Bechoros 03 Chazara

0:00Today's death gimmel, we're holding on gimmel and we're out of three lines on the top. We've left off with the Bryce that it says, is that if a person transfers ownership of behemagasadu a gai, which is something that he's not supposed to do, we give him a knass, he has to buy it back from the gai, even if it's going to cost him up to ten times the amount of the value of that animal. Gimmel, we're out of three lines on the top. Maseya, the Rishlokersh, that Bryce that says that we give a knass to the person, he has to buy it back from the gai, supports Rishlokersh. I'm a Rishlokersh, I'm a very famous bahemagasala overgachavam. If a person sells a behemagasadu a gai, Kinsun, I sell you at Asara Bidameha. We give him a knass, he has to buy it back up to ten times its value, just like the Bryce has said. So, I'll give him a dapka or a lab dapka. When Rishlokersh said up to ten times the amount, is it dapka ten times or it's lab dapka? Rashi says, lab dapka means we don't knass that much. She does bother by that side because if we never go up to ten times, then why did the Bryce say ten times? Or Rashi says that maybe it means more than ten times. If the gai is not willing to sell it back to the Israel for ten times the amount, you have to buy it back for even more. Taasha maa, damaibu shuban lavi, hamaikura, aabdai lavgachavam.

1:03If somebody sells his evaqnani to a gai, and now that evaqnani can no longer perform mitzvahs, he's mkhliivin mitzvahs like anisha, Kinsun, I say at Mayabidameha, we give a knass to that Israel that sold his evaqnani to the gai, he has to buy it back from the gai up to 100 times its value. And they're more as soon as, that both Rishlokersh is then, and Rishlokersh is then either both dafko or lavdafko. The fact that by evaqnani it says a hundred, and by the behemoth it says ten, is the right that it must be dafko, because it's lavdafko, then it should have said by both of them either one hundred or ten. So I can really tell you that behemoth is lavdafko. We don't give him such a big knass of ten times the amount of the value of the animal. The reason why we didn't say ten by evaqnani is because over there it's takadafko. Shani evaqnani is the koyema of yema and mafkili mitzvahs. By evaqnani is indeed precisely up to 100 times the value of the evaqnani, and because it's much more severe every day that he's sitting by the guay, he's removed from being able to do mitzvahs. If you could doubt me in other words, in other Lashin, Amarishlokersh, I might hear behemoth gaasala evaqnani, klinzana islayad me bdamella. If a person sells behemoth gaasala, they're guaybe give a knass, they're buy back up to 100 times the value of the behemoth.

2:05Tenat, says bahanui salali bikababa, afapish ainer isshai. If a person gives over his pregnant animal, the guay is going to take care of it, and he's going to get a haylak of that over this in this pregnant animal, even though he's now out to do that, klinzana islayad asshar, jitsa, bidama, give a knass, he has to buy it back up to 10 times the amount of the value of that over, but not 100, asshlokershade 100. After the marmohiro, apasqa me nae, when it's a complete sale, he's completely detached from it, so that's much more severe. So it's up to 100 times he has to buy back from the guay. Kavelan islay apasqa me nae, but when he gives it over, and the guay is just taking responsibility of the mother and only takes a haylak of the uber, he's not completely detached from it because he still owns that mother animal. And therefore it's less severe, it's only 10 times the amount. Because the guamara dafqa, a labdafqa, in this laushin, where shlokershade it's up to 100 times the value of the animal. Is it dafqa 100? Or it's labdafqa, it's less than 100 times. Tusham, maud, amir, maud, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul,

3:05abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, abdul, ssokershade must be labdafqa. Starting from one or riyah, a shani eva, de lai, hadude lai, the eva is different because it's not going to go back to the owner. That's why we don't knaass more than 10 times the amount of the eva, because when he does redeem it from that guai, it doesn't go back to that owner. The guamara of githen tells us that if a person sells us eva, knaite to the guai, when he eventually goes free from that guai, he goes out of the kheirous which means that they etsen, we don't knaass more than 10 times the value. The reason why we knaass by the behemah, more than 10 times, is because the behavior is going to go back to the owner. So, affecting our behavior my time, why isn't it that by the behavior we cannot more than by the evad, we shouldn't go hard to relay. It's because it's different than the evad, it goes back to the owner. Nik Nisay Twekhat, it's affecting the matter, we should add on an additional one times its value. Because the only distinction between the behavior and the evad is the fact that the behavior goes back to the owner and the evad doesn't. So, we're saying that the etsym the class is really only at 10.

4:08The reason why the behavior is more than the evad is because it goes back. So, he should only have to add on one more, because what value is he gaining more so than by the evad, not more than the value of the behavior, because all its worth is what it's worth. So, all he has is an additional one times the value of that animal. So, we should only be knost up to 11 times, 10 times which is the regular cap of knost, plus the extra value that he's getting back because he gets back that animal, but not more than 11. And for the gammari, evad, the most of the leh-schlieferia, a different reason. By an evad, it's not common to sell an evad to a guy, if a most of the leh-schliefer really goes to bread one. Something which is not so common, but everyone who were not geyser. Now, it doesn't mean that they weren't geyser at all. It means it wasn't as severe of a gzera, and the class was only up to 10 times the amount, as opposed to selling an animal to a guy, which is more common, there they said that the knost is to buy it back from the guy up to 100 times the amount. So, in the maskana, we have two of the shiners in Rhezhlothkish, did he say you have to buy back that animal up to 10 times the amount or up to 100 times the amount, but in either Lushin, it was in the body of Ipshita, if it was Daphka or Love Daphka. Then the bryce at the bottom of the basement base said,

5:09the chumam, I remember, calls Manciad, I remember the chumam, the chumam, the chumam say that if the hand of the guy is in the middle, meaning he has a shoofis, then it's pothra from Bchard, the beauty says it's high, I'm ready, you're going to just say, we're saying we're going to take a darshan, both of the robon and the beauty, darshan is the same pothra, the pothra is the part of the member, which says, call Bchard, and the pothra is the new's, be ye sro, that word be ye sro is the drosha that the mission of me that's been mined it when a guy is a shoof, and it says, call Bchard be ye sro, robon and savi, Bchard, mixtas, bchard, mashma, that I wonder who, that if the pothra would have just said, bchard be ye sro, that we mashma, even if it's own par shey by the sro, still it's high, we mchard, cussrachmanakko, then the pothra says all at the ikoku, until it's entirely owned by the sro, really you discover, bchard, kuhli, bchard, mashma, the beauty says that if it's just what it said, bchard, ye sro, that already is mashma, that it has to be owned entirely by the sro, cussrachmanakko, that I feel cold in, then the pothra says the word, bchard, bchard, bchard, ye sro, it means all, it means any, even if the sro owns any part of it, it's still high, we mchard, i by the sro, kuhli, bchard, we mchard,

6:10or you could say that everybody agrees, that the word bchard implies that it has to be majority owned by the sro, if it's just what it said, bchard, ye sro, it means that the sro has to own the majority of it, marasar, bchard, kuhli, mchard, mchard, mchard, mchard, mchard, mchard, mchard, mchard, as long as the sro has any ownership in it, it's still high, we mchard. The kambate, shutvush live ghachabam, with the Abitura manabachar, according to the Abhan'unahsai, that the shutvush of the gay pater, how much does the guy have to have an ownership in it, in order to pater from the chard, which means, even though we just got finished saying that there's a drosha, the Dharabanan, say, that in order for the bchard to be high, we mchard has to be owned entirely by the sro, but it doesn't mean it has to be mamash, unentirely, the marasar that points out, that if that guy were on one strand of hair on the animal, the animal, a vader everybody agrees that there's still going to be a here of a heart. So it must be that the guy has to own a substantial amount of that animal in order to pattern it from Bakhara. So what is that amount? Amiruna Afilo Auznai even if the guy's short face is only in the ear of the Bakhara, it has no kudujas Bakhara, our mask wear of anachman, but lame and lame, why doesn't the

7:12kain say to the guy, shikil Auznakh Muzil, take your ear and go. Even though removing that ear turns the Bakhara into a Bakhara Balmum, Bodo Bakhara Balmum also is given to the kain. So let him just tell the guy, you take your part and the rest of it goes to me. Itma, if he's the Amiruna Afilo, Auzsa and Avela. If he says that it only patterns if the Khailek that's owned by the guy is something that if it were to be removed, it would render the animal an Avela. For example, the thing that the guy owns is either the Safegas or the Treykia since the life of the animal is under the ownership of the guy. It's considered like it's entirely owned by the guy and that's why it's bought there. Rava Amiruna Afilo, Auzsa is a Treykha. The Khailek that the guy owns is to be something that if it were to be removed, it wouldn't necessarily make an Avela but it would make it a Trafer that he owns the leg above the lower joint. We might come up with what's the Makhikas or Kisda in Rava, but Trafer Khailek, whether a Trafer can live a long time. Le Manda Mardavasha, Auzsa, Auzsa Trafer, according to Rava, who says that as long as it's something that if it were to be removed, it would render the animal a Trafer that patterns from Bakhara because over he holds Trafer in a Khailek, a Trafer cannot live a long time and therefore it is if the entire thing belongs to the guy.

8:13That's why it's bought there. Le Manda Amiruna Afilo, Auzsa and Avela, if Kisda who says that it has to be something that if it were to be removed, that Khailek of the guy, it would render the animal an Avela of a Trafer, a Khailek of a Trafer could live and therefore it's not considered entirely belong to the guy until the guy owns something that if that were to be taken away, it would turn into an Avela. Amiruna Kameerar Pabrata, a Bunan Saturn, a Bunan Saturn, a Bunan Pabrata, this Makhikas. And then they said, Hauder of Huna, Ravkis of Rava, Loy Puggi, Ravuna does not argue with Ravkis of Rava. Points out Rashi and Thais is a Vada Ravkis of Rava, Ravkis of Rava, argue with each other, whether it's Naveelas or Travers. But neither they are arguing on Ravuna. Ha, boy Ravuna is talking about Indubhakhar itself. If the guy has a Khailek in the Bakhar itself, then even if it's just the heir, it's not going to have Kthujas Bakhar. Ha, Bi'imai, the Naveelas of Ravkis there and the Travers of Rava is where the guy is a Shuttaf in the mother. Amirapapa, a popper, a popper said to them, my Shuna, why is it different when the guy has a Shuttafis in the Bakhar itself, where just the eyes and the ready-patterns, debinan Khailek are Ralaka, because we need that the Israel owns the entire Bakhar, and they don't have because it doesn't own the heir. Ii, mi Naveel by the mother as well, Bi'imai, the Pasta in the Pajasthi, Sisa, Khol Mithnachar, Tizoffer.

9:19In this context, we're darshaning, if the flock is all yours, Tizoffer, then if it has a Bakhar, it has Kthujas Bakhar. It actually brings the targum that Tizoffer is different tactics, if it has a Zakhar, then it has Kthujas. So only if it's Khol Mithnachar, if the flock is all yours. Vilekha, and you don't have that the flock is all yours, because the guy is a Shuttafis in the mother. So what's the difference if it's in the Bakhar or the mother? Ella, the Shnau is up to the pop, but there is no distinction. According to Evruna, if the guy has a Chilik in the heir, it's Pater, whether that's the mother or the Bakhar. According to Khyzsa and Rava, we need Naveelas or Traifas, whether it's the mother or the Bakhar. Masqla, Mair, Bravashi, Fek, Mair, Bravashi, and all of them, Mashahtom and Fala, Mashaht is different than a Naifal. That's either a stillborn or if the animal is born prematurely, and it's not going to live 30 days. The Afa-gab, the Lab, the Nekhus, and even though they're not something that's going to live, the Kuchy still has Kudusha's Bakhar or the Mair, Pather, Shagar, Behem, and the Palsy of the Precious Boy, and it continues as Hussar and Mashaht. So, a Bakhar is born, comes out of the animal, it has Kudusha's Bakhar. We darshan from that word Shagar, we do it, Shagar, Behem, it's still living in the animal, meaning at the time that it was born was premature, it was still supposed to be remaining in the mother's womb.

10:23Or another Russian rashi says that Shagar Behem means what the animal discharges and gives out prematurely. So we see that even though it's not something that's going to live, even if the guy is chalic as something that if that were to be removed or would make an novella, still the chalic that's owned by the Israel should have Kudusha's Bakhar, even though that part cannot live, it's no different than an Afa-gab, everything we're a hussain, by the Nekhus, and by the Nekhus, the Kuvan Delay are Bihubuhul and since there's no Kuvan that's mixed in Kareena-guh, by Meema Kavakhar, that's called entirely owned by the Israel, Hakhaba by the Shuttras of Aga-gay, Kuvan Delay are Bihubuhul and since Kuvan is mixed in, the part that's owned by the Gawi doesn't have any Kudusha, but a community called Kulbakhar, it's not called entirely owned by the Israel and they're for none of it has Kudusha. Abelosa, all the Meema Joshua, Abelosa, the Nakaw after the Beish-Mandash, Ash-Kheil, Revasi and I follow Revasi, I'm with Revasi, and my Amra-Ban-Meema Joshua, what do they want to say in the Beish-Mandash, I'm with Revasi, so back to him. Hakhiyam Reva, you're a hussain, and this Reva-Kheil instead of the Beish-Mandash, I feel a Mum-Kahu, even if it's just a light Mum, meaning he holds the Kufuna, as long as the guy is a Shuttras in the east of the air, it doesn't need to be something that will make it a traitor in a veil. And he said a second thing, if Haudet Thnaad, the Mishnaad says later on in the Masekht,

11:24a ruchushal Yaldam in A's, a sheep, that gives birth to a Bakhar, but it looks like the species of goat, the A's she Yaldam in Rakhla, or the reverse, you have a female goat, and it gives birth to a Bakhar that looks like a sheep, Pitu and Abakhar, it's Pata from Bakhar. And Mishmay Miksas Yamanah, however, if that offspring has something that is in common with its mother, Khayab, then it is Khayab in Bakhar, as a Zab-Tabiyachhanam. Mum Kavua, however, is a permanent mum, and he could check that out, said the Bish-Tabiyachhanam. Zab-Tabiyachhanam, when it says Khayab in that Mishna, he means he's Khayab, they give it to the Kain, but it's not a carbon that's brought on the Misebair, because since it changed and it's abnormal, that's considered a mum Kavua, he could check that out, said the Bish-Tabiyachhanam, like a Bakhar, but the Kain-Shach said in it, it doesn't have to be a macro-id as a carbon. Zab-Tabiyachhanam, a mum, a cow, a mother, and a cow, we understand the first Khidish to have a Bighar, and said that if it's just a light mum, there also, it's pother from the Khar, the Khidish is like Ravuna, that if the guy owns just the ear, that's good enough, will afook him and have Khiz the Verva, and not like if Khiz the Vissar has to be an evalacer, or like Ravun, there has to be Traifas. Al-Mum Kavua, my command, shmanan. What is Raviyachhanam's Khidish by saying that if it's an abnormal offspring,

12:25then it's considered a permanent mum, that even the Ishtani Havale-Mum is he trying to teach me that since it changed, and it's different, that's called a mum, teni-ramin-o-dari-ramin-mishna coming up later in the Misebair, it says, If the mouth of the Bakhar is slum at that of a pig, I raise them mum, that's called a mum, so we see already that when something's abdum, and when it's called a mum, what's Raviyachhanam's Khidish? The Khidish is a very special Ishtani Havale-Mum, and if you'll say that over there in the Misebair, it changes to something that in its species doesn't have a Dujas Bakhar, because the pig is a behemothamea, the only behemothamea that Dujas Bakhar has a Khamar. Havale-Mum ishtani Havale-Mum, and it changes to something that in that species does have a Dujas Bakhar, either a sheep or a goat, and that's why I knew to be able to tell me that even in that case, it's still a mum, Hanamitani, now I know that as well, from another Misebair. It says, Inuit aachas Gideula, if one eye is large, and the way Rashi learns is the Vavas in Aura, if aachas Gatana, or one eye is small, the Tana gets stately and bricely, Gideula, Gideula, Gideula, Gashalegal, large means large, like a calf, Gatana, Gatana, Gashal, Avalas, and small means small like a goose, especially in Gatana, Gashal, Avalas,

13:25we understand that small like a goose is a mum, in Buminai Khadash Bakhar, because in the species of goose, there's no kudujas bakhar, and the Gideula, the Kishalegal, Yash Buminai Khadash Bakhar, but when it's large, like that, of the eye of the calf, in the species of calf, there is kudujas bakhar, and Avala, pick in the Misebair, that it's a mum, and Allah, Mishum darmina, kivin de ishtani havali muma. Must be, the Miseb teaching me that, since it's abnormal, it's different than what it normally should be, that's called a mum, so why don't you be able to tell me that it's a mum? So I have to be more loyal, so I have to be more loyal, that's not the shat in the Mishnuah with it, Mishum dar havali surua, the mum over there is not because of the Shinoi, it's the mum of surua, it's a Posseum in the Torah, surua is where one avert is larger than the other avert of that peer, but a Shinoi, like, for example, the wool of a sheep looks like that of a goat, that I don't see from that Mishnuah that's a mum, that's why you need to be able to tell me that it's a mum. So I can now be a Mistabra, it makes sense, that the mum of that Mishnuah is not because of the Shinoi, it's because of surua, that's not, that's as mum and avert, these mum that were discussed by Bichar, being kawun, being oerun pysin,

14:25whether they're permanent or temporary, they pass by a person who's a kain, he cannot do avoyta. Yes, Arlay and Adham, by a person that's a kain, there's an additional type of mum, Aino of Stain and Adalis, if both his eyes are large, Stain and katanas are both small, so we make a deal. Gabi Adham, who they say, if it's doth combine, Adham were the Paseksas and Bajas emar, ish ish misar aar, the Bina and ish shava bizar ish al aar, yes, to be similar in appearance to the descendants of aar, in appearance to look like a regular person, avo behemah shtain, giddhayah shtain katanas namilah habimumah, we buy behemah, if both eyes are large or both are small, that's not a more. So zakti amar aachhas giddhayah, the aachhas katana mytaymah, so why is it that by an animal, if one eye is large or one is small, that is a more, imisum shinuay, if it's because it's different than abnormal, like the giddhayah is someone in its kasha, when it asks that who needs to be aachha, that shinuay is a more, affidhush tain giddhayah shtain katanas namil, that even if both eyes are large or both eyes are small, that should also be a more, because that's also a shinuay, alala, imisum dahavali syruayah, must be that the moon of aachhas giddhayah or aachhas katana is because it's syruayah,

15:25that's why need to be aachha, and teach me that if it's a shinuay, it's also a moon, I wouldn't know from that vision. The reason why when both eyes are large and both eyes are small, it's not a moon, even though we're being able to say that shinuay is a moon, and they're going to just say that two large eyes or two small eyes is a shinuay, zakti amar aachha, it's a shinuay, zakti is because that's not such a severe shinuay, we've been discussing a goat that gave birth to something that looks like a sheep, or the reverse, that's a very severe shinuay, that is a moon. zakti amar aachha, it's not a raya, alala, ima-lah, shimshinuay, take the next word, have a moonma, really I'll tell you, that in the mischna, the reason why with one large eye or one small eye, its a moonma is not because of syruay, it's because of shinuay, the kakashla, the kashla was, that if one large eye or one small eye is a moonma, because it's different, a fever-stain, good ol' chthangatownis, then even two large eyes, and two small eyes should also be one, because that's also different. The answer is, Hossam, in the case where it's just one eye, that's either large or small, ima-lah, it's because it's exceptionally robust, tarayi by the river, so then both eyes should be robust and large. ima-lah, shusha, you say,

16:25and if the reason why he has one small eye, is because the animal is particularly weak, tarayi by the river, so then both eyes should be small, both of them should be weak, and therefore when it's only one eye, that's either large or small, a wada, that's machuna, and that's a moon. Now even though the gmura is coming out now, that when one eye is large or small, that's a moon, because it's a shinui, we still need to have yahinah on the grassy, because you could say the pshadna emission is out-seruah. The gmura is just being madre, that it's not umukhikh to say that it's out-seruah, and to be madre, the hukinah, but a wada, it could be because of siruah, and not because of shinui, that's when you're to be able to tell me that shinui is indeed a moon. And he, he, Giyrta, and certain giyris, and the maas-shuna aach ii khivasa, the futuma, her brothers who were gayim, gave her over an animal to fatten up, and they would split the wada, and they gave birth to a bichar. As I look at my dhura, which came from the rava, is the kha'ibum bichar anat, Amrala, rava said there, less the kha'ashlala, the herde biyuda, nobody is kha'ashishwadishhi dhura biyuda, the armashutavis ae bichar, the manegai is a shuttav, it's kha'ibum bichar, rather we pass them like dhura banaan, and since the gayim had shuttav, rava momi bairachal havi layah iih khivasa,

17:25at certain flak, hav'a maknada ubnayu, the eva kechavum, and while the bicharists were still inside the womb of their mother, once they were born, the eva recidutions bairach to lay, but while they were still in the womb of their mother, he was maknada ee aes to gayim, to be mafki'et, from bichar, it should be regular kuhun. Nevertheless, the austaduhubi gizwa'avwait, he treated like a regular bichar, he said it's austad, share it to do a wadewati, via vulgan, I mean he gave it a con like regular bichar, bichar lechhe wase duremai bairachal, and the flak of my bairachal died out. So it's up to him, and if you may aachad, the austaduhubi gizwa'avwait, once he said, treat it like a bichar, that it's austad, share it, austaduhubi bairach, via vulgan, I mean he gave it a con like regular bichar, I mean maknada ubnayu, with na'a ubichar, then why did he take away the kudusha's bichar, by being maknada ee aes to the gayim? He's treating it like a bichar, so keep it a bichar, and if it's a more duma aase wulu de'etakala, who's afraid, who's gonna come to do something wrong, if it has glucious bichar, and he inadvertently shares it, or does avoid it, it's gonna be over, and therefore he was mafqia, a kudusha bichar, to avoid any problem from happening. In fact, in my ihaqif, his intent was for good,

18:25my time of kudusha was their wife, so then why did his flak die out, as an aida she didn't do anything wrong? And if it's not, we should have the mafglum miktusha's aya, because he was removing it from the kudusha. It's true that his intention was a proper intention, he was trying to avoid coming to the taqala, but the maisee removed it from glucious bichar, and that was not correct. If I had my former of Yudomotul-Ada-Muhatul-Mumba-Bichar, a kudum sheyat, in the Avar-Alam, a person is allowed to put a moom into a bichar before it comes out into the airspace of the world, meaning before it's born. It does not have glucious bichar, it gets glucious bichar only when it's born. So we see, even though you're preventing it from getting glucious bichar, it's not a problem, so who had it? By the case of Evmari, he should be able to be machned in the oizin, while it's still inside the mother, even though it's moving it from glucious bichar, what's the difference? Everything were hostile, Mkuducious was banned, he's only removing it from being brought as a karmam. Mkuducious karmamlaimafkalei, but he's not removing it from the glucious karmam. It's like a bichar baamum, which is given to a karmam, and that karmam must treat it with kuducious. He cannot share it, he can't avoid it with it, he can't check it out in the market, he can't sell it out in the market, he can't weigh it, he would normally weigh regular bosses

19:26when he'd see later on Daifah Miraf. He was machned in the oizin to the gai, I feel Mkuducious karmamafkalei, he's removing it even from kuducious karmam, because there's no kuducious that's howling it at all, even though he treated it with kuducious bichar, but that's just treating regular Khun, Mkuducious bichar, but it was actual Khun, had no kuducious at all, and that's why he was inappropriate. He by the same way, Rev. Mari Baruchal Yadolakmiyakinen Ghamr, Rev. Mari Baruchal, he knew how to be machned with the proper kinyan, Rashi explains, to take money from the gai in that exchange. The gai is only kind of, if there's an exchange of money, that we can see later on Daifah Ghamr, but khazili in a shafrinu, another person observed this, but also of it, he also made a sale to a gai, a sovereign, but he thought, Rev. Mari, most of the daifah, that Rev. Mari just did a verbal agreement, there was no money that exchanged hands. The vaasibola de taqala, and now he's going to come to do something wrong, because he thinks that it has no kuducious bichar, when in fact does. That's why Rev. Mari got an unusual pause. There, so today we learned that if we sell the behemugasa to a gai, we can ask you to buy it back, either up to ten times its value or a hundred. It's a white gilil shitah, if that's daifah or a lafdafah. If you sell your evaqnani to a gai, we can ask you to buy it back,

20:26either up to one hundred times its value, because you're moving in from itswis, or only up to ten times, because it's a most delirical. The abonnie went out from Kalbakhara, that you're not khaivimakhara until it's entirely owned by you, or you don't learn that from Kalbakhara, that as long as the sorrow has a halo and some of it is khaivimakhara, we pass them like the abonnie. According to the abonnie, that shoot this abonnie, according to the abonnie, even if the guy only has the air, it's better. According to Rava, we need that the khaivika, the guy would make it a traffer, if it was removed. According to the chisda, we need that it should make it an avail of it is removed. According to the abonnie, if the bakhara has a sheenoi, like a sheep, that has wool, that looks like a goat, that's a mumkavur and the guy you can eat it with, up being macrived. And finally, Ravmai, by Rakhal, was macnate khaivika of his bakhayris, to gai him, in order that he shouldn't be over on the isser of Giza Nawveida. And although he had good intentions, he was still punished, either because he was Mafia from Kadusha, or because others would learn from him, and they would do it without a proper canion.