Chulin 129

Today's daff is and we are at the very last of four lines from the bottom of so we're in the middle of the of and so what's an aerodo that's an a of an animal or a kazas of flesh of an animal that's almost completely severed from the animal. So, it's dangling. It's literally hanging on for dear life. So, it hasn't been completely severed, but it's almost completely severed. And despite the fact that it's part of the animal the gorian from ak that Abraham and are in essentially then it's similar to and is or of an animal that was detached from the animal while the animal was alive where the is that even if afterwards the animal has a proper but being that it was taken from the animal when the animal was alive it remains bil forever the Abraham medull and the basul is very similar same idea that once it's medul in while the animal was alive even if later there's a it doesn't matter that a and that boser will be forever stating that there is an important difference between and that is that in addition to it being is also It's a source of toma. It's one of the So just like is a source of toma, a mace is a source of toma, aid are sources of toma, is a source of toma as well. The dul is not a source of toma stating that it's treated as even while it's attached to the animal and as a result it's subject to the laws of but it has to conform with the guidelines of in order for to become it has to be shared in order for to become it has to first be something that's a source of doesn't have to be is talking about the point is is that and are both. But the important distinction is that as it relates to the laws of Abra is a source of toma. Abraham is not a source of as it relates to Basar is not a source of to certainly is not a source of tommo. So Abraham has the difference that in addition it to being is also a source of tommo. is it's not a source of toma as it relates to the min and are both not sources of toma. That's in contrast to NA where not only is an a of no and Tom but a kazayas boser of Na is also and is to thus if you really want to draw it up and summarize it as a introduction to today's dav and yesterday's dav the way you would do that is is as follows you have three categories you have na you have min and you have nal as it relates to as it relates to they're all different of and are both sources of is but is not and his boss are both not to the had discussed in the context of its discussion of the Mishna which mentions a lot of different regarding the component of boss and that is that being that a but is not if you have an and now a little bit of bos separates itself from the a is that bosser going to be tom or is it not going to be tom meaning if a kazayas boser separates itself from an a of na it's posit it's going to be tom because kaz bos of na was always to whether it was attached to an ather wasn't attached to an aver but [clears throat] what about if the kazer was part of the a min and now it separated itself from the a min would it be Tommy or not and in yesterday's d we saw that it would not be Tommy said that that's the where you find find sometimes the debated whether something is or what's the difference is and the gammor said it would be if separated itself from that if it's then it would be if it's it wouldn't be stating that the is going to begin now with a that's going to qualify that If somebody cuts from as follows yesterday's we said that it's not going to be of course we're not discussing we're discussing and we said why won't it be because although is not stating that says the [snorts] it's only if you cut it off before you had in mind and had intention to use it as food that going to be taught if however while the bustle was attached to the a you had a mind to treat it as food you had a mind to feed it to a for example and then you cut it off then is it's going to be what's the I thought that of is not so why should this separated itself from why is it different that it was once attached to the answer is very simple Because being that is to a kazayas baser or maybe a baser that's attached to the is now touching the dat and being that it's touching the data that is in it of itself a reason that it should be stating that the bryer says one second it's not so simple why because in order for something to become from coming in contact with you would have to look at the sper as being okay it's a gazle why shouldn't it because as far it's attached to the it's not viewed as we look at it as we don't look at it as so if we don't look at it as then there's no way to deem it however if you had a to treat it as that would now give it so if you had the before you cut it off so you had the toel now it's it's attached to the it becomes thus it's going to remain if however However, you had the after you cut it off said that when it was it never had a so there's no way for it to have in other words this oneline but it requires a real introduction and the learning is saying a very that even though is not and as a result theor said that if you would remove it from it wouldn't be that's only but at the end of the Hey, you always have to look at the from two perspectives. Number one, is it a source of so the answer is no. But number two, it's attached to and that's 101 that if something comes in contact with that two becomes. Now you're going to ask me it has to be thear is going to discuss that. But for now conceptually it's touching. If it's touching Tommy, it should be Tommy. But Mar says it depends because in order for it to become from touching, it would have to be viewed as an in order to be viewed as an you need a proactive thought to give it the bra. if you had the before you cut it off. So it was an when it was going to have otherwise it's not going to have one day didn't go to and he met so he told I know he said what was the that they said over today. So he told him is there something bothering you that you're wondering you know maybe was discussed says yeah in fact there is apparently they were learning maybe so he said the says that if you have a spor that's attached to and you had that that should be and then you cut it off it's why because it's attached to the which is in and of itself a source of toma and said I'll tell you What was bothering me? The rule is that the only time something could become is if the contact happened in an exposed area. If however it happened in an undisclosed area, it happened then it's not considered to. We've seen already earlier that two things that are naturally attached like a limb which is attached to the rest of the animal that is considered. So if he was bothered that how is it possible to say that the gazer would be Tommy because of its natural to the that is and I know he said I had the same exact and I asked this question and he gave me a very nice answer. told me it's true throughout it's axiomatic that is not but everybody agrees with that there is argu he's the author of that price that price is well he holds it's not going to be a question told So told but I heard from you that even who holds the that is but he agrees that the thing becoming needs meaning doesn't defy the laws of the and even if the maga is happening it still needs to oblige and conform with the of in other words he was asking a follow-up question at the end of the day where was the in this so heard this conversation he said that I don't understand who said the price is talking about where there was no the is just discussing that even though a is not thus if you remove a from it shouldn't have its own source of but you do have to look at it from the maga perspective Now okay and the B is talking about like we spoke at earlier that there was actually that's not like an answer of the I don't understand why is it such a why is that bothering you to say that is talking about where there was in fact but the gumar continues and the gumar really digresses a little bit I don't understand and I don't even understand's response of right was bothered that what happened to this Bryce what said maybe it's talking about where was it came in contact with water it was any of the other that have an ability to be food and told that in this case you don't even have to come on and this is based on a principle that we saw earlier in that is that the only time needs to be in order for it to become is if this in question is anal that will never be subject to or as we're going to see in the Gmorra right now never was subject to but any food that was or will be subject to is when it's anal and not in a state where it's subject to doesn't need to attain the what's the example of this the example is the of where the is that it's so if somebody eats of an is when it's in his clothing that's considered a it's not which is only other and it's only that's a real to it's And is for that reason that doesn't need in order for it to become because it's something that when they meant it somebody would put it in his mouth. it would be thus it's something that's it's the magic word to even though right now there's no that's enough to say that when you're dying the it doesn't need it's learned out from the fact that what's the just like zer is never going to be subject to so the only time needs is if it's not going to be subject to so what's the A this separated from this was once subject to not in the future tense like in the case of the but in the past tense. Why? Because when it was attached to the so it was part of the it was a it was a it was part of the it was part of the it was subject to the to of it's a real source of it's a real to so being that it was subject to so now that it's not subject to anymore because it separated from it's not to the now oh you're looking But as it relates to doesn't need you know why because he says you want to know why the Bryson didn't say anything about Bryson didn't leave it out this is a classic example of that was once subject to where it doesn't need extra so it's that the left without because if you know the laws of you would realize that this is one of the exceptions to the rule that don't need to say as the but told him back a major lumus that's going to take us now through a half of and that is it's true this is a that that's either subject in the future potentially or was subject to in the past doesn't need But that's only if the time when it was subject to it was in this case when was the baser subject to when it was attached to the a when it was attached to the it wasn't it was that's why in the you had to have a to make it because while it's attached to the we don't look at it as we look at it as so it's true that this piece of matter was once upon a time but at that time it It wasn't the the of making you exempt from is true is at the time that it was but being that over here it was over here you don't have that says somebody has he has leaven of and he decides that he wants to take his dough and he's gonna make it into a cheer. So the question is could he do it or not? I mean at the end of the day it says in the so believe it or not say that it's okay. This is something that you're allowed to do says that this cheer which can become how would a chair become tom? What's the classic example for a chair to become tom? If a zv sits on it, it would become madress. But what's madress? Someone who has tum that's such as a z or a sits lies or rides on something that the to sit lie or ride on. That thing will now get a very special tom which for our purposes is very much a you must say that if somebody would take bread and he would turn it into a chair. How do I know that's a possibility? Because there's even a tremendous that you must say on that chair. It must be said about you that that it would attain rice. It comes out that all food is now subject to why you have wheat. It's on your roof and now you want share it falls on it. And the question is it has to be what do you mean why does it have to be? This wheat is subject to you may make bread and then you're going to turn it into a cheer and then when it's a cheer it's going to be sits on it. So isn't it always and the way Rashi explains the cash? It's a festa. You know what the cash is? Cuz how do you know this that something that's subject to doesn't need what's the to iter can never be? So the cash is fundamentally on the whole how could you tell me it's never for zeram have a great case. You took the wheat the barley you made a cheer out of it. You see it's a real cheer because it's a cotton pes. So it's a very real chair if it's a real chair. So then which knocks out the whole premise of the which teaches me that something of must be said that that is not must be it's not a real to as if to say it's not a real chair but then if it's not a real chair then how could you keep it in your house on pes if it's a real chair so we don't look at it as food anymore. It lost its status as food. It's not food, it's a cheer sounds like a but okay that's the is referring to but if you tell me it's not a meaning it's food so it's food then should be but either way says it's not fair you know why said might say the same parrots that Rob said earlier it's true that this food can one day be subject to but when will it have to if it's a cheer if it's the chair then by definition it's not food. That's not called being shy to the rule of food that could be vulnerable to doesn't have of that's if it's going to be food in the state when it's possible for it to have this zer would only have if it became something other than food. Oh, if that's the case, that's not the we're talking about similar exchange. In addition for it to being very bad also it straddles a lot of laws of right. So this is an idea that that comes up a lot. But he something that was offered up to an has oil says you must say that's not a real to it must be that oil that that was served up to has is not a real if it's a real to because again I have another case where how could they have somebody worships the or he serves the to it becomes to create It's certainly sounds like so if that's the case then how could you tell me is never subject to what do you mean I have subject to say might say it's that when somebody worship serves food it doesn't have and as a result that's why it is not going to be another case what if somebody has a kali and this cracks in the kali and he used it a hot and as a result some of the dough let's say that he was making in this trough it got attached into the crevices of the of the trough it becomes part of the kali and it takes on the laws of ka says if I made the same comment there must be that's not a real if you're going to tell me that the dough that's in the cracks of this kali is a real tomas so if it's subject to it's subject to says no same ter Maybe it is subject to a realm. Are you going to tell me if that's the case? subject to the of is where it's and it's subject to when the are stuck in the cracks and we view it as a we're not viewing it as a we're viewing it as a that's why it's subject to that's not the point of the time of we had this yesterday of ordinarily is not because it's not considered but in the in the villages they used to eat the and as a result in requires and in order for it to become you must say that when the is attached to the kidneys so one of the that are the so the that's attached to the kidneys at that point it's subject to why the is real and Anything that's a real it must be that's not a real if you're going to tell me attached to the it's subject to a real you see if that's the case that could be if that's so why did the B say what do you need for this is Because before it was detached from the animal it was attached to the clo it was a for the if that's the case it was not real no again when it was attached to the it wasn't viewed as it was viewed as eight therefore it's not a contradiction to this rule one final example of this if you have a house and top of your house on the roof and you use this as part of your roof say you have you put hay straw on the roof of your house. In the olden days, the roofs were used, right? It was like a as is something that comes up very often. The bas the gag called gag is a peric. They used to use the gag. Anyways, a person covered up his roof and he put straw there and in the straw there was some seeds. So those seeds that were intermingled with the straw become part of the roof. That's the says the rice it must be that is not which to which to the to of this week's par the of which can affect the bias as well that now will be part of the bias and will be to the of must be it's not a real a great example of how could be it can even have the to of must be it's not a real tommo because if it's a real that knocks out the whole that says that's not subject to say same exact you're right you see that can have but when's it going to have if it's a roof if it's a roof that's not the we're discussing food that in the state of food can beam that's where you have this either way so the garra digressed a little bit from its original discussion which was a kaz boser minhakai that was removed from although it's not is not but at the same time if it was attached to then you would have to look at it from the perspective and the discuss that in the event that it would be subject to how's that possible that was the price we had to treat it as before you removed it what about so wrong seem to think it would require all in order for them to become needs to this would need to as well. I suggested maybe this wouldn't need to because being that when it was attached to the it had the tom of that's there's a rule that anything that's subject to doesn't require for maybe not because maybe although there is such a rule that rule says that if in the state of would be subject to then we say that even if right now it's not subject to and you're ding it from a tomal perspective. It doesn't need to. But if could maybe in a different gull become something other than and then be subject to it could be part of a roof, part of a ki, it could be a chair, it could be anything. The fact that at that point it would be subject to that doesn't impact in any way, shape or form the says that when it's in the state of it requires in order for it to be either way. The Gmorra continues its discussion of the Mishna which again was discussing the laws of Dulo. So the Mishna was talking about the and said three and again this is important for the first was that even though it's looks and feels a lot like but it's different from a standpoint as it relates to is then not sources of stating that a bigish that even while they're attached to the animal that's subject to the laws of that's a very bigish because usually something alive can't have even that you're eat alive doesn't have to so it's a very bigish that the will have but that was the first second of the was what happens if you while it had this so then is the same as it relates to the it's still not going to have a be a source of to the fact that it was a doesn't now make it a a source of it's going to continue to be subject to whether the is or not and the gave six and what exactly that this was the third case of the which is where the gumar now picks up is what happens if there was an animal that had now the animal died it died naturally in other words the animal became a so is the mission said the buser is going to meaning the fact that the animal died doesn't change the is still going to be viewed as it's going to require the however at first glance it sounds like what about the according to the is going to be it's going to be viewed as and not a shim says it's not even going to be what's the already explained That's what Rome is. Reme what does that mean? It means that when you have an Arabul and then the animal dies, the way we look at the animal's death impacting the a is is it completed what had already almost happened while the animal was alive. So that that aver we look at not dying when the animal died but as if when the animal dies that aa retroactively died when it had almost died which is while the animal was alive if that makes any sense. So the of the animal now deems the >> it's a little counterintuitive exactly but that's the it's very important this is just for on a level this is very critical and that is that the of the animal is it creates the says even though is not but once the animal dies the mis makes the is a source of the boss because so this can't be any better than but as it relates to the says it's meaning doesn't hold it as at first glance but if that's the case the gmorra asks the very obvious questions and when the animal dies it completes what had almost been completed while the animal was alive meaning it makes the my so to speak. If that's the case and it should be doesn't hold it as far doesn't make the why is it any wor because it was an Abraham now somehow it's from becoming it was part of a live animal now that this live animal died it should be bust or even so it should for sure be that's the mean is consistent so you don't look at it is the boss is going to be because of the is going to be because if he holds then at the very least the should be tommy for and if he says then should be for even the buster should be a problem because so what's in see all we had in our was two three words that's all we had we assumed that is going back on the last the third case of is really referring back to the first the first of the was maybe the biggest of the simplest but the biggest said what was the first of the first was that is subject to even while it's attached to the animal what do you mean if it's attached to the animal a live animal doesn't have to so that's where is coming to argue it says on that. He doesn't agree. He holds an Abraham. He's not arguing with all that. But you want it to be while it's attached to an animal. It doesn't work that way. Now that we establish arguing with the it's for now, by the way, we're going to revisit this soon. But for arguing with the race of the what's the name and I'll tell you the and we learn from that any food that you can feed to somebody else is considered but any food that you can't feed to somebody else is not considered this is not subject to something we saw very briefly yesterday but anything that's not and could You feed it to somebody? Of course not. It's attached to an animal. So right now, nobody could eat it. Yid can't eat it and can't eat it. We're going to see can't eat even after it's detached. No one could eat this. And that nobody could eat it. So for that reason, we're out of business. It's not if it's holds this is this is the this is said in the name. That's why says the raassi told in the beginning of the daff we had raassi here again tellsi why do you need this needed a to explain as if without a saying such a big I think I wouldn't say my make a whole is very posit you want to know why and doesn't have very simple because the is attached to the animal and a live animal and and I don't care that it's hanging on for dear life that that has no impact at the end of the day says the and I'll prove to you that this such a do you have that this is not this is we're and also which was yesterday [laughter] a branch that got almost completely separated from the tree. It is hanging on with audit. Why? Because it's hanging on at the end of the day. It's attached to a tree. If you can wrap it up together with the tree and make it live, then it's going to be okay. But if you can't save it, it's just a matter of time. Then we look at it as if it's already attached. What's says that no it's for sure considered it's always you yourself told us this is telling so you see this it doesn't matter if it's it doesn't matter if it's at the end of the day if it's attached it's attached so why would you need this beer for so he told him back you're right it's true when said from the he wasn't coming to explain this which the of the which we just said is really going back on the rather which was he coming to explain that's mentioned a little bit moreish in the Mishna more explicitly that's of the of the middle case what was the middle case the question is does the so that out to be subject to or is it not that said it is said it's not it was on that that said he said it's not that's where he explained the and here he needed it cuz here you the animal see in the ratio it was all attached so there you have but over here it's not attached because you shacked the animal So why should it not be okay was the was so for that said that's not you know why holds it's an issue it's an issue because it's in other words we have a in the what's in the because it's asks the very obvious question we had six earlier in the again why do I need now as pos to tell that was never an issue that we had so many by the way was one of the in that and you could say over here there were six over there you're right really he was coming to explain the the last case of the and he wasn't coming to explain of a but rather he was coming to explain said this is a so we thought first was going on the safe we couldn't make sense of it so we said really is going on the now the saying is going on the safer is going on the safer although rashi speaks out that once we say the shim is going on the safer kosh he's going to be going on the RA last before the Mishna. But the point is we don't have to say is going back on the Rim is really going on the what's he coming to say? He's coming to argue with the Tanakama said or mayor said in that the after the animal dies is says no it can't become you know why the reason says in the as it relates to is because being that it's not something that could be subject because is not only and as a result the is that it's why you're going to be there's no way for it to be believe it or not this of which is a real as it relates to it's something that impacts the Tomas as well. How so? Because we know a person is to not just that an aame is to an is as we'll see in the a discussion whether it's as well. So we're going to discuss now the and the of a human being as it relates to the of not the because now let human flesh but it with regards to the of and as it relates to etc. So you have to now look at the from the context of that's this last. So as it relates to it's going to be which is very similar to the previous Mishna the of was also that's a whole different discussion that's a secondary to that means it can be a recipient of but it's not a source of by it's not a source of by what happens if the person dies it's the same when the person dies the is being that the is we look at the boss as if it was removed while the person was alive. Thus the boser's because so if a person loses a little bit of baser is a pound of flesh that is not going to have the ability to be but is not mama and a of a human being is mama. This is big problems with and things. So is thus so when the person dies we look at it as if the and the bus were removed while the person was still alive thus the bus is going to be the is going to be but as it relates to the it's in the of the previous it's so we don't look at it as we look at it as what's the difference the is going to say and again this very ambiguous conclusion to the Mishna of why is hold it star. Again you have a person who has an a or now the person died. Shim says the a is going to be says the is going to be but sh is going to be if he holds me says so then we look at the as if it was detached before the person died at the time. Let's look at having the same exact question we had a few minutes ago is not going back on the like a very similar approach is taking to what it took in the previous but rather it's not even going back on that's what means right he's not even referring back to this what does that mean was on a said so if you have an it falls off or the person dies. We look at as if it fell off while the person was still alive. We look at as and not. So said, "Wow, you see I see a he cuz what was his lo this as if to say the something called this just so happens to be is not to because we look at as if it was rub and it was a lie." Shim said you hold that in the that's nothing to do with arguing in that's what he's talking about he's saying that there's no such thing as the a of a to be that's what he's arguing on how does he know that holds because said that the is he said it's and as if to say there would have been two options. It's option A, not option B. But clearly there's two options. There's a mus of Abra and says I disagree with that premise. That's what he's arguing with something that's not before. It's a little bit of a that's what the is going to fall off of it. But for now that's what the Gmorrah says is saying says the Gmorra who holds is there such a thing that you could hold that in a is not and to add insult to injury to hold that is sounds like doesn't have a problem with it sounds like this problem is so of a human being is but is not it's a price believe it or not it's a price I heard only said it from and then he continued he said you know it says no it's a thus there's no does that mean that on the Yeah, of course. Whatever you Yeshua told you you heard that didn't mean that's like saying you heard that even this is what I heard and if this is what I heard this is what I heard either way says the you see from here this concept that it's possible to hold that is not it's rebel that's he's not arguing with because he has to hold one of the two but rather he's arguing with the premise that somehow was presupposed in what said which is that is he holds like is not again this is all with humans not with says the mayor said that it's not as if to say there's a difference what's the difference The says two differences. What would be if was separated from this a or a bone the size of a was separated from this authent if you hold it like do that would be your Northern over there the names switch is the one that says but the point is there are two differences now that you're telling me that there's nuances within the laws of of a human being as it relates to the or the then you can revisit was we're trying to figure out what said doesn't seem like he's arguing with the of the so we said he's arguing with a that the is making in his discussion of this which is that that says and we say like not even though it's a no no but the point is is that that's what says the you don't have to come on to You could say that really is this is between on the one side on the other side with regards to or with on one side on the other side with that is there's a long rash that explains this last line in greater detail but either loosely translated could be the iso that on that note the concept of a second day y in is a very big mid there's no such thing as two days yontiff every single yontiff was one day meaning even pes and sukus is the Tory says there's a first day of Pes and then there's a a last day of Pes all the days in between are really stating that init there's two first days Pes and there are two second days Pes and that's true for every single Y the reason there's a a two-day Yantiff is based on the fact that once upon a timed was Mikadesh and and the yidden that were living in didn't necessarily know when was as a result they didn't necessarily know when yontiff was. So when yontiff came around they always had a suffic is today yontiff or tomorrow yontiff. Now they were able to narrow it down to two days. And the reason is because could be either Mal or so going from the previous is going to be either on day 30 or day 31. So they always had a little bit of an idea of when rushed was hence when Yontiff was going to be. But at the same time they couldn't pin it down to the exact day. They narrowed it down to two. And those were the two days Yontiff that the Yidden would observe. It was something that was done. Safik but the gar in the beginning of BA already says that there was a yid an amo whose name was he instituted a calendar that we still use and leverage maz so that when the world would be in a place where we no longer have a that sits in the no longer able to be mad we would still know when yontiff is soar says that if we know when yontiff is so there's no really between. So why would we keep two days? And the gives an answer you should be very nizer in this minute. But the bottom line is the idea of a second day y was instituted back in the day because of a technical issue. It was really misopic and bismano. We don't even have a suffic but we observe it because and the gumar gives reasons why we should be concerned and why we should take on the mic that our el is kept even though the underlying reason is really completely irrelevant but if you look at the struggle with this idea at the end of the day yontiff is one day it's not a second day and even though once upon a time there was a suffix today there is No suffic. So how then do you keep a second day yon based on no less when you know it's not really yont yontiff requires you to change the yontiff requires you to make kdesh yont requires you not to put on fill there's certain mitzvah I say that you're mean there are certain mitzvah I say that you're matal because of the fact that durabon decided that it's who gave the Raan and the Rash the ability to go ahead and implement such a thing and this is a that talk about in different places at the core of it is what rights what license do the really have when it comes to playing around with but this question of yonteni this existential question of how do you understand the idea of a yonti which by the way is only it's not inherit it's most manifest when it comes to rashash shana and the reason is because sh is and when we celebrate a second day rash shah essentially what we're now doing is we're celebrating we're living a second yaden how's that possible It's it's one day of based on again interesting historical uh circumstances said that we're going to go and we're going to keep a second day rash to make kesh I could hear to change the I could hear not to put on fill in obviously the to do that But a second was whatever the real day is. That's the first day. That was yesterday. So what does that mean? That because of because of the general idea of now we're going to have uh a second. Now there would be mimic to say that we know that the two-day yontiff as it relates toash was different than the two-day yontiff as it relates to all the other it's what's known in the vernacular as a so as much as the two days of rash are two days but really treats them as one day it's for that reason whether you make a on the second night rash and the tour brings bash his father the rush that He was between these two haram between these two graces ravi and he said that make a shakyanu but at the same time have a new fruit or something else new and have in mind that so that when you make the shakayanu on the side you weren't supposed to make the shakyanu you won't make a a and it's all based on the fact that although every time there's a two-day yontiff of course you make a shakayanu on the second day the only reason you're observing the second day is because it might be the first day and even though now we know it's really not the first day but being that it's because of something that as relates to it's a little bit different as relates to we view the two days as a being that it's sad to say not even to make a on the second day now if it's so maybe the ling can say it's not a second it's one very very long day and the first half of that day we're going to say etc and we're going to do it in the second half of the day as well. It sounds good in the world of lumbus but at the end of the day when you go through the sug is a nuance within a world of keeping a second day y based on based on the fact that I don't really know what day the is and what day y really is and it's for that reason even after understanding it's pit that it's how is it possible for there to be two days rush I understand two days but how's it possible there to be two days because of the fact is the on shabas is the on Sunday if on shabas when we say there was a judge and there was a jury and there were lawyers and there was if that all happened on well then it's not happening again on Sunday so Why are we going through this again on Sunday if it already happened? Somebody was going to stand in front of a judge in this world. So the court case might be on Monday, might be on Tuesday. If on Monday there's a zardin, then nothing's happening on Tuesday. So we have to visualize this. We have to make this real. So if it is, what does it mean the second day? The truth is [snorts] in his melio and this is B. It's page 74. He pers this and he says out loud what we're all thinking. going for how is it possible that how does it make sense? that if there was a yin on the first day, there's going to be another yin on the second day. And desler says that the mahalak is based on aadesh which is uh that's quoted throughout all the so if you go through the and you go through all of these this is an idea that very much is permeated and the idea of desire is paras it's alfan >> [snorts] >> says what exactly does it mean? It's like a double what does it mean? This is being to the two days of rash. Why two days begin? The reason is because really in Shayim there are two there are two bezdens not one there are two there are two and these two bezdens each rule and then they have a they somehow connect they join forces and they become one of these two din there is the din theashia which is a dasha that's intense And the second one is a lowerd which is much softer which is not so intense. And these two rule and judge on rashash and it's for that reason there are two days of rashash and that's the beer in there's two days. Why would there be two days? Because there's two there's two. So you don't stand in front of one bezdon, you stand in front of two denim. And one is a dino like this higher circuit this upper bezden the ioashia and the other one is a dinia saresh continues and says it's regarding this that the babylonians meaning they didn't fully appreciate and understand specifically the above of the reason that when we blow so there's a there's And there's a truer. Now the gumar says that what's the true all about? We're familiar with the we're familiar with the truer. Where is the come from? So it's a that says it's because there was a suffic the didn't know exactly how you supposed to blow the truer. And the two either it's what we know as thearim or it's what we know as the truer. And it's for that reason they did both. It says that really the they didn't fully appreciate didn't they didn't fully understand that really both of these ideas are needed. yellow looser. We have to do the tru the because that's going to give us the zur that we need in the dinio and the and we need the because that's going to give us the zor that we need in the either way it says that these two bezdens that are on rash. One is a the other one is a tat. The one that's is the one that's is rafia. One is on one day, the other is on the other day. That's the of the two days of rash. That's the of the because we know what the tru is part one, right? The whole idea is like and say the idea is that there should be a shouldn't just be everything. We want him to remember the good things, right? It should be that's what it is that we're trying to get. trying to get the on the we get the valu and on the we get the and that's this idea of the and the not it's didn't know the secret they didn't know this and that's why to them it was a very but really in this a whole different thing and that's the rem ofish trial. I saw Margolus in his pish on the side of the he says. So says that as it relates to this which clearly is a literally [snorts] as it relates to this says a few he have to say so just to quote what is referring to this is in par says there's two in the world There's dinasio and there's dinar rafio dinasio dinashio is very intense din as opposed to dinafio that's very weak it's soft when the dinio is from the dinasio it makes the rafia stronger the den which was really rafia suddenly becomes stronger so says the zy there's And there's a rafia and when the raashio it too becomes a little bit cash says desire judges that uses if warranted is the dinina and to make sure that that is not going to be from Because if it does, it's going to become as well. But when the judges then somehow latches on to the begin so that it becomes strong pass through Egypt to go ahead and to give them the neg that was and what's the what's the is anger. What does it mean that anger? It means that took and he put it together with that's of what it means. But this is already where you find this idea of the caching and even though there's that sometimes is and the same thing is as regards to but when it comes to it's always when it comes to the it's always told us that was right in the beginning Who's the because the rose and when it sits amongst all the nations it's literally sitting amongst all the thorns. Here's the site came from the we know is the he was and theu did was with everybody even though himself who comes from the wasashia. So you have who was Dinaashia who came he was the offspring of Abramu who was vifa his wife Rifka Asasra the dinasha he came from the sitra of dinakashia of bou he came from that world and Rifka herself was emerged from them this and somehow became Rifka herself came from even though she herself came from but she herself was and we know that she was that's what that's why he thought that this was going to be an unbelievable deal if that's the case himself is yet comes comes from comes from Abrau that deseresh calls dinarafia the rafia and riif is dinafia she's even though she comes from what she comes from and that's there together is the that's mixed together with the comes from and the said that's mixed together with the comes from the says were it not for the fact that was the world would not be able to be the meaning was so intense the world would not be able to be so what to do to temper the dinash of gave an agg a zeog who is the zeog is Rifka Rifus and Rifus goes ahead and somehow that softens the and says every single that there is in the world. But this is what does Hashem takes takes one person who's like and another person that's like begin the list and by putting together like this opposites attract on the deepest of most capitalistic levels and that's what makes the world go around. But the bottom line is again we don't know what all this means. We're just taking out one thing that there's an idea of a of a dinina kashia and there's a dinner of of an idea of a dinina ra the [snorts] last quotes is actually a niglo it's a it's a bracious rabb the context over there is giving it's in the context of the rainbow right one of the were there said the following This is Margolus 101. You learned the inf sounds like some obscure maramokim in the world of the two days. Rashash is the new that really this permeates all the and this is an idea that's expressed throughout the kadesh and it even makes its way into a which many of the as well but the point is is that there's an idea of a bezden and there's an idea of a bezden tat the bezdonah dance with dininaashia and the bezdon tat dance with Adina Rafia. Every single person on Rashashana goes through two din he's judged twice. The first time it's the Bezden of Dina and the second time it's the best of Dina Rafia. And that's why there's two days of Rashan. Now what exactly this means this is above my pay grade. But at the same time at the same time it's not just oh there's a and because there's a that's why there's two days and we're just doing it. So, we're going to stay on and we're going to try to fake it till we make it. Let's just make believe. Ku this is uh it's really rash. But come on, wink wink. Let's be honest. This all happened yesterday. So, you know, at this point, whatever happened happened, right? No, it's not the way this works. In pia, there are actually two din. Obviously, the dinashi is more tense, which would then lend some intensity to the first day Russia even more than the second day Russian. What could be more intense than the Madin? Well, Dina versus Dina Rafia. That's what could be and the first day is the day of the second day is the day of bring from different is what these two dinina might mean again all above my pay grade but the bottom line is as it relates to just knowing the ms knowing the truth there are two there's a there's a rafia it's interesting raesler in that piece says but doesn't say it's now paras would say exactly what he said with regards to the it's says an idea that we've said over so many times and that is that every single time there's a tonal kazal gave us one reason for it and that reason is known as the tam nigla but really there are many other reasons known as the tamistar the bign for this is mashkin which the is not something you have to worry about because we don't live in a world where you have you know crawling around your kitchen and if you do you call an exterminator it's not an issue but the god was very mulan and the go said because even though kazal said don't drink mulim because of that was only the really so if says that yeah in the whole two days as it relates to is based on the same yeah it's Because you know it was neg but the bottom line is that's all in the as relates to the honey did know the of the says that the honey didn't know it but even that too I saw all the says what does it mean the didn't know it can't be the didn't know it so but the bottom line is just a little bit of a again not understanding what this is like the gagal gag of the so we don't fully understand and appreciate everything but at the same time we have to understand that there's two days because there's two there's two there's the and the raia that's the first order the second order is so when exactly is the right so when the kazin gets up with the haunting niggan and he says bar on the first night rushes on it right then and there is that the yaden is in the morning. It's by Mosf. I think most people feel the most by is that when the is right it's for sure one of the visuals of your im standing in front of the and hopefully this year more so there should be a we should all have a what about like 3 minutes before is it still the like is there a point on the where you can breathe you can exhale right if somebody stands in front of a mishbat and uh his court case is uh 11:30. Okay, so by 12:30 it's over. I mean even though it's the technically at that point he's no longer involved in the So when exactly during the day is the exactly how does it play itself out? The truth is this is an idea that's in Kazal if you know how to find it the inash obviously it's the says says talking judges the during the day while they're engaged in mitzvah who judges the nations at night when they're not doing a meaning when judges he likes to judge at a time where we have the best shot to look good. So when do the yidden look best during the day why they're mitzvah. When do look best when they're sleeping. So it's for that reason judges It's pretty straightforward. Said that is by day. So when we say at night, the din didn't didn't happen yet. The dinner is not going to happen until the day. Now that's only true for the as relates to for them the dinner is night at night. The truth is this rabi that's quoted in your is quoted verbatim in a medish. It's in it's also a that's the and this is so it's the same that's mentioned three times it's in it's in said judges the day I saw in the from he says based on this he says it's your dua that the Shabu brings a very big in the name of one of the great Vasfeller, right? writer was one of the inn the times of the and of the and he said that reverberates in and that is you know that during if you forget to say so you have to go back and you have to repeat again stating that said if somebody would forget to say on the first night rash shame on him but if somebody would forget to do that you wouldn't go back. He said why not? except because we know that if you forget to say, you have to go back. But if you forget to say onesh by night, you don't go back. And the reason is because didn't convene at night. As a result, they couldn't be mad to at night. And because they couldn't be mad to at night, so night is not as man where you can. And based on that, you wouldn't go back for because it can't be at night anyways. You're saying to be mas the fact that it's well at night they couldn't make was always going to start during the day and it's for that reason if you missed it's not such a problem said fail well if that's the case when is rash it's also onesh it has to be alish in order for it to be it's and you get a right you get a double uh whammy it's also rash but it has to beesh it's the same thing when it's rash it's rash it's being that peasant wasn't. So if you don't have the ofash at night, it's no different than if you didn't have the of you wouldn't have to go back very well and there's so many right every has at least one sim on the from but said he said I'm going to add one to this and that is Why do we say what's of course related to the fact that that's the day that judges and that's when he shows his so much and says doesn't judge at night only judges by day that means is less than it is and if that's the case said that would be a reason that if somebody forgot to say at night even though really he's supposed to go back maybe it would be okay not to go back I saw in he brings this from and he says I just have one pickbook because when we say that judges it doesn't just mean he judges us he means he judges the entire world and it's that judges so that's not enough of a reason to go ahead and to say and he says I think That's why it's that the time the vas gave was the fact that wasn't okay. So then it's it's notes. So that's already maybe a different but the bottom line is just a very thoughtprovoking from the okay so we know that the is when for the yen, right? We're talking benu right now it's by day. So here's the follow-up question. What time? When during the day it's like first thing in the morning or if that's case you wake up right when during the day when during the day is the truth is it's a person should not during the first three hours of the Okay. On the first day of the year. Okay. So during the first three hours of the day of what's the reason cuz being that it's this man of it could be they're going to look at this person's very very carefully and they're going to push away his now it's a little bit of a hard to understand and the Gmorra goes through it says if you're worried that that feel is going to be pushed away. What does it have to do with it should be true for and what does it have to do with it should be true for the addresses all of that. But here's the point said that you shouldn't d on [snorts] during the first three hours of the day because it's it's a time of den and being that it's a a time of den. So it's for that reason you want to make sure that your is not going to be pushed away. It sounds like from then when is the of it sounds like it's during the first three hours of the day. But you said this is you said that during the first three hours of the day doesn't judge sits and learns. What does this mean? So if you go back to the says the day is made up of 12 hours during the first three hours of the day sits and learns who judges the world who sees that the world deserves to be wiped out. The third three hours of the day goes and supports the world. He sustains the world sits and he's rejoices with the as the blessing says. This is something that apparently repeats itself every day which by the way sounds like there's some level of den that happens every single day. enough for now. But says the Gmor, what does it sound like? It sounds like this man of be it for every day is when it's the second set of three hours of the day. It's not it's THE it's the second set. If that's the way it is every day, it's probably the way it is. So why did say right? Why is he worried about the first three hours of the day the first three hours of day the of like whatever there is every day probably happens during the second three hours of the day. So that should have been and gives two roots. The first says you should go ahead and make an what do you mean that when the says the first three hours sits and learns and it's the second three hours that goes and judges it's really the other way around. the first three hours judges. It's the second three hours that is if that's the case, it stems. That's said literally not the because those are the three hours of the whole year which would make them the hours of on as well. And it's for that reason it's then that you should go ahead and do the says don't go ahead and be who said it's a don't go said but rather when it comes to it says MS was actually more worried about this guy domining during the 3 hours leading up to the than during the three hours of the actual the three hours leading up to the is being in the world of MS and is being in the world of MS that's actually a scarier time when is not MS it's not MS it's not MS it's during that time says I think you could breathe a little better because during that time there's of and in the world of I'm not so worried that is going to be completely pushed away. So whatever concern had that's not true. But here's the point. What emerges from day or the dinner is during the second three hours of the day. And this is in this is a person should not unless it's going to be after the first three hours of the day. Why not? because those are the three hours of the day where judges the world and it's for that reason it's then that you're going to have this in other words the is being the like was which is the source to this in the first and that is and that is that even though said the first three hours it's the second three But you have to make an you actually have to flip it around really judges during the first three hours. And that seems to be the way the taz understood this. There's another place in where this plays itself out. We spoke about this yesterday after the first night of that's what says the guy says no it's supposed to be it's not supposed to be says the that aftering on the first day of don't say it anymore because you want to know when the is when's the as opposed to the who are getting pushed off anyways I mean depending [snorts] on the but you want to know when the is when the is so at this point if you're going to go ahead and you're going to say right it's inappropriate again either you're you're a ben or you're missing the whole point the way the guy learns. But the bottom line is is that at the end of the day, you don't say after day cuz at that point it's after the says I'm skipping. I'm not the mask. You know why? Cuz isn't there a second day? There's a SECOND DAY. SO OF COURSE YOU should say when you see your friend after why because you're vinching him on because tomorrow we're doing this again right so it's going to happen all over again says I disagree I hear what the lush is saying is not something I agree with the also brings the when he brings the lavush says I disagree with the lavush for a different reason he said because the lavush when he said that [snorts] don't after he said it because it's the first three hours of day. says he clearly wasing like the first but we hold like the second of the says my pickbook with the is something else. I have a problem with like the first we have a is not like the first of the is really like the second ter of the in other words these two of the which is literally when is the is the first three hours of the day or is it the second three hours we know it's not at night that's a [laughter] but the question is when during the day is it so we narrowed it down to either the first three hours of the day or the second three hours of the day. The taz in and it's also that way in the says it's during the first three hours of the day like the first terret of the says no there's a there's a when really is when is of when it's happening it's during the second three hours of the day but the bottom line is it seems to be is between the on the one hand the on the other hand seems to say it seems to be him that this is the way it was whether the is the first three hours of day second three hours a day so one thing is for sure it's not after right what does it mean the first three and the second three again this is that's it requires [snorts] a whole smooz on to itself but you basically take the day and you divide it into four sets of of three hours the midway point is so working backwards from it's either the first half of that period or it's the second half of that period but once happens it's already it's already after the it's already after the now the first day of Rashan is always interesting because in as much as it's after but that already said you could even say because there's still going to be a din where you would probably feel it a little bit more is the second day that if the second day you're saying I don't know ask your local rabbi But the bottom line is local but is that as it relates to when exactly the dinners we know it's a that's a it's a when during the day is it so it's really and it seems to be our literally the ones that teach us But we narrowed it down at least to two sets of three hours. It's either the first three hours of the day or like the said and it's a double that it's the second set of three hours of the day just to end I saw in the margles. You're never disappointed when you open up any of this of Margolas. Now if you're going through the first 10 or so daff we know this in our margles wrote his epic marg he started writing he ended up stopping but on the first 10 or so on there's so much there says margles so apparently one of the farm we don't have margles wrote was a safe ramen hog I Why isn't it that we say with the haunting on the first day we say it by and on the second day WE SAY IT BY IS IT or is it it's to be the twoas in the which trickle themselves down to two in there that says it's happening during the first three hours of the day and there's a that says it's happening it's happening during the second three hours of the day to say the first day to be which is the first of the and then to say by to be which is the second of the and this is very much had to vimish.