Chulin 67

Today's daf is and we are about 20 lines from the bottom of we're in the middle of a words aeroy. So bar hashem we've made it to the final daf of perk elutraus a peric that feels more like a maka and we're in the middle of discussing the simonym of the kosher fish. Now as it relates to raid and tuml and controversy and pmic that's very much going to be the topic of today's raid but up until that point we have another fest daf. So keeping it super high level, what makes a fish kosher? It's a Mishna. It's based on any fish that has snapper vikases, fins and scales respectively are kosher fish. In the event that the fish does not have snapper or cascases, then the fish is not going to be kosher. The Gmorra said that the truth is anytime a fish has cascer. If it has snapper, you'd still have to check to see whether it has cascases or not. Which means that from a practical standpoint, all you need to do to determine whether a fish is kosher or not kosher is see if it has cascases. If it has scales, if it does, you know, it has snapper, it's kosher. If it doesn't, then obviously it not going to be kosher. If that's the case, the garra said, "Why then do we even talk about the snapper?" And the garra gave a shocking answer. It's simply to make Tyra even bigger and more beautiful than it already is. And therefore, we add another simmon even though in theory it's not something that seems to be serving any practical uh purpose. Now, as it relates to the first part of today's daf, which will naturally segue into the next part of today's daf, we need to become familiar with a few not so tucked away because it's together with all the in the second part of that talk about the of the kosher. The puss says that the following is something that one is allowed to eat as it relates to animals that live in sea. as it relates to fish. Any fish that has snapper and those are the fish that you're those are fish that you're not going to be allowed to eat. So, it's pretty straightforward. One says you're allowed to eat the fish that have snapper and kases. The other PK says you not let it eat the fish that don't have snapper and says the very end of yesterday's d which was the first part of the ba that we're in the middle of said the first is an second is [snorts] which mentions it's talking about what it is that you're not allowed to eat. The part of the bry that we're up to now is going to discuss a dick in the PK says the is very specific where in the water these fish were found that if they have snappes you're allowed to eat them and if they don't have snapping you're not allowed to eat them. They were found by in the seas and in the streams. Next says the same thing. It sounds a little bit like what would be if somebody found fish and it wasn't it was in a body of water otherwise it couldn't live but it wasn't a yam or a per se. What would be the there? In fact, what's going to emerge from the ensuing discussion is that all bodies of water can be divided into four categories. We have the yamim and the now what's unique about is these are natural sources of water and the water flows. We're then going to have a category that is going to be flowing water but at the same time it's not yim and it's not per se. what the and the Garra is going to refer to as it's not but it's eerily similar to then we're going to have these are ditches pits they're in the ground where there could be bodies of water but the is the water over there is not flowing and then finally in the event that somebody has a kali and there's water inside that's very different than the yam and all of this is going to be discussed in the gamar in terms of understanding whether fish that's found in those other places do they need to conform and comply with the then but in the event if it's or maybe in the event that it wasn't found so it doesn't meet this very specific criteria that the talks about maybe in that instance it's not going to be okay now the truth is this may come as a little bit of aesh for a few reasons I'm going to give it away. So, spoiler alert. If you don't want to know the ending before we go through the gamar in real time, don't listen. But here's the the punchline of the suga. What's going to emerge is that in the event there is a body of water and it doesn't conform to yim and is any fish that naturally germinate from that body of water is going to be mutter to eat. Even if it doesn't ask. So for example, what's referred to as sheray. Now you have to know if sheramayim is fish or not fish. You know don't do this without asking your local rabbi. But the keeping it on a dio level in the event that there's a kali and the kali has water and this fish that didn't come from a y or a but it germinated from the shabi which scientifically you have to understand and define a little bit better. But again keeping this on a level in the event that you have that type of or maybe that type of fish. So the is it's going to be mut you'll be allowed to eat it even if it doesn't have a snapper of gases. The same is true in the event that the fish comes from. Again if it came from a and then it eventually ended up in that situation of course it's not going to be okay. But assuming it germinated from the then it's also going to be fine. If it came from the and that's similar to the and that the terror says the only time you're allowed to eat it is if it has a snap of the cascuses. If it doesn't have a snappes it's not okay. Either way that is the masa. How we get to the masa it's a little bit of a tricky bry up. We've had a few of these recently. And on that note, it says in the first of the mentioned earlier says, "Why do you need those words?" Now, what do you mean? Don't you have to know that you're allowed to eat it? Yes. But look at the end of the it says. So why do you have to tell it to me twice in the beginning of the and at the end of the and kasha is the first time it's mentioned. Why is it mentioned? Now what's the obvious question on the garasha? You're asking why it mentioned it the first time. The kasha should be why it mentioned it the second time. The answer is going to be because we're not going to have a good answer as to why it mentioned it the second time. We'll have a good answer of why it would have mentioned the first time. So if the first time is extra then we have a little bit of mahal. So we're assuming it's the first one that's extra and knowing that already the why did we mention it that first time? cuz I would have thought you find in this there's a to eat fish that don't have the snapperes. Not only is there a heter mentioned once, there's a heter mentioned twice. The one time that it's mentioned, it's mentioned mafurish, which means explicitly. The second time is it's mentioned a little bit more implicitly, but there's two Just like the one that's mentioned, we'll see what this all means later is regarding meaning any fish or that germinate in that's going to be and therefore I know that the one that's mentioned where it's not so what exactly the is but I know based on the one that's mafurish is referring to so the one that's also caim. So I know from that any fish that come from even if it doesn't have a snapper is going to be well if that's the case mean how do I know the rabbit and how do I know that the same would be true in the event that there's I'm allowed to be bend down and drink and I have to be worried that maybe there's some there's some there's some fish over there I know it's going to be mut because just like male is not included in this is so to that shouldn't include in the as well that's why the said that's extra and it's coming to be an exclusion right that's an oxymoron it's coming to be and what's that just like is excluded from this doesn't have to have so as it relates to the that's in the same is going to be true says the okay so this is the pretty cryptic. The question was it says doesn't it say to read in the end of the p the answer is here's the fast forward to the end of the part of the what we need it's coming to that any fish that's found in that are in you can be you don't have to be worried about all these problems that maybe you're going to end up eating a [ __ ] that doesn't have snapifices you may end up in an issue why would I need a murk because although there is hectic But that hat I know was only talking about not how do I know that says where does this hat even come from? I don't see anything about if there's a head to the camel it's going to be okay says the gar. Again, we know this cuz we already spoiled this part of the and then what does it say the is clear that these conditions that you have to have talking about what that talking about in the event that the water was and we learned from there that it's over where if it has to eat it and if not not but as it relates to even if it doesn't have it's going to be Okay says the I hear the it says so you want to tell me the only time there's a snap ofases is if it's not for example even if it doesn't have it's going to be okay says the I like the I don't know if I'm so convinced about the conclusion why don't we make the carrot [laughter] maybe the way you have to make the is that the only time you're ever allowed to eat fish even if it has is only if But in the event that it's maybe the is that even if it has it's not going to be okay. Don't even have such a thought enter your mind because look at the next says and what is the end of the it says over there right you're not eat when the Torah talks about the fish that you're not allowed to eat. says if it doesn't have and it's beyond what do you see from there it's clear it's but if it's you're not going to have the even if you don't have it it's going to be okay even though from the first the is maybe a little bit murky I can go both ways but from the second it's pretty clear and that is that that's where you have the of if it doesn't have gases So you say if it's not it sounds like you wouldn't have the which means the in the first is the same exact and that is it's when you need the snap of the to be able to eat it but if it's beum even if it didn't have the snap of the casces it's going to be okay the bottom line is that what do you see from You see clearly from the words that if however was you wouldn't have this you wouldn't have this but I only know right I only know what about that was the I telling you the words that's a it's a to that this of meetings not the is true not only for not and also not in the but asks another why don't we say that when it says in the beginning of the says so that first word is that's right this is only true if it's And and we should say means only what's in the and if that's the case it should be in the it should be that only if the fish was in the is there of says but if it's in the then already so what's the kasha it's like a double kasha thear's kasha is why do I need a to tell me that the mind that's in the is excluded I know it's excluded without the fromal. Oh, and by the way, I think the should not only be for it should be even for right. Again, we gave it away. We know is not included in the that you're telling me that without I would only know to be why why is this not a and it should be only true I mean it sounds like a solid it should only be true for which would mean not it would mean not it would even mean not [laughter] but why do I need to be in the mirror here. I should know that. So the says because it's not a you know what it is it's actually a how so because it says the word a second time it says the second mention of it's a cloud says before we even get involved in the cloud says this is not a cloud the two clouds are right next to each other right and then it says is the second cl. What's the clu? That's not said incorrect. Right from they used to say every time you find two claws that are next to each other. You could take the mean is the same as a cloud. You can dash into a cloud. The bottom line is this is not a okay so explain meaning how would that play itself out does the work for us what's the rule so you always just like the is talking about water that flows the water flows so we're going to be anytime the water flows my what are we going to Even though it's not but the water flows from there and therefore we're going to be what are we going to be might what's going to be excluded that's going to be and that's why are going to be you want to know why it's going to be it's going to be based on the clock now if you hit the pause button now for a second you'd scratch your head one second we said that is because not because of the Hold that thought says the but why wouldn't you say that the way you da is that the prat is mafurish that's water that naturally is algabi so too we'll include in it any that's naturally and if that's the case then maybe the only thing we should is says the in other words how do you know from the cloud to cloud to bear is maybe the only thing you should be is what's the vers is not what's the water flows how do you know that's the scope of the maybe the ka is anything that's in the ground as opposed to if it's in the ki then [laughter] is you would have an isar not a hat there's the punch line and this is where the whole gamar comes together in kane Then what do I need for if I care? That was the whole punch line of the coming depending if you're a glass half empty, glass half full, right? We're dealing with water here. But either way, the point is let's do a little bit of a soma because again this was a very nuanced gimar. What the Gar is saying is the P that talks about the fish begins by saying and it concludes by saying the first mention of is and the question is why do we even mention it? What emerges from the maso of the gumar is cuz in this pik as much as we're laying down the law of the sea as it relates to when fish are kosher and fish are not kosher and the rule is if it has snapases it's kosher and if it doesn't have snapases it's not going to be kosher but the also mentions that this is true this for fish and theim and the tolo that are found we found in the yam which opens up the window to assume that maybe it's not always going to be true and that's why I need the words to teach me that if the water was and that's where you found these in that instance even if it doesn't have assets it's still going to be okay right that was the initial bry what emerged after further review is the way this developed was as follows that really in the cloud because and then it says again and then it says it's a cloud which said they said is the same as a cloud. What you have over here is a cloud. It would have been to say that we're going to be anything that's similar to included in that would be that's really similar because the water flows like the additionally included where even though it doesn't flow but it's the only thing we would have been but now that it says that's a to or to redefine exactly how I'm going to view the cloud and what we say is that the is only the but as it relates to the that's like the that's going to be hence at the end of the day we call that it's going to be that it's not included it's excluded from the either way says the gimmar well but we just mentioned Now was one version of how we come to this that as it relates to or fish that's is going to be okay. They learned this a little bit differently. They said it says it says it twice. This is not a this is not a what this is is. Now we know throughout there's a tan whether we dion what seems like a and a prat as or whether we dian as a what's the difference between so the rule is I'm sorry if you is the equivalent of So it's when you have you have even more than everything only one thing that's the only thing that we're going to said that the way you learn this over here thems but rather it's in the mahal of how Oh, the second time. So if you have everything my what are you going to be then eat what are you going to bear? So you want to know why is going to be according to it's because they held it was and what's the one what's the most obvious thing to bear what's obvious that's not the most obvious thing to be most obvious is if you're being everything with the exception of one thing you should include in the memar says But I'm because it says so that's how I know to go ahead and I have to be or another thing right and what's the other thing I'm going to be the other thing I'm going to be is the and the says the how do I know that we're being the and we're being Right. Why are we assuming that is less similar to the maybe that are less similar? So says the reason I'm being because they're all in one place. They're right in one area in one location like the as opposed to which are not they flow and as a result they're more similar to the reo that's why I'm going to be whereas I'm going to be so held the same thing that the previous that if you have water and there's fish there there's over there again it's posh What's the is if it's snap of a cascus it's okay if there's no snap of it's not going to be okay as it relates to same thing as it relates to there even if it doesn't have it's going to be kosher and certainly if it's going to be the same thing how they got there was a little bit different the t of the first riser got there through the methodology of clawat the tana of the got it through the methodology of but at the end of the day they ended up sort of uh they ended up sort of in the same place and that is there's going to be no said that even though there's a cloud according to the first and there's according to at the same time we needed some assistance in order to get to where we got by having the extra words as because based on the cloud alone I would only know to and based on the mid I only know to be it's because I also have I add those extra words that's how I know that we're going to be in the and what are we going to be one obvious that and that is holds we always make such a big deal about this he's one time you know he cli So what's going on over here? I mean it's not it's yeshiva. But it'd be hard to believe that in Raish's yeshiva they didn't follow the of says what's the it's because it's not a regular cloud. This is a cloud and even holds that if you have a clu that's a ready reboot. So when do I hold cloud? That's if it's your traditional cloud but to the extent that it's a cloud but again this is all semantics because at the end of the day everybody ended up in the same place just one postcript before uh we get to the latter part of the daf and that is that if you go back to the beginning of the said it says as if there were two of some type of fish that even though it doesn't have mentioned in one time it was mafurish the other time it was just like the mafurish one is only at least that's what you would think without based on the cloud made so the one that is the same way. Now what are the two uh so it's obvious it's the two that mention and it's clearly those two but the wants to know which is the one and which is the one says which we spoke a lot about this in the beginning of the Ra you find a lot of plea buzz and we don't know who said what because who's rav and ra they're both the right-hand men of raash and that's why so so many times in just like we don't know sometimes who said what because they always come together and falls into this category but either way once said the first that says says that's the one that's going to be as opposed to the next that's the one that's where it's not the other ones are just the opposite explains the one that said why would he say that's the one that's tell you he said because what do you mean go back to The original bride said that seems to be the from that is telling you what you're allowed to eat. If it's and it's then it has to have gases. But it sounds like if it's not it doesn't have to have snapas. So this is the one that's telling you what you're allowed to eat and it's telling you you can eat something that's although if it's has to have so this is where it's if it's not if even if it doesn't have right sounds uh clear again why would this be the one that says the other one says the other but this is the one that says my time that said why did he say that because you remember the earlier said that how do I know in this that what the is saying is that when it comes to even if it doesn't have maybe even if it has maybe it's the only time you're allowed to eat it is if it's a and b if it's not could be it's two criteria but if it doesn't have excuse or if it's not at all then I can never read it. So what was the answer to that? The answer to that was is I knew from the next that it's not that way. So being that this second P was really mala on the first P. So that's the one that mean the first one is but the second one is where it's how exactly you supposed to read the first but either way says the what's that hold that is only the first it was only because of in the second that the is only true if it's not it's now I know that the first when it says that you [snorts] have to have it means because if it's not I'm allowed to eat it if even if it doesn't have the second was on the first P that's why it's the second P that's considered a first again from the first P alone there would have been two ways to make the of as opposed to either it's always or it's always right the P just tells you What if it's so always even if it doesn't have always even if it has talking about is and it makes the same dick. So there I know the is only a so I know already the is only true. So if that's the case must be that it's mut it's even if it doesn't have which means that when the first p told me the or with regards to it was coming to exclude not that it's always us that it's always so again there's two ways to look at it which is why and and looked at it in these two uh conflicting ways. Either the first one is mafurish because that's the one that's talking about or the second one that is mafurish because that's the one that teaches me how to learn the puzz [laughter] but being that I don't see it murish in the pik without having to come on to the second puzz that gives new muck to learn that the second pik is really going to be the one that either way this concludes the longer harder more complicated part of today's daf the second part of the doaf really can go as quickly as we can talk. select. Now let's just meditate for one second on this that we just said and that is if somebody has a body of water and inside this body of water there's some aer maybe even a fish that somehow germinated there from the water is there's no eat it doesn't have to be kosher not kosher no gases it's going to be it's even true based on the that's going to be okay based on that I'm going to tell you something. Beer sometimes would be wormy back in the day. And there was an understanding that the worms that were found inside the beer germinated from the beer itself. And if that's the case, it's the equivalent of that's right because the beer doesn't uh come from the sea. It comes from the keg. Uh right, the bang or wherever it comes from. But the bottom line is that's where it originates from. And if that's the case, really it should be mut. So if somebody wanted to go and just drink beer without sifting it and making sure that these worms were not there, as long as you know it came in bay from the beer, that in of itself would be okay. So with that, but there's one thing you better be sensitive to, and that is because even though these worms are kosher, but let's be honest, I'd rather not have the worms, right? So therefore, if somebody's going to go ahead and he's going to want to sift them out, and he's doing it in the evening. So old school, you don't have Gishmaka strainer. So what they do is they would take like twigs, they would put it on top of their beer uh mug, and now you're pouring from the cask on top of it, and you're hoping that all the worms end up staying on top. He says, "Don't do that at night cuz I'm concerned that the beer has worms and the worms are going to crawl a little bit on top of the twigs on top of this uh proverbial sifter and they're going to fall into the and now you're going to have a problem cuz as much as it's true that these schwatzum are okay if they're naturally from the beer, but the minute it starts creaking a little bit on dry land or even on top of these twigs, now you're going to have an issue." And if that's the case, don't do this. If this are you're worried about, you're telling me that even though the is going to be multip issue, well, if that's the case, but then even when the beer is in the kay, why you not concerned, maybe this tas was somehow able to get out of the beer. It crawled on the walls of your beer mug or of the keg and then it fell back in. And why is that not an issue? says how revisit it's inside the mug in the b in the barrel then already that's that's considered that it didn't leave its natural habitat and as a result that doesn't make it a if it's on top of these twigs even though it's part of the beer pouring process that's already considered external that's when you have an issue says how do I know that what that in the event that the sherets is pish but it's within its natural habit that it's going to be okay says we learned sounds familiar that was the previous price that we just spent the first half hour on and that is how do you know that in the event that somebody wants to bend down and just drink water from you could do it I there might be uh things that you're not allowed to eat there it's fine it says why you not worry that maybe one of these little creatures went to the wall of the crawled a little bit and fell back in. And if that's the case, it should be awesome because you have to say because that's natural habitat. And just like it's natural for these creatures to be on the walls of the same is true for the beer and as well it's not going to be an issue. I have a from a to support you. that even though you have here something that naturally grows inside the beer but to the extent that it goes on top of this se at that point it's going to be an issue. So if it's on top of these twigs you're going to have problem don't do it night because you won't know if it happened. So what's the says it's coming to certain types of nats that [snorts] used to grow inside the wine. And what's the in the that you go ahead and you strain them, right? So the is if you sift them out, it's going to be and it's learned from now. It's only a problem if you sift it. because they naturally come from the wine. So what's the problem if you sifted it because now we're ready with sogra I'm worried about him not beer wine which is of course here too naturally if there's something there I'm not so concerned about it but the minute it crawls a little bit that's when I would have initially talk to you. So on the topic of again what's this idea that if you have something that grows naturally in a body of water in a beverage as we'll see in a minute even in a fruit. So it's it's going to be okay. However, if it's then already it it knocks it out and makes it a problem as relates to this vegetable that became wormy and it became wormy while the was attached to the ground is it's going to be a problem. Why? Because this worm walks inside the kish is attached to the ground. So even though it comes from the but the is part of the and if it's part of the it's going to be right the same even though you have the the worm from the beer and the knat from the wine here you have the worm and the but the minute it's it's giving took it to such an extreme he said even though it's in the but if the are attached to the ground that's already says I think I have a says it's coming to me certain types of nats that are inside lentils. Additionally, the which is another type of sher that's inside chickpeas. [laughter] Well, the words that are sometimes found inside dates and figs. The point is all these things are going to be why they cuz they're not. So if they're naturally from these places it's okay but another and we learn from that if you have a that's in the root of the it's going to be an you have a ste what's going on over here are the inside the fruit kosher or not kosher isn't it reasonable to assume that they're both talking about they're inside the berry where it says it's where was attached to the ground. Oh, it's attached to the ground. So now it's if it's not attached then it's going to be but the bottom line is says they're both talking about where they were attached cuz being attached then of itself is not an issue. If you're walking in the kishos just because the k is attached is not going to be a problem. one is talking about where you found the tas in the py then it's mut even if it's attached the one that says that it's going to be a problem is when it was walking in the actual elong the elon is different in the attached to maybe not but in the elong that for sure was an issue what does means the root you're talking about the actual tree you see clearly that this has nothing to do with fact discusses is this a right because it sounds like it might be a it sounds like the only time it's going to be a problem if it's if however it's in the fruit and the fruit is attached then maybe it won't be an issue the following question he said what would be if there was a that naturally grew inside a fruit which again we [clears throat] see is not really awesome if it showed It's not for sure it's going to be. What if it was pier? It came out of the fruit and the minute it came out of the fruit before it was able to walk the proverbial dalis boom it plit. What is what would be if part of the came out but part of it didn't come out? What would be if it came it didn't even touch the ground before it touched the ground? At that point somebody went ahead and ate it. What would be the in all these cases take away? A similar question. What would be if the worm came out of the fruit and never walked on the ground, but it took a little bit of a stroll on the rooftop of the fig, right? It's war, the date, right? It's walking on top of this date. What would be the over there? Or what would be if it didn't leave the actual fruit and walk on top of the fruit, but it walked on the roof of the seed. So, it was inside the seed. It comes out of a seed and it's all inside the fruit and it's walking on top of the the seed of the fruit. What would be the luck in those case again? Is this tomorrow? What would it be if there were two tomorrow next to each other and somehow it made like a tunnel? It was able to get from one tomorrow to the other tomorrow. All these we're going to have to wait for said. So if it's probably right you find says cooki are certain worms that were found inside the liver and the lungs of the animal. These things are going to be awesome my time. What's the reason? Because the animal must have swallowed it. That's how it got there. And if it came so that would be an issue said if they really came they should be in the digestive tract why they in the liver why they in the lungs they're in the wrong place and uh Raashi therefore said that I don't think they came from somewhere else they must have naturally germinated again whatever that means in the liver or in the lungs and as a result they're actually going to be say that raid didn't He said it's my timely cuz I believe it never came from it's not it's and being that over here he saidashi he's not going to ask he's going to support it's obvious you should have found it and being that it wasn't must be and if that's the case it's going to be so what's so after two versions of sounds like should be really my time and what's the reason because it could be it really came from outside I why is it not in the the mug somewhere cuz maybe it came direct the nostrils I wouldn't you know wouldn't the animal know the animal should have sneezed it out or something maybe that while he was sleeping the bottom line is as a result is you still have to be it's going to be awesome So what are these? So Rashi says these are that are found between the skin and the flesh of the animal. So they they skin the animal all of a sudden they found these worms the if you find the same guys inside the fish it's going to be in fact Ravina told his mother. So he knew that sometimes these were found inside the fish. He also knew it was kosher, but he was a little squeamish. Was Ravino. So Ravina tells his mother, he says, "Do me a favor. Grind them well. I just don't want to see them." Yeah, they taste fine. I'm okay with them being in the recipe, but I'd rather you turn them into some sort of thing that I'm not able to see. Told his mother, bottom line is this was something he was okay with. I don't understand. And you're telling me that this these that are in the fish are going to be doesn't the [laughter] you see the ones in the which we mentioned. So what's the difference between the between the fish told it's not the way becomes it becomes being that the doesn't help for it. For that reason, it's going to be related to fish. Fish don't need therefore these when they grow, it's not going to be an issue. Here's the point. These and the grew naturally in the behem and in the fish respectively. As a result, it's not included in this because is only if it's therefore naturally speaking this should be okay stating that when it comes to the bus is another reason it's problem you know why because everything natural to the need so if this is part of the you still need and there's no mucker to say that therefore remains fish don't require you just have to make sure it's not a it's not a and it's for that reason this is something that is going to be another. So the says talk about different you're not allowed to eat these things. So this referring to the snake also to eat the rabbit you're not let the worm right. from the snake to the worm and everything in between to a scorpion. The word coil is it's coming to mean the first coil was on the second coil is anything that is even similar to the that's the centipede in English if it's similar or if it's similar to similar take a look at the what those two things are and if it's similar what does it like similar Ben similar but either way this is something that the talk about and what's the bottom line before we see this very very last and make so before this last what emerged really from today's d I think is a very big kadesh very very big if someone never learned this is going to be a little surprising and that is there are certain fish worms that you're allowed to eat there's an idea that a sheret that naturally grows in a body of water that's not either it comes from a or it comes from it's okay there is no laws of you let it bend over to and just drink from it I who knows what in the world you're going to end up drinking it's fine listen as long as it naturally came from there as long as it naturally came from there that of itself is going to be okay the same is true for food like regular [laughter] if you have a a fruit that's wormy assuming that it germinated from the fruit itself. It was never who would want to eat it. Even Ravina was a little I'm not sure I'm so in up to this. [laughter] But the bottom line is is that also is going to be okay. It's all based on over here. Either way, he's up to feels like a harden in the world of kosher fish and non-coosher fish. You should know that leviosen is a kosher fish. Now I know that Paul success and this is of he was talking about the he said it [clears throat] has shields that protect it has shields right is uh big strong it's powerful so it has a shield that protects it and that's the scales that protect the fish what's that referring to means it's sharp. They have these sharp fins that allow them to swim, allow them to get around. That's referring to the fins. The bottom line is if it has scales and it has fins, if it has casim and it has that means it's kosher. And on that note, Hadrron Allutus. So as it relates to raid perutus concluded with the sugas related to fish, I think it's kadai to end with one last raid bite. Again, no one says we're not going to come back to this uh raid in the next perk or two, but at least to end and make a hydr on perk elut with a topic related to fish is a kosher or is a non-coosher that many many years ago took the world by storm. In fact, the Russia in this whole no was none other than the great land of Prague. In fact, the chua that the Yehuda wrote about this uh particular fish goes down as arguably the most famous truva. So imagine that because there are a few pretty famous ones, but this is definitely in the conversation. It's on the Mount Rushmore of Chu in terms of the impact that it made and the legacy that this chuva holds. So the chuva which is printed ironically in Madura. This is not a Madura ga but this is a Madura. It's ina the background is that there was a a kahila in Romania/Hungary that was called Teameshvar. The kila of Tameshvar had formerly been a kahila of Ashkenazi Jews. But over the last few decades prior to when the Bhuda sat down and and wrote this cha a lot of them had come from you know different countries and they had settled it to the point that the kilo of tevar was almost 50% Ashkanazi and 50%. Now there was a certain fish that was native to that area. The fish in the cha from the nhuda is called the sterile or the sterile. Today it's known as the sterlet which is a member of the sturgeon species of fish. More about that later. And this fish the Ashkenazi Jews and Tishvar had not eaten you know as long as anybody could remember. But now you have all these fi Jews that are coming and they say that in Morocco, in Tunisia, these different places that we lived in, we used to also have access to this uh sterile and we used to eat it. And as a result, they're arguing that this fish is is really kosher. Now, what happened was these two men hug him emerged. There were the Jews that ate it. There were Jews that didn't eat it. In the year 1781, Teeshvar hired a new RV and the RV's name was Rati Heres Sego. He was auda, my great rabbi, and he sends a letter to his rabbi. And he asks his rabbi, this fish, is it kosher? Is it not kosher? And included in the package that he sent him, right? This must have gone certified mail or FedEx. He sends him an actual fish and he tells you that this is the fish that everybody's talking about. Everybody's tumbling about and I I need to be m this BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE. SOME say it's kosher, the others say this is not kosher. Is it okay or is it not okay? So [snorts] sits down and he writes a truth. He says, you don't see this every day, right? Every starts, but doesn't usually come with a bottle of wine, right? It doesn't usually come with a fish, right? Sounds nice. But I got this the day after together with the fish and you asked me to try to figure out what's going on over here. Now it seems that one of the questions had asked was these Jews that are coming from far away lands. Do they have an ammonos to say that where we were people used to eat it? Like are they even believed? And that's really what the first paragraph of the chu is about. He says, "You want to know if they're believed?" He says, "Number one, this is believed." But besides, it's not an tellahil. People are coming and telling you. So, in terms of believing their used to eat this fish, there's no question in the world that this is something that's going to be okay. He says, "Anino, I took the fish and I looked at it and I experimented on it and I tried figuring out whether this is okay or not and I'm going to tell you what my findings were." But in order to appreciate the finding of the we need to learn one ram this raan is and it's on the p of which was the topic of the last two this is such a critical what are fins right these are uh what the animal swims with kasim what are scales These are what is part and parcel of the actual fish. It's and it comes from the says the rabbi even though said that the to the fish do not mistakenly understand the words of the sages to mean that they're literally attached to the body of the fish and they're literally one with the or with the skin of the fish. They're not. TERM. THE ONLY reason they're referred to as it's because they don't move. They don't flap the same way the fins do. But really, really, they could be removed. In other words, they don't move when they're attached, but they could be removed. In fact, these are the round scales whose surface is the same as a fingernail. which can be peeled off the skin of the fish by hand or with a knife. Anytime you have these scales that are literally and they're attached to the skin of the fish and they cannot be removed, you can't detach them from the of the not scales of and the owner of this fish would not be allowed to eat it says he goes to work over here. That's why the said we learned the yesterday's that it's a what does it mean it's a because a garment a beggar you could take on you could put back off because a beggar is something that you could take on you could put says take a look at the you know uncleas says What does mean? It means to peel. They're peels. You can peel them the same way you can peel the bark of a tree or you can peel a fruit. [laughter] That talks about the armor that golas was wearing and it describes it as says, "If you ever saw the armor that these tough guys used to wear, they were all made of these metal rings." So they were covered with metal, right? And sometimes there were little gaps in the metal. So what they would do is they would take these casin and they would go and they would [snorts] close plug those those little holes. But those were things that you can plug and if you wanted to remove, you can remove it. And that's why armor is referred to as kascasm because of the nature that this is something that you can be that can come on and something that can come off. Bottom line said that you want to know what kasamarasim are scales and even though the mishna says IT'S SO MISLEADING BECAUSE REALLY IT'S ALMOST THE OPPOSITE SOUNDS LIKE YOU CAN'T MOVE IT. YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE to move it AND IF YOU CAN'T move it it's NOT SCALES. IT'S BY DEFINITION then you can move. Now I know that because refer to it as a and if look at tag refers to it AS AND IT'S THE MUSH of kasim is referring to golas the bottom line is the raan went ahead and ramban said an unbelievable he said that the only time scales are scales is if they could be removed if they can't be removed now why is this right we got to absorb this because this is where the whole sturgeon controversy you know you know nothing about sturgeon this is where it starts It starts because the Ramban is saying that the have to be removable because doesn't say it. It's not it's not it's not anywhere. It's nowhere in FACT BECAUSE THE MISHNA SAYS SOUNDS LIKE THEY CAN'T BE MOVED. And the Raan said just the opposite. Scales need to be removable. And if they're not adjustable and they're not removable and that's stuck, you can't take it off. In that instance, this is not going to be considered a scale. How do I know that? I'm I'm learning a and analysis because the we refer to it as this mentioned that in a few different places. AND AS WHAT DOES MEAN? It means peels. And based on that, if you cannot peel it, it's not going to it's not going to be kosher. The First is literally a only time something's called is if you can remove it. But if you can't peel it, it's not called. What's the says? It's the if you look at the Mishna, what's the to the Mishna? It's the Ramb. So in the first brings this and that is the only time a fish is considered a kosher fish is in the event that it has scales that can be removed. But to the extent that these scales cannot be removed in that instance, it's not going to be considered a kosher. So says in these next two paragraphs are epic. He said, I experimented with this fish. They have two rows of scales. You know, I tried peeling them off with my hand. I couldn't. the cuff and the cle they could be removed with a kayali and as long as they could be removed with a kali that's uh the criteria that you need that satisfies said that's enough to say it's considered he said I put it in water and I left it there and I added I added some chemical inside of it and after that I was even able to peel it with my own hand says says, "Even had I not been able to peel it before I soaked it in this chemical laden. I would have thought that's okay. Don't suggest you're going to say maybe." What do you mean? If you add chemicals and now all of a sudden you're able to peel it, that's a sign of the chemicals removed it. The mayam is what moved it. I didn't do it. I didn't do it. It was the MIND THAT DID IT. WHO CARES? I read the Ramban said that it has to be a lavush means it can come off. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE HOW YOU REMOVE IT? If you remove it said or you did it with some chemical if I can remove it, I can remove it. So to me the maybe this says I was able to get it off a clay but the minute I soaked it boom it came off in a second. 3 hours you'll see it's going to peel right off. Add a little chemicals. Who cares? At the end of the day, this was something I was very easily able to remember. Says for as far as I'm concerned, this fish sounds kosher. Then the go I'm sorry that laid out that in the event that you can't peel it, it's not considered kosher. If there was anyone else in the world that would have said, I would have gone up against him because who cares that you can't peel it? Who ever said a word about what that means? says, "You're worried about the Can you explain to me how you're going to read this?" So the is also the bus is also what can you peel off the skin of an animal of a person? Could you remove his buser? No. He says, "Okay, maybe it's not the biggest r in the world, but the bottom line is it doesn't say it anywhere. And what about in fact said if you ask me I think I have a not like because if you take a look at the olive so the son says somebody brought a certain fish and he asked is this a kosher fish or is this not a kosher fish? So the says went to the son it had scales and he said it was says who cares that he looked in the sun and he saw that it had scales. How did he know that you were able to peel it? He should have tried. This is a not like the Raman. So he says, "You're asking me, you know, Ian, I know this Ramb." And if it wasn't the Ramb, you know why? Four reasons. Four reasons. No, it doesn't say a word about anywhere. It's not in number two. The says means what really means. It's not it means it doesn't flap BUT NO SOUNDS LIKE IT'S part and parcel the of what about and I've done because the whole story about wanted to see if an animal he saw scales he knew IT WAS GOOD TO GO. What do you mean just because it has scales? Yeah, it means it has fins. We understand that. But how do you know you can peel it? Why didn't he check? He assumed it from it was ALL ABOUT SCALES MEAN NOTHING if you can't PEEL IT SHOULD HAVE said he saw that scales and he says if you're asking me you're asking me this whole is a no choice Because if everybody brings in who am I to be I have no choice and we have I'm being even though I don't understand it as long as he can peel it. I don't care how you got it off. He writes this of Hungary. You should know this fish that you sent me without any question in the world. was another fish which is a whole another discussion that was mentioned that's called the tick seems to also come from the species of uh sturgeon so that he didn't send him the actual fish but the other one that you mentioned assuming if it meets this criteria and he says that's what it sounds like from you but I don't know I didn't see it without any doubt in the world it's going to be okay receives this letter from his from the god And he immediately goes and he tells his mut this is okay you're allowed to eat it everything is fine and word slowly starts to spread you know within Hungary Romania that part of Europe and the word gets out that the was mata the fish this sterlet fish the stittle and people went and people start eating it now [clears throat] just to appreciate for a second the really two Right. Number one, he's saying that when the Ramban said that you have to be able to remove it, I don't care how you're able to remove it. As long as he can remove it, that's going to be okay. Even if it takes 3 hours of water and even if you have to add some chemical into it, I don't care. Right? His right? It doesn't matter how. As long as you can remove it, that it means it's a and that in of itself is going to be okay. And it's coming a little bit from a place that this whole to me. But the bottom line is that's the first of right. No one said it before. I don't know if I go ahead and I add some chemicals to it. That's going to be okay. But that's the first second to be hud and this is a very big is that the and it sounds like in Hungary was to be people did not eat this fish. So to go ahead now and say that something that is not so one of the to it being not so is one line is if someone wants to get out of it you can't be mate If we know that and we don't know why they were you can give me reasons why you think it should be but unless you know the reason that they were and you know how to undermine that reason is it has to remain and it's not push to go ahead and say that is suddenly going to be and again with his big plates said to me this is this doesn't even fall into that it's mutas and snap I don't want for my life it's the kosha fish this is what he sends back everything is going to be okay fast forward about 15 or so years later there was a tal of the who at the time was a rov of a very kahila in Hungary the town of Ard. By the way, not to be confused with Ard install, but in the town of of Ard, but this was a man who years later would go down in infamy. His name was Arin. Arun is today considered one of the protoreformers and this is invar. So he describes him as Rabiner. He says just like was he was he was the one that fought very hard for the organ you know the Hamburg temple in 1819 and he got involved in a lot of controversies and he was on the wrong side of everything during the latter part of his life and again called him but at the time he's aud He comes across as being very sincere and very errant and he decides that it's autbah that there are people in Hungary that are still being mach and not eating this sterile fish despite the fact that went and said that it was mut and one day he goes and he in a very public way he goes to the shook it's on an air of shabas and he says I'd like to buy 100 lb of uh sterlet and even that other fish that tick that mentioned that he never saw but if it mirrors this fish it's going to be okay. It makes a big public uh spiel out of it. Word got around and I don't know why the gap of time but several years later another Hungarian RV someone by the name of Rabitzkab he was the pak sharu he was the roof again Hungary Hungarian city of pox pox he came and he got very disappointed very upset at the fact that was making such a big deal about this and even though he's a bhuda and the hud was make but he felt that this was something that was very very wrong and he got into it with Araar and they started having an old school intellectual debate. So if you're familiar with pmics from back in the day so sometimes they would just duke it out in a couple of truis and sometimes they double down. They start writing contresses and migillas and and it gets very very intense and in the year 1798 this is uh 17 years after the huda had written his chuva. It's 5 years after the huda already passed away. He sits down and he writes a he calls it this is and he's making the argument for why it is that this fish is mut and that this is coming out against me held its mut how's it possible that a Hungarian rabbi with a small can go ahead and pan and even have a certain cano AGAINST PEOPLE THAT ARE MAKE it's a AND HE WAS SO UPSET and he goes ahead and he writes this say for we he talks all about everything and he comes out very very strong. Now was a very clever man till the end of his life. He was very very smart and did his work before he went ahead and he published the imra he verified that the tru from the huda was authentic. Now let's appreciate something you know we live in a world right now where we have chuhuda on demand right so uh we have madura kama we have madura if you know the history of chuva madur kama was printed in what year drum roll 1776 that's when the first edition of I don't know if it was July 4th but 1776 is when the first maduras you want to know what the yidd were doing in 1776 there's an answer but that our founding fathers But 1776 that's the year that the first madur of was printed the second madur was printed in 1811 many years after almost 20 years after was nif by these chuvas all of this excitement took place between the printing of madurama and madura which means this tru is obviously not in madurama we said it's in madurana it was put there by rebu but at the time this is not like a chuva that you can find you know in a Er, because it hadn't been published yet. So, who has the chuva? Seel has the chuva. Now, had reached out to Seel and he asked him if he could send him the real trua. He sent it to him. But he was even smarter than that. He took the chuva and he sent it to Prague and he said, "Was this authentic?" He did, right? what's getting [clears throat] HE LITERALLY DID A AND HE ASKED them and he gets back a letter that's signed by who's now the the Prague the son who's another one to be the SON AND A FLECK LIST ABOUT AND THEY ALL say this is 100% legit this is a real tr so when he comes out now and he's going to write them There's n be no bubber misers over here. I know this is a real truth. And he goes out, he puts it out and he comes out guns blazing. But he went and he wrote a response. His response was called right. So you know what a m is. So he comes out with no and he says and he comes out with a and he writes this rebuttal and he comes after. Now there was a little bit of history between and is a you know again at that poem he wasn't but he's a leftleaning type of rabbi you know a little too liberal for for sure for the Hungarian raon he's a he's now budging one iota from the messiah right that's the world that he comes from and the bottom line is they go at a little little bit and um he comes and he writes his uh he writes his and in the ma he said something shocking in the [snorts] Miam he said that I want you to know I also heard about this uh letter that was written by and I went to Prague and I reached out to Yehuda is it really true and I told him all the reasons that I don't think this makes any sense I was I was very disturbed by this plaque And I said to me, "This doesn't make any sense." AND HE SAID, "YOU GAVE ME A LETTER." AND in the letter, he said, "I'm from." I backed out. I retract my And he said, "Do me a favor. I want you to be a and I want you to send this to I want you to send it to him. I want you to be a and you let him know that I was from." And he writes in the I know what you're gonna say. You're gonna say, "Okay, where's the We've delivered the goods, right? Where is it?" So he says, "I have to be honest with you. do with two copies. One copy I sent to the I sent it to I don't know where it is. He wasn't alive anymore at the time by the way either. And he says, "I don't even know where this is." And my copy got lost. So I don't have it. I can't prove it. I can't demonstrate it. But I'm telling you what exactly happened. And then he went ahead and this was all including the he lobbyed all the Hungarian and even outside of Hungary theim and too came out very strongly on the side of and he said like the there's no way in the world there's no way in the world that the was this sterile fish. Now to be clear never went so far as to say that was he didn't say that. He didn't have any evidence of that either. But at the same time, there was no way in the world in his mind that this was something that was okay. Now it's interesting just to hit the pause button for one second that one of the big mandar was remarkable as we just mentioned. In fact, just recently Shiva's precious mai ona was published came out a year or two ago. This is already on it was put out by his name is Kly. I uh had the privilege to speak to him this morning [snorts] about this whole sterile controversy. He's a gishmaki. He did an unbelievable work and in the back of this volume there's a it's many many pages where he goes through this very very clear incredible footnotes to go through but the bottom line is class every should have anyways but [laughter] this is classic but inside the new there's three sim that are dedicated to the shim from simal sim and then sim if you go through these sim and in the makes a big deal about this. There seemed to be steers around what his attitude was towards what this tru meant. He never said he was but there's definitely like a little bit of confusion. Just read a few excerpts in the says there's no way in the world that he was this fish over here. He says there's no way that was he was ever camping inv. So here he has already a whole and in the middle he says like this says that this is kosher based on [laughter] said that this fish is kosher. He had a different type of fish. in the club he said cuz I went ahead and by the way had done some public scaling of this fish he did it in Vienna and his finding was that he couldn't remove it so he said there's no way that he meant this fish somebody I believe must have fooled and when they gave him the fish that they claimed was the surgeon fish it must have been something else So he was in other words he'ser he just acknowledged that he had gotten the wrong and he calls [snorts] because he's allowing people to go ahead and eat this fish. So the B is Khan writes this contress seemingly innocent says I don't understand LIKE LIKE WHO ARE YOU TO GO CONNECT HE'S VERY disappointed and he's like what are you doing and he says the and I sent this the the I got the original and I sent it to and he rallies all the and they all say again I don't know what happened over here there's no way in the world said this fish then said that was never matter after this fish. It must have been a different fish or or something must have gone on. Right? Again, he didn't know. He was grappling a little bit. As a matter of fact, in in this is one of the truest he says, by the way, was also he says, I feel like I'm I'm uncomfortable with what I'm doing here, BUT THERE'S NO WAY HE MEANT this fish. But the he took it further. He said Huda was ma this fish but then he went ahead he was. So what did they do? What did what do you do? You have a sh like this now wrote a trua sounds like he was ma the sturgeon and now years later is not alive anymore. It was fair seg not alive and there's no one there's no one alive today that can [laughter] be mish right there's no one alive that uh could be mish now all of a sudden you have raon that say it never happened these are real. So what are you supposed to do? So like what would you do? You go back to the source, right? So they decided, you know, was going to be Maka, we're going to go back to Prague and we're going to ask uh Lando who was literally the Ben that was Malov and let's hear what he has to say in terms of how exactly this went down. and barashmander was good to us because he took his response to this whole uh question that was asked him and he incorporated in and if you take a look at it's the very next so the is and just a little warning this is not for the faint of heart he's writing I received your letter. He asked something very difficult of me to get involved in a run away from a you expect me to get involved. I'll never do that. He said, "Besides, I'm reading the pamphlets. This is a fascinating idea." Again, we're talking about so we have to be careful. But this is a fascinating idea. Sometimes you have a fight and it looks like it's not even about uh right just about who's right and who's wrong, right? Sometimes fights just take on a life of their own. And he says I'm I'm schmecking a little. It's on the spectrum of but being that who's AT THE HEART WHO'S IN THE EYE of the storm? It's my father. I feel like I need to respond. And then by the way, here's a copy of my father's original cha. Either way, says that take a look at the chuva. You're going to see that the fish that my father was the fish that the sent it was that fish. It's the It's the fish. It's the sterling. It's the sturgeon fish. I don't care how you remove it. And then he says, "It's unbelievable to me. I can't fathom. You you claim that my father was he instructed you to take his retraction and send it. You should forgive me. What you're saying is a flatout lie. Everybody knows. Everyone knows what a my father was. And not just that, he wrote all day, every day. Why would he have not sent the letter back to its original source? He knew him. You know how many years he spent in my father's house? I we KNEW HIM VERY WELL. HE WAS VERY CLOSE TO HIM. WHY DIDN'T HE SEND IT? IT'S NOT LIKE some strange person. He knew him very, very well. You think he was going to rely on you? I want you to know my father was such a sadic. He was so medic when it came to him writing a tru. I'm telling you, my father would have NOT SLEPT. HE WOULD not put his head on a pillow. He would have sent it WITH THE PROVERBIAL HE SENT THE TROUB out into the world. Not printed yet, but still it made its rounds that this fish is mut. And you have that sitting at a kiddish club and they're eating this sturgeon fish. AND YOU THINK FOR ONE SECOND MY FATHER WOULD NOT HAVE THOUGHT THAT HE NEEDS TO PUT ALL OVER EUROPE to tell. SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING? Where's the letter? Where's the letter? Where's the letter? You got lost in the mail. Come on. Where's the letter? So, I want to tell you another thing. I want tell you another thing. There's a that you know if you walk into house and you see as an apple, you could eat the apple if he gives you permission. You don't have to be concerned that it might be. Why? Because there's a that he says, you know, my father when he passed away, he left over a stack of stuff. He left over a whole pile of uh a whole pile of chuvas. You know what those chuvas were for? They were meant for Madura. He had printed Madura and he was getting ready for Madurana. He says, "Do you know this chuva that he sent to is in that stack? Do you know where it's sitting over there?" How could he have left it there? He's from it AND HE NEVER THOUGHT TO TAKE IT OUT OF HIS PILE OF you could eat an apple. AND MY FATHER WOULD LEAVE A WOULD HAVE been in the of eating. How is that EVEN SOMETHING LIKE THAT POSSIBLE? AT THE VERY LEAST, he should have left a little paper that said he WAS you don't even have the letter. Come on. He said I never HEARD FROM IT. HE NEVER TOLD US. So he never either got it. He says what he's telling me is not true. This is 100% a lie. Now in the course of the truth, he tells him, I know it's because you mistakenly think it's awesome. So you think you need to save the world. But I'm telling you right now, my father was good at learning. My father did the work. He did the experiment. If he was comfortable with the sturgeon, I'm tell you have nothing to worry about. This is something that's very okay. There's a lot of terror in this cha as well. It's a few pages long. And one of the things that comes up is that believe it or not, there's a preadh that quotes a certain fish called thearian. And he says that that fish, the only way you were able to remove the cascan was if you boiled it in hot water. And he says that if you boil in hot water, this is quoting the Rambutam, it's going to be okay. So tells him that there's a my father didn't bring this for some reason but there's a THAT SAYS HIMSELF WHO HE HIMSELF SAID IT'S this whole and my father really is a now it seems that there was a little bit of a tuml there if the was really the the sturgeon it's not the sturgeon this is just for a little uh just in middle he tells him like this he says I want that this at the time he's things would change but at the time he's what he went ahead and he wrote he says he said I did a lot of research I went through some I went through some science books there's a Jewish doctor obviously Berlin who lives in Berlin. He has pictures of all the fish, little fish and big fish. Different colors talks all the physical qualities of the fish where you can find them their names. Whatever you want, you can find a little Chambra over there. I found the fishian Latin Italia catchy. [laughter] But the bottom line is, you can't make this up, but here's what he says. In Italy, it's known as theiano and in Hungarian, it's ketchy, right? Kokoske. But the bottom line is this. I don't know. It made me laugh. You can't make this up, right? So, this ketchy is a whole different [laughter] not what we're going on over here. Anyways, it's a long cha. And at the very very end, the last paragraph doubles down. He said, "I see that all you want to do is win. I went through your whole pamphlet. You're all over the place and as it relates to, you know, you're saying certain things about your right. You didn't like I'm not coming to defend. I don't know him. I'm coming to defend that you wrote a to go at him. [laughter] of and you're treating my father like this is his first day on the job and he made SOME SORT OF MISTAKE. OH, Pope was tens of thousands of Jews. Come on. That's my father and [laughter] you write to be against people that this is not something uh that you can do. Skipping a little bit. This is the sharpest part of the truth. He says that you're saying people are eating this. I want you to know he said there's not such if some people are going to eat the surgeon fish is coming from all this fighting. So why should people the innocent unlooker who doesn't know the think that the terrorist do there's no even though it was ALWAYS AWESOME NO MY father was not a disturbion I don't think that I don't think that's a like you have said it's awesome. No one said it's awesome. People didn't eat it. We don't even know why. Is weakening. This is how scholars raging right now. This is the late 18 1798 1799. It's that era. If onlookers see two Jews fighting there's no question in the world you know what's going to come out from there this there's GOING TO BE SUCH IS NOT THAT there are Jews being is that Jews are fighting that's and you have to stop fighting don't talk that's where it's going down then he tells him listen if you want to go ahead and you want to be m and if you want to in your bearos but to go ahead and That's not a proclamation of strength. That's not okay. Epic. Epic. was very disappointed that uh was that he made up this retraction. He writes another letter to didn't back down. He didn't back down and he doubled down. It's the next tru. It's all printed in Jander wanted this to be printed and he came down very very strong. He said my father held it was mut and without a question this is the way it is. you know also wrote a letter to a fleckless right again together they were running the city of Prague and they were the two greatest and it's printed in giml of it's I'm not going to go through it but uh fleckless essentially came out the same exact way came out as a matter of fact in the last line you nobody wrote more poetically than the truth however could be literally nobody he's so poetic and seems that one of the things that the pakar wrote in his pamphlet was that any person that's going to eat from this sturgeon fish is not going to be to eat from the not from and he tells the he says it just bothers me so much that people are being and they're eating this fish and the and you and the you're standing by this he says you I want you to be able to be to eat from the he writes His name was because he's very confident that he says he says this. I You're making me laugh when I hear this. If you want to be listen poetry and this is he says this is not the quoted in [laughter] the bottom line is in Prague this did not go over well this whole it didn't go over And they stood very firmly by their hat. In fact, in Prague, they ate the sturgeon. It was something that they ate. They held it was mut they held in there was m and this was the minig as it was there. This tumm took on a life of its own. And the nimu being that it was you know being led again the the one in the trenches the most was the but the support that he had by the a lot of in this pist whether I'm who was the ber of and you know definitely one of the you know where he stood it seems like he was also from the from the and for sure and the bottom line is at the end of the day the one and the one and it's for that reason until today the sturgeon fish is considered a non-coosher fish and there is no orthodoxic cautious agency in the world that [snorts] will give a hat and will give a hashk on the sturgeon fish it's not going to happen so at the end of the day and it's really when you think about it it's so fascinating it's so fascinating you know whenever you go through one of these pmics we did in a bridge version of it but whenever you go through one of these pics it's always like what's the punch line right what's the takeaway. I don't know. I'm really not sure. I'm a little uh I'm a little torn. You know, to me the for sure the more interesting part of the pmic is the aftermath. It's not is the fish kosher or not. It's it's that and did they send him the wrong fish? And it's even possible, right? This is for sure the way it is. So is is there mukim to say that they were literally kahilo kadoshas of Jews that were eating non-coosher fish based on a sack of the LAST THE BIGGEST PLACE IN THE LAST TWO it's exactly 250 years since Madura k was published right the biggest poisoning in the last 250 years could you say that I I I don't know could you say that it doesn't sound like you could even say THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE HOW COULD THE LEGACY OF THE debuda have this rees on it it's it's almost not possible But you know you go through it and there there's a lot of things that uh you know cause you again this is just me like leaving like what went on here first of all what was the mitas said he peeled it off he said he was able to kay and once he soaked it then you know then had said he did a public uh experiment he did it in there WERE MANY WHO COULDN'T GET IT OFF IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET so what was the mits what is the mits today I don't even know but what was the mitz Could you peel it off or uh could you not peel it off? The other question is what was where was the pakur coming from? What was like what was really doesn't sound like it right. So so what he was saying this for a reason the ter was and by the way there's no question in the world. I was even hesitant to say this because but he was at and he was doing this 100%. You know, you look at what was agenda. Now, hindsight's 2020. So, if you look back in time, you know, is some uh very left-leaning rabbi who eventually, you know, was in the words of the So, if that's the case, this looks like an early sign. But then again, you read the you don't see it. And he's defending AND THE PROUD BEZDON AGREED TO HIM. THEY SAID HE'S RIGHT. So is this a sign of you know Kurin at an early age already showing episode 7 over here or no actually got this one right and uh yeah we understand history treats the paksharu a lot better than it treats but in real time in the late 1790s he's a r of an Hungarian city like uh like the paksharu is and and technically he's on the right side of things. It's [snorts] uh it's it's not clear you know was this related to I don't know could be this is what was going on you know skull is raging tells him he said why beus the skull is raging people want to say maybe that's where he's coming from you're going to take a fish that everyone always held was awesome now you're going to eat it who knows what's going to come next battle cry you know wouldn't start until later but again this is definitely early stages es Hascola. No, no question in the world. And this is the Hungarian shittita of we're going to protect this with literally with a shield of cascass to make sure that that nothing's going to get through. So again, this leaves you hanging. It feels like I almost again that's what came from said no. So what are we going to be? I don't know. This is a very very hard one to to be Maka. It's not so clear what the legacy of this is. I mean you know this idea that Adam writes a chuva and he comes out a certain way and the people get uncomfortable and then you know all the stories start coming he was he wasn't he meant this he meant that this is a clinic in terms of how you go about that I mean I don't think there's a question in the world this is a clinic read and she gives him six reasons why this is this is for sure not what happened one thing I will tell you I don't know if uh if you know but the sturgeon fish right you know anything about the sturgeon fish it's a very expensive In fact, the caviar that comes from sturgeon is the most expensive caviar in the real caviar. And this is something that's eaten only by the mameish. This is the you could pay thousand for a beluga sturgeon caviar. It could be like $1,000 an ounce. This is like very very high-end stuff. So the fact that nimumer the sturgeon is not kosher definitely saved kaol a lot of money. I don't think that's I don't think that's the legacy. But for sure because if not this would be on every fishboard that you've ever been to at any pass the sturgeon please. I'll take the beluga sturgeon with the beluga vodka. That would make for a great one two punch. The bottom line is no one's going to eat it today. It's considered you know already a few hundred years of not okay. M they ate it. A fascinating topic and I think an appropriate way to end perfus. So again, a lutrafus.