Chulin 8

Today's daf is and we are at the very top line the very first word of today's being learned as for today's also being learned that's my grandmother Mrs. Talamir today is her 21st yard site. May today's learning and all the learning that we do be a and an aliyah for her. So we're moving along here in the beginning of the first parag dealing with [snorts] related to the first several den of the maka as we saw dealt with the opening line of the maka. And is that allowed to or is that only a lot of today's is going to move on from that topic and going to get into some very important related to the truth is actually is a daf that requires an asterisk. We're going to say that a lot in school. But ironically the asterisk that requires is less as it relates to its significance and its prominence in hilita although it is significant and prominent in hashita more however as it relates to its significance and prominence in the laws of there's a lot of here on that relate to uh very basic fundamental understanding ing of ble and plus which are all very much the topic of the latter part of the if you've ever learned of you know that there's a big but really galore that permeate the gam that we are going to learn today of course given the a lot of time that we have we're going to do what we do and without further ado I'm reb said in the name of his great if somebody would take a knife and he would make it very very hot and then he would an animal would be now why would you think that the is not kasha because being that the sakin is very hot it's possible that before the severed the two simon of the animal he burnt the simonyim that's what caused the animal to die and if that's the case. It wasn't a per se that ultimately affectuated the death of this animal. It was rather the and if that's the case, this animal is going to be in a bar said in the name of you don't have to worry about that. And the reason is before the knife has an opportunity to burn the animal, it severs the bim. So the the sharpness of the knife takes out the animal before the libon before the heat of the knife does and as a result it's a this is not something you have to worry about. Now just as a segue before the next line of gar understands that the reason this is true is because how do you shack the animal? You're shacking it with the sharp part of the knife. visualize it or maybe don't try to visualize it too much but think of a very very dangerous messer. It's very very sharp and that sharpness goes quickly through the simon. It takes it out. The sharpness the spits of the knife is very very small. Because it's very small, it doesn't have the ability to contain so much heat. As a result, there's an idea of the however is about to argue that the sides the flat portion of the knife on both sides that's much wider. As a result, you would think that has the ability to absorb heat. And if that's the case, even if it's true, but maybe the heat that's on the side of the knife is going to be mashia on the animal or be it after the and that in it of itself should be a problem. Now, what would be the problem? Let's speak it out. Even though it's true the is what makes first impact as it relates to the tusum of the animal but [snorts] it takes a little bit of time for it to happen being that the sides of the knife are going to touch the two simum during that period of time. Meaning from when the starts until the finishes the sides of the knife are going to go and going to singe the animal. And if they singe the animal even if you want to deem it that ultimately the animal died because of the but at the same time when it singes the two sim it creates some uh wound a whole rash he says in the sim and based on a traus we know that if there's a neck of even a ku in the kha that would render it and make it into a tra thus the gammor as we'll see inside in a second is questioning that even if you want to tell That's probably based on the fact how much heat do you actually have in the but you have heat on the side of the knife and the heat on the side of the knife should be and at the very least we should say maybe it's not killing it the is what's killing it so I can say no for sure there was a mita that took place but at the very least it should render it a tra because it did something to it before the gar of the and in of itself is an issue let's see inside now it could start in don't you have the sides of the knife and the sides of the knife are much wider. As a result, there's more heat there and as a result it's going to be and if that's the case at the very least it's going to do a little bit of something because there's going to be a little bit of a hole and therefore there should be an issue of it. But the says this is not an issue. You know why? Because It's based on a mitz. The mitsus is that as soon as the knife, the pointy part of the knife goes through the what happens is the and the split and the two sides they separate from themselves enough that the sides of the knife are not going to be able to touch them. So being that is because how much heat is there really on the and the minute the happens at that point there's so the sides don't have the ability to go ahead and do anything. So the happened it never became a hence and again it's based on two number one. Number two, in the event that somebody took a spit and he made it very very hot and he hit himself or he hit somebody with it and then that person developed. Does that sass now become subject to the laws of or does it now get judged based on the laws of as it relates to a mikvah? So what does this mean? Well, we have to take a step back. It requires a little bit of an introduction. So really the next 10 or so lines is where the laws of meet. So the other day we had where meets now we have where the laws of meet the laws of the common denominator between the two is where two very difficult sug but regardless this is the we need so we know there's a concept called saras is loosely translated some discoloration of the skin now we know not all niggoy and not all sarases were created it equally. What we need for our is that there's a type of that comes a mah is a burn working backwards. What's so usually when you think of you think of you think of one of the 10. If you take a look at Rashi, Rashi says of a dry year is actually similar to is even going to question, but it's also something that is related to some heat. The English translation is it's some form of an inflammation. But here's the point. The point is that if somebody has a burn, as a result of the burn, his skin can be discolored, right? If somebody is hit and as a result there's uh some inflammation, right? Something's brewing underneath the skin. Well, that can cause now that the skin is going to have some sort of discoloration. When you go through the and the you see that there's some unique status as it relates to the laws of uh that came as a result of a and there's laws as it relates to that comes a mikvah not to give the whole away but the is going to bring a that's going to say what is the between a and a again we're translating it one is a burn other is an inflammation I In both cases sounds like you have to see a doctor, right? But what exactly is the So the Gar is going to say a is when somebody was physically burnt. So if somebody was physically burnt, it came through fire or told us that's when it's considered a mikvah. Uh is where somebody was hit and there is some sort of heat. Hence the word says but at the same time it wasn't a burn. It didn't come all day. It didn't come all day fire. The bottom line is these are the two that we need to be familiar with. Now, it's interesting if you go through the when the outlines what the is of what the is of the identical theor is going to bring up the is going to a little bit. What would be the difference? But again with that little bit of an introduction what would be a flee somebody took a spit and he made it very very hot and then he hit somebody and then that person went and developed a what's the sass that he has right now do we view it as or do we view it as on the one hand it came through a a hit there was a hikabai Being that there was a hikab and now there's some sort of inflammation over here. I could hear that it would be considered. But then again, how was he hit? He was hit with a a spit that was very very hot. It was so being that it was lieut. So maybe over here we should view this tarass as actually being a taras of mikvah. Right. Just say this a little bit better. If somebody would be lieut and then somebody would touch it and he would develop. It's posh. That would be mikvah. If somebody would take a foot, he wouldn't be malabinated and he would hit somebody. It's posh. it would be over here. He did both. It was. So do I look at it as because it was a or do I look at it as because it was a says what really is the meaning why is it because if you look in the you'll see that the laws of and the laws of as it relates to as we mentioned earlier are identical. If that's the case, what is the soar now is going to have a little bit of an and it's all building up to try to explain and demonstrate what says. So most if somebody had and he went to the cen and the kayen said this is something that requires quarantine. This is something that you know we need to keep an eye on. So what they would do is they would lock the person up for a week and then if nothing happened after a week they would lock him up for a second week and however are unique that both of them are that only one week not two weeks. Additionally, when we want to determine whether or not this person developed this that we look out for, number one is did it develop a white hair? Number two, did it spread as opposed to other that have different? Well, if that's the case, the one and the same. Why they two par in the we have the parish of the parish of we could have lumped them all together. Says the price of coming to teach us that the two are not going to bear. What does that mean? There's a certain shear that a nega has to have in order for it to be mama. The shear is a gris. In the event that somebody would have a half a gris of and a half a gris of it wouldn't bear. And that's why the terra went ahead was even though the of each one of them is identical but at the same time there is between because if somebody has a gris of a half a gris of each he's not going to be looked at another what is the technical definition between yeah we spoke this whole already look if somebody was hit with wood with stone rashi says he's a boiling hot or the of or somebody who's had poured on or anything that has some form of heat but the heat didn't come from fire. What's that coming to be? What's that last line? You already mentioned a bunch of things. So what else is included in if somebody mines lead? As soon as the lead comes out of the mine at that point it's hot either way. All these things are considered because all these things can cause damage. All these things even have heat but the heat is not fire. It's not what's an example of in the event that somebody was burned through coals. If somebody was burnt through which is lime that's burning but say has a different type of wine or anything else that comes from like water that was heated on a stove that had fire this is going to be. So again we have a couple things that we know now. Number one the laws of the laws of are identical. What's the negative to the G? Another thing we know, we know what a is and we know what a is. One comes, the other one doesn't come. We need one more bryer before we can understand the rented another as it relates to someone that has and then meaning what would be if somebody had a and a so something happened to him that developed the two number one he has the number two he has the right so he has The two things do we look at it now as or do we look at it now as the answer is we look at how it developed what came first if first it was and then it developed into if first it was then we always go whatever came second that's always what we're going to look at with this introduction with this introduction says the let me explain to you what What's the a person had of that's what he has right now. So right now he has a of what type of and then he went he wasab didn't do it to himself. Somebody did it to him and he was now hit the and now all of a sudden another [clears throat] developed. The question is does that other grace have the ability to bear with the grace of to say that we have a full grace of hence the person's going to be or do we look at the other as being a mik and it's not going to be now what's it toian it's when this person was hit with this boiling hot spit what came first did the come first that would mean the came second so you have two half a grises of it's going to bear or did the come first In which case the came second. So we go came second. You have a this. That's all part of the it's not going to be says do we say the first came the first came the hit which created the inflammation which created the and then what came afterwards the so the he the came second knocked out the knocked out the if that's the [laughter] case you have a secret of that you had before and now what we just pin on the other or do we say first the he came and then afterwards came and that knocked out the he well if that's the case first came the then came the so what second is the so I have now another half a well so I had the first of and the second and if that's the case it should be able to be m this was a long winded question very much a digression from the beginning of but as we can tell if we're holding very much related to the very first of the right again what was the ready what's the in a situation What comes first? Is the boy the comes first or is it the it's the it's the comes first? There's a schmice that's going to be Mashia and there's a burn that's going to be Mashia and the but the question is scientifically speaking which one comes first do we say it's the hit hence it's the or do we say it's the burn hence it's the in the event that a person had a grace because whatever came first you actually don't because you always go what's the obvious again speaking this at all is this was right what is saying in the name of what was it based on now he was discussing and this is discussing the laws of but isn't the underlying principle the same where somebody goes ahead he shacks with a mess aith that's burning hot and now the question is what was mash on the was it the or was it the fact that the second was it was the was it the or was it the and what did the name of he said so if as it relates to that means what comes first first the comes so you would think in our case what comes first first The comes which is the then comes the libon which is the which means the second which means an was of it can't bear and this person is actually going to be touched. You see clearly comes first. Chinese. Over there, it's different. Over there, it's over there. It wasn't just hit with a baseball bat. It was something very very sharp. When we're dealing with something very very that's when you have this. But if somebody would be hit and the thing is hot, this is the way it would be. It's a good but at the same time it's a failed attempt. I can bring you a from a that discusses the laws of so this is not this is something that's literally on point. Oh wow. Pretty mafurish. I don't know. What do you see from here? Must come first, right? Because whatever second that's came first. Bottom line is it's believe it or not there's no because you could always say maybe the thing that the person was hit with was something that was very very pointy which is the same as which means that would apply equally here. The bottom line is there's no 100% to say that we're dealing with a situation that wasn't and as a result as a result is not necessarily a riot mas by the way means pointy and if you're not natural look at rashi rashi says point but the bottom line is this is what mas means by the way another interesting rashi libane first rashy on the means that it was very very hot right so if you look at the top rashy when something is very hot refer to it as white hat, but if you speak to the right, they call it red hot. So, we're used to thinking of red hot, but in the it's always not red hot, it's actually white hot. And that's why you always use the word libon when you're describing something that's very very hot. Before we go Ver and we turn our attention to the component of today's there's right here on says quote said I heard from my it was during a he said this knew Right. this whole thesis of based on two like we said number one number two you don't have to worry about because during the you know knew this because the says in the first that once proving sudas together and in the middle of the suda come raba got up And the said could be didn't know this for sure that was on the table during how exactly he was slaughtered. He was and this is what said and everybody laughed was during the he says became he wasn't a he was and as a result he knew exactly how this played out he knew it was and that this is what I heard from this line is from the most epic lines In all of this, he says, even though the said this, he was saying it to make it was what we call I believe that these words came out of the mouth of that holy person. It can't be that it's a it has to be. It has to be that there's some ms to it because if my said these words even though he said it when he was a and even though he said it and he said it during but if there was a of that myi exerted it didn't go to it couldn't have gone for ways the reason this line is so epic you see the had for his which he also had for his but the bottom line is Even though said this, it's impossible. It's inevitable. There has to be some over here. I'm going to tell you that I believe there is some after. So there was a big problem, right? We just lost. So the says then it's to me if there was a way for to have lived and not to have to come on to one of the not to have to come on to that would have been a much better option what are you supposed to do come and being that he shacked him there was really no way out if it's not so because in the very end Vis is this is an old uh aunas of that discusses what would be if an aid or two aiden would come and they would say that you know we saw pony we didn't see him dead but we saw somebody take a knife and he literally whacked him he was muyad he was literally bleeding out and he had this severe severe wound and it's a shis between a Mishna and so whether or not The Gmorra said that the Bryer that says that just because somebody's auya doesn't necessarily mean that this person is going to die, it's possible for him to make it out alive is really not at odds with the other that says, "Yeah, the one that says a person could make it out when he's talking about where he where the sack was very very hot and the reason where the sack is hot it's different is because as the sack goes and as the sacken gets the person it cauterizes the wound and as a result this person is able to make it out of life so in the event that the person was through a regular sakin okay if however this person was killed bakin that was milu beness it was white hot in a situation like that and there's no after the is making big and rabb HAS NO REASON TO MAKE A mis there's two different types of knives there's a mus where somebody was slaughtered with a regular knife in a situation like that he has no way to make it out alive if however it was over it's not going to be an issue so said knew that he was killed by rabbu was killed by rab didn't understand why dish did not just make it that he should be able to live now you're going to tell me because dish the fell It was his time. It's not true. You see, it was he came back alive. And if there would have been a way for him to live, he should have lived now. Okay. How's he supposed to live? He was just uh slaughtered. What do you mean? To the extent that the knife was that was to the extent that the knife was if it was a boiling knife said everybody holds the personal. So as he was slaughtered he should have been cauterized and like this he would have made it out alive and there wouldn't have been a problem. So said you know what must be it must be because if somebody the of a person is there must be two things that happen [laughter] number one so before any heat is able to even go onto the person the spits of the knife goes ahead and its nov and as a result it's not going to be a problem. SO WHEN you go ahead and do a talking about where the person didn't have a it wasn't it wasn't the end of it was some other A AND BY THE other in the words of over there the is you don't have this of is by the and by the now how did rabbit kill. See, when you're not learning is just a synonym of how you kill somebody. But when you're learning and when you're learning and you know that has A MEANING AND BY THE way some doesn't quote this but that we mentioned says the it's the if it was the must be the reason there was no way for this to work out when he said knew it on his own. He knew it on his own. It was based on this. I just had one horror. This is again the line in the is more than because let's be honest is a little harder. It's a a little less sh but but there's just one I had again can't ask on but but [snorts] the only is it's right I mean it just jumps off the page said it in the name of so it sounds like where is saying he had and by the way is a he was from as well but this even feels like one of the where it's not even so much it's even more the doctor That's what it sounds like. We're dealing with the technicalities of the and you know again but the bottom line is this is a piece from the right here. And on that note we now turn our attention to the next part of today's. So the introduction to next part of the daf really is like learn the end of the maka and come back but obviously we're not going to do that. So we're familiar with the basic concept of bas and plus right. So in the event somebody has a where [snorts] two things are missed falls into a a pod of so there's a whole of how we go about determining what the status of this taru is. Additionally, the idea of ble and plus is not only true when you have two foods that come together, but it's true even as it relates to kale as well. So if somebody would cook diri in a flesh pot, you have to worry about the ble and plus. The reason is because we assume being that the pot is fleshik they're ble of pot in the and when you subjecting out the heat by cooking inside of it. So the belie are going to come out of the get nisar together with the dar and as a result you're going to have yourself a little bit of a tarov. Another thing we know if we've ever, pardon the pun, had a cup of coffee with the suga of Taru is that a knife has a very unique place within the suga of Taru. And the reason is because there's an idea called Sakina and being that when somebody cuts with a knife, he uses a lot of pressure, uses a lot of force. So that allows bleis and plates to happen in a way where ordinary contact with ka maybe wouldn't be able to happen either way with that introduction said the name of so what does this mean says we're dealing with a knife that was used for the carbon of literally used says such a knife is also like the says and we learn from there. So we're dealing with not of a we're going to deal with that. That's why we're making a big deal about this right now. We're dealing with a literally a that was used for the issue with it from a perspective right now. There are other issues as we'll see but right now is because it's no stating that wow this is a if you want to go ahead and you're allowed however but if you want to hack you want to carve a steak with it that's something you're not allowed to do you're allowed to shack with it because when you shack an animal you be rashi says when you have a live animal there's a lot of things you could do with it. You can breed the animal, you can work with the animal, or you could save it for dinner at some point. Once you shack it, there's only one thing you could do with it. You could eat it. So when you devalue it, you I'm not having enough from something that I'm not allowed to have enough from. I'm being as a result, however, and the reason is because once you already have a piece of meat now to chop the meat up, that's right, the only way you're going to be able to eat it. That's a so being that now already you're being that's something that's going to be so as it relates to because that's said that if you understand what just told you then you'll know there are times that it'll be user to meaning even though we said but but that's only when you're meal well what would be if somebody would in a case where he's misaken What would be the situation in the event that this animal's about to die then when you sh the reason is cuz a it's dying anyways b if you don't shack it before it dies and being available you're not going to be able to eat it so then you're being there's also a time where it's going to be to be when is that if somebody has like a really nice piece of meat a piece of meat that you can give somebody as a gift something that looks when you bring it out and you put it on your shabas table if you go ahead and you cut that and you just mess it >> [laughter] >> then you're actually being. So said it's not a versus just carving up meat. Are you being usually when you're being you're being but it's possible it could be in the reverse and if that would be the case that typically I don't understand this whole over here. How in the world are you allowed to use sometimes as if to say the only thing you need to worry about when you have a is the only 51b nothing else matters. Why you not worried about the fat of the Iser? Why you not worried about the tar of in this is a very very loaded question. Right? And if you look in the and lot of different uh gangs that you can go with this, but for our purposes, [snorts] this sack was a sakin that was used by the des literally in their temples for the des. Is there a chance this is a kosher knife? There's no chance in the world. Number one, we have to assume it's not a kosher knife because they probably use it to carve up their feasts and their dinners. So that in of itself should be a problem. But even more than that, when they actually the des sheing just shacking the animal, that in it of itself should create a problem. And the reason is, as we're going to see on is going to be a big discussion because you would think just the knife going through the animal and the heat for in [snorts] that little scene would be enough to create ble and plus. So that the knife is ble from this animal which by the way is it's right there's a lot of uh things going on over there and if that's the case this sakin should be a very problematic sakin and if you're going to want to use it now for your purposes or for you to cut that should definitely be an issue in other words in short is that why are we only worried about the of having from why we not worried about what's the we just came up with three things. Number one, it's you're talking they use it to carve flesh. Number two, the itself probably causes the to be which would then result in two issues. Number one, the animals and number two, THE ANIMALS. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, you certainly can't be. So maybe what was going on over here when said he meant a never actually used for it was just set aside to be used for it was set aside but it was never used. Being that it was never used, said there's no shamness of this. So the only sh is it was satisfying. Maybe it has a thin and that's what we're saying. That's only going to be an issue if you're actually having enough. If you're not having enough says is that a problem meaning the knife is just something that services and is not. So who's this? So quotes that same whether it was as it relates to itself in the event that you have we nobody ever worshiped it but it was set aside for that do we treat or not but in that it's the is only for the but everybody agrees it's not a problem so can't say it's talking about because we're dealing with and that's not that's not going to be an issue because comes up with two different mean why and they're all humbling over here whether or not you could be from this you can't be from the what happened to the shamun of this is saying if you want you can say the paks it's talking about where this sakin wasn't used to sha animals it was used to chop wood who said it was used to sh animals and that's what we assume the sake was used for right you're learning so you're certainly going to think that but maybe it was actually used to chop wood if that's the case you have a problem of but at the same time you don't have a problem of you could say no it was used for flesh and it was used however maybe you it already so as it relates to the shun of you went through the process so that's not an issue what's the problem the problem is that's not something that uh you have to worry about unless you're benefiting from it and hence the are you being or are you being if somebody shacks with a knife says you have to go ahead and you have to wash it. So here Rashi says what does it mean over here what we're referring to is the sack of a so we're not dealing with the was the case here it's a so there's no over here what is the over here is the fact that you have a knife and the knife is knife because it's used by so you went ahead and you an animal with it So the question is now what? So according to Ra, what is that's right? You take off a certain layer of it and then the rest of the animal is going to be okay. Rabbana said you don't even have to do that. Why lose the why lose a good piece of meat? Rather all you need to do is wash it and if you wash it then in of itself is going to be fine. says at first glance it would appear that the following is the what's not the probably is is the a place of heat or is the not a place of heat which is why I have to do anything because we know the only time b and plate is transfer is if there's heat so if there's no medium of heat then you're not having the conversation as it relates to ble and plates Okay, where's the heat over here? All you did was aita. Oh, so probably the feels like a varma place. So if that's the case that must be the shil holds that the as a result you have to do something whereas holds it's if it's all you have to do is now why you have to because you worry there might be a little shamuness on the actual knife. You just have to make sure there was nothing there but there's no bull in plate this and as a result in itself is going to be okay but says I can tell you everybody holds the base that's we understand the so why is alone the treaty being that the right now are being so this This idea that even sometimes can't multitask and can't do two things right this is a theme in the sug of in this case that are busy right now they don't have the ability to be so it's true this heat but at the same time you don't have the over here either way the says that it's not that the is whether the is because I can tell you everybody body holds it. The reason that holds is because of just the opposite that says that's good, right? Because if it's I understand why you don't have to be said it's true, but we're dealing with a knife like we mentioned in the introduction. A knife is different because of and it's for that reason here it's bottom line is and says we have three either they're arguing whether the is or everybody holds it says it's because of or you can say everybody holds that it's says and the reason would say that you have to go And you have to be is because of this that we're all sort of familiar with. And that is there's something called one more. What would be if somebody went with a sakin and heck an animal that's a tra? So the question is what now is the status of this sake? What's the shila? The sh do we say that being that the sacked the so the second was from the right this is the reverse of the previous you had a second so that the sak is being maflet into the over here the sakin is not being maflit the sak is being ble what's it being ba from it's a kosher animal it's not it's the animal was a afra says one once said that is that you have to do on the and you have to do the with the reason is because this is now a trade for we assume that it was by and the other one said no that you don't have to do a proper hagala with all you have to do is with and is meat of tus you want to wash it off but to do a proper based on ble and plus that's not something you have to worry about and says I'm going to tell you what is that even it's going to be okay meaning you're not going to have to do so over here brings a similar sh and in this case the actually goes ahead and we'll get back to this in a second and let's say the person has a a worn out says a par is a curtain to go ahead and clean the knife with then you don't even have to wash it with cold water as long as you clean it off a little bit. That in it of itself is going to be okay. And according to that says that you need to clean it with hot water. Now we don't know who it is cuz it was but whoever that is whoever is the one that says what's the reason right it's obviously because you with this you every single time you an animal isn't it being so you should know every single time you should have take the and go ahead and do so says Why? Because when did the happen? When the gets hot and when does get hot at the end of the at that point it's not even anymore and as a result this is not something that you're going to have to worry about. So this last again we're going through these gar way too quickly. I understand but guilty is charged but this last of where it was pleino it felt of like the previous right the now there was here it's but at the end of the day it seems like a very very similar Shiloh in fact the way Rashi explains the Shiloh the ra is whether or not the bas is or the if the is then when you ackn it's similar to the first of the three that the Gar had as it relates to right why is this significant it's significant because the Gar are pas and if [snorts] this sha is a sh of whether or not the and we're pasking that it's you don't have to worry about doing a proper that means in the we're coming out that everybody holds that now is that and as it relates to well it depends if you hold that the was the yeah we were just it was if you hold that the only way you can make sense of the is if everybody holds that the well if you know it's so again you know for sure that in that it's you're not going to have an issue however the third sad said that even if you learn even if you learn that everybody holds that they still mock him to say that it's going to be that's because of well if that's the case just because we were but here's that follow-up question the question is what happened to this mean two things number one is not and number two there's no so we were shil so if you look at the say that could be yeah could be we were just because we sh doesn't necessarily mean there's a sh and The reason is there's one over there the sack started off the is it has the ble in it already the sak is being maflid into the animal over here you started off with a that was kosher and the question is is it being and this is a huge like we were mum in the beginning again but this concludes the daf portion of just to end with one rabb Right. And this is a part two trade that we spoke about earlier in the week. So in the beginning of the week on Dalid we had the to talk a little bit about Rabisa the author of the Shim and his legendary aid which in many ways was a mysterious nephesh to counter a lot of dasca and a lot of what the yidden were dealing with in the late 19th century early 20th century. And essentially what he did was is he went and he wrote a a history of the Jews [snorts] focusing on points that the Masil were chapping with most notably the formation of the Talm unbeknownsted at the time today is site and I think it's therefore to go now and do a part two. So one of the that we mentioned that Isaac makes a very big deal about is that we're accustomed to thinking that who is the author of the it was raashi it's based on but said that if you go through the process of the formation of the from the itself and you know which sugass what you're going realizes that there's another hero in the story that's going to emerge and that is just to quote again from the this is page 80. Incredible language from the authority on this the worldleading expert and that is that you'll see from the sis that deal with that is He's not on the left side, on the right side TOGETHER WITH RAVINO. RIGHT? You could say Ravina is on the right side of Raashi and Ra is on the left side. But that's why we have to be HE'S TOGETHER WITH RAVINA ON THE RIGHT TWO RIGHT HANDS. One is Rava and the other one is and we said that obviously this sheds an enormous amount of insight in terms of first of all who was [snorts] additionally all the different times in where you're going to see but specifically this is not just another conversation between two but these are two and in real time we're being given access to a process that happened more than 1500 years ago of how exactly the created this incredibly epic work that we know as the bath. So again I don't think in our we'll ever look at the same as well and we'll see comes up so many times we said to 100 times but the truth is comes up even more times than that you know why if you look in the safer and I saw this in the as well for they both say that every single time you have in is when was the last time we had in the last that we just learned the said this is not rehearsed it was so we had we just learned he was mentioned as but it's and we have a is between and now I'm going to tell you something interesting you It's you don't know who said what. See, what do you usually do when you have a you don't know who said what. So, it's posh. You go you pull out that very thin safer which is it's called and you figure out who said what. BUT FOR THIS THAT'S really not what you're supposed to do. Crady has a lot of on this. But over here it's a it's a incredible says like this three that are related but not for now and then the says as an aside parenthetically [laughter] throughout the entire mean throughout says any single time you find And you don't KNOW WHO SAID WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK IN THE SHAME. I'll tell you who said what. Is always the one that's the is the so figure out who's the who's the you know who's going said what and I'll even tell you what is. We always pass in like the which again if you ra is the so we always pass like with the exception of the affforementioned three over there. this a little. So we always passing like the m right that's the bottom line in every single case with the exception of three the make is raking like raina and those three cases rabaka is the make WE'RE PASSING LIKE BUT THIS WAS AN in that happened so often where there was a I know rabbaka said one thing I know ra another thing I don't know who said what and as a result we had to come on to by the way our conformed with that Right. And by the way, who's the one now that said we know it's who's the one that said is always the is the with the exception of those three. But here's the bottom line. You learned this. Okay. So there must have been confusion. Why would people have confused? I have no idea. I don't know. This is not my opinion. Let me look up the sh that would have been a good move cuz if you look [laughter] up the he doesn't say THIS BUT IT'S POSIT this is what's going on OVER HERE THEY'RE BOTH STANDING ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF SO IS IT THIS RIGHT HAND MANASH was it that right again and he is literally embedded together WITH the ros one and the same hence you had this confusion of again it just adds so much color and so much light to this ra and I think it's mish po but there's an obvious question then that needs to be asked and that is that if is literally together with ra so why is it raashi why is ra forgotten why is the legacy of raina as being the of Raashni and somehow somehow Raa until this week at least amongst our friends was completely forgotten. It feels like Ravina must have contributed something that didn't because if they're literally sha then it's just not fair. Why is it ra and why is it not why is it not a so the truth is I'll tell you something very interesting when we say the raashi were the ones that wrote the tal so we're accustomed to thinking there's raashi raashi had raashi talked throughout shas by the way just if you know the background raashi was older than ravina but ra was a to raashi and the gar says in kiml that Rava was a raashi in the but the bottom line is that it's raashi who lived together the contemporaries and they worked on the and this is the ravash right of course that's the way it is it's actually not so posit in his famous he talks about and how it went about and says something that at face value is maldic Rashir says Ravashi is the one that wrote the Talmud. However, even after Ravashi passed away the Gmorra was still being written and it didn't complete 100% in the times raashi it went v and he goes and he he traces what went afterwards. I'll just read a few excerpts after took over for that was of after him came. After him came. And then after that who says you want to know who the ra is? IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT RA. IT'S NOT THE RAVEN THAT'S talking to raashi. This ra is older than ravashi. And if you do the math, he passes away almost 100 years after Raashi. So obviously he's a completely different person, a bizook that when we say Rava, RAVASHI WAS WE'RE NOT EVEN discussing two contemporaries. It's fascinating that Ravina who was together with Ravashi is not the Ravina that it's a different Ravino and he was also the Talmet because there was a whole new edition, right? The second edition, Madura, whatever. And he was the one that put out the new one with the fancy glossy everything. AND HE GETS CREDIT. HE GOES down in history as being together. To appreciate this a little bit better, we have to know not all ravenas in chassa the same person. Tyus says there were two ravenas. And if you go through these sugis of sus and what emerges is there were either three or four ravenas. There were many ravenas. Not all the ravenas of the same person. You have ravenas being one of the early. Then you have the raven with ravashi. Here's a raven that lived years after raashi. But the bottom line is this ra of the pave is the raashi that ra is part of when we say was the one that was the we don't just mean raashi RAASHI IS THE CHIEF EDITOR BUT IT'S RAASHI AND HIS team it's raashi and his staff it's raashi and his yeah is ra oh by the way now we know is also why did ra not get the shout That if that was getting it would have maybe SAID [laughter] if you know this so you know the it doesn't even start. Now the reason this is not such a satisfactory answer is because this mahalak of in who ra was is very very and if you look at the ra and ra says clearly that the raashi that was the ra who was together with raashi in fact the ra says that after raashi was marashi took over and he was in the so again it happened in steps for sure but it's not some later ra it's this raina and if that's the If it's as inash, why Ravina? Why not? So maybe we could just say one and we're going to end with this and that is we once talked about the unsung hero of the Mishna and that was that same that says it says the line right before that says that and together they wrote the now everybody knows who wrote the Mishna say how in the world was so forgotten It's unbelievable. BUT WHAT DID HE DO? I mean, we know Rebi did. I mean, everyone knows this. So, what exactly was Raosi's role that he somehow becomes the the silent partner literally of Rab Yehuda Hanosi. So, we mentioned from Ru Margolus in his Margolus, he says something brilliant. He says that he believes he lived in but is very mic and he says that he wrote the Mishna he was mabit all the and he was mabit all the different and theis because he wanted to have the entirety of in front of him and then once he had that he went and he did his job pun INTENDED AND THEN HE went and he came out with the finished product that we know today as the Mishna. Now living in Israel really only had access to half of the messiah because we know that was really divided into two groups. There were the yidden that were living in Israel and the the yidden that were living above. How did he get access to the yen that were living in bubble says margus lustafina? It could be he got that through habi. And by the way that's why it's from he picked it's BECAUSE HE WAS THE BAVI. HE WAS A BABYLONIAN and he needed a point person in Bavl to be able to assist him with this because remember half the yidd here and half the yidd are there so to speak and as a result he needed somebody in to be able to assist him and that's the legacy of this project he's the CEO of the Babylonian chapter of this and as a result he goes down in history as in that same piece of rab from it's that the reason raashi had rammed is because everybody knows that lived in lived in you know where was he was that's where he came probably from the but he was [laughter] not going there now but he was and he too assisted in the same way assisted rebi And ultimately he was the one that was he was the one that brought all the different raashi. So like this raashi had access to everything that he had. You know in this piece says something brilliant. He says that we know whenever between the and the shi we pass in like the why you passing like the and you know the so how's it possible is always like so how could it be that we pass like the over the was supposed to like the or why should it be the over the zoolas I think it's because when the was [snorts] composed they had the from and they had the from it was that he went ahead and he had a side person he had ra working for him who brought all the being that you had the all the was included and therefore it was the all the came from and that's the that Talmed probably had over the shami. The truth is ra doesn't say this. There's a riff. The riff happens to me is it's tucked away from all places. The riff addresses this shil. Why do we always pass in like over and the riff says? Because the babi was written after the shami. It was over 100 years later. And because it was later, we know when it comes to you always go bust of the basra. What's the why do you always go bust of the basra? You go bust of the basra because you assume whatever was later already took everything prior into account. That's what's going on here. The Talmedi had access to the durami. The durami never had and where did the babi get access to the duri maros is his it came from ravino ra is from by the way just to bring out the point a little bit better. There's a a chuva from the that we've mentioned many times over the years. It's in simal where he goes through his so it's not a safer it's only a chuva but it's a safer in the world of sad and one of the great said that whenever there's a ravash we pass like raashi yes he says why came from raashi came from and it's for that reason we pass like raino ra is an raashi was a babylonian raashi needed someone from Israel just like that needed somebody from Budsi had and Raachi had Ravit Israeli that's the flip side but if that's the case maybe that's the maybe that's the why Ravina gets the disproportionate shout out why is he the one that's on the pedestal the end of the day it's ra and it's tasty it should be ra more than the terret is in terms of versus I guess we could do a statistical analysis but at the end of the day I did the analysis for you. I'm telling you it's no whatsoever. But there was one element that Rava brought to the table didn't that element was he was the one that was mikabit the from the land of which was not a because that's the reason we passing like over and JUST LIKE YOU SEE THAT'S WHAT GAVE THE TO GO DOWN asen well that would have given ra to go down that would have given raz to go down as raashi and ra But just to end end and that is the says in it's also the discusses over there all the people that were and the says. So who the three that were and the says why was it Mosha and Raashi? He said because Rabenu gave us the Rabudsi gave us the Mishna and Ravashi gave us the Talmud. He gave us the Gar. And in order for someone to be able to embark on such a project, it obviously he needed Tyra, but he also needed Gdullah cuz he had to be mapped. He had to be malaka. He had to bring things from all over the world. The avoid of writing the Mishna required. That's why Rebi was someone that needed it. And then again, it wasn't something that had to happen until the Talmud was going to be written. And who wrote the Talmud Raashi? And that's why again you know who said this meash the second half of this memory had previously said was a contemporary raashi DA WHO WAS PART AND PARCEL OF THIS AVOID of the cedarasa says I had a seat at the table. I had a view of raashi from HIS LEFT. I WAS I WAS LOOKING IN FROM THAT ANGLE and I saw that what had also had. I saw the I saw it play itself out like the said and see the this is another example of where you can't look at the same way again. and giving us this insight. He is the Matsino of Abdullah the Mak.