says come you could eat with literally they're sitting at the table of and they're and they're eating. But the point is not we're giving it to them. We're giving it tom and they're getting it through being that that's the case. It's not considered there's no parish of really there is a par of and the parish of relates to everything. It just so happens that the of an animal or all that goes and tells the come with me. It's more and we're just piggybacking off the but as it relates to as it relates to finding a that you don't have. But the Gar continues. So we have a mar for liquid we have a mar for liquid and we have a mar for the liquid of the of and we explain why we need all three it's very but I have a fourth time this is referring to and the liquid that comes out of the also if you take and you liquefy the whole and then you drink is and the same is true for so the sear the liquid that pours out of the should also be a problem for sure this is like natural sear that comes out so why is it then that that sear needs a special to tell me that it's going to be a problem why can't I learn it after three between and you think you can figure it out but says no had not had a special I mean I would have thought meaning I could learn the basic that has this idea that the liquid would be but I would only know it as much as I see it from the three respective what is that what's the by those three the is always and the is and the is thus I would think only up to as opposed to which are usually so how do you know that is you want to know that the yeah I can learn that from there but then I can't know more than that and you don't find the over there so how would I know that it's says okay once I have it by why can I learn from I understand I can't learn from there I love but Let's go into reverse. Let's learn those three from not it's really more the point is is that you find those is that you find in that you don't find as it relates to those other three another mentions five types All very straightforward any that comes out of ordish or isam. So it doesn't matter if you eat the thing itself or if you drink what comes out of it in either case is it's treated like and respectively. How do you know? Tell me. What do you mean? I already have four. I have a in the parish of I have a in the parish of as well. So you would think that between the four with the you should be able to give but the says no it's not so simple those four par with the mentions this that even the liquid that comes out of it or even if you take the entire thing in a liquid form it's considered as if you ate the thing itself they are unique in that they're all they wake up in the morning Right? is is nothing has to happen. You don't have to do something to make right you don't have to say or it's it's naturally the same is true for the same is true for the same is true the ones mentioned as they're all which ones all except for one but as but as it relates to which is not let me So essentially the question is how do I know he learn from also has this that liquid is treated as also not you have to make it and it's for that reason I can learnish you're right not from not from not from not from where do I know it from I know from says the gar no one said anything about yet so how do I even know that has this a different price tell you see pre it says says in the Torah with regard and we learn from there you have to bring the fruit you can't bring the juice that comes from the fruit how do you know stating that that if you take took you made wine out of it for example how do you know it's the bottom line is that even though pre sounds like countered that immediately and he said that novi is that even if you bring wine The point is from is considered. So is not something that's you learnish from but the says how can you learnish from you have to read a para when you bring it you put it on the you don't have to by ordinary hectish you think heish is so right but in a way has that heish doesn't have that's you learn it from chuma chuma doesn't have and truma also you find this idea that the mashk is treated like the thing itself says chum where do you find byum because and we just said now how do you know that is that's a possim the bottom line is if I know I know truma because there's a heckage between therefore its liquid form is considered it's not you have to make something truma there's no so I learnish not from I learn it from Truma has number one. Number two, if somebody eats truma, he has to pay and he has to add a fifth. There's a there's a tax that you have to pay. There's a penalty you have to add. Where does he write you learn it from Truma has I'm sorry has Trum has but between the two you have but the Garra says that doesn't work. No also has so has bottom line is is you can't learn it from alone. You can't learn it from alone and you can't learn it from the says you're right. You know what you have to do. You learn it from what's either from and one of the two which two says or you learn it from Rashi explains it. Take a look at you can ask how could I learnish from there's no you can ask you can do the same thing with you only you'll tell me so you'll tell So you can learn it either from or from the continues by the time we go to the honey that comes out of dates. apple cider. So says are these are grapes that are on the vines during the winter. They never fully ripen. So they never were able to make wine. These are grapes that you can't make wine from. So what they used to do is instead of making a cabernet instead they would make vinegar from it. They would make from it. That's what it was used for. So if you have the dash that comes out of either or the yan that comes out of apples or the that comes out of these unripened grapes or any other fruit juices of truma. The punch line here is truma. This is all truma. The different juices that come out of Truma food says for eating it like someone always is if he eats says you're going to be says what's the know throughout if you learn out a from B. So you're learning out one al from another al the best example you're learning truma from bikurim what are we learning truma from bikurim just like bikurim there's an idea of even burim in its liquid form is considered bikurim so to trum in its liquid form is going to be considered true as well so you're learning truma from bikurim do we say that once I learn truma from bikurim now this that I learned from bikurim is limited to the guidelines of bikurim or it's expanded to the guidelines of or do you say no I'm just learning one from Truma from Bikur by there's a concept of Mashkin so you're going to have that same idea by Truma as well but in terms of the of how this is now going to relate to it's going to conform to the the usual and customary laws of of Truma meaning even though I learned this and Truma from doesn't mean it conforms Now with it conforms with or maybe not being that I learned it from it has to conform to do you say again in this example this application of it I'm learning liquid truma from liquidim thus even though usually has its own set of guidelines over here it's going to have to conform to bikurim's guidelines because I only know liquid truma from burim so it conforms to guidelines or no or is I learned the basic of liquid truma from but as it relates to the details of it it goes back and conforms with its own para which is the oft that's the said that if somebody eats he learns that being the liquid was learned So now it has to conform to is much more inclusive than is and that's because applies to the as opposed to which only applies to which is grain which is grapes and which is which is so being however that says although it would be tempting to say that the only time you have the of liquid truma is with regards to the par of which is but I'm going to expand it because I'm learning liquid truma from bikurim and bikurim is expanded because relates to more types of fruits so you're going to have that of liquid truma by these other fruits as well of truma is going to be now you got to tell me what do you mean there's no truma in the solid form how could it be true in the liquid form so rash addresses that rash he says we mean on the dab level Because even though it's true the only time you have truma is that's however you do have truma by other types of paris. The question is did the ra expand the of ofk or not says that it makes sense that the usually on the level. again Rashi asks this but that's the point holds and we're learning from so we're going to have this beyond just which is it's going to apply as well which means meaning by it's only dog as it relates to fruit. It's only it's not going to relate to anything else. Two more you can't bring only from. This is interesting that even though we said there's a that teaches me in the parish of that you can even bring mashkim for bikurim but only mashkim from and mashkim from but as it relates to the other even by who's the house so this is the opposite of the previous mish in the previous mish we had a rebar that said all truma even truma even apple cider is considered truma right that was how far he went here we have the reverse here we that says that even by even which usually relates to the only time you have this that liquid is considered is only by soar says who could it possibly be says it's who holds that I learn from liquid but liquid only relates to which is and once I know it only by dog and now I make a reverse hakish Now I go back and say that has to be do which of the three relate to as well there's no it's and so the point is is that just like you have the of liquid shuma only by and so too you can have liquidim only by and so it's going to come out then that are literally from one side to the other side. They're they're completely the antithesis of each other according to a liquid even by even apple cider according to Yeshua even by which usually relates to it's only going to be liquid as it relates to one last also has of but there too only by the only time you get mal is for eating where you ate it in the mashka form. It's if it's even though you learn from and really relates technically to but only to get once I know now I learn back from to tell me only like we had in the previous and once I know is only I learned from and said just like was Viet. So too just like is only so too is only going to be vi either way. Either way. So we had over here a long block with a lot of mutin that really spanned almost the entire which discusses this idea where you have a solid or something that you usually conceptualize as a solid and now you went ahead and you ate it in a liquid form. How does treat it? For example, if somebody ate or really drank in a liquid form which is what happens if you consumed it in a liquid form in a liquid form that's then we had if you're keeping score it's already nine. What about what about what about? So we had a whole bunch of different as it relates to this idea of so we don't have that much time but one at least and maybe we'll say the second for tomorrow and that is so if somebody eats in a liquid formal is he's going to eat the question is what's the going to be what would be the how much of it would you have to eat the truth it's says If somebody would take and turn it into a liquid, in other words, if somebody eats in a liquid form, he's how much of it does he have to eat in order to be says the very clearly you have to eat a kaz. The shir is going to be a kazay. Now, at first glance, it's a little bit of why would it be a kazay? We know are always are always. So if that's the case, if you ate the in a liquid form, why does the to say the sh is the should be reve? So you're going to tell me very simply, what do you mean? At the end of the day is an it's not a mashka punked. Key word you ate it in a liquid form, but it's a punked. It's really and being that it's an is and I ate. So being that I ate an even though right now it's in a liquid form and right now I drank it, it doesn't matter at the end of the day should be that I should be. So that would definitely seem like a very basic reasonable stating that you could say another a much more lumbish and that is the in the beginning of says the if somebody eats so of now that's the mission then the parac has to bring a carb and then the rama brings that but either way says the ramis asks that why is it that the dam is for sure so if it's a liquid then the should be re why is it that the is going to be and said classic he said that it's true dam is a mashka stating that when the mentions the is the says as follows. Someone that eats blood, that person is going to be. And then the continues, I'm skipping says it's true. Dam is a liquid. But when the mentions the doesn't say don't drink. You know what the Tyra says? The says don't eat them from the fact that the terrorist said don't eat them. That's how the ra knew that the is going to be because the ram held that the of is not is this an or is this a mashka but rather the is is did the say don't eat it or did the say don't drink it by dam the said don't eat it. So even though it's a mash it doesn't matter at the end of the day the says don't eat that and being that it says don't eat any time the says don't eat the is going to be because but for example in a case like the is not allowed to drink wine what does it say there oh there of course that's why you know it's why the said so is not is it or is instead of but rather the is what did the say the say thou shalt not eat it or did the say thou shalt not drink it if the terror says then it's going to be if the terrorist says then it's going to be in the from he brings this and he has a tremendous and he brings that the briskov And that is from over there is discussing today's discussing if somebody drinks truma. So somebody drinks truma liquid form. But either way says the ra of course if somebody drinks you're going to be what's the says the is always going to be and why is it if you drink it if you eat it then it's but if you drink it it should be said because when the says that is not to eat what does it say it never says when it comes to trum it always says if the then it's always then it's always going to be then he says I'll bring you two more have two more the first is with regards to again we had this in today's says if somebody eats or somebody drinks beer the is going to And then the says even going to be why is it going to be it shouldn't be what should it be? It should be said because the doesn't say don't drink. It says mean that it says that's why it's going to be big because eyes say I'll bring you one more and that is from if somebody eats liquid says it's drinking it why should it be says that you want to know why it's because the says don't eat it I mean that the terrorist says don't eat it it's for that reason it's going to be you learn if If you drink it's because why because it's much deeper than that it's not that it's an is the said don't eat it and the ofas IS NOT IT'S WHAT DID THE SAY THE SAID DON'T EAT IT being that the said don't eat it it's like dam it's like it's like truma that's why even in the liquid form this year is always going to be just to end with one some food for thought and that is that we know that there's two paras in the where the says you're not eat the never said you're not allowed to eat One is we just learned that the other one is but let's talk about doesn't say you shouldn't be it says what's the gaz how do you know the but if the is not because you could have with the would be re maybe or you could have would be but it's you don't have tomorrow decision.