This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:01 All right. Good morning. Let's begin. Today's 107. We are picking up on the last line or second to last line with days 106B. Our show this week is sponsored by Dr. Mrs. Garten House for we hope that that she together with a complete and enduring raff. Thank you 0:24 for the sponsorship. So say let's begin. Great today. Note say second to last line 106b is like music to the ears. What could a person do? A person could wash their hands in the morning and make it that that h that that washing should suffice throughout the entire day. This is comes in handy. Let's say you have a couple of 0:52 simas to go to in one day. Right? So what can you do? you wash your hands in the morning and you make it tonight that the hand washing should work throughout the entire day covering everything you're going to eat throughout the day. Rashi says Rashi says again you could wash your hands in the morning and make it tonight that this washing should count to cover all of the eating I'm going to go through the day. However, there's a very 1:15 important caveat where she says, "However, again, this requires me to be constantly vigilant about my hands throughout the day, making sure that I don't touch anything unclean or if for that matter any covered part of the body obviously." So if a person is washes in the morning and has in mind that that washing should cover them throughout the entire day and is vigilant regarding 1:42 their hands throughout the entire day then one washing could suffice for the day. We're going to clarify this. So say ultimately said to the people who lived in Pixos in the valley of Arbos. He said to them this applies to people like you mayo. So to people like you who lives in 2:07 this pixa valley. So ultimately again this applies to you. Why? Because water is very scarce. Therefore what should you guys do? wash your hands in the morning and go ahead and make it tonight when you wash and ultimately again your washing should suffice throughout the entire day. So say what's happening over here is 2:31 says that the statement of rav he's qualifying the statement of ra and he's saying that that's you could wash in the morning and it counts throughout the day that only applies in circumstances of need like where there's a scarcity of water but is that you should go ahead and wash every time before you eat. Others explain others explain that this applies in 2:57 extenduating circumstances but doesn't apply or cannot be applied in non-extenuating circumstances and say this approach would argue because if you notice again when Rav said this he did not qualify it. Rav just said straight that you can wash your hands in the morning with a T tonight with a condition that it should last throughout the entire day and he did not give any type of qualification that this is only if water is scarce. So 3:20 therefore again qualification ultimately argues on others explain that no that this applies in all circumstances whether it's a because of scarcity of water not whatever it is again you could wash and with the you can go ahead and allow the washing to work the entire day 3:46 so we say so first of all what's the in this kind of situation because it's actually quite Interesting. So says as follows this isn't actually begins this way a person could go ahead and wash their hands in the morning and with a this washing could work the entire day even non-extenuating circumstances. So the 4:16 like the pure of however say there's a big qualification on this which is why this never comes up a person has to be constantly vigilant about their hands the entire time. So say so ultimately again so really it requires that there be no has had so because that is highly unlikely throughout an entire day person is not going to be vigilant not to scratch their head that's what it means literally you can't scratch your head 4:42 you can't scratch a covered part of of your arm right so you can't touch your feet so say so in all of the in all of these circumstances ultimately again generally a person is not going to have but again on a technical level works however there's another reason I will say Why we don't apply this which is as follows that if water is available to you so 5:07 we'll say if water is available to you the says that you should not avail yourself of this of say so although the technically is like ra again the says if you have water available to you better not to rely on it and furthermore again in order to even rely on it requires you ultimately what to go ahead and to go ahead and 5:31 be constantly vigilant regarding again your hands over the course of the day. The Mishna comments on this and he says that this is talk actually the case of Rabosa is talking about where you're doing in the morning. This is right. I'm doing the in the morning and I have in mind when I do this nativa that it should work throughout the day. But again, the Mishna Buddha also says 5:55 technically speaking, it could work if you do this with a nutila before you eat. So for example, if I'm about to eat breakfast and I'm having a bagel for for breakfast and I wash my hands and I say, you know what, the washing that I do now and I'm about to eat the bagel, the washing that I do now should count for me throughout the day. On a technical level, if a person is not makdas, if a person does not have a lapse in concentration and awareness about his 6:20 hands throughout the day, one washing could in fact suffice for the entire day. The just says on a technical level, it's usually not practical because a person has plus the says if you don't have to rely on this and you have the ability to go ahead and wash each time before you eat, that is certainly preferable to do so. Okay, good writer 6:43 papa. So papa says as follows. We say now we're going to get into the interesting discussion over here about what we call right then in order to go ahead and wash have a proper you should be pouring the water yourself or she's saying the water should be poured by someone has to be by me but it should be poured by a person. Watch this. Here we go. I'm going to wrap up. 7:14 say here you go. I have a river. I have a river. And what happens Michael? Don't worry about it. You don't have to spend time on it. I feel bad. So say the says as follows. So I have a means I have a channel. There's a body of water. There's a river and there is a I've created a channel. The point of that channel is to channel water from the river ultimately again to the fields to the fields. How do I get the water 7:39 from the from the river to the channel? I bucket it out. So I have a I have a bucket and I'm taking I'm taking water from the river pouring it into the channel. So watch this. So I see here's the issue. Let's say I want to go ahead and wash my hands for a suda in the water of the channel says I can't do that. So I can't do it for two reasons. It doesn't work. Why? Rashi 8:09 says listen to this. So on one hand there's not enough water in this channel to count as a so therefore again I can't do furthermore again I can't just go ahead and use this water I will say why because this water is not considered to be means the water has to be poured through human force on my hands in order to go 8:46 ahead and count as already again if I'm dipping my putting my hands in this channel already again the act of pouring has occurred And therefore it's not considered to be however say what I can do is if I have my hands in the channel right and ultimately again my hands are right by the spot where the guy is pouring in the water in 9:18 the bucket or the water from the bucket then that counts as and I can wash my hands This is actually a very very very important in the we require again human force. So what it's saying is like this. 9:34 Now interesting enough what the saying over here is it doesn't have to be me who's pouring it but it has to be poured from a person. So I say if I stick so essentially what the saying is like this. If I go ahead and I wash my hands in the channel but further down the channel there's no it doesn't work. 9:49 there's no human force and ultimately again there's not enough water to count as a mikvah for but if I go ahead and I wash my hands essentially up channel I don't know if this technical word but you understand right at the beginning of the channel where the individual was pouring in the water then that water is coming in through human force and therefore again I can 10:11 use it for supposed to listen to this next case. Listen to this wild case. However, in the following situation, if when the individual who's drawing the water from the stream or from the river and it's pouring it into the bucket. So, I'll say if the bucket has a hole in it and the hole is large enough to allow for a flowing out of water. Watch this case. If when I'm pouring the bucket, 10:55 get ready for this. If we're pouring the bucket, so the water is pouring into the channel, but there's a stream because of the hole that's also flowing back into the river. So, we'll say, so what does that do? There's a stream flowing into the river while there's a simultaneous stream flowing into the channel. What does that do? What does that do? That connects the river with the channel endows the channel with the properties 11:18 of the river. The river we're assuming has the shear of a mikvah and a person would be able to go ahead and properly be told of their hands in the channel as well. Incredible. So ra says as follows. So the takeaway from this is that when washing one's hands and we're going to discuss this in greater depth when washing one's hands one requires it requires human force. This is 11:41 exceptionally important. Exceptionally important says as follows a note say another if you have a utensil ultimately again a clea has a hole and the hole ultimately again is large enough so that if you were to go ahead and submerse that cle in let's say utensil of water the water would rush into the cle say that is not a cle 12:08 that is fit for why because a cle that has a hole that is large enough to take on water is loses its designation as a cle. What is the telling me that I need a cle I need utensil. So we just learned that number one you need you need human force. Number two, I need a cle I need a utensil. 12:32 Says says that if you have a cle doesn't have a raas in it. If the cle say for our purposes 3 and a half ounces, right? If the cle doesn't hold 3 and 12 o then ultimately again a matter of say what we're seeing over here is something very interesting that the minimum amount of water to be used for ultimately is what is three is a reve 12:59 now the truth is based on the way we pass in yesterday that you're really supposed to wash up until the wrist right you really need more than that you really need more than that but the minimum amount of water that you're going to go ahead and use for ultimately again is reas. So if you have a utensil that does not hold a rais 13:23 that is not a good enough utensil ultimately for is that true sorry is that so said that if you have a clear utensil that does not hold ultimately again you cannot And say what do you see from here that if you say what's interesting over here is 13:52 as follows the the lion over here's that you need a cle that is max means what capable of holding a raas what doesn't what doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't necessarily mean that it actually has a raas of water in it so we could infer from here 14:19 we'll say ultimately again I can infer from this that if it holds even if it doesn't actively have in it this should work to which both say get ready for this they both say this is an incredible one is talking about washing for one person one is talking about washing for two people what does this mean both say here 14:43 we go may reveal Say if you have a of water say one ra of water is enough for the handwashing of one person and it even works for two people. Okay. So the will say what what what what exactly does this mean? 15:10 Ultimately said here you have saying toi are you to have a complete cle. We're going to come back to the two people with one reve in just a moment. Are you ash? He said, "Yes, I excuse me. I'm sorry. 15:31 Are you on the Are you mid on the um appearance of the water that the water look like water as opposed to looking like another liquid?" Yes. That water used for washing ultimately look for water. 15:48 Are you on the at least a reas of water for washing? He said yes I'm mak. So we'll say so he was mak on all three of these things. Number one that you use a cle number two ultimately that the water looks like water and number three ultimately that what that you have at least of water others have a different version of this exchange. 16:10 This is what he said to him. I am on the use of a cleave and that the water has the appearance of water but I'm not so on the say. Now what does that mean? Here we go. is wild that you could use water that is ra and from a raas you could wash your hands for one person and you could even 16:39 use the same raas for two people. So we'll say what this is saying is not only is a raas enough for one person but ra is enough for two people. We're going to see what this means in just in just a moment. And I will say why what does this mean that one ra is enough for two people? 16:55 This is an incredible shiny hass say the is different over here. Why? Because the remnants of that one ra came from an original what we call that that leftover that leftover water is what they call the of raas. What's what does this mean? Take a look at a raas. 17:18 Listen to this. What the is saying is as follows. When you have a raas of water for that represents a unit of natila because it represents a unit of says we're going to see not only could it work for one person but it could work for two people as well. Why? Because once you have that unit of 17:42 that has the status of a consecrated unit and even if the second person uses it and doesn't get a full reas from it it works. Say I tell you something amazing. Where does this kind of case come up? Get ready for this. This is incredible. And this is and again these cases come up much more in circumstances where there is a scarcity of water. So 18:07 this is so number one we pass in that you need at least. Well, say it's so important that we're learning these halas because sometimes when we wash, you know, especially if we're hungry, you know, it's kind of becomes like a much more like type of thing. You know, we're we're in in in first we've seen that's not right because washing has to go until the knuckle, right? And second of all say 18:34 you need to use remember again if you're washing correctly, you're using more than a raas of water. You're definitely using more than a ra. The truth is is enough to ultimately get you by if you're washing until the knuckles right if you're washing until the wrist you are using you furthermore say there is the concept ultimately again of a cle therefore 18:57 you have to use at least when washing watch this get ready for this so where does this case come up this case is incredible Well, let's say you're s in a situation where you have a scarcity of water. You're traveling and you don't have access to water. And what happens? You know, you're uh you know how this works. You're you're traveling with your family. You're 15 minutes into 19:24 the trip and everybody needs to eat. Suddenly, needs to use the bathroom and needs to eat, right? In the car for 15 minutes. Say, "What happens? You don't have access to water." So, you have a water bottle, right? But there's not enough necessary for everybody to wash on their own. So, says, "What can you do?" He says, "You could two people can wash simultaneously." So say if you imagine you can go ahead and I could wash say the way this works in the model is I'm washing and ultimately against 19:48 someone else's hands are under mine say so what's going to happen I'm going to get the reas but what is the second person under me second person is going to get what less than a so is listen to How say on a technical level on a technical level again if I'm washing and someone else 20:30 puts their hands either by the side of my hands or under my hands so I'm getting a reas I to get the person under me so to speak is getting less than a works. It works. So the novelty over here is because once there is a unit of a for there is a proper unit for and if someone else wants to piggy back on my 20:56 then ultimately again it works. So like is this the no this is not again ideally everybody should do their own but again it's one of those good that's good to know and in your back pocket in a circumstance of need that if two people are washing together as long as there is a unit of a raas even though the second person is clearly not going 21:19 to benefit from that full raas as long as there is a non-stop flow from one to the other ultimately again the natila will work. Okay. Askar just says that certain great used to prepare a cle for which held the reas. So they made sure again that the cle held the ra obviously was our conventional day washing cups. 21:46 You don't have to worry about this. But they prepared a utensil that had a raas. So Jacob of narot he went ahead. He prepared a utensil, a glass utensil that held the raashi went ahead and prepared an earthnware vessel which held says if you went ahead and you took the the cover of a barrel and you somehow manipulate I guess hollowed it out or 22:18 chiseled it out that it holds ultimately again you could use that as a cleave that becomes comes. Even though the said that that lid of the barrel is not initially made to be a cle if you hollow it out then you create the base or receptacle in it. You could use it as a cle says that supports this. 22:42 If you take the little of the barrel of the you hollow it out, you can use it as a cle if you have different these are different skins, right? These are says no different wine skins. If you filled up a wine skin and you put water in there, you could use it as a cle to wash your hands, right? The says sackup, but 23:08 a sack a sack and a box. Even if technically speaking, you could put water in there. These cannot be used as utensils for say why not because again remember in the previous cases ultimately you're making a proper utensil to go ahead and retain liquid. A sack and a box are never meant to retain liquid. They're usually meant to retain dry goods. Therefore, even if 23:34 technically speaking it can retain the liquid does not work. Here we go. We'll say this is a great case. Get ready for this. And we'll say get ready. Can you go ahead perhaps one of the most wellused? 23:53 But no one actually knows if it's true. Right? So say so listen to this. So get ready. So the asks what happens if I don't handle the bread directly? But rather again, what happens? I go ahead. So we'll say I'm holding the bread. I'm holding the bread in in a cloth in a mappa. So said do I have to wash for that or not? 24:17 Really what the is asking is actually a different question. The imar is presupposing that if I don't touch the bread I don't have to wash I don't have to wash. The question is are we concerned that even if you're holding it with a map you may come to wash it. So we should make you wash regardless. So it's interesting the sh is do I have to be concerned that if I'm holding the bread in a map that I'm going to come to 24:40 touch and therefore I should wash regardless. So it's almost presupposing that of course it works if you don't directly handle the bread you don't have to wash. So the says brings a story where this actually when they gave food bread less than a note he would wash excuse me he would take it in a 25:07 and he would eat it outside of the and he would not go ahead and make a afterwards. my love. So I said does it not mean that if it was a it would require ultimately again it would require maybe no all it means is that ultimately if it was a food it would require a 25:31 require but ultimately again there's no to which says this case does not really bring a riot to us one way or the other. Listen to this say found and Rav was eating bread in a map. He was holding the bread in a cloth. 26:03 So said to Ravd, "Is this how we act?" Rashi says sobi is it really proper to eat bread without just relying on the fact that you are hold just rely on the fact that you're holding the bread with him say so what's happening over here in this case is saw Raf holding the bread in a in a in a 26:27 cloth so assumed that Rav did not wash he didn't do his diet and that's why he's holding the bread in a cloth so Rav just as so just asked Rav rebi is this really the proper approach. So I could avoid washing, right? Is it really proper to go ahead and hold the bread in the cloth? He says, "No, no, no. You got it all wrong." So say ultimately again, so Raf says 26:51 back to I washed. I washed. I So why am I holding my bread in the cloth? Rashi says I'm anist, right? I'm a bit what's the word? I'm a I'm a meak as they say right I'm a bit fidious right they'll say so so what meaning I don't even when I wash I don't like to touch the bread directly with my hands right it's like it's a germ factor cleanliness factor whatever 27:19 it is I washed I washed say it's amazing no I didn't do I'm just happen to be holding the bread in the because I'm a little bit tough on Let's listen to this. And they say were eating their bread with with with worn out wine skins. Let me say that a little bit better. They were holding their bread with worn out wine skins. So they were not touching 27:51 the bread directly. So So ultimately again so such great rabbis are going to make a mistake based on the of say ultimately again same thing over here did not wash and that's why they were holding their bread with the worn out wine skins. So he says to them you're making a mistake cuz you're what are you bringing from that case where Rav ate rabid holding his bread in a map but 28:20 even Raf said I washed I washed I'm just a bit fidious. So the says I'm sorry remember again when Rav ate when Rav was eating his bread when Rav was eating his bread ultimately again while holding in the map it was only because he was he forgot listen to this interestingly enough they permitted the use of a 28:54 who eat but not by those who eat their name. Let's listen to this. They are suggesting over here as follows that kohhanim are permitted to go ahead and eat their chuma and eat their chuma while holding on to I should say differently kohanim are permitted to go ahead and eat their chuma with a mappa 29:28 and if you eat it in a mappa it doesn't require you ultimately to wash but this does not apply to isim who are eating their kul why not because in general kohanim which makes sense kohanim are much more vigilant with the laws of tum. So we trust that if a cohen eats his truma with a mappa he's not going to come to eat it who's in general not with 29:53 even if he's eating his bread with a map we are concerned that he may still come to go ahead and eat it and therefore again we could trust that they were ultimately to go ahead and eat these items without going ahead and touching them both So it sounds like what we've established over here is that technically speaking if one does not touch the bread directly so one could 30:20 avoid the obligation for although again the stories that we seem to support this don't really support that assertion rather they point to people who were just a bit more fidious in their personal conduct and therefore again even though they washed did not want to touch the bread listen to this interesting case. Let's say I'm not touching the bread. I'm being fed. I'm being fed, right? 30:47 Someone's feeding me the someone's feeding me the bread. So, I'm never touching it. Is there an obligation for under those circumstances? So, say one time was standing before he roasted from a piece of meat. He wrapped the piece of meat in a piece of bread and he fed it to him. 31:18 Were you not I would not feed you. bread when he was when it was being fed to him because he didn't do so ultimately again to which the just the opposite is because even though he was not touching the bread what did he do before he ate what did he do he washed he washed washed even though 31:54 again he was not going to touch he was being fed he was not going to touch the bread directly but nevertheless he washed prior to being fed supposed to listen to this. A person should not go ahead and place a piece of bread into the mouth of the shamish. 32:20 So say this case seems to be quite explicit that ultimately again a person should not pay place a piece of bread in the mouth of the shamish unless of course he knows that the shamish did further interesting again is like the waiter so he makes a separate on every single glass of wine remember again this is different if you 32:48 go ahead and you're partaking of a meal. You're partaking of a meal and you make a prian on a glass of wine. You do not have to go ahead and make another on every single coast. Why? Cuz one covers all of the wine you're going to drink over the course of the suda. However, the shamish the is has to make a separate on every single cup of wine. I say why is that? This is because of what 33:13 we call the den of niml. say the shamish does not know when he gets a glass of wine he does not know what >> that he's going to get anything else because he's not a member of the suda so because that will say he doesn't have d that when he makes this and it will cover everything else because he has no expectation that anything else is going to come along there when the second glass comes along he 33:34 makes a new upon it says but he doesn't have to go ahead and make on every piece of bread that he gets. Why? Cuz one thing he could he could bet on is that he's going to get fed. In other words, it was like part of the of etiquette is that you make sure you feed your shamish, right? You make sure that you feed the waiter. So ultimately, he knows he's going to get bread. But I say just because he's going to get bread doesn't mean you're going to get whatine >> wine, right? Say that's that's a 34:03 separate that's a separate again if he gets he if once he makes a hamzi, he doesn't have to make a separate amote on subsequent pieces of bread because he knows he's going to get fed. But again with wine he has to make a separate every single cup. So says no, he even has to make a separate on every single morsel of bread because he has no guarantee what he's going to get over the course of the suda 34:30 says. So say there is no contradiction between why it will say when there is an important person at the meal he will ensure that what he will ensure that the gets fed. 34:50 So if there's an then ultimately again the shamish knows he's going to get fed. He doesn't have to make a every if there is no present then maybe the shamish is not sure if he's going to get fed. Therefore, he does have to go ahead and make on each morsel which tells you something amazing. What's the definition of anash? What's the definition? 35:10 >> The definition is someone who worries about others, right? Anash is someone who doesn't just live for himself. Is someone who cares even about the waiter who is serving. Incredible. So says hi. 35:28 So I'll say ultimately again but remember say let's focus on our what's our here what are we trying to figure out we're trying to figure out that if you did not go ahead and touch the bread are you to go ahead and what are you to go ahead and wash so what do you see from here it seems to be clear that here the is yes because what do we say by the shamish even though right you could feed 35:52 the shamish literally feed the shamish but you must know that what that he washed his hands First therefore you see that even if you're not going to touch the bread directly you are ultimately again to wash before eating we'll say the shamish might be different why because the shamish is because he's preoccupied with praying the suda maybe 36:15 again he can't be vigilant with the purity of his hands that he's not going to end up touching something therefore he has to wash says interesting you should not give a piece of bread to the whether he is holding the cup of wine whether the balabas is holding the cup of wine supposed say this is a separate that in general if you're a guest at someone's home you should not feed the shamish ultimately without the permission of the 36:48 balabos right so if the balabos is drinking you shouldn't while he's drinking you shouldn't go ahead and feed Shamish because of a concern that the Balavos may choke when he's drinking. We saw this before. Shouldn't do anything when he's right. We saw this a couple days ago. He shouldn't take something off the table when someone's drinking. 37:03 It's a choking hazard. Says not it is prohibited to put food into his mouth. So say so therefore what what is it? It appears to me that what even if you're not going to touch the bread yourself, but you're going to eat the bread, it requires what the what about the following say next case. What happens if I'm not 37:32 eating but I'm feeding bread to someone? I'm feeding bread to someone. Do I require if I'm not eating but I am feeding? So here we go. First let's say a woman is fasting but she has to feed a young child. She has to feed a young child. So 38:00 she washes one hand in water and gives bread to her child. Now both say the idea is we're not going to make her wash both hands. It's yum kipper but she'll wash one hand. That's the minimum. So she washes the hands. So say what do you see from here? Ultimately that you have to do even if even if you're not eating but you're feeding 38:23 say they said about the elder say apparently again had a young child and he did not want to wash his hand on to feed the child but the child needed to eat. They forced them not only to wash one hand, they forced them to wash two hands in order to go ahead and feed the child. 38:48 Says no no that case is different. That was because some type of spirit of impurity which devolves upon the hands if there's not proper. Remember again on yum kiper because we're doing a very minimalist type of the time even in the morning if you're going to handle food over the course of yum kipper we make you do a 39:12 nil because of this shifa that's why I have to ask but there's no ria here regarding the general case that if I'm not eating but I'm feeding do I require a journal here we gosh it was an incredible story one time's father found him crying He said, "My son, why are you crying?" So to which little answered, 39:37 my hit me hit me. That's why I'm crying. So why did why did Rebby hit you? Right. Say different time where, right? It's interesting, right? So his father's not upset. How could hit you? He said, "What? What did you do?" Right? What what did you do to deserve that? 39:57 because my Rebi said to me, "So apparently young Shuel gave food to the Reb's child, but Shuel did not wash prior to feeding the Reb's son." So my Rebi got upset at me. My Rebi got upset at me and he patched me because I did not wash prior to feeding his child. 40:15 So fathers ask him, says, "No, so why didn't you wash your hands prior to feeding the child?" So what says this? So little says he's eating and I should have to wash. Little saying, "All right, why why should I wash? I'm not the one eating." So's father said, "You're absolutely right." So, 40:40 so's father said about the Rebi, it's bad enough that he doesn't know his learning, but he hits kids also. All right. says so ultimately again so the father really gave bad enough that you don't you don't know the but you're hitting and what indeed is that say number one is that say if you are being fed and not touching the bread 41:07 yourself you still have to wash that is number one and furthermore again say if whated >> if you are feeding someone you do not require say so it turns out that if you're eating bread even if you're not touching it you're going to require but if you're feeding it but not eating it you do not have to go ahead and do 41:31 say just what about the case like what do we do ultimately again is it indeed the if you're not going to touch the bread you don't say so is as follows if you don't have water accessible to you right with a distance of 4 mil is that indeed this will say if you don't have access to water ultimately again you could hold the bread in a 42:06 ultimately you still recite you I'm sorry you still recite still recite you still recite but ultimately again you could eat with I will say but I have to point out because I think this is often misunderstood. This is not a matter of convenience, right? This is not we're traveling and I don't want to stop the car cuz if I stop the car, then what's going to happen, right? It's a 42:29 three-hour detour for everybody to use the bathroom, washer, right? Around. So, let's just eat our sandwiches holding in the tin foil. I say that is not this. The is if water is not accessible. water is not accessible. I'm traveling somewhere or we're out somewhere and like the water is not accessible then you could rely on this to hold the bread 42:53 in a map thereby thereby avoiding but if water is accessible in any way one is obligated for the we'll pick up with the Mishna tomorrow
Expand transcript 6,467 words
