Menachos 31

Today's stuff is Menachot Daf Lamed Aleph. And we are about 15 lines from the top of Daf Lamed Amud Bet. Amar Rabin bar Chinena, Amar Ulla, Amar Rav Chanin. Today's stuff is being learned as a source of refuah shleimah for Chava Miriam bas Malkah Freda, [ __ ] ben Chaya Leah, Rochel bas Henya, Rifka Yita bas Rochel, and Edel Nechama bas Bat Sheva. Today's stuff is also being learned for ilui nishmas Tova Rifka Esther bas Yisrael Yeshua, and Dovid ha Kohen ben Simcha Yosef. So, we're moving along in Perek Kometz Rabbah dealing with sugyas not related to Menachot, but rather sugyas related to stam, Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzahs. The Gemara on the top of Daf Lamed Amud Bet brought a long braisa. And in that braisa, there was a discussion with regards to a sofer that's writing a Sefer Torah, and he was to'eh b'shega. What does that mean? He accidentally omitted the name of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The question is, how exactly does he insert the name? Now, it's interesting, if a sofer is writing a Sefer Torah and he forgets to write a word, you can insert that word bein hashitin, in between the lines. But being that that we're dealing with the shem of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, so there's an assumption that maybe it's inappropriate to put the name bein hashitin. So, the question is, what is exactly are you supposed to do? And the braisa brought five opinions. The first opinion was Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yehudah said, go'er es masha kasav, v'to'er es masha garar, v'chosev es ha shem al makom ha garar, af unsha. He said, what you do is you scrape away, you erase the word right next to the shem Hashem that you wrote. Then you write the shem Hashem on the mokem hagrar. What about that word that you now removed? You toiler that word. So you're not going to be toiler the shame Hashem. You're going to write the shame Hashem the mokem where the word next to it was written, and you're going to be toiler that other word that you've since erased. Rebbe Yosi said, "I've toiler the shame Hashem. You don't have to make it so complicated. You're allowed to be toiler the shame Hashem." Rebbe Yitzchak said, "I agree with Rebbe Yehuda, but I'm going to take it a step further. You don't have to wait until the ink dries, then be goirer, and then do what Rebbe Yehuda suggested. But you could do it while the ink is even moist, while it's slush. You could be moichek the koisev." Rebbe Shimon Shazuri said, "That I agree with Rebbe Yosi that you could be toiler the shame. However, I want to tweak it. You can't be toiler the entire shame. You could be toiler the entire shame, but you can't be toiler miktzas of the shame. So if you're going to be toiler the entire shame, that's going to be okay. But if you're going to end up being toiler miktzas, that's not okay." The poskim say, incidentally, you see from the words Rebbe Shimon Shazuri, that when it comes to other words in the Torah, if you want to be toiler miktzas of a word, it's going to be okay. The peide Rebbe Shimon Shazuri says is dafka when you're dealing with the shame Hashem. And then finally, Rebbe Shimon Allahzoi said in the name of his Rebbe, Rebbe Meir, "In koisev in a shame lo ya'al mokem hagrar, lo ya'al mokem hamchak. They ain't toiler noisa. Keitzad loisa? What then is the option? Mesalek sayreeakool ubengonzo. You have to take the entire thing, and you have to put it into geniza." So the bottom line is, this is very much the same way into today's daf. Five different opinions on what you do. According to Rebbe Yehuda, you're goirer, you're koisev the shame on the mokem hagrar, and you toiler that other word. According to Rebbe Yosi, you toiler the shame. According to Rebbe Yitzchak, you do what Rebbe Yehuda said, but you don't have to do it through grira. You could do it by being moichek. According to Rebbe Shimon Shazuri, you could be toiler the shame, but only if it's the entire shame, not if it's miktzas of the shame. Rebbe Shimon Allahzoi said in the name of Rebbe Meir, "There's no option anymore. You have to take the entire cloth, you have to be going is it and you literally have to start all over again. The other than brought that there was a discussion amongst the Amora'im what exactly the Halacha is. Rav Chananal said in the name of Rav, the Halacha is toiling as a shame. Who's Shita was that? Shita is Rav Yossi. Rabba bar bar Chanana said in the name of Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel, the Halacha is my cake for case sake. Who's Shita was that? It was the Shita of Rav Yitzchak. The Gemara asked for lame Amora Halacha Amora Amora Halacha Amora. Why don't Rav just say the Halacha is like Rav Yossi? And why didn't Rabba bar bar Chanana Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel say the Halacha is like Rav Yitzchak? And the Gemara said the Halacha the reason is because there were people that used to confuse the names. There were people that had Rav Yitzchak's Shita as Rav Yossi and Rav Yossi as Rav Yitzchak's and could be they made all shams from all the five different Shitas. It's like a little bit confusing and it's for that reason to simply say the Halacha is like plenty of Halacha is like plenty really wouldn't get us that far. Therefore, they actually had a state Rav Yitzchak Katanah what exactly their opinion is. Either way, today's daf is going to begin with a statement that an Amora made. It was Rav Rabba bar bar Chanana in the name of Ulla in the name of Rav Chanina. The statement that he made was Halacha k'Rav Shimon Shizuri. That was the statement. And the Gemara is going to have a very lengthy discussion. So lengthy it's going to take us all the way to daf lamed aleph amud bet as to which Shita is Rav Shimon Shizuri Rav bar Chanana in the name of Ulla in the name of Rav Chanina was referring to when he said Halacha k'Rav Shimon Shizuri. And really if you had to put a a name to today's daf, it would almost be Halacha k'Rav Shimon Shizuri. I think that's what the title of the raid by would be. Now, the question is what shiyachus, what does this have to do with Masachet Menachot specifically the Sugyas of S'tam? It's because one of the five Shitas that were just mentioned regarding atuyei b'shem is the Shita of Rav Shimon Shizuri and the Gemara's first stab at which sheetas Rav Shimon Shizuri that my rabbonim were referring to when they said alacha like Rav Shimon Shizuri is that Rav Shimon Shizuri, the Gemara is immediately going to reject it. Toyich k'dei dibur of the Gemara hypothesizing that that's maybe what was meant, the Gemara is going to reject it. But once we go down that road, we're going to take it literally through 80% of today's daf. And on that note, zakt the hilchasa Gemara amar Ravin bar Chinena amar Ulla amar Rav Chanina alacha like Rav Shimon Shizuri. The alacha like Rav Shimon Shizuri v'lo yayid. He doubled down. He said alacha like Rav Shimon Shizuri. Every single time you find a sheetas Rav Shimon Shizuri, we're going to see later in the daf kol makom sh'shana Rav Shimon Shizuri means whether it's in a Mishna, shana in a Mishna, or even a Braisa, shana in a Braisa, every single time there's a sheetas Rav Shimon Shizuri, alacha k'mai say the alacha is like him. So again, Ravin bar Chinena says in the name of Ulla says in the name of Rav Chanina the alacha is like Rav Shimon Shizuri about something specific, v'lo yayid. You should know the alacha is always like Rav Shimon Shizuri. So the question is what? When Ravin bar Chinena amar Ulla amar Rav Chanina said alacha like Rav Shimon Shizuri, what sheetas Rav Shimon Shizuri was he referring to? Now it's kind of like hitting the pause button for a second. If you think about it, this question is purely semantics. Doesn't really matter. Because once he gave you the safe v'lo yayid alacha like Rav Shimon Shizuri alacha k'mai say, so there's no nafka mina alacha. Right? Because whether he meant this, that, or the other thing, all those Rav Shimon Shizuris, he holds alacha k'mai say. Because that's what he meant when he said v'lo yayid alacha like Rav Shimon Shizuri alacha k'mai say. So really what we're going to learn now in this exercise, which is literally a whole daf Gemara in Shas, is not only a digression, but really it's lahavdil tehorah da'dira. It's semantics. It's just I'd like to know the rest of the story. What exactly was he referring to? Because l'maisa l'maisa, it doesn't matter because kol makom sh'shana Rav Shimon Shizuri alacha k'mai I is pretty self-explanatory. It's pretty inclusive. It's pretty straightforward. It means that any shita of Shimon Shizuri you can come at with. And by the way, we're going to see a schmorgasbord of shitas of Shimon Shizuri. The halacha is always going to be like it. But still, the Gemara wants to know that iker statement. He was talking about something specific and then he doubled down. He said, "Not just this, everything else." What is the this? So, the Gemara says like this, "E lay may Shimon Shizuri." Maybe it's the following. Shimon Shizuri Shimon Shizuri said "Kol ha shem kulai taylum." "Miktzas ain taylum." It's from Shimon Shizuri of the aforementioned braisa. "Ha toye ba shem." So, one of the five shitas was Shimon Shizuri. He says you could be toye ba shem, but only the entire shem, not miktzas of the shem. So, maybe that's the halacha that he was discussing. But the Gemara says it can't be, you know why? Because "V'eetmar halacha." Because we have a discussion amongst Amora'im regarding who the halacha is in this braisa. "Am Rav Chanin Am Rav Chanin Am Rav said Am Rav in the name of Rav Toye ba shem." "Asacha." Like Rav Yosi. "Rav Bar Bar Chanin Am Rav Yitzchak Am Shmuel said halacha k'vei Rav Yosi." Like Rav Yitzchak. Now, if you're going to tell me that Ravin Bar Chanina Am Rav Ulla Am Rav Chanina was a third opinion that was talking directly to this braisa, then "L'chaira" "Nami laymo." We should have mentioned also the shita of Ravin Bar Chanina Am Rav Ulla Am Rav Chanina. And that is that the halacha is you could be toye the entire shem. You can't be toye the miktzas of the shem. Meaning it's not a mashma that this statement was said regarding this halacha. And the reason is because it seems like the Amora'im, when they put together the Talmud Bavli, they aggregated the two statements of Amora'im that they knew were opining regarding the halacha l'maisa of this braisa. And what they came up with was two, and they didn't come up with a third. The ice toy is there wasn't a third. If you're going to tell me that this statement was talking to this braisa, they should have had Now, just to be clear, that's pashet, like we mentioned before we started this part of the Gamara, that according to Robin Bar Hina Rab Hanina, the Halacha is going to be like Rab Shimon Shazuri. But that's not a kasha, because the Gamara was aggregating all the different statements that were said specifically in this Sugya. Idea that Halacha is always like Rab Shimon Shazuri, right? Halacha Rab Meir Havaeroi, Halacha K'Stam Mishna. Halacha like Rab Yochanan. Yochav Rab Halacha Rab There's always Klalei Shas and M'Machli. Every bris in the world, every Mishna, every Machlokes is Tana or Amora needs some sort of Halacha. Hence the Rambam, hence the Rif, hence the Rosh. Right? That's why we do what we do. It's all trying to be Machli. But here we have with the Chachamim put together the statements that they know were specifically said in this Sugya. Nobody mentioned that anyone said clearly in this Sugya that Halacha Rab Shimon Shazuri said something, but that's what he was referring to. Here comes a digression from the digression. Rab Shimon Shazuri and Rab Shimon Shazuri said "Afilu Ben Chamesh Shanim Choresh B'Sadeh." If you have an animal that's 5 years old and it's ackering in the field, right? Choresh means to acker. In English it means to plow. "Shchitas Eemai Metaharasah." The shchita of the mother is going to be metair it. Now this Halacha is a Sugya in Maseches Chulin Daf Ayin Dalid and Perek Beheima M'Kasha and it's discussing the well-known concept of the Ben Pekuah. What's a Ben Pekuah? So a Ben Pekuah is where a female animal is slaughtered with a proper shchita and there was a a baby, an uber that was inside the mother at the time of the shchita. The Halacha is, it's an unbelievable chidush, when that baby is born, we say that the shchita of the mother was metair the child and as a result it doesn't require its own shchit. Stating that there was a Machlokes between Rab Shimon Shazuri and the Chachamim whether this is something that works forever or it has a statue of limitations. The Chachamim said as long as the baby is a baby it works. But once it gets older and it's cheresh already in the field, at that point you only way you'll be able to eat from it is with a because otherwise it's like a problem. Clearly, it looks like you're violating the laws of which says no, I feel mission. The beside her she does in the so maybe that's what I would was referring to when he said he was learning the school and that's the idea of the that's where he said can't be either for the same reason theory. We have a said in the name of if you're going to tell me that said in the name of Allah in the name of that in this case. Well, if that's the case lay more. He should have said the same thing. Now, this is interesting because who's the one that said it was but it was it's not the names matter, right? So maybe something else you remember and now we're going to so we went from to the now we're flying to a well-known so I somebody was on death row and he was being taken out to be killed already said kiss for right to get to my wife. Not only should whoever heard this write the get but they should actually give the get as well. Now, this is a the reason this is a cuz ordinarily if somebody calls a cell phone he says kiss for the guy can't become a say before I before I coming from I am and go ahead and give the get on behalf of the husband. He was appointed to write the get not to give the get, right? Maybe this man wants to think about it a little bit. You have no right to go ahead and give it. In this case, we assume that if the person said kiss for is about to be killed, he meant kiss for actually says that the reason is because probably why is this person giving his wife a get? I mean, why end his life on such a low note? The reason presumably is because this person doesn't want his wife to follow Yibbum and get involved in Chalitzah, Agunah issues. So, like this, he gives her a get and she's free now to go and marry anybody that she needs. The problem is she didn't say ten note. The Halacha is we assume Umdena that probably he meant to say ten note. Why didn't he say ten note? Because let's be honest, he's not exactly having the best day of his life. He's not in his perfect Das right now. So, we assume his omission of the word ten note is just some sort of Ta'os and therefore it's as if he made a Shlichus not only for Ksivas a Get but for Mesiras a Get. Harei Lo Yichatemu Be'eito Chasal Ve'Shalom. They come double down on this and they said Af Al Pi De Farish even somebody that gets on a boat and he goes to Medina Sayara Ba'Yotzei Be'Shiyara or someone gets involved in a Caravan and before he left he said Kisvei Get Le'Ish Tei. It's Kisvei Ten Note because I don't know we're assuming the person's putting his life at risk, right? These are two of the Arba'ah Tzerichin mind is is not sure if he's going to ever come back. So, despite the fact that he didn't say Get Ten Note, we assume he meant Shimon Shezuri. Amora Shimon Shezuri triple down. He said Af Al Pi De'Suken even somebody who's a Choleh She'eich Be'Sakanah is in some state of Sakanah. If he said Kisvei he didn't say Ten Note, the Halacha is that uh we go ahead and we give the Get. So, this is another Amora Shimon Shezuri. So, the Gemara says maybe this is the Amora Shimon Shezuri that Rav Nachman Bar China Amar Ulam Rav China was referring to when he said Halacha Amora Shimon Shezuri. The Gemara says he now may have I'll give you another one. We have to hold that thought. We're going to get back to it. The Gemara is going to reject it but for now it's a possibility. And the Gemara says let me tell you another possibility. Terumas Ma'aser Shel Demai She'Chazra Le'Kohen Ma'aser. Now we're flying from the laws of Gittin to the laws of Terumas Ma'aser. We're in Seder Zera'im right now. So, what's Terumas Ma'aser? So, a year Eretz Yisrael field Tvu'ah 10% Levi. The levy has to take 10%, which is 1% from the gross amount, and he has to give it to a coin. It's what's known as trumas maaser. We're talking about trumas maaser shel d'mai. What's d'mai? D'mai is if somebody buys produce from an am ha'aretz, so you have to be suspect that maybe the am ha'aretz wasn't mafresh the maasros. We know they used to be mafresh trumas, but maasros maybe not. Now, roiv amei ha'aretz maasrinim, it's only mid'rabbonan that chazal said that you have to be careful. But because roiv amei ha'aretz maasrinim, and the whole institution of being mafresh from d'mai is rabbinic in nature, so there's a lot of kulos. A koin shel b'dmai, that's the first mishna maseches d'mai. There's a lot of kulois that you find, we actually have mishnayos shiurim on maseches d'mai, but there's a lot of kulos that you find when it comes to the world of d'mai. This is one of them. So, trumas maaser shel d'mai. So, we're talking about where somebody had purchased produce from an am ha'aretz. He has d'mai. He was mafresh maaser, and now he was mafresh the trumas maaser. Trumas maaser is like truma, right? Kedusha, it's truma or trumas maaser. It's like mishpacha chazal um koima. And now it was nis'arev together with chulin. So, this person has a problem. The reason he has a problem is because it's in a taruvos, and now assuming you don't have a shiur bitul, this knocks out the entire taruvos. So, what do you do? Reb Shimon Shazuri, I'm Reb Shimon Shazuri said, "Afelu b'chol, shaya lo yiv'aichal b'fet." There's an eitza. The eitza is you can go to the am ha'aretz and you can ask the am ha'aretz, "Tell me, Reb Yehud, did you give maasros or not?" If he says he gave maasros, then take his word for it, and you can assume that really this trumas maaser was not real trumas maaser because he had already given maaser, and as a result the whole taruvos is really going to be okay. And Reb Shimon Shazuri said, "Not only does this work, it works afelu b'chol, it even in the weekdays." What's the because we know there's certain in the so long here. There's certain in the when it comes to asking on that we believe in because on even the because of the is not going to when it comes to the of a whole with the mice of the was as I feel the not only on when you find the ready precedent that we trust for certain years. But I feel the this is going to be okay. But either way says the maybe when he meant either the we said if he didn't say we can go ahead and assume he meant it or maybe meant in the of the where he says asked the but the says both of them can't be true. You know why? For the same reason that we rejected the initial attempts because he said who is mice and if you're going to tell me that it's not just and that holds that way but it was also in the name of in the name of then who we should have mentioned why is it only the as well. So how come we didn't mention must be that's probably not what that was said but the only one who specifically in those two years. But as it relates to this memory that we have it must be something else. So we're all for four says the maybe it means the following and now we're going to move a little bit but we're going to stay in the say the but the keeper the keeper the keeper pull three if somebody has pull on the English translation is an Egyptian bean. What exactly that is ask a farmer. But pull on the three that somebody went ahead and he planted and the reason he planted it was because he wanted its seed. Part of it took root before part of it took root after. So you can't just go ahead and from one of the crop to the other. The fish ain't terminal because you're not allowed to give for the other So one of the rules that govern is is that there's a fiscal year. So for use produce and for I have to use produce. But if I take produce from and I use it as for produce that grew and it's not going to work and vice versa. You can't use hence in this case there's a little bit of an issue because this was the belongs to the previous year. The belongs to the coming year. Now if you want to learn this better pull yourself right we're talking about where the was planted for what reason it was planted to the purpose of seed as opposed to what as opposed to to eat the vegetable. The that in the world of if it was planted to eat the actual vegetable so then you wouldn't go right that's the rule when it comes to you always go to the So we wouldn't care if it was going to happen what we would care is when the happened and as long as all the happened after it's going to be fine. But that is that when you it so then it has a different then it's totally in the so so in this case you have a little bit of a problem. So again keep us talking the name of the reason so we obtain so we what he should do is he should take his entire grain. Meaning the grain sometimes was spread out all over the field. Take the entire grain, all the bundles and the stuff that this guy has, and he should bring it all to one place, and he should mix it good. He should be your for your as she says. The and then he should go ahead and be sure of my and when you do that we're going to assume it's okay because we're going to assume my son when I mean what he's going to do is he's going to make one of of and so that every single piece that you take out we assume is made up of that proportion of grain and it's like this I could be from one to the other we're not concerned that this part that I picked up was and now I'm going ahead and I'm partnering some of what's left over over there which is the either way that's the Indian that's exactly what you're supposed to who said this keeper in the name of he says maybe that's what Robin I'm going to maybe he was referring to this I think it's a lot of he said who made for the same exact reason so they said so said I think it's a lot of he said I think it's a lot of what exactly are these that's a lot of he said I think it's a lot of he said it's a lot of this is going to take us now to a lot of this so we started in the laws of time and from time we ended up in school and from there we went to get in and then we learned related to the my then we learned related to my of my teacher and now we're jumping over to a a law related to Titus specifically the title of chaos and this is the background that we need for this mission it's very simple it's one sentence and that is a something that's so big that it's not moved is not mikabel tumah. The reason is because in the laws of tumah, the Torah uses the word sack. And we say dumyah the sack, right? This is the makat. And just like a sack is a dover hamitaltel, so so too the only time the halacha is something's mikabel tumah is in the event that it's a dover hamitaltel. So the Mishnah on that note says, hashita, let's say somebody has a box, a chest. It's very very big. The question is, is it a keli or is it not a keli? We're trying to figure out did it become too big so that now it's not to be mikabel tumah? It's Beis Shammai says this is the rule. The rule is that if it's machzik mem so, so the halacha is it's not considered a keli anymore. And as a result, it's not going to be mikabel tumah. If it's not machzik mem so, then it's a keli. It is going to be mikabel tumah. Stating that Beis Shammai says when it comes to measuring is it machzik mem so or not, this is how you figure it out. Nim dedes mebifnim. You look at the inside of the container. Meaning, can I fill mem so? Can I make a mixer in here? Right? If I can fill mem so, then it's machzik mem so. It's not mikabel tumah. If I can't fill mem so, then it's not machzik mem so. It's still going to be a keli. Beis Hillel says mibachutz. Beis Hillel says a gevaldig chiddush, that you're not moydein mebifnim, you're moydein mibachutz. Meaning, you ask yourself, if I was able to put contents into the walls of this shita and inside the shita, would I be able to fill mem so? If the answer is yes, it's a big kulah. So at that point it's not considered a keli anymore, and therefore it's not going to be mikabel tumah. Says the Mishnah, umoydein eilu ve'eilu Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel are both moydein she'ein ovi haraglayim, that assuming the shita stands on legs, then the thickness of the legs don't go into the cheshbon. Ve'ovi halevizvizin, or if there's like a little crown, like a little miscaris, a little rim on the top of the shita, nim ded that's not included. Rabbi Yosi Omer, Rabbi Yosi said, moydein she'ovi haraglayim ve'ovi halevizvizin nim ded. Now, that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel actually both agree that the are okay. However, what's in between the rag lion that empty space is nothing there. That hollow that's in between the legs of the legs are I don't know three so you have three of empty space that whole area is not going to be included in what's in between the and is not going to be included as I mean this is obviously the punchline of this and my voice the were in and I agree what's in between is not going to be but let's say it's a or less or then already it's going to be and the reason is because it's like a lot of right it's so small so we look at that as being part of the equation and that's going to be but a papa said that this is another and in the 18th of came in I think that's what I mean in the name of I mean was referring to and I mean I think what I mean was referring to I think what he was referring to was a different and it's a related to and this is also mentioned in the it's also in fact it's a and I mean it's not I mean it's oil is always considered a again this goes back to the and that's a long time ago in the but we know that is always a right so even though has phases which gets diluted but is always treated like a I mean said in terms of what types of is included in the is and it's always considered a it's always considered a I mean not only even I mean you could have thought shamans like a thicker type of mascara. It is. I'm going to say, you think shamans, I'll give you something even thicker, even the vash. I can hear the vash is like a mascara, not a mascara. I feel lucky the vash is what shamans is really I mean shamans is really said a fire iron, even wine. Oil, honey, even wine. I mean, ain't no mascara, pun intended. Good day to me, iron. So, what are you talking about? The master of the iron and the master of the iron, why nobody holds the iron as a mascara. Amos says the master of shamans is really iron. Iron. He wasn't saying a fire iron, but rather he was coming to say iron as opposed to shamans, as opposed to the vash. But, the bottom line is Rapapa says, you want to know which law he was referring to when he said the law of shamans is really he was referring to the law of shamans is really of shida. And he said he was referring to the law of shamans is really of iron. Either way, we just spent almost every sheet of shamans is really that exists stating that we're not finished with the sugi of shamans is really. One more mice. Tanya, a brice. Omar shamans, shamans said. Shamans is really. Shamans That's a bad mistake. Tanya, let's do this again. Omar shamans is really. Once upon a time, once upon a time, this Arab devil right? So, this is not a mice in the purist and the creche man, right? This is a a long dish of mice. Shamans is really says, let me tell you a mice that once happened to me, you're not going to believe it. One time this Arab devil I had devil and my devil got all mixed up with shamans. Who boss you with all these and I went to the great Rap Tarfon to ask him what to do. Right? What do I do with my devil that was in shamans. Now, the tiny bit of background that we need for this story / brice is that devil mid rabbonim member me night is never bottle. So, devil you would think is bottle. Oh, my god, this is a bottle. Why should devil be different? This is the kind of member me night. Devil is not bottle. Okay. So, shamans is really said, once upon a time I had devil and it was in shamans and I went to Rap Tarfon for a mile away and Rap Tarfon told me there's a way to save all this chulin. There's a way to save this taruv is he said go. Kacha chumin a shook, buy produce from the shook. Make sure it's not maris. If the maris is not in a maris, it's not going to work. Buy from the shook, buy from an am ha'aretz. And use that to be ma'aser, ma'aser all of it. And like this it's going to be okay. Which I his head is this help? This is the Gemara explains k'savar, the reason is as follows. Because Reb Tarfon was of the opinion that the iraisa d'rubo is battel. Because really tevel that's the side of the chulin mid'de'oraisa is battel, right? It's only mid'derabbanan that is not battel. Which means the problem that you have right now in this taruv is is a is a rabbinic problem in nature. You have a taruv is right now that has in it tevel mid'derabbanan, right? There's no tevel mid'de'oraisa because the tevel that's there mid'de'oraisa is battel. Yeah, the underlying tevel is de'oraisa, but being that it's battel, so really mid'de'oraisa you don't have anything. So, what you have then is the tevel that mid'derabbanan is not battel, which means it's a tevel d'rabbanan. Okay. V'rov amei ha'aretz ma'asrin and he also is of the opinion that the amei ha'aretz as much as they were chashud on ma'asros, but rov amei ha'aretz were really ma'aser. Which means that again mid'de'oraisa you could go b'sar rov, you could assume that there's no chiyuv to be mafresh ma'asros for somebody you buy from an am ha'aretz. What's the chiyuv ma'asros? It's a chiyuv d'rabbanan. Oh, so basically you have two things that are patur mid'de'oraisa, only chayav mid'derabbanan. Probably you could tell him not to eat it raw, raw raw. That's why it's going to work. So, the Gemara challenged this ma'aseh. The Gemara said Reb why did Reb Tarfon tell Reb Shimon Shizuri a little bit differently? He should have told him kacha min ovdei chachamim. He should have said you don't have to buy dafka from an am ha'aretz, buy from a [ __ ] Meaning he told him buy from the am ha'aretz. It sounds like that's the only way this is going to work. Right? If you buy from a shiny [ __ ] of course it's not going to work because that's a chiyuv ma'asros at all. It's not even chayav mid'derabbanan. But Reb Chiyya was an eitzah you could buy from a [ __ ] right? Chiyya the [ __ ] also bought my first master. Something more try this because the guy doesn't have the ability to be my first master and the guy for sure wasn't my first master. The guy that's my and it's for that reason this is not going to work. So therefore you don't like this. If you're going to buy it from a a year that's an up to heat in a match, it's not going to work because that's not my first master at all. If you're going to buy it from a guy that's my first master with a right. If you buy it from an average, he's you or you are putting with a right and I am with the rabona which is exactly the status as of your first voice like this. You're being told it's for that reason it's going to be okay. If you don't be some head a different version the exact opposite of the way we just mentioned the story. So I told him it was go buy from a guy. Why you don't buy from a guy? Because he always ask give me a because the guy really has the ability to give me a means my day right anything that grows in the field of a guy is not my first stating that the rabona said you should go ahead and be my first master. Come to that table that fool is my first master with a rabona. Your is also my first master with a rabona. Why? Because my first master with a rabona bottle probably up to it's going to be okay. Here the guy asks the other way. Why don't you tell him I should go buy from the shop buy from the right the right master. So give me the right and I have my first master with a rabona. Your is also my first master with a rabona. The answer is because the rabona is my first master. Yeah, that right on the right and I am my first master. You know we take for granted right on the right master. Apparently this was not something that was universally accepted. It was some debate about that and for that reason love that because the rabona sent the rabona sent the following question to the rabona. Hold on my rabona my rabona my rabona this that Robin send the name of and he said not just that right he double down and he said anytime ever said anything that is after did he mean it even with regards to this or did he not mean it even with regards to this and what would even be the that it didn't mean it with regards to this was really his he was saying what told him but either way this was the question in right he said yes he said that I related this exchange to my and when I told it to him he this is what he told me there was very bothered by this exchange he said he said it's would be like in this case why did it say anywhere call shimon call shimon and if you take a look at the top the way it is and there's no reason to assume that this would have been any different and we explained that maybe the reason there was a that this was different is because it wasn't it was more of but you see from the way that discussed that that was never the the was something else the was this is a so everything we mentioned until now were were were it's not even important because we're focusing on the safer call shimon of the mission he said had he said mission or mission no so then there would have been a that maybe it made mission but being that he said and the word means mission or so for that reason it was he didn't even understand why the run were discussing this issue that that maybe because it's so so not really so so that to them was my my either way this concludes like we said 80% of the daf and that is the primary topic of the daf which was Reb Shimon Shazuri. Why we talking about Reb Shimon Shazuri? Because he was one of the five shittas that we had regarding the sham. What exactly you're supposed to do. And then we had this cryptic statement Reb Chanina and Reb Chanina Reb Shimon Shazuri which we said really once he said the it really doesn't matter. Like we saw at the end of the like the right is always going to be that way but the which was he referring to? We went through literally all the halachas in 35 minutes. A whole bunch of different Reb Shimon Shazuris. We now return to our regular program which is halachas related to to say Torah fill in the talking about the era Reb Chanina Reb when it comes to a safer Torah keriah. What would be if there's a tear in the gilyon of the safer Torah? So we got to be careful. The tear is in the gilyon, right? The top, the bottom but it's in the gilyon of the safer Torah, the margins. So if it's above two lines if it penetrates two lines into the actual you're allowed to just sew it up. But if it penetrates three lines you're not allowed to go and sew it. Reb told Reb I heard from Reb I heard from Reb I heard from Reb I heard from Reb I heard from Reb in the name of Reb I heard from Reb I heard from Reb I heard from Reb I heard from Reb I heard from Reb I heard from Reb I heard from Reb I heard from an old safer Torah but if it's a new safer Torah then no worries you don't have to worry about it. Rashi says an old safer Torah that gets stitched up doesn't look nice and it's a sin and a mitzvah as opposed to a new safer Torah that gets stitched up there's not such a sin and a mitzvah as a result it's not going to be an issue. He continued he said the way I take the he said by the way when I'm qualifying and I'm saying it's totally new and old old doesn't mean old and new doesn't mean new. Okay, so if old is old and new is not new so why you making it totally and old and new and what does old mean what does new not mean we know what it doesn't mean but what does it mean right how do they fit fit all right every time you learn a class you end up with a fit son so what exactly are the son so one of the things that they used to use to process the hides is they used to process it with gold nuts right that was one of the things that they used to use now when they used to process it would make it look a little darker You put the dark thing on it and it made it look a little dark which made it look old so really I don't care if it's new or old doesn't matter if the title was this Sunday or if it was in La Medea it it makes zero difference what matters is is does it look old or does it look new because really what this is totally in it's totally in the Indian of hidden mitzvah and if it's going to be then it's going to be fine if it's not going to be then it's not going to be fine additionally the honey merely even when we say that you're allowed to go ahead and you're allowed to sew this Torah you're only allowed to sew it in using the seniors of a big rodent but if you want to just sew it the way somebody would sew a beggar like the way a weaver would weave like in that case it's not going to be okay and the reason is because there's a that when the they stitch together the different areas they have to use so it's a commercial on this that that's true when you sew together the areas and it's also true when you're going ahead and you're sewing together these holes that you have inside the actual we would have had two holes regarding being that what would be if the tear is between meaning maybe we're more lenient when it's between if it's in the actual two sheets and three sheets and but if it's not much in between the there's no words over there so maybe over there it's more cool or being the sheet of mouth what would be if it's been sheet of sheet of from it sounds a little bit like the is that being sheet of sheet of even a tiny tear is going to be a problem meaning the sheet of sheet of means it's a horizontal tear. So it could be even any little thing, right? It's a different shear at that point cuz it's not going up, so you don't have two shittin and three shittin. So what do you do? Maybe even a little bit is a problem. Is there some other shittin? The Gemara says regarding both of these shailos, take with a lachas take, which is one halacha that the Rishonim speak out, the Rosh, and that is that this whole shaila of if it goes up two shittin and three shittin, you could sew it, not sew it, this is only true if it didn't actually touch the oisios. Once it touches the oisios, to sew together oisios and all such thing. Can't sew an ois, you have to be [ __ ] you have to be moyach. That's a whole different shulchan aruch of what exactly you do. We're talking about where only the margins tore, but it's just a shear of how much margin is allowed to tear, in which case it's still going to be okay. Let's learn a little bit more Gemara. So this next Gemara, and really a lot of the next Gemaras that we're going to learn are going to discuss hilchos mezuzah, which is going to make a little bit of a p'sach. Omar Rabbi Eiri Omar Rav Chanano. So Rabbi Eiri is saying in the name of Chanano, Omar Rav, tracing itself like so many halachos in Shas, to the great Amora Rav, mezuzah is kosher sh'nayim sh'nayim chir. If somebody a sofer is writing a mezuzah, and he puts two words on a line, so he made very narrow shuros. So if a Torah has a ganz shulchan aruch, we saw yesterday's daf, but how exactly you how wide, how narrow the lines are going to be. But over here, we're dealing with a mezuzah, and he made just literally two words on a line. So the halacha is it's going to be kosher. Ee ba lo sh'nayim v'shalosh b'achas mav. What would be if he has two words on one line, the next one has three words, next one has one? It's shikul all over the place. What's the halacha? Omar Rav Nachman Yitzchak, so Nachman Yitzchak said, kosher it's going to be kosher. Sh'asa k'shira, like shira. Sh'asa k'shira, he made it like the shira. So krashi d'Oziyahu Moshe. It's like the shira of Oziyahu Moshe, right? If you have a look in the sefer Torah. Sh'shita achas arucha, v'shita achas ktzora, sh'einam malei kol hashita, right? We know there's shira written a little differently in the sefer Torah. So he made it like the shira even in the sefer Torah, that's a kosher halacha. So for sure this is something that's going to be okay. Basically they take the Gemara kasha from a bris, I saw kashira in the event that it was made like a shira. Oh shira kamisa or if the shira was made kamisa. So, we're talking about a safer Torah. So, you took a chelek of the safer Torah that's not supposed to be written like the shira and you wrote it like the shira. Or you took the shira and you wrote it the way the rest of the safer Torah is written. So, it's going to be possel. For sure, bris that says it's possel. I forgot the gemara. It's not shaki tanya you have a safer Torah. That's talking about a safer Torah, right? Clearly talking about a safer Torah. Safer Torah and you have to make the shira like the shira and the rest like the rest. But when it comes to the mezuzah, there it's going to be different. It minami If a person makes the mezuzah two then three then one, it's going to be kosher. This is going to sound a little surprising. You shouldn't make like a koopa. So, Rashi gives you a picture what a koopa is, like a tent where you have one then two on the bottom and three underneath it. It's straight, right? Like a like a triangle, like a like a pyramid. So, that's going to be a problem. Additionally, actually you shouldn't make it like a zanav. That's the exact opposite where the top line has three and then two on bottom and one on bottom of that so that it's the inverted pyramid. Those two things are not going to be okay. A little bit of a chiddish cuz you remember from yesterday's daf the last daf of the safer Torah maybe is even allowed to be written that way. But a mezuzah but a zanav and it's for that reason those two things are not going to be okay and we're going to excel. We're going to stop here. So, as it relates to raid going back to something that we spoke about yesterday and that is the gemara mesecta shabbos where the gemara says the shosha al amosha lamar. Why were we discussing the gemara mesecta shabbos of the shosha al amosha lamar? Because we have the gemara here in menachus which discussed the shosha al Moshe Rabbeinu. And the truth is there are many Gemaras in Shas that discuss Bishascha al Moshe Rabbeinu. But as relates specifically to that Gemara, the Gemara says Bishascha al Moshe Rabbeinu, so Moshe Rabbeinu went up l'marom, and the Malachei Hashareis saw him there, and they turned to Kadosh Baruch Hu and they said, "Mah l'yuled isha beneinu?" Right? "What's a human being doing up here in Shamayim?" And Kadosh Baruch Hu told the Malachei Hashareis the Kabbalas haTorah. He came to be mekabel haTorah. So Malachei Hashareis told Kadosh Baruch Hu, "Chen d'ginusa, that's been by you 974 deros kodem bri'as ha'olam. You want to give right now to basar v'dam, mah enosh ki s'kerenu u'ven adam ki s'kedenenu?" Right? "The Torah belongs ba'Shamayim. It's inappropriate for the Torah to come down to this world." Moshe Rabbeinu heard this, he was very, very tzu shvach, and then Kadosh Baruch Hu turns to Moshe and he says, "Answer them." So he says, "I'm afraid because of the hevel p'yam. I'm afraid I'm going to burn from it." So Kadosh Baruch Hu told Moshe, "Chazek v'his'chazek, k'dei grab onto my kisei hakavod, v'achser aleihem teshuvah, and give them a teshuvah." And then Moshe Rabbeinu goes to work and he says to Kadosh Baruch Hu, he says, "Tell the Malachei Hashareis, what does it say in the Torah? Anochi Hashem Elokecha asher hotzeisicha me'eretz Mitzrayim." So Moshe Rabbeinu turns to the Malachim and says, "Tell me, were you in Mitzrayim? Were you taken out? Obviously the Torah wasn't meant for you." "Mah oich k'siv bei?" And Kadosh Baruch Hu goes through all of the Ten Commandments, and Moshe Rabbeinu proves, just based on the words of the Ten Commandments, that they're meant for people that live in this world, people that went to Mitzrayim, people that have kinah, people that live amongst Yisrael, and people that transact in business that might be tempted to be over Yisrael, people that have a father and a mother, people that work six days so they have to rest the seventh day. Clearly the Torah wasn't meant for you. And at the end the Malachei Hashareis come around and they modeh that Hashem gave the Torah belongs by human beings down here on planet Earth. And we mentioned just thinking out loud, when exactly did this story take place? I mean at first glance, it sounds like from the Gemara took place before the Yidden received the Torah. Right? The Malachim ask Hakadosh Baruchu, "Why would you give it to me?" And what does Hakadosh Baruchu say? "The Kabbalah Torah." And the Torah, why are you giving the Torah to to Moshe Rabbeinu and the Klal Yisrael? I think the Torah should be here. So it sounds like the Torah wasn't given yet. It wasn't received yet. And it's somewhere before Matan Torah. That sort of makes a lot of sense. There's a shaila now, or maybe a foregone conclusion, but regardless, the Torah is going to be given to Klal Yisrael. Hasn't been given yet. And the Malachim are putting up a last fight. They're trying to maintain the Torah. They're trying to They're trying to keep it for themselves. The problem is it's not clear anywhere from the Torah that Moshe Rabbeinu was ever on the mountain of Sinai before Matan Torah Sinai. Now we know Moshe Rabbeinu was for sure on the mountain of Sinai after the Torah was received. So Moshe Rabbeinu in the end of Parshas Mishpatim, he goes to the top of the mountain, which Chazal understood meant he was on the mountain of Sinai. He went to the place where the Malachim are. The Halacha is you should always follow the local customs. So if you're in a place where no one's eating and nobody's drinking, you don't eat and you don't drink. And Moshe Rabbeinu spends 40 days and 40 nights there. And then he comes back a little bit late to the mountain of Sinai. Of course, the rest is history. So we know Moshe Rabbeinu went up to the mountain of Sinai to receive the Torah. And he went to the mountain of Sinai with Hashem. And all the different Chazal that talk about how Moshe Rabbeinu used to forget the learning until Hashem gave it to him on the mountain of Sinai. The whole thing, the whole thing, the whole thing. But before Matan Torah, where do you find anywhere that Moshe Rabbeinu went up to Shamayim. We said the closest thing that we were able to find is that the possuk says right in the beginning of Bachodesh Hashlishi, this is in perek yud tes, possuk gimmel, um Moshe al Elokim. This took place on the second day of Sivan. Kol al Yisroel bashkomo, um Moshe al Elokim. Moshe Rabbeinu went up to Shamayim. The problem is the Ramban says Rachoq bit chaktana, that what it means is he went towards the top of the mountain, but he didn't actually go anywhere. He was on the mountain, the Shechinah came down because the cloud, the volcano was covering Har Sinai already from Bachodesh Hashlishi, and there was some communication between Hakadosh Boruchu and Moshe Rabbeinu, but he didn't enter anywhere. We said that Ibn Ezra says it mum first. He says v'lo nichnas el ha'shamayim. He did not enter Shamayim. So l'chora, this is the one possuk that you have. And if this possuk doesn't mean that Moshe Rabbeinu went to Shamayim, so where do you find anywhere that Moshe Rabbeinu went to Shamayim? The truth is we misspoke a little bit, because there is a another possuk that maybe sounds a little bit like Moshe Rabbeinu went up to Shamayim even before the Torah was given. And that is right after right after da'as seras hadibros. So the Torah says that the Yidden saw the kolos and the lapidim, the kol esh leib for the Har Hashem. Vayiru vayandu meirachoq. They got very very scared and they stood from a distance, and they told Moshe, "Daber ato imanu. We'd prefer that you you tell us the Torah." V'al yedaber imanu Elokim pen namus. Then Moshe Rabbeinu tells Klal Yisroel, "No, there's two good reasons." Spoke at the Barbanel that last week by the parshas Yisro, there's a third good reason as well. Regardless, the Yidden said, "Okay, we're willing to hear from Hakadosh Boruchu." Vayamidu meirachoq. And the am stood from a distance. Um Moshe nigash el ha'orafel asher sham Elokim. And Moshe Rabbeinu entered the orafel, which is where he was. So, we have a possuk that mentions Now, this possuk is mentioned where? It's mentioned after the but we made a big deal about the Ramban that says in and really this took place before the we have a possuk that says which again, way above my pay grade what exactly that means, but it certainly sounds a little bit like he was and this possuk the way the Ramban learned in is talking about and if that's the case, so it sounds like before went to that raffle. And the truth is it would be very in the It sounds like this is it. This is the 11th hour, right? After all the days and they see everything and they don't want it and now he was and I was going to see him and all the but he's going to get it this second. This is what's going on. Everybody's in their seat at the edge of their seat. They're waiting for this to go down and all of a sudden there's this grace of So, if you had to take that Shabbos and place it somewhere, I think it's so this would be the place that you would nail it, right? So, it's it's a Now, it's a little tricky because you have to remember the Ramban who doesn't say the Ramban says it. But the Ramban is the Ramban and he says it would be very to say that the is I'll pee Ramban that There's one problem. You know what the problem is? The Ramban. If you take a look at the Ramban, that long Ramban where he talks about just listen to one line. He says he He said but he didn't enter it yet. For us he still did not enter it. The real until later. The Ramban addressed it and he added three words that were almost not necessary to add. Lloyd both of us are on by. He did not enter that raffle. So much of a man is still where he had been for the six days. He's up. And he's getting close, but he's loyal a lot of says the even though the says yeah, he gets me right by you guys what he punched him in the nose but he got pretty close, right? The noses were touching maybe. He got very very close, but he didn't take him out. That's not what happened. When my gosh a lot of it's the name he got really really close but I got close but he wasn't physically there but I'll call upon him if that's the case. I think we're back to where we were. Just from the second learning with the machine and it doesn't say anywhere that much was all the more before my mother seen is going to the mountain. Everyone's watching from a distance but the then how do you make sense of that masochist office talking about after my entire couple of I got the tire already. You're giving it to the ministry you receive the tire already. It's a little bit in the other and again even though much of it didn't receive the entire tire at our scene about that tomorrow sounds more like it's pretty amazing that I think it's a little bit of a heart just to mention one mahalo. And that is to your door in brisk that they say over from the base of levy and it's printed in base of levy attire and passions yesterday that the base of levy asked the question that really everybody asks and that is how do you understand in the tomorrow actually had a hobby that the tire doesn't belong by bus of a belongs to them. What was my style? I mean wasn't exactly a pair of a mirror in that my said I just read the verses of the title. Let's start from the first of that I share says maybe with you in where you want to be did you go out of it's clearly not meant for you you live among you need to be warned not to engage in we see such a place it out by business you don't transact in business you don't work for six days you don't have a it's possible what exactly was the have a mean of the thought they really the belong by them recently we be said of the base of said that's possible that the understood that the belongs by Boston was never a they knew that the belongs by Boston but we know that there's a principle called what does it mean it means that we be with the this is something that we're buying on we get to determine that I meet this I that if there's a base on this world of 23 mortals and them say one way and says the other way that is based on what these mortals think even though it's possible that in there's a an infinite wisdom that people on this world have no to but when we get the title what we got was not just access to the title we got over the title but on the title and we get to determine what's right and what's wrong and that's why the where you find it was between and shall my love and when it comes to we don't even care right the if the came first or the came first the rain but this is something that's scattered throughout but the bottom line is is said that we know what they want to give what give was he gave them over the title and it was that it was that schleeter the malachim fighting for They knew the Torah has to come down to this world. There was never a hava mina that the Torah wasn't going to come down to this world. It was partial as and even though you could be mefarish the pesukim al pi sod and al pi remez and al pi drash and there could be hundreds and thousands and infinite amount of of sod sod sod like you find in Sifrei Machdaish in regards to pesukim in the Torah. That's fine. But in mikra o tzemichat the Torah is also avshat and the pshat says that it belongs by us. Good, all the sod means it belongs by you. But the pshat means it belongs by us. So there was never a hava mina said the Beis HaLevi in their minds that the yidden weren't going to receive the Torah. What was the hava mina? The hava mina was mecher taysa they should be bayalim on the Torah. And the malachim, the malachim understood when the Eibishter told them mal v'lo yish beneynu l'kabel Torah ba, what they meant was they're coming to actually be mekabel the Torah. That Moshe Rabbeinu was going to take the Torah and Moshe When Moshe Rabbeinu takes the Torah, he's going to be the bayal on the Torah. We always speak out from the [ __ ] that the Gemara says sh'lo yikchu midas Hakadosh Baruch Hu midas basar v'dam. Ordinarily, if somebody sells something to somebody else, so the mecher is always at same and the l'keach is sameach. But when it comes to the Torah, it's not that way. Hakadosh Baruch Hu sold the Torah to Klal Yisrael and Hakadosh Baruch Hu is b'simcha just like the l'keach is b'simcha. Shenemar ki l'keach toy masati lachem Torah al tzei'vah al y'zoyvu. And the [ __ ] ask Y'dua, he says, "I understand no shaychus. When somebody sells something, so the mecher doesn't have the thing that he sold. That's why he's ungesatz. he's depressed. But Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave Klal Yisrael the Torah, he lost the Torah? Ki lo Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't have the Torah? Says the [ __ ] in yeah. Because when Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the Torah to Klal Yisrael, in matan Torah was Torah l'veisha shamayim. So now the Torah is not going to be bashamayim. So Eibishter is the mecher. But a filu l'keach the mecher sameach. Shenemar ki l'keach masati lachem Torah al tzei'vah al y'zoyvu. It's that component of kabalas haTorah that the malachei hashareis were contesting. That's what was going on. Now, Bris they say over that someone asked the Gris if that's the case, so what was the response of Moshe Rabbeinu? What what Moshe Rabbeinu retort? What did he come back with? Says in the Torah we know that, but Torah we still got to determine if there's a safek if the sale of them came first or if the bear came first, what exactly the law is going to be. Why is that Machias that the Torah should be by you so that we should tell to a Gemara. A Gemara says this is almost daf kuf tes amud bais. The Gemara said Rab Yosi and Rab Yosi said kol in my Torah in my Torah. If somebody says I'm not going to learn Torah, you're not going to get s'char for learning a Torah. So the Gemara says this might be the most obvious statement anyone ever said in Chass. Says the Gemara if someone says I'm not going to learn Torah, you should know or you don't learn Torah you're not going to get s'char for learning Torah. Maybe it's a chiddush by the way. But if somebody says in my Torah in my Torah, faith the Gemara says the Gemara says in my Torah in my other Torah in my other Torah. If somebody says I'm only going to learn Torah, I'm not going to do any mitzvahs, you're going to only get s'char for learning Torah. My son says that's also pashut. My son says you know what it must mean? That feel Torah in my if somebody says I'm only going to learn Torah, I'm not going to do mitzvahs, you're not even going to have Torah. Says the Brisker Rav pashut you learn the Gemara. The Gemara means that if somebody says I'm only going to learn Torah, I'm not going to do mitzvahs, you're not even going to get s'char for learning Torah. You can't just learn Torah and not do mitzvahs, right? You have to do mitzvahs also. But the Brisker Rav said what does it mean a feel Torah in my? If someone says I'm going to learn Torah, but I'm not going to do mitzvahs, it's going to be chaser in your kinyan of Torah. In order to have a shlaimus to get kinyan of Torah, said the Brisker Rav, you have to learn Torah and you have to do mitzvahs. But kol omer if somebody says in my other Torah all I'm going to do is learn Torah a feel Torah in my you're not going to have a kiyum in Torah. So the Brisker Rav said that's what Moshe Rabbeinu's response was. You want the Torah to be by you because you feel you can come to to that mitzvah of Torah. You're someone that can learn Torah, but you can't be kind to Torah. The whole omer in You don't have a key to Torah. You don't have a key to your kingdom of Torah. You can't be the one that's going to be whether the law should become kosher or possible. And it's for that reason said the That was the fire to get Torah. But I'll embrace they would be for us to have a whole different in the The is not to be even receive the Torah should not receive the Torah. That's what's going on over there. It was possible that the that the received the Torah. The was who should be on the Torah. Who's on the Torah? Who's is the longest that's going to be the of the Torah? That was the The you're giving it to your only any sense. My I understand they have a to Torah because the only belongs by them. But how could it be that an a man is going to be the and you know what the was? Because you can learn Torah on a thousand million billion trillion levels greater than we could ever understand it. But at the same time you know what you can't do? You can't keep the Torah. You can't honor a father and a mother. You can't be You can't overcome your natural tendency of being jealous of somebody else. You can't overcome It's not something you can do. Right? You can't rest on the shut your mind off from everything you have going on in your life and try to be with That's not something that you're to. Only we could do that. And it's the ones that can not only learn the Torah, but observe the Torah that can have a proper Torah because in the You have on the base. I feel the Torah English felt them in the Torah. But the point is the punchline is, that the Torah was never about whether the Indians should get the Torah or not. The Indians were going to get the Torah regardless. The way the Indians had gotten the Torah already, that wasn't the question. The Indians had received the Torah. The question now was something else. The question was who's going to be the boss of the Torah? When the Indians revealed themselves at Mount Sinai and said at that point was there that the Indians are going to be the boss of the Torah? That's the question. What the Indians were talking about is what's going on behind the scenes literally. And that over there in the That's not a steer to the timeline of what happened. I think when you learn the Torah, it's very that the is in tandem and in sync with all the which are all talking about after it's the same that was that's already a whole different Indian. I think maybe there's a little bit of truth to it. Again, this is something that requires a little bit of just putting it out there. But maybe this is the Indian.