Torah Convention - Chol Hamoed Sukkos 5767 - Kfar Chabad

00:00 Speaker 1 The halacha is that to say the blessing “leishev basukkah,” one has to eat a kebeitzah-sized amount of bread. The custom for generations has been not to drink even water outside the sukkah. But according to halacha, one can say the blessing only when eating the required amount—a kebeitzah of bread. A kebeitzah of bread is fifty-one grams. That is more than an egg’s volume. So often, when a person comes to eat in the sukkah, he plans to eat just enough to fulfill the mitzvah. He knows he needs a kebeitzah, but then his slice gets wet from the rain or [unclear]. At the end of the meal, he realizes that he actually did not eat the required amount in the sukkah. He asks: What should he do? He has already had a meal and cannot eat any more. Is he required to make himself eat another kebeitzah of bread? Can he? But Avraham would argue with you. [unclear] You need to know how you are approaching this. You have to know what you are doing. The problem here is different. There is room for error [unclear]. Nowhere do you find [unclear] together with ten. So what happens if he wants to eat [unclear]? He placed himself as far away as possible. After all, he did not eat at all. That was the very point: he did not eat [unclear]. You understand? You cannot assign it that status. In other words, it cannot be less than a kezayis. That is the wording of the source. [unclear] is not enough. It cannot really be so. So I understand that you can indeed assign it that status. Otherwise, you put yourself in a situation that does not work out.

03:24 Speaker 1 In other words, [unclear] afterward is enough for the required amount. So certainly he needs to eat the required amount now. But eating the required amount now is not enough. Still, you are set up for the required amount of [unclear]. What does he have? That is his required amount. That is his required amount. Can you sit with less than that? You understand that [unclear] is a situation where a person [unclear]. Without [unclear], it seems very troubling. [unclear] The Ashkenazim called this [unclear]. So you want to bring in much better things. You need to make [unclear]. You need to do it within the time. He claims it has already happened. He presents it as something that happened in the past; now he is being drawn down. So then, the whole basis of [unclear] a meal. What determines it is the order a person follows at home, at the evening meal. That is what a person does in the evening. A person might also be outside the home, and then he is indeed obligated to sit for the meal. That is the issue, and that much is clear. But the question is the required amount. The required amount is really the amount for [unclear] a meal. So when someone planned to eat the required amount, he already considers himself fully [unclear]. But here it did not help: he forgot; he did not do it, so to speak. In such a case, it does not take effect; he is only relying on it. There is an example of this. We have a discussion about eating: what happens if a person washed his hands for a meal but has not yet eaten? If, after washing, he realizes that he does not want to eat, [unclear]. Is he obligated

05:30 Speaker 1 to eat now? If he still has leftovers from the meal, what is he supposed to eat? How do the leftovers affect this? So what is the solution as far as we are concerned? That he should not eat any more. Why? Because washing one’s hands for a meal [unclear]. So what do we do with the fact that he washed for a meal? If a person also plans to eat, then [unclear]. Does he plan to stop and then go on to eat? [unclear] If he does not eat at all, then he does not eat. But washing for a meal—no, no. Washing for a meal simply reflects his intention to eat, not whether he actually proceeded to eat. There is some legal [unclear] about eating. But through this we can also examine his intention. He intended to eat a small piece of fish, and then [unclear] the whole fish. The fact that he did not eat at all is, so to speak, a matter of intention. [unclear] Well, there was someone who stole a string, a string of coins. He took the merchandise, and the merchandise was worth [unclear]. So does he have to steal all of it? [unclear] Perhaps he would try a simple solution. But there is one thing that [unclear]. In Bava Basra, it says [unclear]. We can take a numbered page. And if I can do a little, combine some of all these names—some combination—then [unclear]. What combination? We need to take a numbered page. Okay, so I will suggest taking the two together, and then

07:41 Speaker 1 we need to take one numbered page. Or if I take the two, then [unclear] a numbered page. So, a combination—[unclear] is ten. How many numbered pages should I take? All right, how many should I take—one numbered page? How many numbered pages? But I have not yet worked out how to do it. Right now, it does not seem to me to be a combination. I have not yet found a combination with [unclear]. Each thing comes in a pair. Look at what it says here. He says, further down [unclear], that the meaning of [unclear] is not actually [unclear]. So he asks: What if a person begins eating something, but had not intended to eat it within the time of kedei achilas pras? He did not know the actual requirement. He intended to eat, say, some cheese, but [unclear] kedei achilas pras. Afterward, he hears or reads somewhere else that one must eat it within kedei achilas pras, so he starts eating within that time. He agrees to eat within kedei achilas pras. [unclear] It seems to him that this is very good. But [unclear] he needs to eat within kedei achilas pras. Would he now have to [unclear]? He cannot. He cannot go back and start somewhere else. Why? Even though all the eating [unclear], he had not intended to go back and include the kezayis. He said it was not within kedei achilas pras. So does that count or not? He did not know it had to be within kedei achilas pras. Since all that is needed is to eat it within kedei achilas pras, it is enough that he ate it within that time, even though [unclear]. That is the question about the kezayis. He did not intend to go back within kedei achilas pras. What difference does it make what

09:38 Speaker 1 he intended, or whether there was actually [unclear]? So here, in Sotah, the Gemara [unclear]. Here the question is not eating in the ordinary sense. Here it is eating in order to commit a sin. And he also intended not to go back [unclear]. If it was not in the usual way—say, cheese—then [unclear]. So it is interrupted [unclear], and he does not actually reach it. [unclear] So when you ate the cheese first, you had not eaten [unclear]. Now you want to argue: I thought it was something new, but it came from there. So it may be that this category arose from something complex with the same source. It is as though there is some combination: it began here, it comes from another source, but it began with this S. No, I am asking: How many cells do you take within it? Four. Fourteen types. That is what I want: I want you to have a higher type, a wider variety, because that includes a type within it. Really, this S that results is the S of the ringing that will belong to the... product. What happens here is as though it came from that S. Fourteen types. Now, what is that? It is like a source. All along, when you want to do something, you want... what do you want? You want to have the... No, it did not reach the product there, because that is the domain of the S. So someone here did not understand the connection between these things. The end point, the end point—it was a source. Did someone there understand it? Where was it really? Yes, you are right. It began within the end point, from the S. All right, I mean that you used the end point from the S. But I was not here. I was not here. This is here; it is the same. That is just me, but you do the

11:44 Speaker 1 That’s already... Here, at this edge, at this edge of the S, you know, he wasn’t part of that whole scene. He was, what would you call it, considered important. So because he was there, he was called that, and that was considered important. [unclear] But on every side, not just one side, in each of them, yes, even in the [unclear], it’s a sign of [unclear]. What you’re doing is not storming in. [unclear] So he ran away from me, broke the hook, and started throwing people out of the area, even [unclear]. No, it didn’t jump in the [unclear] that don’t justify it. It was a matter of seniority, and everyone knew it. It was something you really couldn’t see. So here, it seems there is room to say that this case, also in Rabbi Farber’s research, in a book saying that children under ten should not study mathematics because there is a mythology that turns it into Disney for them—Disney—and it seems cool to you. There is such a [unclear] mind. That [unclear] mind identified them, and they are better at social [unclear] and socialization, because at a very early stage they were already involved with the structure of the tribe and society. So that made them better at social [unclear] and empathy. So that made them [unclear]. In other words, it’s a kind of apologetic passage, a somewhat apologetic argument. So that made them [unclear]. Yes, that’s true too, because they simply created it. Because they simply recognize that it’s a problem, that it does something harmful. So they had [unclear], and they did something. It wasn’t enough, but it was a little better, so they did

13:51 Speaker 1 it again. Whatever that means, it doesn’t matter; it only means that it was really a little more than the volume of an egg. So a person eats the full egg-volume in total. He divides it up: part of it is eaten in the sukkah, and part outside. Altogether it comes to an egg-volume. It both was and wasn’t—in other words, is it permissible to do that? Yes, that’s what people ask. No, one may eat in the sukkah; if one may eat in the sukkah, then one can also rejoice on the second day of Yom Tov in the sukkah. A person, a person doesn’t want to eat. A person doesn’t want to eat in the sukkah. He wants to eat an egg-volume or more. So what about you? You don’t. You eat part of the food on the two days of Yom Tov. Part you eat in the sukkah. What about that egg-volume? Do you eat an egg-volume on the two days of Yom Tov? No, no, no, no. That’s what people ask. So [unclear] when you bring it to the halachic ruling, he somehow has a certain feeling about it. The ruling says this. That isn’t what we were discussing. The ruling says that you may not do such a thing. [unclear] He could have sent away the egg-volume. It’s an egg-volume or more; that makes it a meal that must be eaten in the sukkah. A meal that must be eaten in the sukkah has to be eaten in the sukkah. So once a person eats an egg-volume or more, each portion of the food is part of an established meal. Even though, on its own, less than an egg-volume would not be an established meal. But if he is eating an egg-volume or more, it isn’t necessarily only the combination of everything that makes it an established meal; each part is already part of that established meal. Therefore, no portion of the food may be eaten outside the sukkah. And this is very common. A person sees that it happens during a meal, especially nowadays with... Yes, you’re in the middle of the whole discussion, but sometimes that also means bringing

16:18 Speaker 1 a phone into the discussion. When someone is doing business, it interrupts him; a person is doing business on the phone. When there is no phone in the house and [unclear], perhaps the phone also has to be brought into the discussion. Never mind the phone in the discussion. They pick up, they take charge of the phone, and sometimes it’s a final call. They get distracted in the middle of eating. Well, let’s say that we all take care not to eat a meal outside the sukkah. Fine, but is this only the view of the Minchas Chinuch, or is there a concern that he is violating a positive commandment? According to the Minchas Chinuch, he violates a positive commandment if, in the middle of eating, a person runs to the phone with a little food still in his mouth, and he swallows it at the phone before ending the call. So, according to the Minchas Chinuch, that is simply a prohibition and a violation of a positive commandment, even though, considered on its own, it is less than an egg-volume. But what he says is that [unclear] and all the required amounts we discussed are only there to establish the meal. Once you have established a meal, you may not eat any part of that meal outside the sukkah. So he violates a positive commandment. [unclear] He doesn’t violate [unclear]; he also violates a positive commandment. That is according to many authorities who don’t make the calculation the way he does. [unclear] But the reasoning is that he is in the state of an established meal, so every part is forbidden. If he would be violating a positive commandment by that reasoning, he would not have permitted someone to eat part in the sukkah and part outside the sukkah. [unclear] So you understand? He eats one piece here and another piece

18:15 Speaker 1 here. So how is it permissible to eat this piece outside the sukkah? You see that what they are describing here is forbidden. So we find in Beis Yisroel [unclear]. Earlier we said that the homeowner uses [unclear]. We see that here the proofs are the conclusion. Actually, no; it is only to establish that it is an established meal. So the intention does have an effect, and it is not necessarily the quantity alone. You therefore regard each part as belonging to the established meal. According to this ruling, if a person looks back at the end of the meal and sees that he did not eat an egg-volume of bread, but only ate bread with [unclear], and now he eats some more, looking back, the two would be separate from each other. So he would actually have to eat an egg-volume of bread now. But the plain reasoning is that he intended the bread as an established meal. Yet intention alone is not enough, so one can rule that it is insufficient. For it to count as an established meal, the portions actually have to combine. If so, they must actually combine. So, so, so he is permitted to eat in the sukkah. In our case, then, he has to arrange to eat an egg-volume of bread now, because he understood that the act of eating was like [unclear]. That’s what happened. And now, with every other piece, even if it is permitted. Yes. We’ll get to that too. What happened? No, I’m supposed to go for a test next week, if things are going so well with my [unclear]. So, in general, one choice is not everything that has to be done here. Whoever isn’t here doesn’t need to be here. It reflects the reality. It reflects the reality. That’s what we’ve been talking about from the beginning. What we discussed was the example. At first, yes, we thought of going here and not going here. That’s the point of disagreement here. It’s exactly the example. All right, now there is, there is

21:29 Speaker 1 here, there is something that really requires explaining the framework you’re working with. I remember that about thirteen years ago—or decades ago—two [unclear] were entered differently in Excel. And that was a kind of lesson, to make it clear. In simple words, the interest is in making it clear. So here it ends, in the end. In the end, that is already a good thing. But what follows? No, no, what does that mean? Another [unclear], another person. Let’s say it has been that way for many years. The local friend who brought the... the tune, who brought the... the... the [unclear], asked me not to send them to the [unclear]. He knew this whole ruling and couldn’t find any source for it. How did he take that? Left, garden, right. How did he take that? It was quite a secret. You see, one has to look; he wasn’t talking with [unclear]. He was talking about what he takes out here—[unclear]. So I ask him, “What, do we need to go to the source?” He tells me, “It isn’t only that you need a source; you need some kind of agreement.” So what agreement is essential? Well, there is, there is... one would have to say that... So we have a source, but we don’t have an agreement on this matter. There are the Rebbe’s words in that maamar about [unclear], and the Frierdiker Rebbe speaks about it. It is a maamar, also a maamar about [unclear]; there is, there is, there is a rule. In that maamar too, he speaks about mezonos, so what does he conclude? If, he says, we don’t bring [unclear], then if you distribute [unclear], mezonos, he will come to you; he won’t come for mezonos. But if you distribute [unclear], he will come to the sukkah. So

23:35 Speaker 1 How he arrives at that concept is something we need to understand. So then I need to go to prison? He didn’t know. So the rabbi went out to the prison. He says that if you rely on the agreement, there is no room for us to come close, because he went further. He went further. When he went further, he gave the sukkah [unclear], and you won’t find his information there. And of the better options, the greater one, he gave it over as an issur. An issur—he gave it over as an issur, of course. But the price you pay cannot be greater, so if that is the bad option, it is better for him to eat. If he doesn’t do it, he will suffer. For him it’s good; at home, though, it isn’t. But he can’t just say no, so it is also better to suffer. So which is more difficult for me? He still has a great deal to suffer. It needs a little more explanation. I’m explaining it, and he is [unclear]. So I’ll include that. Then it becomes more difficult. That is what actually happens. There is an oral discussion, a Mishnah, with further distinctions here and there. That looks more like Gemara. It is a pity there is no Shabbos [unclear]. On Shabbos it is already an issur. But what we do on Shabbos—Shabbos has a requirement. And the requirement of Shabbos is [unclear], because the nicest thing is [unclear]. At night, though, one may not eat. Eating at night is without [unclear]. That did not make it a greater issur. Shabbos is different; on Shabbos it is done in a set way. So if it is forbidden to say it in that way, even without touching the kezayis. And because a kezayis is relevant to Shabbos. So if you have it here and listen to him, you cannot eat it on Shabbos. On Shabbos it is an issur; on Shabbos it is done in a set way. Without that, I don’t fulfill my obligation either. So the whole practice of eating a kezayis is a pity. There aren’t people like that. There are people who are lenient, and that’s it. But it is forbidden

25:52 Speaker 1 for you. Because the question there is the kezayis. It’s [unclear]. It’s pita with cake. That is the approach in that area. You know, you know that eating a kezayis is relevant to Shabbos. You don’t fulfill your obligation with that either. So then he tells me, “If you aren’t going to say it, leave it alone.” But what—what is this? What is going on here? Why is this a merit for Binyamin? Because Binyamin is the one who tells him that he has not met that need. He has the merit of his kingship. He knows it. He knows it is good. It could have been a good kingship. So what does he give him? What does he give him? Binyamin could certainly have told Yosef what was right. He tells him, “I will send you to [unclear]. I have [unclear] in Amos, and I have [unclear] in Egypt. I will send you to Egypt.” He tells him in terms of what actually happened, “I will send you into famine in Amos.” There is a [unclear] of Torah and a [unclear] of famine. So he can tell him that he will send stones ahead of you before you [unclear]. He puts it in terms of what actually happened. So everything you see is the framework of a Torah lesson. The lesson depends on it. What are those [unclear]? You look at it. What could be is a student, a female student—Amos, not [unclear]. He took on the yoke. If he is his student. If he remembers himself from before he was stealing, when he was stealing everything. He was stealing himself. He was stealing himself. But he did not present it as a tax. He said to him, “No, no, no, because you will know it.” So what he [unclear] is Yosef’s [unclear]. It is Amos’s [unclear]—you know, Amos [unclear]. What he is saying is, “No, I will give

27:53 Speaker 1 it to you. But I will put you there.” It is as though I were saying to you, “I’ll give it to you, but I’ll send you to prison.” It is as though I were saying to you, “I’ll give it to you, but I’ll make you a slave.” No, you won’t continue; he won’t send him to prison. Come, come, come, come here. I’ll send you to prison—that is prison. So you are using [unclear].

30:16 Speaker 2 He very quickly realizes that he needs to examine it. But I am absolutely opposed to that. That is how it is. The truth is that quite a few people ask about it. It is as though he has another moment before he is caught. He is already caught at that stage. That was it. And the fact that it will come apart quickly—so we really have to draw it out [unclear], to take it in relation to the matter. All of that is involved. But there is, there is, there is a positive side to it, because here too there is something fixed. It affects this person who wants orange juice. He still has quite a few [unclear] left. So he decides again that he wants orange juice. That’s it. I want to [unclear] juice. There is orange juice. So what is the problem with his doing that? That’s all. It doesn’t need all this time. That is the whole point. So even today he could be the person who, in the middle of the week, writes down “orange juice,” and they have to do laundry in order for him to say it. So there is a fixed pattern. If so, let us bring this to a good conclusion. It really comes out whole. At that point it is no longer simply orange juice. It is orange juice in the end, in relation to the matter. So if you want a shiur of [unclear], all of this is divided according to its relation to [unclear]. That is why you cannot know, in the end, what that relationship is. But the truth is not like that. The truth is what is called a fixed pattern, because that too is fixed. So Yehudah [unclear] proceeded on the basis of a fixed shiur. It is not really like that. It is as if someone undertakes [unclear] that I have a [unclear] of prison. Whether I am right or not, I don’t care. It is a very, very sad sort of thing, very unpleasant for us. We cannot speak about it with

32:32 Speaker 2 him. It is a closed-off matter involving people who are not there. None of them [unclear]. He doesn’t want to take it. He no longer wants [unclear]. So he doesn’t want to talk about it with him. But you know, he feels like eating more. It has never been quite as you describe it today. I think it is very, very striking, this [unclear]. This is what is called pizza. Pizza. If you put cheese inside the pizza—cheeses—you understand that it changes it on the outside as well. You change it in the stomach, in the pieces, and it will fit more and more. You simply don’t understand. You know, the reality of it. So, pay attention: you take one piece of pizza, and then you see that it tastes good. It isn’t just tasty; there is something irresistible about it, and it lingers. Then you eat another one and feel that you could have two more. One piece of pizza is—it is very natural with pizza. It is a little more substantial. You can also hear about pizza from half of two, two [unclear]. You eat pizza. At those times you eat pizza, so at those times it works very well. You can even do it for more days. You eat pizza, so you eat two pieces of pizza. Then you feel that you are eating pizza. You eat only one piece of pizza; pizza is ten, pizza is ten, pizza is ten. But with pizza at night, there you eat only one. And afterward, in the middle, he begins to want more. So that has significance. You therefore have to keep it that way even on weekdays, and you also have to divide it so that if the portion he is about to eat—the second portion—itself has the required shiur, then that is in the middle of all the rest of the law. After all, half of it does not work. If the portion he is about to eat now does not itself have the required shiur, but together with the next portion it

34:50 Speaker 2 reaches the required shiur. That means eggs too—five eggs. So that is five eggs. Right, but he said that... he said there were two eggs. They are all eggs, right? One egg is an egg, an egg without the other eggs. Then another one comes along, so together they will be two eggs. Two eggs are not enough for the required shiur, but together they also count. So you can add more and more and more eggs. But there, it cannot be just one. Why? Because the portion he is about to eat now also has the capacity to make up the required shiur. But it counts retroactively. Why? Because retroactive consideration comes after the eating. After he eats, you also include in the calculation what he eats afterward. True, the person who said it said so at the end, but ultimately he is held to his required shiur. So it does not—retroactively, the second portion joins the first after he has finished, and then you can bring them together. But when he comes to Hamotzi, you say that if the second portion itself has the required shiur, he proceeds with Hamotzi. But if the second portion itself does not have the required shiur except when joined with the first portion, then he proceeds with Hamotzi. So you would not call him someone who breaks bread. When does he attain that status? When can he be called someone who breaks bread? So what are we saying? You can actually decide that several times. If you say that satisfying the obligation happens only afterward, you can call it that only after what happened. If so, if Moshe there had made Hamotzi, it was because he was eating the food, the water. Since Hamotzi comes before that, and Hamotzi always comes before that, I look at it this way. I am noting it here according to the effect of

36:55 Speaker 2 [unclear] has that. If he doesn’t have it, then you spoke with him. After that, you are already eating the amount that constitutes a fixed meal. So each portion becomes part of a fixed meal. You could put it this way: after you’ve eaten two eggs’ worth and are now going to eat another two, you’re eating those last two eggs’ worth when you have already reached the amount of three eggs’ worth. Right now you aren’t eating four; you’re eating only two. But those two are already being eaten as part of a fixed meal, so that should [unclear] as well. But we don’t use that reasoning. We don’t say that because the total constitutes a fixed meal, each portion counts as a fixed meal. Rather, since the fixed meal is formed by everything together, half of it counts as part of that meal. By the same reasoning, even if you eat part of the fixed meal outside the sukkah, in the end you haven’t eaten the amount of a fixed meal there. The total is a fixed meal, but that isn’t enough. Somehow, each portion has to appear to be a fixed meal. So you’re saying that’s the reasoning. Then [unclear] doesn’t eat either. That’s the whole thing. It depends how many you have. If it’s [unclear], how many people do you need? About a thousand. You need forty people. You need forty or [unclear]. So what you need to put in is a hundred. What does that mean? There’s a principle here. There’s a principle you have to follow. Do you know how many people are in it? I have twenty-four. You need ninety people. Do you want more? I’ll spread it over twenty instead. If it’s five hundred or a thousand, it’ll be five hundred.

39:11 Speaker 2 A thousand people. If it’s five hundred thousand people, then you’ll have about two hundred people. You want it to be a thousand? About a hundred and fifty? A thousand? So what will that be? I have four hours to learn, so I say I can eat too. If not, then not. Because how many people—how many people do you need there? You really don’t need [unclear]. It also can’t be that, but not so much. There are things that really need a great deal. This is one of them. You need this. It’s five hundred. You need it. Or [unclear] four hundred and eighty-eight people will reach it. Let it be a hundred and eighty people, or more. Let it be a hundred and fifty. That’s what you need. It’s not as though there’s a line here. You need it. You can’t put in a hundred and fifty. You can’t put in a hundred and fifty. You can’t put in a hundred and fifty. You can’t put in a hundred and fifty. It doesn’t look like a line. It doesn’t look like a line. He comes to me, to me, to me—[unclear]. So I’ll make room there for thirty, because I don’t have any more time. And there you find your thing, [unclear]. Your thing finds the treasure, [unclear]. So the place itself didn’t give us any more of it. What didn’t it give? When could there be less, if possible, of the portion of [unclear]? That was because the circumstances were different. And if that had happened, you would have been in a different situation. If I had tried it first, I would have done the whole thing. Now it’s already too late. When you do it, I’m already in place, and that gives us the key to the principle. Now you change the place. You leave room for that. And you have no room for the principle, because the principle—

41:28 Speaker 2 —entered into it together with the place. But if you want something else, it can connect one place to another. You don’t need to [unclear] the place. He eats something else. That’s what I have concerning the place. That’s what I have concerning the place. So if you tell me, I’ll say there will be room. I couldn’t give you any more. What does that mean? I want to take the casual eating. It’s not you; what I received is [unclear]—it’s the substance of it. The casual eating doesn’t have to be [unclear], because that’s what I did with the substance of it. There’s something else as well. Now there are a few things you have to take from the principle. That’s it. So what exactly do you do inside the sukkah? You have a l’chaim there in the sukkah. If you eat bread in the supermarket—bread in the supermarket—and your intention is to make do with that established place, then [unclear]. That’s why I agree with what the rabbi said. Because then you have to take a few steps back and consider the house. But if you eat bread in the sukkah, it no longer looks as though you’re eating at home. Where are you eating? What difference does it make where I eat? It has nothing to do with the issue at all. That’s also the prohibition we have concerning bread in the sukkah, bread in the supermarket. If it’s forbidden, I can ask it this way too: it’s completely forbidden. If you eat [unclear], you’re eating at home. So you can’t say he established a place. True, he’s eating bread in the supermarket, but you can’t say that his bread there is inherently tied to that place. Because if you want to do that, you don’t do it.

43:28 Speaker 2 No, that’s why we have a certain kind of bread—no, the bread on the first night is about the essential obligation. If you listen to that whole [unclear], you understand that the bread on the first night involves a kezayis. There are no [unclear]; someone is [unclear]—that’s your kezayis. But with the bread that is itself the essential obligation, the kezayis is what matters. So you can’t [unclear] the kezayis inside the sukkah. You’re at home; that’s [unclear] the sukkah. But [unclear]—all of that is the sukkah. You want to live your life—you don’t. Your whole life is the sukkah—you don’t. Here, here, here, you don’t drink it that way. But with the bread itself, can’t you do that? [unclear]. So it’s true that he has already prepared [unclear], so that you aren’t coming with him, you’re coming [unclear]. But if the whole basis of the [unclear] is that [unclear] cannot receive it, then he establishes a place, and [unclear]. Yet since he established that part of the meal takes place here and part takes place there, even though it can be one meal, it isn’t tied to a place. What do we understand from all this? There’s [unclear] here. There’s an example, like [unclear]. How is [unclear] correct? So [unclear]. He enters into the [unclear], but that doesn’t mean that the first point we discussed is connected. He can eat the kezayis inside the sukkah. He can [unclear] and eat outside the sukkah. But what happened? What would happen in our day? Besides, it’s very bothersome that there’s a connection between [unclear] and the sukkah. But there is—there is [unclear].

46:06 Speaker 2 There is this in it, there is this in it, so it isn’t a sukkah. So if every Shabbos and every night [unclear] a racist law without any influence? Those are laws that [unclear], like how in England they’re now trying to enact a racial law against Jews. But I think [unclear] wants to raise the question. So the question is whether it’s because there’s activism or something else. I don’t know. It depends on what [unclear] I have to look at. The reading [unclear] in this place, the claim in this place—or no reading, no claim in this place, or no reading.