Preparing video...
0:00 / 0:00
Chulin 3
1 views
Comments(0)
Transcript
Auto-generated transcript. Not time-synced to the video.
Today's do is gimml and we are six lines
from the top of
so yesterday
we began
the began
with the opening linear
asked
would seem to suggest that Whoever is
being
from the word
is
yet the next words
would seem to suggest that [snorts]
whoever is being from the word is only
allowed to.
So which one is it? is
or is
only biddy evident
said that
turn to raashi and told it's so posh to
you that
means hence this great debate of how
exactly we resolve the apparent
contradiction of mash whether This
person being this from can or only and
after an and a half of what emerged was
yes that in this context for sure means
hence the first question of
we saw that the gmorra brought a ter in
the name of rabula said that
the hak is coming to include even
somebody that's tummy. And when the
Mishna says it means somebody that's
tummy is a
isn't it obvious that somebody's tummy
is a lack it's talking about
therefore there's an for somebody to go
and be and then eat this
would be able
again is talking about a but in this
case the is not he's
when it comes to being that by is not
only it's so
would not be able to even if he's using
stating that if he it's going to be so
the is coming to be we have a stereo
only where it's
then it's where it's then it's only
going to be. Rabbi Barula said that once
you understand that this Mishna is
talking about uh again not exclusively a
tame but inclusively also a so let me
show you how you have to read the rest
of the
or even
is referring to
Even if they're and even if they're and
even if it's not
is they would not be allowed to. The
reason is
because we're concerned that they may be
like the explained that three of the
five
that govern the laws of are things that
unless you're watching you would never
know after the fact whether they were
observed or whether they were not
observed. gifts for that reason
in all instances would not be allowed
to.
Then the mish concludes and says all
these people that
what's that referring to said it's
referring to uh
we although
he's not allowed to but at the same time
to the extent that he and
people saw that everything was okay it's
in that instance that [snorts]
it is going to be cautious But as
mentioned yesterday, Rabula's
understanding of the Mishna is only one
of six understandings of the Mishna. In
other words, the first of the
is something that was so debated by the
that would emerge was six to roots into
that and ultimately six different ways
to learn of the Mishna. Again, Rabbul
was the first and today's we are going
to learn the next five. And then after
we learn all six and a little bit of a
recap, we'll see the is going to do some
and minations and try to understand why
this didn't hold like that and that
didn't hold like this. Six different and
six different that we're going to have
to juggle. It's a fun daff. And without
further ado, six lines from the top of
took the second stab at this question.
And he said Tommy, let me tell you the
way you're supposed to understand the
Mishna. When the Mishna says, and again
is coming to be something. You want to
know what it's coming to be?
It's coming to be not the way understand
it, but rather it's coming to be marba.
So let's hit the pause button for one
second. Now if you know you know that
the primary source where kazal really
got into the whole in of the koutim is
in the beginning of school. So this is
the first time we're mentioning kouti
here in the daf but the kouti is going
to be malava us through the next couple
of daffin specifically tomorrow's daf
also specifically the raid of today's
daf but for now all we need to know
about the kouti is that the kouti was
a group of people koutim that had
arrived to Israel during the time of The
first basikdash. Shortly after that sash
and were taken into galas. They came
from a place called couta. Hence they
were known as the koutim. Shortly after
they arrived they were megay. And there
was a big debate amongst the whether
their gayas was a sincere gayas or
whether it was an insincere gayas. Were
they gay emis or were they gay arayas?
To the extent that they were gay emis
they had to be treated like gidden. to
the extent that they were gay, they had
to be treated like [snorts] Yehudim.
Another thing that we need to know right
now as it relates to the Kim is that
regardless of whether the were Gary MS
or whether they were Gary Aras, from a
mig perspective, the Coutin kept certain
aspects of the Tyra, but they also very
blatantly did not keep certain aspects
of the Tyra. If you want to simplify it
on a very high level, the kim believed
in the not so much in the we'll see in
the next few there were certain aspects
of the mess that they actually did
observe but the were that kept the y and
not that was a big debate did they keep
all the in the no some yes some not
bottom line is
says that when the mishna says what it's
coming to be is [snorts] even a ki even
a ki is a latter
Which means by the way two number one
must be a must be of the opinion that
to the extent that holds the and we're
going to learn very much in the first
is not and that's learned out from any
person that is bound by the laws of is
someone that's any person that's not
bound by the laws in a is somebody
that's not allowed. So if Abaya says
that Hako was coming to be marbakouti,
the first thing he must be of the
opinion is is that the koutim were gay.
Additionally, Abayo also must have held
that theim were people that can be
relied on and trusted that they're going
to adhere to the laws of because if they
don't adhere to the laws of well in that
instance
even if they're g we know they had their
own thing going and they certainly could
not always be trusted. So number one
when he says is taking a position and
that is that additionally what is saying
is is that they could be trusted when it
comes to the laws of but the bottom line
is as it relates to the
is coming to be something
and the essentially says but when is it
that is
means
that's only if there's aid that's
watching. So as long as there's a yid
watching then he can check but let's say
was not watching even if he was right of
fame even if he's coming and going he's
not let
if however went ahead and when there was
not a watching him the whole time even
if he was
then there still
you can cut off a
nice and you can give it to
if the eats.
So then you'd be allowed to eat from the
if you didn't eat it
then you would not be allowed to eat it.
So again the only time is if he's
watching him and he's making sure that
he does everything properly. If the
Israel is not even if he's in this is
not enough then the would not be able to
what happens if he's and there wasn't
this
option and that is you cut off a piece
of meat and you give him to eat it if he
eats it then we could trust him it's
okay and if not now not what do you see
from here you see that the kouti himself
is somebody that was careful when it
came to the law of like we mentioned
abai obviously is of the opinion that
the ki was somebody that could be
trusted when it comes to as a result by
him eating it. That's a that the must
have been okay which realize that means
it was
it means that he adhered to the five
these are things you wouldn't expect the
to be sensitive to but the bottom line
is
held that the were careful when it came
to the laws of now if the koutim were
careful about the laws of so why does
the israel have to be immediab
is because as much as the kouti cared
about the laws
He didn't care about being another.
Isn't that a passing in the
learned it based on which means don't
put a in front of somebody that's not
able to see
it [snorts] to mean that a person is not
let it be somebody that of kazal is
something that the were not careful of
and it's for that reason You can't trust
the ki that he's [snorts] not going to
be. So again, it's so tricky whenever
you learn the you trust the for himself
he's going to adhere to the laws of
because that's something that he does.
But you can't trust the if he gives it
to you because I don't trust him that he
is someone that's sensitive to our
understanding of
he buys into our but not our
so what's the so watch him that's a good
but let's say you didn't watch him well
but yeah it give him something to eat if
he goes ahead and eats it so then you
know it must be okay because for himself
he's
that he's not going to violate the laws
of therefore you can go ahead and eat
it. If he doesn't need it, then you
can't trust him. So that's not something
that he's going to be sensitive to. But
again, says who
or is it only
if
there's not then it's really why would
it be if there's no in the event that he
ate a from it? That's when it's going to
be okay. Now a like went and was
he continued and he said
with the exception of what the saying is
right you can give the
it doesn't matter he's not allowed to
and the reason is
like we saw in yesterday's because
not going to know how to keep the
and three of those five like spoke out
you're not going to have any way of
determining and knowing whether he uh
did it or didn't do it. It's for that
reason it's not going to be okay.
When the concluded and the Mishna said,
what's that referring to? So again this
is a discussion that mirrors this the
discussion that the had in yesterday's
but
what is referring to is it referring to
and again that's certainly what it
sounds like when you learn the
it doesn't pass to say the word and the
reason is because the last thing that
was mentioned was the and if you want to
tell me something else about the then
you shouldn't be saying but rather
Just from a grammatical perspective,
what it should say is and it doesn't
say, it says if that's the case, it's
not that it's referring back to the
Ella says the Okay, so maybe it's
referring to what was in the and that's
the now if it's referring back to the it
doesn't work either. You know why?
You said that
sounds like it works. It doesn't sound
like it works.
and there were people watching again
if it's referring to the
that's
part of the then it's even so you can't
tell me that is referring to the
who are mentioned explicitly in the
Mishna why because it shouldn't say it
should say and you can't even tell me
it's referring to the ki who's mentioned
implicitly in the Mishna
because is just not true. If
that's when it's
if there was nobody watching but if
someone's watching it's even okay and
says which we know in English means I
hear now it's interesting if you look in
the there's a how to come out or how to
what you're supposed to take away from
the says kasha meaning what was abaya
thinking the and that's the way we're
going to learn says
that
what Abaya held was that the is
referring to the
what was the problem with saying that
the problem was it shouldn't say the it
should say on that the gar says I hear
in other words no [snorts] that's not a
good enough reason for to go ahead and
tweak and change his understanding of
the Mishna it's a good don't get me
wrong but at the same time all it is is
aasha in other words according to
is coming to be
and the is
when when does watching him
again referring to the
is that even if was not watching there
are times that
when is that to the extent that you give
him a little bit of the boser and he
eats from it then being that the kim
themselves were trustworthy When it
cames to the laws of for themselves
therefore if he eats from it you'd be
allowed to eat from it with the
exception of
they are never allowed to and the reason
and others were watching
the is going to be in other words
according to according to one of the
benefits that emerges is that the last
part of the Mishna
is a little bit moreish than it was
according to according to the
was referring back to the
which when we read the when anybody
reads the Mishna it's not what it sounds
like it's referring to according to it's
referring to thear doesn't like it
because it should say the in Not
but for that the
in other words I hear it's not it's not
perfect but at the end of the day we can
make it work this mentioned that on the
bottom of
says that [snorts] even according to
that that learned
is referring to the it's referring to
the person that was that wasing
but is also referring to the says it
based on a later in the
But says that the is referring to the
and also to the point is being that it's
also referring to the
is a better and therefore and therefore
we use the word and not the word
according to it's not referring back to
what we mentioned the beginning of the
Mishna it's only referring to the if
that's the case is imperfect and the gar
says as so heard what said and he said
that when the says then it's referring
to when there was literally and when it
says it's referring to when isn't even
if he was but if he's not it's not going
to be okay in other words
that being is in it of itself not enough
to make it as if we know for sure that
This ki is being watched. I mean, if a
ki sees the yid watching him, he's going
to do everything the right way. But if
he's only
no familiar with a term called mercus,
right? Apparently there's no merc over
here in itself is not okay. He has to be
literally
how could you say
and this is at the very end of
somebody had a store and in his store he
sold wine. This is in the
and he has a guy that works for him. If
he leaves the
as long as the is
allowed to drink from the wine, you
don't have to be concerned that the
what do you see from here that the guy
is merc
when it comes to the has to be
is not enough.
You see when it comes to it's not the
way it is. But the says,
does it say maniac? What does it say?
Bishop doesn't say
it doesn't say
it sounds like it's not something you
could do
is referring to
is not okay. In fact, that Mishna is
even mash that way. But the says
the was from a different
this is also in
the sugis that deal with
does not have to sit and watch the wine
the entire time
as long as he's that in of itself is
going to be okay. And here it's for sure
even
you don't have to do that it's okay to
be a
how can you tell me is not enough
that is enough because of this from the
fact that proved from the end of that
being is in of itself okay so said that
you can't learn the Mishna the way Abaya
learned the Mishna rather we have to
learn a little bit differently [snorts]
now as we're going to see is going to
learn the Mishna differently than Abaya
but the only difference is going to be
this whereas according to it's not for
if there's
only according to it's going to be for
the
as long as
but terms of the basic gist of how Ra is
going to be Mafar to Mishna, he's
actually going to be Mafar to Mishna
exactly like so as much as this is going
to be the third terrace of the gar from
perspective it's literally ter with that
tweak which by the way is not even so
neg
but it's not even so of my way you learn
the
word coming to me what's it
When is that true?
If
this is this is the whole of that
as long as
the would come and he saw that
then
you can't just go ahead and eat it. What
can you do?
You can cut a nicely and give it to him.
If the goes ahead and eats it, then it's
okay for you to eat it.
It's not going to be okay. This is all
true even for but as relates to
even the evidence not okay
because we're concerned that he might
not get
that the last line of the mission that
said
what's that referring to
is referring to
that was the last thing mentioned in the
if that's the case
why does it say which
It's referring back to the
How could you tell me
that it's only
oh and by the way the cash is even
better because according to you don't
even have to be even if you're only it's
going to be so you going to learn the
and the gives the same exact ter
which is I hear in the vernacular
saying goodash The bottom line is
identical
to me
and sometimes
when
or even if
even if was not watching or if wasn't
even
if the himself ends up eating that's
going to be okay
and they're
We're going with
what does that mean? It's referring to
it says it should have said that's where
the I hear comes in either way. Fourth
said, let me tell you what's going on in
this Mishna.
You want to know what is coming to be?
It's coming to be even. Now the Indian
of the Israel is also if you know you
know a
that's primarily featured in the
beginning of school. And so we're going
to see a lot more about the in the next
few days and a lot more about ms in the
next few days. Now we gave the brief
introduction super brief introduction to
who the kin are. What's a mumer? A m is
somebody that is that he violates
principles in the so you could be a m
and that could be any one of the 613
mitzvah or somebody could be a
there's certain ms where even if they
could be treated in like a for example
if someone's a
or if someone's a
at two can sometimes take on a life of
its own. Additionally, there are people
that are mak they're
want to make angry and then there are
people that are no they wish to serve
Hashem but and their gets the better of
them put in this world for the struggle
and some people win some people lose.
[snorts] The bottom line is Raashi said
that when the Mishna said you want to
know what's being what's being
okay [snorts] says
even says the word is a very open-ended
word like we just said what exactly do
we mean so the says
even if the person is a mis
what's going on he's a m for
However, he's only a meaning he's a m to
the extent that [snorts] he's going to
profit. He's going to benefit somewhat
off it. It's not like he's a m to eat
because he wants to anger
is really based on something said
you could check the knife for him, give
it to him.
And you'll be allowed
to eat from his meaning if you go and
you check the and you give it to the
oven and you want to eat from it's going
to be okay. The reason is because this
person is to be
but it's only the he's not just going to
recklessly go and not do a proper if he
has something to benefit he will. Now an
example of benefiting would be if he has
to check the sake. He's lazy and he's
not interested in going and taking the
time to check the sake. So that's like
an example of something that you would
have to make sure that he's not tested
with. but said ra as long as you at this
point I don't see why he wouldn't do a
proper
it's only being that it's only
now speaks if you'd be then it wouldn't
be okay because you could be at the end
of the day when you're not looking he'll
do for a second or he'll do a little
when you're not noticing and as a result
he's going to end up purposely creating
an issue but being that he's only a
you have to be concerned that he's going
to do that.
I hear as long as you check off that
box, you address that, it's going to be
fine.
But let's say you
then you can't let him
let's say
then you have an you can go check the
after
if you look at the you see that it looks
good and then you'd be allowed to eat
from the if not
you would not be allowed to eat from the
says how do you make sense of the first
line of the Mishna
is coming to include the
heck
only only if you check the and you gave
it to him. Let's say you didn't check
the but only if you check it after the
fact. So
if you checked it
as long as you after the fact that is
the continue
and said with the exception
is not okay
because we're afraid maybe the wasn't
done good says the last that we tried
making sense of according to how's it
going to
What's that referring to?
Isn't it going back to
we just finished mentioning the and if
that's the case then the appropriate
grammar would not be but rather
it should say
must be it's referring back to the
beginning of the Mishna. What's the
beginning of the Mishna? What was it? It
was now says
if the case is talking about where he
was
before the
went ahead and checked it
and what's the why do you need
and even then it's only works for the to
the extent that you check the he is
allowed to go
the case must be talking about where you
were in and what what are we saying that
even if you weren't
As long as people were watching, it's
going to be good. But the gar says, "Why
should it be good if people are
watching?" What are you worried about?
You worried that the might not be
says the is
you should just be
is not here.
Who cares that people are watching?
Again, we're not worried that he's
batching up in one of the because he has
no benefit of doing that. The only time
we worry he's going to do something
wrong is if he stands to gain. The only
thing we could think of him standing to
gain is he's lazy and he's not
interested in checking the socket. Well,
you watching him do the doesn't in any
way, shape or form prove to you that he
checked the so if that's the case, how
do you understand the again? If it's
going back shouldn't say the word
referring to the beginning of the
Mishna. If it's referring to where you
check the then is even if you're not
watching so it can't be that you didn't
check the who cares the only that
matters is is right now could you check
the could you not check the how exactly
could help us and here too answers the
same way it answered and that is which
again in English means I hear and what's
the
says that is going to learn the way Reb
learned and that is that the is
referring to the
and the cotton and again like we spoke
out from tus really even according to is
referring to the just according to it's
also referring to what was from and that
is the
it's only referring to
if that's the case it shouldn't have
said it should have said and say it's a
it's a good but all it is is a meaning
it's not
That's not a checkmate. It's an I here.
Ravino
says the Gar is the fifth Mahalak in the
Mishna. And as we'll see, by the way,
Ravven is also going to be the
[laughter] sixth Mahalak in the Mishna.
So the Gumar is going to bring out two
versions of Rava that are going to be
the last two mahalim and how to
understand the Mishna. If you know
Ravina said, let me tell you, you're
supposed to read the Mishna. When it
says you know what is coming to be marb
it's coming to be even
now you need a word to be marble if the
he's the professional is not included
well then who is included so ra explains
meaning
that if somebody's a means he's
proficient ient in the laws of even if
he is not he's not as far as we know a
that is in the that he's constantly
doing this you know he has the
certificate hanging on his wall but he
never got dirty right
that as long as he's a even if he's not
a that in of itself would be okay
when is that true that
that's not a
That's
that's if we know that he knows.
But if we don't know for sure that he
knows, meaning he's a then it's okay.
But if we don't know that he's a
little
let's say he went ahead and he shed it
anyways. So he didn't have the he didn't
have the certificate. He went ahead and
he did well in you could always give him
after the fact
if he knows right now
meaning even though you didn't know it
beforehand that's why he wasn't supposed
to beforehand but you could always do it
after the fact. So if it turns out that
he knows it then you're allowed to eat
and if not then you would not be allowed
to eat. So according to Ravina version
1.0 No
is
the answer is coming to be
if he got the already and
we know that he knows then
if he didn't get the he's not let only
if he took the if however he and heard
him after the fact well then it's going
to be okay what's the ham
continues and says that this is all good
for someone that's
but when it comes to a person like that
doesn't matter who what when and where
even the evidence is not going to be
okay and the reason is again
says
according to how do you read the of the
says
I think we get the gist of it by now.
That's the last thing that was mentioned
in the
rather what it should say is
it's referring to someone that was not a
right. person
that was not a that person was not a
but that person who was not let maybe
that's what the Mishna means that as
long as people were watching him it's
going to be okay but the says
for him to be okay you don't need to
find people that saw him do the
in of itself would be okay says it's
true that would be okay live
with. There was nobody here to or he
wasn't here for us to be able to beim.
He got on the next plane. So, he's not
in town anymore. And he left us here
with a lot of meat and we're trying to
figure out can we eat it or not? As long
as there were people that watched them
and they said that we saw him do this
and everything was okay, well then it's
going to be fine. Really for the option
to work, you don't need
a a in of itself would be fine. just
give him a
but he's not here. You can't say as long
as people say we saw and he did it mish
exactly the way it's supposed to be that
in of itself is going to that in of
itself is going to be okay. So Ravino's
first shot is the fifth shot in the
garra. And by the way, one of the things
that Rava was able to accomplish that
Abay and Raashi were not able to
accomplish. You have to go back to
yesterday's
to find someone who was successful at
this and that is to explain the last
line of the mission of you don't have to
say it's referring only to the by the
way
would be true here as well. according to
is referring to the
it's going to be okay. But you don't
have to say that it's only referring to
the hence the word the is a better word.
It's actually referring to everything
mentioned. It's mentioned to what's it's
referring to what's from and that is
someone that's not a additionally it's
also it's also
including in it the
Raven's second which is the sixth
say
let me tell you how you're supposed to
learn the when the says what the means
to say
any person that's a is a lad. So what
does it mean? A mik somebody that
shacks. Someone that's a this is what he
does. 9 to5 this is what he does. So
someone's a lack and
someone that's a is a lad even if he's
not a and the reason is because if he's
a then we assume that he's also a but
when is that true?
It's only if he's
meaning two or three times. Why two or
three could be
whether is established when something
happens twice or whether is something
that hap is established when something
happens three times. But the bottom line
is if he shacked it two or three times
and he didn't. So it seems like this is
like one of the big concerns we have. A
person can know from today till
tomorrow. But to the extent that he
never really uh dealt with the blood,
you don't know if he's going to have the
ability to be able to to handle it,
right? It's not meant for the faint of
heart. It's not meant for everybody. So
if we see that he did this two or three
times and
by the way, what would happen if he was?
What's the end of the world? Well,
number one, Shia, right? You have to do
this really fast. So if he passes out
and then they revive him and a half hour
later he finishes the he violated Shia
right. So just for starters this is so
nuanced this process that if he blacks
out even for a second this can throw the
whole thing off. So okay when is this
true? That's if he shacked in front of
us two or three times. So we know for
sure he's a
but let's say he's not meaning by the
but we didn't see him two or three times
to know for sure that he has this down
pack
because we're concerned that again he
might pass out.
He said
I'm telling you I was conscious through
and through. I didn't pine I would know
if I passed out
is going to be so what's in the first
line of the
is referring to
that person can you don't have to know
he's a he because if he's a he's
probably a as well you could be
if however as far as we know he's not
if as far as we know he's not then
[snorts] he's not allowed to by the way
it sounds like even if he's but if we
don't know that he's with concern that
he might if he says however
it's going to be
the continued and said
it's not going to be okay
as relates to the last line of
what's referring back
Is it referring to
that was the last thing mentioned in the
if that's the case why does it say
maybe it's referring to someone that's
not a right to that he's not a we said
he's not
he's so
it's going to be okay right it can't be
talking about where he's because if he's
talking about where he was not
You don't need as long as he's a burly
that in of itself is going to be okay.
Just ask him. And if he says I didn't
pass out, we'll we'll take him at his
word.
He's talking about where he wasn't here.
He wasn't here. Therefore, you can ask
him. There is an option. Even if you
can't ask him, meaning the Mishna said
that if you ask him, it's going to be
fine. Well, what happens
if he's not here to ask him?
that too that in it of itself would be
okay. That concludes
and really that concludes the six that
the gives in terms of understanding the
Mishna which again began with
reconciling the two opening verses of
the Mishna.
But as we saw what evolved was really a
completely different understanding of
not just the opening line of the Mishna
but even the specifically the
so we have to do the
now not at the end of the now before we
see the that the Garra is going to make
which is the very very last leg of this.
So again the bear
said there seems to be an obvious
contradiction
sounds like whoever is being from
sounds like that person's only
which one is so the first in the wasab
said the word is coming to me even
someone that's okay
well it depends if
If it's
only going to be
when the Mishna said
that means that being that we're
concerned
we're concerned that they going to
violate the
it's for that reason even if that and
even if
>> [snorts]
>> They're always going to be excluded.
when the Misha concluded and said
it's referring to the but you want to
know why we use the word because it's
referring back to the beginning of the
Mishn well it's really it's referring to
everything in the Mishna and that is
that even
in that instance is going to be caution
the second was ab said that is coming to
be not a button is coming to be marba
Abai is of the opinion that the Gary he
was also of the opinion that the even
though their messiah was not okay but at
the same time they actually observe for
themselves the laws of what the mission
is saying is
allowed to as long as is watching him.
So as long as is watching him
is it's going to be okay.
If was not watching him even if the was
being well then it's not fine but it
could be fine. How so? To the extent
that he eats a little bit of it. It's
going to be okay. And the reason is
because we're not concerned that the
doesn't we know he knows and to the
extent that the is going to eat from it
he even observes the law. just are
concerned that the doesn't care about
our understanding of is not something
that the subscribes to. It's for that
reason you can trust him if you see that
what he's doing is okay or or if he eats
from it. So if you're watching that's
going to be fine. If you're not watching
it's not okay. But that if he eats from
it that's going to be fine. By the way,
something you see
is that even though it's okay if he goes
ahead and he eats from it, but you can't
be
you can't say go ahead and then I'm
going to give you a little something
afterwards and as long as you're going
to eat from it, it's going to be fine.
It's only something you're allowed to
work with. [snorts] But the bottom line
is that's what the Mishna means when it
says when the Mishna continued and said
according to it has to be referring to
and the reason is the reason is because
to the extent that it's referring back
to the beginning of the Mishna and that
is the well it's not
you would allow be allowed to and the
Gar didn't love that because the Garra
said if it's referring to then why does
it say said which means I hear it's not
so but the bottom line is that's the
only learned almost exactly the way
learned the only difference is whereas
according to
is only if the is literally but if that
falls into the part of the according to
if the isnas that's included in had
which in his mind was a big from the
we see in of
is the equivalent thereof of to
literally being
was the fourth said that when the Mishna
says and it's coming to be marba not to
like not like
it's coming to be specifically
what the mission is saying is
to
before you give it to the
He's a lad because he's not a he's not
looking bad to mess things up. If he has
a reason to not do it right, then he
will not do it right to be is the only
reason we can come up with. So as long
as you check the then would be allowed
to in the event that you weren't well
you could always be after the fact that
would also be fine. By the way, here
too, you see, you can't let the
on that you're going to be afterwards.
You would have to be it first in order
for it to be. But the bottom line is
that's the of
when the concluded and
the Mishna said that according to like
according to it has to be referring back
to the
and the reason is because it's if it's
referring to the who cares
the only that matters is was the checked
or was it not checked
if you check the he can go ahead and do
it and you could always check it after
the fact. But
without checking the means nothing and
if you check the then that's all that
matters. So what does
have to do with anything? must be that
that line of Mishna is referring to
which is not because why did
and you have to say the same thing that
the meaning no I hear but at the end of
the day that that emerged according to
emerged according to as well the fifth
and really the six were presented by
Ravina very similar albeit with one
different in the fifth ra when the
mission says what it means is
a you would have thought that in order
to be able to it's not enough you know
you have to have operated in the field
right we saw there's
right
and if someone is a he's allowed to go
ahead and he's allowed
but only if he's a what does mean in the
event that you didn't him before the as
long as he him after the that's going to
be okay And again here too you see you
can't say and I'll you afterwards and
we'll determine whether or not we're
gonna eat it. Only time you could sh is
if you gave him the if you didn't give
him the is not let but after that in and
of itself is going to that in of itself
is going to be okay said that according
to ra when the mishna fears and says
that line of the does not have to be
referring exclusively to the but it
could be going back to the person that
You didn't before where it's okay if you
do the right you after the fact
where he's not here
and they say everything look good to us
then that's going to be okay and this is
a ra has like where you don't have to
say on the no because the although it's
referring to the but it's referring to
the first part of the mission as well
the second shot was almost identical
But it's not coming to
but it's
you would have thought that
maybe you have to be ash
if you're a even if you didn't take the
we assume that you probably got it right
but what if uh as far as we know you
never did it two or three times in front
of us to know for sure that you don't
pass out then if you say borly it's
going to be okay if you're not around
That in and of itself is going to be
okay. So again, that's the longer recap.
The shorter recap and now we're diving
right in. The shorter recap is according
to
is coming to be according to is coming
to be
according to coming to be
and according to it's coming to be
either
another the last line of the
according to it's referring to
everything in
And also the tummy according to
both is referring to everything
and
according to
those it's only referring to the which
was a little bit of
even said
bothers
it's like a little bit
a little bit notish either way.
So now we're going to have to try to
figure out why each one of these didn't
learn like the other
and
[snorts] Ravina and didn't learn like we
should be able to get this all out. They
don't want to learn like Raashi. Why
not? What was the deficiency in Abay and
Ravashi's?
We went through this many times
to make this uh flow very smoothly
because at the end of the day it was a
big the
so it's why
and
would not have learned like
it's also why the didn't want to learn
like you know why says like this if you
remember the takash in yesterday's daf
according to why Does the Mishna have to
tell me the Tommy?
I know that
already from the
either the over there was and here we're
mentioning or the over here was
mentioned over there like this
according to the says that over there
was
the and over
I'm sorry that this is the
if you hold that the only way to explain
And why the Mishna would have repeated
itself is because
and there it's mentioned. It's so
obvious why didn't want to buy that. How
could you tell me that this is the place
to mention the
it's for sure in that okay?
But according to the
that maybe you're right the
over here
and this is only being mentioned because
being that we mention so we're also
mentioning
you're telling me that you're only
mentioning
even those may be held did not have to
be mentioned and you know why because
really it's so obvious that Tommy is a
lad what did the say what's the deal
with
and
well may be held
and if they
so then it's why according to them it
doesn't make sense that our is referring
to again to tell me.
I'm not buying that. It's been
mentioned. Oh, it's mentioned what
it's only.
As a result, it's why they didn't want
to learn like
[snorts]
says it's also obvious, I think, why the
maybe would have held like According
to the hel
that is coming to be it's coming to be
someone that is not a
well if that's the case
meaning
that's what's going on in the if
someone's a even if as far as we know
he's not a for sure he's allowed because
most people usually know and if that's
the case it's going to be okay
and according to the that says that
what's going on is we know he's we just
don't know if he's a and what's the
concern the concern is maybe that he
maybe and that's why we don't want to
let him do but if he tells me says
so that would be the reason why maybe
nobody wanted to learn like Ravina so in
other says like this why Rav and didn't
want to learn like a raashi that's
because of the why nobody wanted to
learn like because why do you have
that the main places in
my because you wanted to tell me and you
mentioned me
is not says no over there so rabb
to me if someone's a we assume he's a
and if someone's a we assume he's a so
you don't need to be
right. That's uh that's good. So what
then do we need to figure out? What we
need to figure out is
and why did they hold of their own and
why didn't one not learn like the other?
Again, we know why nobody learned like
Rabbi Barula. We know why nobody learned
like Rava's. So three of the we knocked
out. We also know why Ra and Ra didn't
want to learn like a rava and raashi.
But why did abay not learn like or like
raashi? Why did not learn like a raashi?
Why raashi not learn like a ra? That's
what we didn't figure out so far. Right
says
didn't learn like this looking. Why did
not learn like cuz he had a
learn like why not? because obviously he
added terret to right the only between
and is so ab must added terret to the
what was his terret his ter is
his terret is that is a good shir you
know when it's a good shir it's a good
when you're sitting in a wine store
you're not emerged or submerged in the
wine right now and as a result the fact
that I'm not in the wine and I know
you're that in of itself is going to be
an
as opposed to as opposed to if you're
and your mom is holding and by the way
with the blink of an eye literally you
can go ahead and you can mess up the
just being
it happens too fast I'll go boom I'll
take care of it in a second before he
ever comes back in so if he's standing
in front of me okay then I have a merc
but of itself is not going to be okay so
I understand why didn't he told you why
he didn't learn and I could hear why
didn't want to learn like raashayu
I can also tell you why Rabashi went to
learn like either or why because and
were both predicated on a very big
it was the of
andashi maybe is of the opinion that
areas
right so if saying that would explain
why Raashi didn't want to learn like
I understand also why abaya didn't look
like raashi we're almost at the
shot was based on the fact that
who said holds that way. By the way,
it's not just who said if Ra held that
way, it's good chance, right? The
analytics tell you high probability a
doesn't hold that way because they
always see things differently. Says the
el this was all a build up.
Why did Rava not learn like Ravashi? And
by the way, Raashi's was all based on a
Raa. So if it was all based on a Raa,
why would he have not learned like him?
So the every single variable you can
come up with, I could I could explain.
Whoever didn't learn like Rabbah, I
understand. Whoever didn't learn like
anyone raim I totally get I understand
why Rabbul
and Ravina who both had these
controversial wouldn't have learned like
Raashi because they weren't interested
in getting involved in the in the I
understand why Ra didn't know like
telegraphed why he didn't like he asked
the I even can understand why went to
learn because maybe he held his between
is enough because It takes time to go
ahead and mess up the wine as long as a
as opposed if I'm holding the animal in
my hand and in one [laughter] second I
can go ahead and I simply being that in
and of itself would not be enough of a I
could understand says the why didn't or
because it's predicated on a being a y
if he's a [ __ ] then this whole idea of
him is then on arrival so maybe is of
the opinion that the koutin were gay
aras they weren't even y I understand
Why ab like raashi is octamara because
raashi is based on maybe didn't like but
why did raba not learn like raashi if
raashi is goofa based on raba that would
have been a satisfactory and says guess
what he could have would have should
have learned like so why didn't he
all he told was he said you're learning
the hak is coming to
I hear what you're saying and it it's
and it's very possible that Hak is
coming to be
but if it's coming to be then the way
you have to read the Mishna is
even if he's
only when he wasn't even
based on the now it just so happens that
as far as this being I don't even know
if that's John Mishna. I think
I could learn the
is actually coming to me.
But really the whole point of Raa was he
was talking to and by the way in real we
learned the gar that's exactly what
happened in the what did tella said I
don't like your I don't like where
you're putting
said a different that is if you want
actions and you want to go with your
mahal over here in the well then that's
the only way you're going to be able to
make it work but in terms of la
in terms of lisa says the r really did
not have to learn that way. Ra could
have very much learned the way Ravi
learned. He was only saying it.
This concludes really a twoblot uh
series of trying to understand and
seeing in real time the grace of how the
went about explaining a Mishna, what the
Mishna meant when it said haka, what's
that coming to be?
How do you reconcile the apparent
contradiction of
additionally the last line of the
what exactly is the going back on all in
all these different
I know we said hashtag raid we're going
to save the raid for tomorrowe tomorrow
we're going to really get into uh a very
very fascinating topic
something that we touched on and even
promised that we were going to get into
on but uh we'll save that already for
daftala Mar.