This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:24 [snorts] Okay. Good morning. Morning everybody. Sponsorships for today sponsorships for the month melon Karen Ram for Elar Ben Ellie Cheva Ed and Iris Miller and Adam and Dr. Leslie Rosenish Dr. Joseph Miller friends of Mayor Ben 0:52 League of Learning sponsors Ed and Faith Wolf Shalom and sponsors and Sarah Steinberg of continued health for ultimate all the families and all those in need have the complete and enduring. 1:13 Okay, we're gonna pick up today's d is [clears throat] alik. We're gonna pick up on the bottom of kb continue in we were talking about yesterday. So Gumar says two lines from the bottom of actually Gumar is going to bring up a case that we had yesterday right somebody eats a somebody eats the 1:38 girhan of a non-cosher animal says have two sets of malos one set of malos for eating non-coosher and a second set of malos for eating the ghana and yesterday we went through the details of this position Rishim says you actually you don't get any sets for this case. So now analyzes position. 2:03 So how do we understand according to you eat you're eating of a non-cooser animal but you are not for any sets of malas. So we ask [clears throat] if you hold that one is can stack on top of an already existing isser. Right? We talked about that in in detail yesterday. You have the iser of eating non-cosher and then the iser of on top of it. So if you say that the 2:29 isum can stack one on top of another then there should be of which comes after the iser of non-coosher or at least according to this interpretation. We know had a little bit of a different interpretation but um according to this the general opinion and if you say there's a problem actually the second is not able to stack 2:53 on right the is of the is not able to stack on the initial of eating non-cosher well then still either way there still should be at least one set of makas there should at least be for eating non-cosher there should be set of makas here and [clears throat] further the e so maybe you're going to say Tom so maybe you're going to say okay no there is no for eating on kosher because like we 3:17 said yesterday if you hold the opinion that the that do not have any taste so they're not considered real meat and therefore there isn't any issue of eating non-cooser in this case okay well then we're going to go back then well then we don't have that initial is of non-coosher we don't have a problem of stacking is so then at the very least you should have the is of take effect so 3:40 Why according to how do we understand that in a case of eating the giranh of a non-coosher animal you're actually not any sets of malos explains okay so really holds that the g the g does not have any flavor and therefore there is there is no problem of eating non-cooser so there's not going to be any set of malus 4:06 there's not going to be any iss for tamea however Why don't we apply then the iser of githan shini? We have the weabon has a special lim in the does [clears throat] not apply to githan in this case. Why says right the introduc says because of this 4:32 the are not going to eat and the implication from that according to is this is specifically a case where you're only not allowed to eat the g but everything else in that animal the rest of the isoo But it doesn't come and include a non-coosher animal because a non-coser 4:57 animal the entire animal is kosher. So so based on the way that he reads the puck he has that that says that [clears throat] does not apply to a non-coosher animal. So when you stack those on top of each other when you say when you hold that the gid does not impart does not does not have any flavor and therefore it's not considered basar. So there isn't a problem of 5:21 iserta of non-coosher and you have a limit from the p that the is of only applies to a kosher animal not to a non-cosher animal. So now according to there's nothing else to be for right because there isn't there's no non-cooser is and there's no isser for get okay now we're going to continue in cases 5:44 right we started yesterday of where we have the potential of stacking isim one on top of the other it's important to have a little bit of background here right so the general principle that we've been talking about is right if you have one is that's already in case and another one comes later, you can't stack the second is on top of the first is and only one is applies. So that's the general that's the general rule is 6:09 there are there could be more that know the three there are three general exceptions or or general I should say there's three potential exceptions not everybody holds all of them but there's three potential exceptions to this limitation that you can't stack eerum on top of each other the first one is called an isser colo is colo is an isser that is more expansive which means it brings in additional objects you may 6:33 have an isser that applies to only a certain smaller set of objects and a new isser is on top but that's not that is not of the same level but it it includes additional objects that becomes that's called is and some hold in that circumstance that overrides the principle of right that's the first one is you expanding the iser to additional objects the second one is called iser 6:58 mosf that you have an iser that applies to only a certain subset of people and The second is that comes along is more expansive in the fact that it applies to a a greater number of people. Right? So is Cola we said expands the isser to additional objects. Iser Mosf could expand the isser to additional people. 7:20 And then the third and then the third idea is an is that maybe it's an iss that doesn't apply doesn't bring in any additional objects. It doesn't bring in any additional people but it comes along with additional which addition with with additional stringencies that could be in different ways. Maybe it has a harsher punishment. Maybe it has uh additional isum that you can apply to it. But again 7:42 it's something that is that that is bringing ara to the table. So there's really three things and some kind of merge the two but I think generally we accept them in three buckets. We'll take them in three buckets. Right. So even though we have a general principle of there are certain exceptions that not everyone holds of all of them but there the exceptions we're going to talk about is whether you have an is expanding to additional objects is Mosf expanding to 8:06 additional people or an is which is bringing in additional stringencies to the already in place right so we'll keep those three in mind those are three potential ways of getting around the principle of okay back in the So comes and brings a different a similar case, right? We were just talking about eating the githan from a 8:30 non-cosher animal. So now brings the case. Okay, let's say one were to eat the githan of an animal that did not die of right. So it's it's an aa it's a kosher animal but but it's an aa. So again we have the iser. There's the iser of githan and now there's an additional isser of na. Remember this is actually flipping the order of what we had 8:54 yesterday when we're talking about uh an animal that is not kosher. First comes the non-coosher status and then the githanasha comes afterwards. In this case it's reversed, right? Because the animal was alive had an iser of githan while it was alive and only when it died it does the isa. So now the g the is of the gid is the first is and isa is the second is that we're trying to stack on top of it. Okay. So 9:19 Mayor the mayor says you're going to be for two sets of right one for eating and the second one for eating the say and [clears throat] are going to say that no you only for a single which 9:40 would be the first that came of only however mayor however Ever the would agree with that there could be the ability to stack a second is on top of the ganasha in which cases if one were to eat the ganasha of a carbon right obviously it already was of ganasha and then was designated as an 10:08 ola which is then a an a more expansive isser that you to the entire animal or shhaniskal or a a a an animal that is supposed to be stoned to death. It again has an [clears throat] expansive isser on top of it, right? And let's look at Rashi. Rash is going to walk us through two pieces of it. 10:33 Okay. So, why does agree in these additional cases? Why in the case of eating a gan from aa the hold you are not allowed to stack the second on top. However, in these two cases of and agree that you can stack is how come so because why this is an more stringent. 11:07 So this is that third case that we talk that third that third potential um exception that we talked about of an is in both of the cases of an ola oriskal in addition to not being able to eat the to eat the there's an additional that applies to the animal. So in those two cases when there's an are going to agree that we will not hold 11:31 is and we will allow it we will allow the is to extend to the second principle as well and therefore you for and for right okay so now back in all right we have says we stack mayor stack attacks the because obviously in this case mayor 11:57 would beholding of uh beholding of the is sorry I did say that earlier that when we have an a how is this is because applies to what just the ga applies to the entire animal so that is a more expansive portion of the meat right so in the more expansive is um mayor would hold that 12:21 does not apply because we have an iss right but No is not enough but if we have the secondary piece of is right because we have an is that's coming as well then you would allow the expansion. Okay. 12:37 asks. So now we want to understand the opinion of right say in a case of we don't expand but in a case of and in a case of ola we do. So who is the opinion? Who's whose opinion is this? Who holds that? In a case of Iser, we do not hold of of right. We we we stay with 13:09 however the is. However, if we have a case of of the or the or the we are going to apply, right? We see we we have we have sort of a split of when we're going to to expand to the second is this must be the opinion of where is this opinion. 13:39 So [clears throat] if you have somebody who is tame and they are going ahead and eating kesh meat whether that meat is uh is is or right whether that meat is is able to be eaten or not they're going to be in this case right for the when someone when someone 14:03 is who eats meat that is kadosh there is of there's of which means if you do a pog big it's going to be. So in this case [clears throat] the the tanakama holds that if you eat any if somebody is t and they're eating kesh it doesn't matter if the kesh meat itself is or we're going to have of in that case 14:28 however comes along and says in a case where a person goes and eats and eats kesh that is that is able to be eaten by other kohanim and just this person cannot eat it because they are then you have however that's if you have someone who's goes ahead and eats a piece of kesh meat that it that the meat 14:53 itself is already tame we're not going then in that case we're not going to have a because he's only eating something that's already tame there was there this this this is not kesh that could be eaten by anyone this this this this piece of meat could not be eaten anyone anyway because it is at time that's that's I don't understand how do you have this 15:25 case right you said I agree with you in a case where someone is and they go ahead and eat a piece of that is then in that case we're going to have but if they go ahead and eat a piece of meat that is meat that is in that scenario. 15:46 So it comes along and it says how do you even establish this case right in a case where you have someone who's tummy and they're going ahead and eating kosher sorryes once they touch the meat this is a tame person automatically becomes tame. Every case of a tame person eating kesh meat is eventually going to be eating piece of kesh meat that is tame. So how do you 16:13 differentiate between whether the whether the kesh meat is tame or tar and eventually it's all going to become tame anyway when the t person eats it says it seems like it seems like have a pretty good argument. 16:31 So, so Rava comes along and then this is where we're going to get our proof from. Rava comes along and says we actually have to redo this. It's not as much it's not as much of a as we originally thought. If you have a case where first this person was tame, right? So you have someone who himself is tame and only then does the meat become tame which could happen by itself or could happen 17:00 when this person touches it. In that case everybody agrees both and agree that there is going to be a why because in that case when does what's of the is for somebody who is tame eating kesh. So the so right away this person became tame. This person had a problem 17:23 eating any kesh meat because he himself was and that already was so was already in existence and so in that case is going to agree with that there's going to be that there's going to be however what's the problem? What's what's the what's the the case of first you have this piece of kesh meat that is 17:47 and therefore that piece of meat is not allowed to be eaten by anybody because it's kesh meat that is tummy but then what happened this person got became tummy so in that situation that piece of meat wasn't allowed to be eaten from the beginning because it was tummy there was a Now this person is also tame and not 18:13 only can he not eat that piece of kesh meat, he can't eat any kesh meat because he now has a problem by himself because he's tame. Right? Right. So he started with an isra already on this piece of meat and then this person is stacking another iss on this piece of meat that is again kle because now he's able not only can this can this person not eat the original piece of tame kesh meat but 18:36 he can't eat any kesh meat at all is say no in this case we will expand and include this secondary is why Because because in this case it's an isol. This person not only can he not eat the original piece of tame meat, he can't eat any kesh meat. 19:01 And since we've now put in all of these pieces of kosher, sorry of of meat. So we're going so since we came with an isola that expands additional pieces of meat that are to this person now that additional is can be on the original piece of kesh meat that was tame that he was not allowed to eat and so and therefore we have we now can apply what 19:30 is which is right because again a t person who's eating kesh that is where the comes along however disagrees less says, "No, no, no, no. I don't know. I don't hold." So, because this piece of meat was already user to this person because it was a tame piece of kesh 19:54 meat. I It doesn't matter that now there's an additional isser on this person for becoming tame and he can't eat any kesh meat. Great. So, that is will apply to all the other pieces of kesh meat that are tar that previously was able to eat. But this original piece that was already tame and already an iss for the for this co to eat, we're not going to expand and put another is on top of it. And therefore, you only have 20:18 the isur of eating kesh meat that is and not the additional is of that of eating of a t person eating kesh meat. So that's the opinion. So that's we've isolated the opinion of who does not hold of an iser k. Okay. 20:38 However, they come our next expansi but according to right that was the first part because let's let's remember how we got how we even got started here right we brought in this opinion we brought in this opinion to state that there the opinion of in a case of eating the gith of aa which was sort of a split opinion right which 21:02 is the opinion is we don't hold sorry we said that that case of that in a case of a githan of noa you don't extend it to noa however if we had a case of shanisk or a case of ola we would expand why because we said this is a spec a specific case this opinion holds a general isser cannot come and break the 21:26 general rule of however if you have an is together with an iser that's right we brought in is so in that case we will allow the expansion of the second is so we now so we now see the opinion of by itself is not enough to expand. 21:44 Great. However, the government now tells us we holds his opinion when you have an iser that doesn't bring in anything additional. So if it's just a same level is we're not going to allow it to expand. However, however, if you have a case where there is not just but also comes with right, it comes 22:12 with some extra level of stringency then he then would hold that the second is can be as well and what and what happens in this case. So really we we should be able to apply it in this case this case of the uh right we had a case of the tame person sorry we had a piece of tame meat and then the coin himself became tame. So 22:37 what's it what's the here we had originally a case where there was only is for this going to eat this meat because it because the meat was tame but now the person became now we have to right now we have so shouldn't we be able to apply this this idea that we have an isser and 23:02 should expand to the second is says no that's not true It's not necessarily true that this is why we're assuming that is the more one. Why? Because we added on you can make a case that actually is the why because there's a way around it. If if somebody has but the meat itself is 23:30 still edible. You can get around you can get over the why go to the mikvah. Go through a tara process. And now the tum is gone. But the tuma of the basar the you can't bring the meat in you can't bring the the kesh meat into the mikvah once the once the meat is t it's t forever. So since there's both ways we can't apply in this case will not extend the because you can't say there's 23:52 automatically an isol and an is because it's not it's questionable which one is the more one. So we're left with just and the opinion is iso by itself is not enough to expand. you need to have is together with an isser. 24:08 Okay. [clears throat] So now we've established we've established that is the opinion of where we have this principle that we state we stay true to when it's just ano but if you have an iso and we can't expand now we're going 24:33 to question whether actually holds that opinion top of top of kufu A follow is it true that a biosy himself does not subscribe to the idea that an issue we have shabas let's say you have a shabas that 24:58 coincides with yipper and one goes ahead and does the shog on this day obviously you're not do not allowed to do mala on chabas And you're not allowed to do on. So how do we know that this person is actually two, right? Two two because one for yipper and one for shabas. 25:28 We have two we have two by shabas. It says shabas and yomip and by kiper it saysim who and since we have these specific cases of distinguishing the identity of shabas and kipper therefore they're each acting independently and each one is is going you're going to be have a specific for each one for shabas and one for 25:52 that is the opinion of says ra no says no actually only in this case going to be one and they both are coming together and and there's only going to be one you're not you're not have a separate one for shabaser it's just one it's one of so now let's look in the rashi rash is going to walk us through where we get 26:18 our challenge from rashi is um a little bit down in the a little bit down in the narrow lines shabas hilashem okay a little bit long rash but it gives us a good context shabas Even if another is comes along with you're still going to in and of itself he right it has the specific of heim 26:49 has a similar who right it has this language of who that again it has its own identifiable identifiable distinguishable is tahani is and really is actually going to you know give us sort of the implied question actually really actually come at the same time right they actually start at the same time right 27:17 once you are once the day is it's bother and at the same time so if you're gonna hold is oh Mosph If you're going to hold the opinion is actually that you can expand the issued earlier as an Rashi actually seems to use them interchangeably and we show him deal with whether it's two separate ideas but let's just take what we were 27:46 saying as we'll call it. So if you hold the opinion of Rabio is that you only need one or the other either in or in Rio's opinion makes sense. Why? Right. In that case then that's why both why 28:13 actually now gives us this clue is that even though in this case they came together but we're going to be able to apply it that they would actually both apply independently even if one came before the other. And why is so if we look at that's going to be what we're calling we called why what does have 28:42 if you violate Shabas comes and brings along a a stringency that the punishment is going to be is Mrs. Basin. So shabas on top tacked on top of yum kipper shows us the idea of an iser shabas and yumipper as compared to shabas shows us the position of ano how the shabas 29:09 what's the isab just comes along and adds in as well on the day And therefore is is showing a a right in a more expansive where not only do we have a an we also have an iss coming and so we see that whether Shabas would have come 29:39 first or would have come first we either apply or but if we hold that's the opinion of that it's either or then it makes sense opinion makes sense However, says if we hold like we thought on if we hold that if you only have an or only that's not enough according to and 30:10 he needs both. We don't have that in this case and therefore why would you be have two one for one for one for you only should be of one. So we see this is Rashi's telling us this is how we know that based on based on this Brya we actually see that is not of the opinion where Iser is not enough on its own and you need isol it seems like according to 30:32 you actually can either one by itself is sufficient to expand the so we have an answer Oh, sorry. I skipped the line. Skip the line. Um, oh, sorry, not the second, please. 30:55 Uh, sorry, Mishna. So, so Raum says, you're right. The the Mishna or this B that he brought the the context of it is correct. However, a opinions need to be switched. actually glee is the opinion who holds only a single katas and raka is the one who holds two katas and now we don't have a problem now we now we've aligned the rigi with the cheetah that 31:25 we had from yesterday that he from from the previous that according to you actually need both and coming together and not either or okay so now based on this So according to now the new the new position of after we have switched them that according to there is only a single that you're going to be over not both 31:54 and shabas but just for one of them. So now he sets up this case. If you have a case where you didn't realize it was Shab you did and you were from Shabas perspective but you knew it was so you were doing Shabas you were doing a shog in that case 32:16 we would have a of why because we're focusing on Shabas. So Shabas is is the defining factor. However, he said, "But if you had a if you had a case where you violated Shabas intentionally, you knew it was Shabas, but you were not sure. You were shog then you would not be right because in this 32:42 case you were only worried about the shabas and the shabas is amazed amazed. We are not right." So my what's the reason why why why does he say this says because shabas shabas is set right from creation of the world shabas is every seven days so shabas we know the day of shabas is set 33:08 you know from the beginning but we know it's always on the 10th of the month we don't always know when the 10th of the month is going to be because that depends on when basin is so according to this logic Shabas is actually coming earlier than Yom Kipper because Shabas was set in stone from the beginning every seventh day. Yum Kipper only gets set 10 days earlier when the Bit is coaches and 33:35 therefore Shabas precedes Yom Kipper and then and because right we're in Rece's opinion where cannot stack because it only stacks if you have both Iser and Iser Mosf. So therefore Shabas is the iser that holds and you're only going to be if you're bashabas but if you're mashabas even though you're shipper there's no so that's the that's the answer that gives 34:00 says wait a minute so I understand that the day of the day that that shabas falls out is set from the beginning but shabas doesn't every shabas starts when it starts so when shabas when this particular shabas starts bas was alreadyesh 10 you know 10 days ago so when yipper and shabas start uh right start at at Shia it's yipper 34:24 and shabas coming together shabas doesn't precede yum kipper it may be the day when is going to fall out with set but by the time that day comes along they both come together so it's not a case of one coming before the other okay so then how does rava understand this idea that you're only going to be from the shabas perspective and not from the perspective so marov says no actually 34:47 this case had nothing to do with the case we were talking about this This this limid was a totally different limit. What was it? This was a case where there was on the Jewish people and they were not able to celebrate young kipper. There was not to celebrate young kipper but I guess for some reason did not extend to shabas. So what did they do? 35:11 So raon what goes there say listen we don't want to totally not have yum kipper at all and we're not allowed to celebrate yum kiper because of the zerra but we are allowed to celebrate chabas so they say even though it's not the 10th of the month we're going to celebrate yum kipper on chabas I guess presumably the first shabas after after rash so they pushed yum kipper to celebrate it on chabas itself and in that case it wasn't really yum kipper so 35:35 specifically because it was really shabas and it was sort of a de facto yum kipper so therefore we only focus on the shabas. So if you were m it on shabas that was if you were showing shabas was and we were ignoring and the said we're ignoring the yum piece of it because it wasn't really yum kipper it was sort of being celebrated as yumipper just to sort of keep yipper alive but it wasn't actually yum keer right so it's a 35:59 different case the same thing said the same thing he said this answer of he said this answer of raba that this was a specific case. Nothing to do with our previous case. Okay. Fine. So in the end we are able to establish we were able to establish that was the opinion of our we have this hybrid approach. Usually we say in 36:27 if you just have an is an expansive that includes additional items that comes afterwards that's not enough to break that cycle. But if you have an issue is so not only does it bring additional items into the fold but it also brings some type of additional whether it's an is or something else in that case and and that we had would expand. Okay, 36:50 back in our back in our quote we had in our Mishna of Yehuda and in terms of whether the giran is no just with a animal or kosher animal or we get or with a non-coser animal right and 37:14 who says that that giranha is no both kosher and non-coosher animals he brought his proof from Benov. So now we're going to have Bryson that expands on this a little bit. So right's logic was the says and because that happens prior to Morra obviously at that point there were no kosher non-coosher animals and so applies to both kosher non-cooser animals. So 37:46 they they take they're taking issue with the with the look at the P the doesn't say because of this the hello what does it say is not allowed to eat the and when were when were the Jews established as Ben Israel as opposed to Benakov That was only after mra. So 38:12 clearly this is not referring to the taking effect immediately. It's referring only to taking effect like had said right. It was actually said when the Torah was given we just the Torah just quoted it earlier to show the source of why the gasha was in the first place. But really it only took effect when given at Hari. And of course at that point we had the laws of 38:39 kash and so it only applied to kosher animals. So rava so rava comes and asks a question on or tries to deflect the question of the rabban. It says well we have another pos that says and again that this is the context of the shift of the sons of Jacob bringing their father down to mitim and what does 39:05 it say bay is and when is this obviously well before matanorah. We see that the Benyakov are called Ben Israel at an earlier time prior to matan tora. So you can't say that they only called benol at mat tora. We see that the terminology of b isol actually precedes matan torah. So our answer is no noisa that works because when was this? This is after the 39:29 after the the altercation between yakov and so and hashem had already changed Jacob's name to Israel. So at this point in time they could be saying Ben Israel because Ben is Jacob now had two names Jacob and Israel but at the time of the Gan itself that was before that that was right right before Yakov's name was changed or or Yakov was given the additional name of Israel. 39:51 So, he said, "Okay, well, even though you're right, maybe at the time of the actual story of Ghana, they weren't called Ben Israel, but we see now they were called Ben Israel at a time well prior to Matan Torah." So, maybe we should say maybe the Isra should apply right now. 40:14 So whenever that or not right now whenever YaKob got the name Israel so shortly after the story with the malab that's when we that's when the ganasha should take effect. So it should take effect prior to matan tora. Obviously still at a time when they're kosher when there's no such thing as kosher and non-coosher animals. There are just animals and therefore ganasha should apply to both kosher and non-cosher like the opinion of 40:38 the answer is no. We can't say that the Torah was given at at multiple points in time, right? Misa we we could you could make the argument that at the actual shasa when the story of the ganasha happened immediately there was an issa put in place or you can say that matan torah when all the hakas were given then that could be when starts but the we don't 41:01 have like just multiple times where where whereas are given you can't say it wasn't shaza it wasn't matan tora but a random time in the middle when yak's name was changed to all of a sudden we revert and say that the isra of now applies that that that that's a little too farfetched and therefore we since we only have two points in time and it wasn't at Shas Misa we default to according to Arbon we default to Shas 41:24 Matan Torah and that is when we're going to apply the isser of the gasha and of course at that time we have the concept of kosher animals and non-cooser animals um go we could do like a couple we'll start the so we have to continue tomorrow but we'll do it quickly we'll start the start the next next piece Gotta feel like I gota got full fully 41:47 through the uh fully through the don. Now before we were talking about now we switch topics to right. So what about eating from the limb of a of a lime animal? So according to the of applies both to kosher animals and non-cooser animals say no no 42:17 the is of only applies to a kosher animal again similar that we had we'll see different opinions but simil similar that we were having by whether it applies to kosher n kosher animals this time does it apply across the board to all animals or is it limited say to only kosher animals. 42:38 We'll just we'll just read the each of their logic. both learned their opinion from the same right the teachers of what's the says you can't eat the the blood because the blood is the life source and that's and that was Rashi tells us that is where we learn the right we see the of this is the teaches 43:11 us is of how do they learn from this? They say right with a we saw at the beginning talked about dam and then talked about. So any any animal that is subject to we also have the just like you can't eat the dam of a kosher animal you can't eat the dam of a non-cooser animal. And therefore just 43:42 like the iss applies to animals across the board. So too the is of applies to animals across the board both kosher and non-cooser learned this because obviously they hold that only applies to kosher animals. 44:01 Don't eat the nephesh, right? The life source which is you know when the animal is alive with the what does that imply what can you eat though? You can eat the you can't eat the but you can't eat the only time we can apply the is when there would otherwise be a permitted way to eat the meat. 44:31 However, if you have a case where the buser is never going to be allowed to be eaten, which is obviously what a non-coosher animal, then doesn't apply. So again between and who say that applies across the board to all animals and they have their lim in the that links dam to and the say no is limited to kosher animals 44:53 and they learn from the because the says you can't eat the nephesh with the basar implying that there is the ability to eat the basar but that you can't eat the neesh the only time you can have an ability to eat the basar is an animal that is kosher and now we will actually stop And maybe maybe we'll backtrack tomorrow, but we'll stop here for
Expand transcript 6,526 words
41:18
38:30
43:08
42:31
41:21
26:19
44:05Interactive Daf
