This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:00 And that's where we can >> start recording. >> All right. Good morning everybody. I'd like to begin by thanking today's stop sponsors for the month of Avora sponsors Mel and Karen Ram for Bushma for Elzar Benel Cheva Ed and Iris Miller and Adam and Dr. Leslie Rosen Leila Nishmas Dr. 0:39 Joseph Miller Ysef Ben Ruv Ben mayor Ben Pera incl Nathan and Beth Adler the week of learning in commemoration of the artside of Benjamin Adler Morai Ben and Dafomi sponsor Ayal and Sar Steinberg in the continued health for Shalamus Kana Basusha and for an 1:04 ultimate rule. Today's do is sadi. We're going to pick up on the bottom of sadi daled am. We're coming off of a soya where we were discussing genevas das and we got into a discussion regarding a variety of different loces as to how they would go about 1:33 potentially buying meat. from non-Jewish vendors. The assumption is in the variety of the cases for the most part that most of the butchers were Jewish. So in some local they would make what they call they would make a declaration an announcement on some days that they would sell travas and the to non-Jews. So you would know 1:57 on certain days that they were selling non-cosher meat to those non-Jews. On all the other days, the presumption was that the meat that was being sold was kosher. Because the presumption was that the meat was being kosher on those days, you were not allowed to sell traus and the veos to a non-Jew. 2:17 At the same time, it was presumed that the meat that was being sold was kosher, so you could buy from the non-Jews. Versus other local there was a scenario where they would not make any hakarza. There was no announcement made. So because there was no announcement made, you really could not buy from those uh vendors because the presumption was that at times there was non-coosher meat. You would never know if the meat 2:41 was kosher or not. So with that understanding, we're going to be in today's scamar. So the last line in the bottom of Saudi daled, there was this butcher who said to his friend, which we're going to soon find out really wasn't such a close friend. 2:57 Moving on to Sadi Amad Pis. So he says to his friend, "Had you been on good terms with me, had you appeased meat, would I not have given you some meat from this fatty ox which I specifically slaughtered yesterday?" I'm so he says right back to him, "Muffrey, shuffrey." Well, actually I 3:26 did already eat from the best of this type of ox. So says back to where did you get that from the zabin pony? You sold meat to this non-Jew and he ended up selling it to me. Omar says back the the butcher travdi. I actually chefed two different 3:53 oxen vah taave and the one that you actually got was a traa. So you actually ate non-cooser meat. So the reason the story is really brought up is to determine okay now that we know that he sold him or he's at least telling him that he sold him non-cosher meat, how would this impact the rest of the meat in the market? Do we say because of this that at this point now there is a 4:18 presumption that there's non-coser meat? So we can no longer buy any meat in the market or not. So we feel because of this this deranged person who didn't act correctly an Onessar Colin. 4:32 Should we go and asser all of the meat market? Obviously not. So we're going to say it's it's a one-off. It's one guy who is acting inappropriately. And be just because of that, we're not going to asser the rest of the meat primarily because of what we know is rove. The rove of the of the meat in the market is kosher. So there's no reason to presume 4:57 that anything other than this one scenario. There was non-cooser meat. Rebi rebi goes according to his reasonab. You have this meat market which is primarily supplied by kosher baser nims of yatak and mutzer. The meat that's found in the hands of the non 5:20 Jewish vendor is perfectly fine. Again this is based on reby's view that there's no concern that there non- kosher meat primarily because there is a rove that the meat is kosher. There's another version of this because of this one guy who what he's trying this deranged person who's trying to to pain his friend to aggravate his friend to taunt his friend anessar 5:51 mccullen are we going to asser all the meat in the market and the presumption is according to this eodomery that he's actually not really telling the truth he He was just taunting his friend. He actually didn't even really sell him non-coosher meat. But because he was trying to pay his friend, he was trying to tell him, "Well, I actually sold you non-coosher meat." So the garumar says, 6:16 "The reason is is that what he was trying to specifically aggravate his friends and that's why he kind of lied to him. But if he didn't actually lie and he actually was telling the truth and he actually did actually sell him non-coosher meat user despite the fact that there's a rove it would actually you would not be allowed to buy meat 6:39 from the market but in this scenario because he was just lying and he was just trying to taunt him there would be no issue with buying any other meat in the market. Okay, Batana, but there's a Brymer once again. 6:56 If you have this meat market and the majority of the meat in the market is being sold from kosher butchers and if there's meat that's found in non-Jewish vendors hands, it would be allowed. 7:11 So, what do you see? You see here once again that we're trying to imply that the reason that that it was allowed in this case is only based on the fact that he lied. But if it was a regular case where he basically was telling the truth, it would be user and we're now saying according to this that 7:33 it will be allowed to buy from that. So the gar answers it's different because In this scenario, we now have actual evidence that there is an non-coosher piece of meat being sold. 7:52 And this is really working under the presumption of the scenario where there actually was meat that was sold was non-coosher. So in essence, there's a form of a kazaka that says that there's something that's user. You really can't say that there's a rove in the scenario because you have is kazakisura. And the only reason in this in our scenario that we said that it's allowable is because he was specifically trying to hurt his friend. He was trying to hurt his 8:15 friend. He was not telling the truth. And hypothetically, if it was true what he was saying, you may be able to suggest that the rest of the meat in the market is no longer Kasher. Moving on. And we're going to discuss this quite a bit today. Okay. So this is important to understand. Rav says a statement. Once a piece of meat is out of sight, 8:43 it is user. Once the meat is out of your eyesight, it is no longer allowed to be eaten. And if you look at Rashi here, even if there was one hour where you did not see the meat, if it was actually sitting on your table. 9:13 The concern is that maybe this meat got switched with a non-coosher piece of meat. With that being understood, we're going to go through a variety of things to try to say is this statement true what Rav is saying. So me revi revi says the same line. mukin if you have this meat market and the majority of the butchers that are selling to it are actually uh good 9:37 kosher yidden basar so we see that meat that's found in the hands of a non-Jew is mut so we just said that if the meat is out of sight it's user now we're suggesting that okay we have this meat market the kosher butcher gives it off to the vendor the vendor is now holding on to the meat isn't that considered out of sight it's not under supervision from from the Jew 10:00 any longer. So answers the garba shiny. It's different. It's actually in the hands of a non-Jew. Yes, it's not Jewish supervision. But the key point is that it's under the supervision of a human being. And if you look at again at the next end of it, it says that the concern is actually not that it 10:26 wasn't under the supervision of a yid. The concern is that maybe an Iranian will come and switch out that piece of meat. And up until this point, we didn't realize that we're discussing the scenario. It's really that if no human was watching it, and and actually, if you think about it, it's in the best interest of the non-Jew to make sure that that meat is being watched cuz they want to sell the meat to kosher purchasers. So, the reality is is that as long as there's somebody watching it, 10:50 that's fine. So, let's ask another question on this. There's nine stores that are all selling kosher meat and there's one store that's selling non-cooser meat. 11:09 And what happens? Somebody bought from one of them. We don't know which from which one he bought from user. In this scenario, the doubt is considered user. So this scenario is actually based on a variety of gamar. There's a gamar in kubis and I believe in yuma as well that discusses when you have a scenario where there's an item or even a person which 11:35 is considered what we would call kavua. It's set the meat was bought from some sort of store. You have something called kavua ksa dummy. Every single item is considered essentially a 50/50. You don't view it as nine kosher stores, one non- kosher store. We view it as 5050. 11:55 And because it's considered 50/50, we rule. And because we rule, we say in this scenario that the meat that was bought, you cannot eat versus the next case. 12:12 What happens in this scenario? If you find a piece of meat essentially lying outside the stores, you go after the classic ro. So in this scenario, there's nine kosher stores. was one non-coosher store, you'd be able to buy it. So, if it was a scenario where you didn't know which store you bought it from, not allowed to eat it. 12:29 If it was a piece of meat laying outside, you go after the roof. But the question, the reason we're bringing up this case is okay, so we're saying that the meat that was left outside what you go after the robe. Why don't we say again, this is the case of what we call a bus. 12:46 Why is this not a scenario where the meat was left unsupervised? Isn't that a concern based on that fact that you shouldn't be able to eat that meat? So the Gumar answers again the scenario is it was found in the hands of a non-Jew. Piece of meat that was outside the stores was in the hand of a human being. 13:06 So you go based on the fact that there's non- kosher nine kosher stores. There's one non- kosher store and you could eat the meat. So tshamal ask another question. If you find a piece of meat, if it was raw, if it was found just a raw piece of meat, you go after the majority of the butchers in this scenario. Majority of 13:32 the kosher butchers would be kosher because it was obviously not cooked. So, it's just a raw piece of meat. You're going to go after whoever chef did it the but if it was actually cooked, you would go after the majority of people who eat meat. So if the majority of people are eating meat in this scenario knowing that it was chefed kosher and the majority of people that are eating meat and cooking the meat are kosher keeping then of course you could eat the 13:55 meat. But if the majority of the people in that area that are cooking meat are non-Jews, you would have a problem primarily because of bish akam you know that potentially a non-Jew cooked the meat. So because of that you would not be able to once again eat the meat. But what do we see here? Let's say the scenario was where the meat was cooked by a Jew or even in a scenario where it 14:20 was raw and we're saying we would go a bit after the tab. Isn't this once again another scenario of Shinom? Same question. And the Gamarra predicts the answer but it says if you're going to say the same answer that what it was held in the hands of what a non-Jew why do we say 14:46 that we go after what the majority of people that are cooking the meat. Just see if it's a non-Jew that's holding it. Obviously, he was the one that cooked it or is it a Jew that was actually cooking it. So since we say in this scenario that we're not determining it based on 15:09 who's holding it, it must be a scenario where the meat is what just floating around because the meat is floating around once again. Don't we have a problem of buser and don't we have a scenario where the meat is not being watched? 15:24 So what does the gumar answers a little bit of a different answer? What's the scenario where you actually see somebody with the meat from afar? He drops the meat, but you cannot tell who that person is. You don't know if it's a non-Jew. You don't know if it's a Jew, but you do know it's a person. So, there's no concern that a raven came and switched out the meat because there's a 15:51 human being there watching it. But there is a concern as to whether this is a Jewish person or a non-Jewish person who's actually at this point cooking the meat. So you have to use essentially the rove in this scenario. You have to use the majority to suggest is it kosher or or is it not? 16:12 Let's ask another question. Tasha there is a Mishna in skull which discusses what happens if you're in the Basa Mikdash and you find a variety of of limbs cut up. The Misha there goes on to say that if you find a bunch of limbs that are cut up, it's presumed to be a carbonola because that's how you would prepare a carbon. You would just break it up limb by limb. If it's cut up into 16:36 pieces, it's presumed to be what we call a carbocatas. It's presumed to be a carbocatus because that's what you do. slice it up nicely and the mission there goes on to say what happens if you find meat in your shell and the third scenario is what happens if you find meat outside your gar here is picking up so tashim nimbulan you find meat in the provinces or what we would say outside your lion 17:00 a varos if you find it limb by limb it's considered what neos it's considered non-cosher meat and the reason is as rashi says kalashba The presumption is if you find any limbs, the presumption is somebody who's just trying to essentially throw it out. 17:19 But if you find cut up pieces in this scenario, it would be allowed because the presumption is that somebody was trying to prepare meat for for consumption and somehow it got left there and it's so once again we see unsupervised meat kikos that that were left there found in the street are are evidently fine and there's really no 17:43 concern once again for busist alamin. similar question. If you're going to say, if you're going to say this is again a scenario like we just said before that actually there was somebody there but it was from a distance that you saw him that was there and he just essentially dropped it and you couldn't tell who it was avirus. 18:06 Why would you suggest in this scenario that just because it's cut up limb by limb that it's in a veila? Clearly there was somebody there. If there was somebody there, they weren't intentionally throwing it out. Maybe that's just the way that they were essentially cutting up the meat. 18:24 [snorts] And if you're going to say that it's not the case, then we still have the concern of Buster Shinisal. That if you're going to say that there is what? Not a person there and the meat essentially is just floating around, then you have these katikos, which we're saying in this scenario, it's because it's cut up. It's mutzer. How how could it be mutzer? It's just again lying by itself. 18:48 So the Gar goes on to say and if you're going to say I'm sorry um sorry um who is this Gamar at this point going according to we're only discussing Rav Rav is the one who made the initial statement of Alamus. 19:06 So it was said regarding this regarding to what Rav said amar mutaros when did he say it was mutarosuma all he was saying is that these pieces of meat are mut in terms of nellis meaning it doesn't actually transmit tuma but there's no reason to suggest that these plain pieces of meat that are 19:31 cut up that you can act you can actually eat. What's the reason you can't eat them? The reason is because again because this is a case of meat which is now no longer in eyesight versus ley mutil he actually specifies and says yeah it would be mutil and this statement of rob it seems like almost like just a little incidental 19:54 point but this could be the actual mccor for where gleans his actual statement of buster shinist alamin from and we'll see that in just a second is not actually specifying it outright rather he's just inferring it. So where do we know that he's inferring it from? 20:19 Davra dishes Rav was sitting by this ferry crossing in the Ishtatus river which is somewhere near I think Babylonia near Bavl Kazahugra he saw some guy sitting there it's a base he was eviscerating a head or dipping a 20:45 head into the water in order to clean it out to prepare it for consumption Knuffle me. What happened? The head fell icy silsa. So he went and got a basket. Sh. He tossed it in a tray. And what happened? He drew up two heads. Put in one head. Drew up two heads. 21:06 Abdih. Is this what normally happens? I put in one and two come out. Seems a little puzzling here. Asino. So he says that they're bother. Are you going to say that in this local that there's only user heads or user meat and there's no findings of terra there's no kosher meat? Why do you presume that they're non-coosher? 21:36 So Rav says back to him is more common. Why? And this is again where we're inferring from. Because there's a concern that these heads were left and they came from somewhere. The presumption is is they came from a local that either a raven brought it or somehow they got there that was [clears throat] majority of non-cooser meat. 22:05 And now that it's in this area, the concern is even despite the fact that this specific local has a majority of kosher consumers, there's a concern that there's user meat here. So that's where we can glean this idea from Robin from the Gumar goes on and says, "So who who cares if you're just 22:30 inferring it? Why does that matter?" The reason is Actually, they say this port, this area was actually primarily um surrounded by non-cooser people in this area. The main majority of people were actually non-coosher. And you should know and the reason that we're saying the 22:54 meat is not good is not necessarily because of this, but because there's actually non-cooser keeping people in this area. And and this these couple lines are a little confusing and the ronum actually go quite into this and to try to say we're going through a whole piece here to try to prove what Rav is saying that is alam and it seems like based on this scamar that we're actually proving somewhat against it because 23:18 we're trying to suggest that the only reason here that RA is saying it's user is because the port is primarily [snorts] populated by non kosher people and they go through it and they say this is all kind of a hypothetical and this is to some extent actually proving what we're saying is that this is why you can say he's just inferring from it. And this is just really giving us a general idea 23:40 that it's possible that you can't directly infer anything based on the fact that it could be populated by nine kosher vendors. I really really don't know definitively what he would say if hypothetically it was populated by kosher vendors. Would we say bus alamin or not? All this does is open up this this conversation and it really leads into what I was saying before with the previous focus that he 24:03 has with Ley that really it's clear that he says so there's a variety of ways that the rish go they say really you should take out a couple of the words there and they go through a variety of different ways of understanding but the point is that it's not clearly stated based on this and that's what means all right moving on 24:27 so let's get back so if Rob is saying that you have to always watch us meet how did ever eat any meat at all? So there's a couple of ways that he went about this. Either one option is that he never took his eyes off of the meat at all of or it's a scenario where what the meat was tied up and sealed up kind of 24:51 similar to times what we do nowadays but the point is that he clearly made it visible that you couldn't switch out that meat or he made some sort of identifying mark in the meat some sort of simmonar we have this raaro Puno who what did he do? He would cut up his meat into triangles. The reason he did that was actually to prevent anybody in his house from stealing the meat. But the point is still well taken is that you can make 25:18 some sort of sim into the meat. And that would be a way that that he could guarantee that the meat was as he left it. Rav was going to the house of his son-in-law. So he went down to the riverbank to catch a ferry and he saw that the ferry was actually coming towards him. Omar Ail because this ferry is coming towards me. 25:48 There's going to be some sort of yont at the place that I'm planning to arrive at. So what happened after he crossed the river? He went to the gate of his son-in-law dasha. He peered through a crack in the door and what did he see? 26:10 He saw some animals hanging in preparation for some sort of festive meal. He knocked on the gate. Everybody in the house came out to greet him. He was a hush of person. Everyone came out to greet him. And not only did everyone come out to greet him, aatami. 26:27 So actually the butchers came out to to meet him as well. Rav would not let his eyes move from that meat out of concern for what we've been saying all along. So he didn't want to let the the meat be unattended to. 26:46 So he says to the butchers, uh, if I would have relied on your supervision, you would have given user meat to the sons of my daughter, my my grandchildren essentially. 27:06 So Rob would not eat from this meat. So we say my time. What's the reason? If you're going to say because it was unsupervised, he never took his eyes off it. It wasn't ever unsupervised. What's the concern? 27:22 What's the concern? That there's something called nikush. Nikush is defined as something called divination. Um, the Torah tells us that we can essentially not use omens or some sort of mystical approach directly in order to predict our future or 27:46 determine how we approach things. And this is inert. So if you're going to say it's because he saw the fairy coming, he felt like, oh, this is a good omen. And that's why he's concerned about eating the meat. Yeah. any which is not like or is not considered. What are those two scenarios? Eleazar Evra that's the famous story when Abram sent Eleazar to 28:16 go find a wife for Yeak. He went down to the well and he said whoever comes and says not only am I going to give water to you give water to the camels that will be a sign that that will be a wife for Yvak. Along the same lines, Konus and Ben Shaw, this is when they were fighting the Pleim and they make it the determination preemptively and they said 28:39 if when we go there they say hold your ground essentially we're not going to attack. If they say come to us, we're going to attack. They said come up to us. They went and they attacked the police and they were successful. So if it's not one of those two scenarios where you're directly using information to determine your fate, so to speak, it's not considered a real nichl. So that can't be the reason. So what was the reason? Ella 29:05 Rob determined that this was a suda for a wedding. But the concern was is that it was a boss who was marrying an amat. And because it was the daughter of somebody who was learned, who was marrying somebody who was unlearned, he did not deem this to be a pseudositzvah. 29:29 He wouldn't eat from pseudos or shus and this is something which according to rib shim he says that big really shouldn't eat unless it's pseudos mitzvah. All right so he determined that this was not a reason to eat the meat but it had nothing to do with the fact that it was and nothing to do with that it was nikush. Along the same lines we're going to talk a little bit about what people would use to 29:51 foretell good fate. Ravk bimra would foretell with a fairy. What does that mean? That if he was going on a trip, if the ferry came right away, he would go on the ferry. If it took a long time for the ferry to come, took a long time for the subway to come, he wouldn't get on. 30:18 indicative of something good to happen and is this indicative of something poor to happen? And Raban Rabnan would actually check with a little child. He would say, "What are you learning?" And based on what the child would respond to him, he would discern whether it was going to essentially be I don't want to use the word luck, but it would discern whether this was going to be a good fate for him or not. 30:42 Kush Dav all the years of Ra. This is kind of a story which is related to what we were just talking about. He would always preface the the letter, our teacher in when um Rav actually died, he would write the who was the one who took over for Rav. 31:12 He would preface the letter to our colleagues to our contemporary inl said to himself the rabbana is there nothing that essentially would allow me to be all called the and again the rishon go into this and they say what was the reason was he so high on himself that he needed somebody to actually call him rebi the reality is that he was saying that based on the covenant of Torah he didn't want 31:38 anyone think that he was not a good substitution or a good replacement for Rav. So he was concerned that he was not being respected correctly and this would create uh a problem with people respecting having cover sole. 31:54 So what did he do? He wrote back to him 60 years worth of intercolations and calculations of the calendar. He thought this would impress him. So he said back to him said back to him really that's just a bunch of math that you're showing me. It doesn't really impress me much. 32:14 So what did he do? He sent him back 13 camel loads worth of questions relating to traas. The rashon also get into this. Rashi talks about this. Was he actually saying he was sending him a whole bunch of questions? Was he actually sending him traas themselves? Point being is he was showing him that he was proficient in the laws of traas. It's obviously 32:38 hyperbolic. It wasn't actually talking about that many 13 camels worth, but he was clearly showing him his proficiency in traus. It also says Rashi I believe says that it could be he was just talking about the different birds which we talked about alphos which were complicated. Point being is he was showing he was proficient in this point is rv. 33:02 So he said back them okay now I believe you. Okay. This is obviously learned person. So he says, "Okay, I have a RV in say I'm going to go see him." So this is talking. So he says to this child, "Tell me what you're learning." This is a says that died. 33:23 So it's pretty clear. He said, "Okay, must have died. I'm not going to make this trip." But actually, what happened was he actually didn't die. Actually didn't die. Raban there was this divine intervention that they didn't want Raban to go trouble himself to go visit um you know in this scenario why that was I I could not really find but point was 33:50 that there was fine intervention and based on what the child was telling him he was telling him not to go and that's what we're gleaning from this Tanya Omar bias if you build a house if you have a If you marry a woman, even though this is not considered real, even though this is not divination, it is a sim for good things. If you have a 34:13 baby or marry a woman or build a house and then afterwards you start a business and good things come from it, this could be a good sign. But he says it's only if it happens three times in a row. Where does he glean this from? 34:30 based on what Yakino says. This is when he's concerned about sending Binyam and he says, "Okay, Yseph's already gone. Shiman's in jail and now you're going to take Byam. This would be number three. And if tragedy falls at this point, this is really going to be a predictor of future tragedies to come. So along the same lines, if this happens three times in a row that good things happen, it's a simmon that good things will happen." 34:56 And vice versa. If it happens three times, it's predictor of tragedy to befall you. And again, this is not considered. This is just considered a simmon for good things to come. So, we're getting back to what we were saying before with he asked, "What happens if you have meat that's attached to a stick?" 35:23 Don't be a fool when it comes to meat attached. It's obviously a simmon that this is the same piece of meat and it was obviously be kosher. It's more of a statement. Once again, if you have meat that's attached to a piece of meat, meat that's attached to a string, it's obviously sim that it's kosher meat. 35:46 minard from visited but he visited him on Arabua and what did he find? He found ravens there throwing livers and kidneys essentially into the street. Told the people there, yeah, go take it and eat it because it's on Arab. Now that it's on Arabic kipper, we're presumed that everybody's cooking and preparing. It's 36:16 a mitzvah to eat. So, the majority of meat that you're going to find there is good and you can eat these uh these uh livers and kidneys that were uh thrown into the street. Another case is leasha benina rafa bara lost a colon amongst the barrels and 36:44 wine seller. As Rabbi Silver says, what are the chances seven-year cycle that I do tomorrow that we're talking about a colon? What are the chances? So bottom line is this guy had a a colon of an animal and somehow he was amongst his barrels and he lost the colon of the animal. 37:04 Later he found this colonel. So he comes to Rapuna. Do you have any simmonlay low? Do you recognize it? And I get asked this question all the time. Can you recognize the colon? Answer really is yes. You can see some differentiating factors there. I'm in. Yeah, I can recognize it. So he says go. You can take it. If you can 37:31 recognize it, there's actual recognition of it. It's good enough to take it. Along the same lines, there's He lost the back of a piece of meat. He came before. Do you have any that it's yours? 37:52 I don't have anything. Do you recognize that it's yours? Yeah, that I can do. I could recognize it. That's enough. You can go take it and eat it. Another case. He lost a spool of he wanted to know can he use the spool that he found for the concern is that there is a variety of other dyes that 38:23 look like we know comes from what we call the concern is that maybe it's just regular indigo that he found same questioning do you have any simmon that that's actually the spool that You lost low. I don't have anything. 38:44 Do you recognize that that's your spool? That that's your thread in ink. Take it. Go make senses with it. That's fine. Amarba Saba says, "Initially I used to say initially I used to say what are greater than actual visual recognition." 39:13 And where did he get that from? Because when we return a lost item, we do it based on you have to identify some markers. And we would not return it based on visual recognition. And I'll circle back to this in a second as to the reason why. 39:40 But now that I've learned these teachings, I learned that visual recognition is is better. Why? If you don't say this, how could you ever say that? What a blind person would be allowed to be with his wife. Obviously, he couldn't identify any sim. He's 40:06 blind. How could anybody for that matter be with their wives at night? So, what is it? It's some sort of voice recognition. BSA along the same lines here too we like to say that visual recognition is actually superior to simm now what's the reason let's circle back to why by hasha zveda you actually have to have simum 40:34 so it's interesting because there the reason is is um there's a variety of mccor but it's actually a Mishna in makos that discusses this and it talks about how there There are variety of different things that people tend to have a tendency and lust towards specifically gazel or money and an aras. Those are the two things. So there's a concern 40:59 that if the person is not and that's an exception to the rule where they can actually use visual recognition. But assuming that that's not the case, there's a concern that somebody may intentionally or really even unintentionally say, "Yeah, I can recognize that without giving any objective information to suggest it's their item." So we say in that scenario, you actually have to give simmonum in to 41:24 identify the item in order to get it back out of the concern that there's a lust for money. But generally the rule of thumb is that visual recognition is actually superior to simm. And just to finish up because it's kind of all connected here to Adam come and say so and so based on this sim and based on 41:55 that simmon killed some individual. We wouldn't kill the person based on the fact that we say this sim and that simmon because it could be somebody else would fit that same description. But if we say oh you know what these two guys are coming and say actually we recognize that's the guy that killed him then we would kill him based on this visual recognition and one more case just to finish up to the Mishnaashi 42:23 if somebody says to a messenger go so and so he's got this sim he's got that simmon maybe he'll be able to appropriately recognize him. Maybe he won't be able to appropriately recognize him because once again the sim could fit the description of numerous people the Islab but if he actually recognizes 42:49 that specific person yle once he sees him he'll know that's absolutely the person who he was referring to. So you see pretty clearly here that ani is actually superior actual visual recognition is superior to simon to actual signs and the only reason once again by shavasa that we're saying that you need to use the simm is 43:14 because we're concerned for the lust for money. So we make a special exception to that rule. But general rule of thumbs an is better than simmon. We pick up here. Have a good day everybody.
Expand transcript 6,420 words
