Bechoros 23

You probably know Ribsilli Bournestein from the DAFF. Now Ribbsi brings his signature depth, clarity, and energy to Kamisha Torah. Don't just learn Kumish, experience it like never before. Just click the banner or find it under their category on the Lakewood Dafomi app or on whatever platform you're listening from right now. Today's DA is and we are nine lines from the top of so the discuss in the Mishna said that discharged a big clump of blood that looks like a cake. The is cover number one you have to be concerned that there may be a vlad inside this as a result if this was a firstborn child that vlad would have kaducious in which case it's thus you have to take this and bury it so that you make sure that nobody has from it. Additionally, any subsequent child that this animal is going to have will be exempt from because again we assume that this had in it and if that's the case that had in it thear that's the any that's going to be born afterwards won't be the discussed that Mishna for about twothirds of an digress without really explaining why it digressed and in today's we're going to understand what the digression was now the brought said in the name Rabbi if somebody buys seir from an am buys fish brine from an am and fish brine was made up of primarily the za that comes out of the fish and water is being that so if you buy it now you have to be concerned that it might be so what's the so said he heard from you that there's a way to alleviate this concern what you should do is you should take this you should put it in contact with a a mikvah that's and this now is going to be he said why because it's one of two possibilities either this has or this is in the event that is so then you look at all of it as if it's water that's can become you do now it's going to be in the event however that it's true that hasha doesn't work fits but at the same time is not to it can't become Tom and being that can't become if it's not. So if it's or at least you have to be concerned that it may be you'll do if it's then it's not anyways. So and everything is going to be okay. That was the set over in the name of came along and he qualified this. He said, he said this that you combine from which was a a very practical once upon a time that's great but only if you're going to use the you're going to use the fish brine as a dip. So you're going to take your bread your kala your pitha you're going to dip it into the in that case it's okay to hash and everything is going to be fine. If however you're going to take the you're going to put it into a a [snorts] maya in it then already it's going to be a problem. Why? because what will be if when you bought this it was really if that was the case it wasn't a problem we said because not didn't work true but you didn't have to do stating that says this had in a little bit of may now we didn't with the thus there's no although the didn't work it doesn't bother me if however you're going to take you're going to head it into that has more may. Now the ratio is going to change. Now you're going to end up with May that you're going to end up with. Now already you look at the as if it has May the may that you had acquired from was it never became because when you did the it was bottled to the so now you're going to end up with so he said although it's true that when you buy the from at that point there's nothing to worry about but something could happen in the future that will change that. So said the uda is a wonderful but be careful you have to read the fine print. It only works if you're never going to add water to it. But if you can add water to it at that point, it could be it's going to be an issue. But abias says the garra pointed out that this caveat that laid to is really a tremendous because what's saying he's saying that even though the was to the so that we don't look at it at all the fact that it's doesn't bother me because it's which can't be and as a result the to of the may somehow dissipates somehow goes away but at the same time it doesn't mean that we don't see the may at all the is It's just in we don't reckon with it but it is there if something will come later to be it could be at that point maybe you would have to recon with it again and was is that true and the said is that not true with regards to so the began And it's discussion of this misus or so it seems between anda which is really a very very important fundamental lumbness in every bit when a do is ble to a to a do we say that that do is not here anymore it's gone and there's nothing later that could even be mired or no it's there is something that can come later that will be mired either way the gumar is going to continue that discussion and then tie it into our mishna thus we'll see why it is that the garra digress as to discuss about this. Again, a very important discussion and lus discussion as it relates to the from is that the apher of the was it was to in that it was so if somebody would touch it, it would become to all are to mama. Some tumas are also matasa. Tumas mag is what's known as Tomas Masa is what's known as it's a more type of tum only more stringent types of tumas are subject to the laws of masa regardless the apher of the was it was not only says what happens if somebody had of and was with regular ashes so you have a voice of the that's and ordinary ashes That's the good which is the one that's ordinary ashes you go for in that case it's not going to be okay what's the very if you're going to tell me that the way works is that even though the is bottled to the right but it doesn't mean it's not there meaning it's there that that if later the proportions change at that point maybe that could come back to haunt you. So if that's the case, I understand why that was with apheros that it's now not why is it not because we say it's so when you touch this we don't see that you're touching which is we see that you're touching but at the same time it should be because even if it's true that allows me to say that when I touch the taru I'm touching the dro but when I carry the taru there's no way you could tell me I'm not also carrying the dam says the gumari if you're going to tell me that every time you have a taru the dom is commandless dummy so when I touch the taras I'm not touching the dam and when I carry the taru I'm not carrying the dam but if you're going to tell me really it is command is dummy it's just that I don't reckon with it but if something would happen later If you would add water to its ear now all of a sudden the water that was that didn't concern me suddenly is concerning me that means it's here if it's here granted when you touch it it shouldn't be mu because there's some that I'm not touching the mu I'm touching the but when I carry it I'm for sure I'm carrying everything when I carry something I'm carrying everything when I touch it I touch this part I touch that part but in masi you can't make these so if that's the case argues the gimaro you should be mama maso and the gimmoro is so persuaded by this question and the Gmorra says you're right explain this he said it's true when that in the ninth par of says that if you have au of the is only not it is you're right because as it relates to mass we definitely see it here in fact's qualification to The Mishna is really a riot. It's a riot. Either he's talking about I'll ask you another cash if you have so you say and the reason is not but rather now the context over there it's actually that we learned together not that long ago and the context is whether is bottle or is bottle is so and if you have a of two different meaning then this but if you have a of the same it's was going that anytime you have a you don't say and he was pondering whether do you look at that as or do you look at you'll say they're both cows they're both lambs they're both so she said and the reason is being that a kosher piece of meat can never become non-cooser. So it's for that reason we look at it as that's the what's the we know that is not only but is also anytime you talk about nea there's two straddles the and also the laws of the terra says many times that somebody touches an a he's going to be and a is is not only but is also in the event that you have which is now with regards to this also with regards to the why you understand but there should be why should it be because that you're telling me that every time you have a is there if later the proportions change at that point you'll have to reckon with that means it's here if it's here it should be even right now even while it's in the state of the same oh you said this over in the name that's why you have a but we heard this in the name and that's why we don't have a why what's the What's the terret the same term gave to the previous question when we say it doesn't mean with regard to it only means with regards to which is exactly what the garra answered when it asked the but it's interesting if you look the gumar prefaced its ter by saying what's the Ifa said it or said it at the end of the day the terret is the same. The terret is that when we say even with regards to we mean with regards to we don't mean with regards to doesn't matter if was the one who said the statement that we asked the question from or it was so if you look into you see a very subtle important and that is there is a very big difference because was an was a very often they didn't explain themselves so clearly that was their style of teaching That was something that the often did. That's why you learn and and sometimes it's it's not clear exactly what's going that's why you have and that's why you have and sometimes you have it's because that's the way the spoke were a lot more clear than the so you have a right to say that if the was the one that said it's really very to say that when we say it means regarding tumas ma not regarding tumas masa. So for a tano it's okay meaning the tano wasn't so clear he made it sound like there's no tomb at all really there's only no tumasa but there is going to be but for should have said it like you couldn't say such a rafarish he would have to tell you exactly what he means can't say meant to be unless you have a real you can't say that kind of so but you could say in you can't say it thus it's the same but we preface it by saying That's why you don't want to give that answer. We heard in the name then you can give that a third as it relates to this came out where we're concerned there's a fetus. So is it's not why the explained said it was because of you see it's that means you're concerned that there's a lot over here so why is it not so explained already it's because of what's let at least be and theor says you hear me you heard this he didn't answer any cash he didn't he didn't give it here already he didn't have anything to Why not? Maybe you can give a terror. Maybe the reason in the it's not is for a different reason. The reason it's not mass is not because of BTO doesn't work for Tomas Masa because Rabi is right that every time you have a BT the DA is still there and if the D m is still there just like if the proportions change in the future the dam will haunt you right now the dam should be enough to be to tell you that at the very least would be tomas masa why then is there no tomas masa maybe it's because the tum smells it's not something that somebody would eat and we're going to see now when it comes to the laws of tum and with regards as well the if something becomes to the degree that nobody's going to eat it it could be over there it won't be the so and says you have to learn to say this is all the good ters according to who said that when it comes to Tomura which is Tomas Masa So the is that if it's not at that point it's not as it relates to then the if it's not but it's it would be so that's very good it's a beautiful terrace when said that the reason is not because he was explaining why there's no fact that it's would not be enough of a reason for not to be mama because for tummas which is tummas it would have to be to the point that even a dog won't eat a dog will eat the we have to bury it make sure your dog doesn't eat it because a dog would eat it and being that a dog would eat it so really it is so itself it shouldn't leave the terret is the terret is but doesn't work for according to because at the end of the day the is still there and when I carry it I know for sure I'm carrying the tum so for that I have another terret it's to the point that it's at the very least not right you gave a ger is numb he's not going to eat it so it's not and if that's the case that would explain why there's no mass but the say that's good according to who said this who said that forum so once it's not it's at that point it's not but according to that said that even is unless it's not but if it is going to be and if that's the case so this ter is all good according to mean according to you'll tell me that in our mission when said there's no ma there's no tomas masa noasa because of no tomas masa because of the why is there a not but that's all true if you tell me that there's no tomas masa once it's not lucky let's get interrup that holds that if it's not just like there's still there's also still the only time there's no even is if it's not this is so if that's the case why is there no mass now you could easily say would hold doesn't have to hold like could say that works for Tomas Masa just like it works for Tomas Ma the is according to if he held How's he going to understand the said that there's no mass in our right that's the meaning the said that by the came out of this animal there's no ma no masa the question is why is there no ma that's the question is why there's no tomas masa there's two possibilities either you can tell me the bit works even formas masa or you can tell me there's no tomas masa because it's not roy but the problem is both of If you hold like that to is never really bottle then there should be even by despite the fact that it's bottled the p shouldn't work for masa and if you hold like that is so just because doesn't mean that there's there's no so if you hold like over here and you hold like over there you have a that's what the says mention this so the elaborates in an eye drop So again, there's a that once gets to the point where it's at that point it starts losing its ability to be what level of does it have to be very important as relates to which is the everybody agrees that as long as a dog will eat it, it's still going to be if even a dog won't eat it any at that point all bets are off. as it relates to Tomasura that's according to once it's not ready can't transmit mas just like it could be any but it's that it's going to be that then it's going to be it says what should you do it with incidentally When we say G, we don't mean a we mean of course a he can't give you an it means a someone that you're allowed to live side by side with. Meaning when came they were told they weren't allowed to live with anybody. The only ones they were allowed to live with were the people that were at least not to be they're only allowed to live with. But the point is is that who you were allowed to live with. What are you going to do with it? What is going to do with that? He agrees that there's a concept that once something's any at that point it could be it's not going to be but that's only if it never had or it was never before it became to a point where it was any. So for example, if a live animal which is because it's so if a live animal would have a limb that would break Rashi says the it would it would spoil something would go bad with it. So it became it became even before the animal was killed. So before it even became at that point we would say that being that it never had the of an and it's at the very least now that it became an is enough to say that it's not going to transmit. But once something's an at that point, the only time is enough to make it that it shouldn't transmit is if it's you're going to have to say that didn't need a cuz he if something was you need a to tell me that it can't be you can't create why not you will get it as offer. It was never of you have that's what this is true but being that it was his while the animal was alive. So as soon as the animal was killed it was already so it comes out it's not something you need to draw. Why is not it's because of so the previous we asked should only help for why does help for the made between but here asks another in light of this last that we just learned which that said his and in the shakario between and what emerged was that anytime you have something that was the is that it's not at all as long as it's so something at the time that the animal was killed you had a limb that was already it's not going to be [snorts] so why did have to come out to tell me why this is not was this ever royal It was never it said it's not and it was never and when it's never even so it was never why does need to say that the reason there's no is [laughter] because of even without this this is dead on arrival because this and even though it's only if it was once and then later was but this was So make it right as soon as it was as soon as it came out of its mother's womb it was already not. So if that's the case, why does have to come on to is what there's no it's if there's no so it's you have to say it's true that once it comes out it's not but when it was in its mother's womb was that's enough to say that it was thus if it was it is not considered thus the is not that if it's any it's not going to be it's already so for that reason come on to a new reason why there isn't going to be any one going back to the fish brine so if somebody has so what happened was this person bought from and he did what said in the name of you could do which is he did and being that he did everything was good. What was the of doing works? And if it's then it's not anyways. Okay. So what happens if a little bit of water falls into this? Now it's going to be so a little bit of water is already going to create. You see from here now the word is a little bit of a misnomer because usually when you think of it means they're doing something wrong. you're allowed to make fish bride, 50% water, and 50% seir. Doesn't say anywhere in that you're not allowed to do that. So, you have to know what the word means. But the point is that the will sometimes put half and half. What's the point? The point is is that will work. But if you're going to add water now, we're ready, it's going to be. But once you add this point, dash is not going to work anymore. The Gumar asks the obvious question. It sounds like if it's exactly 50/50, Dash works. And if you add a little bit more, that's when you run into problems. Let's say the would put a little bit less than half. And you would now add a little bit water. So it would also be a problem because now you're going to make it already ago, right? The only time it works is if it's R may or R. But if it was Rir and now it's PA, you're already running into issues because as long as the May is bottled, then it's very good cuz not to the May is bottled to the se. But if you're going to add water to the point where it's going to be even 50/50, that should be enough. So the Gmorra is sort of nitpicking on the exact calculation of the Gumar. We're saying the concern is that you bought it 50/50, you add a tip of May, so now it's going to be too much water. Even if you bought it 5049 making it 5149 it was a little bit less water by adding a little bit of water making it so you lose the so now that the is not anymore that should already be an issue so the say alternatively the whole you know for sure is when we say we're concerned for this is all on level the Mashkin is the therefore it's a double where there's a that's but in the event you would have not it's only the mind that's exactly 50/50 weren't worried if you have of that's where you'd run into issues but to the extent that at that point there won't be any issues so before we go v and start the next Mishna just two with regards to the gar that we're learning. So we mentioned the of in the name of said if somebody buys fish brine from an even though the is on but there's a way to do it and not have to be concerned about the what do you do you do you take the fish brine and you attach it you kiss it with the mikvah and by doing that the mikvah has an ability to be the fish brine if the fish bride is so but has and if it's granted wasn't said oh but by the way anyways so it's not an issue so in this case in this case you're not going to have a problem now had said commented on this that even though seems very straightforward and as we saw in the end of the it sounds like it's a mishna really but this is only good if you're going to use the fish brine as a dip. But to the extent that you're going to add water to it, now already you may be running into issues because when you add water now you're changing the proportions. Now you may end up with May is the original that was never became a because when you did a was and wasn't granted at the time it wasn't an issue but now that you change the proportions it is an issue. So it's for that reason said this is all good but only if you don't add water. If you're going to add water at that point, it's going to be a problem. If you take a look at Rashi infashi said that what's the issue? So, it's two lines from the bottom of if you're going to go ahead and you're going to add to the path, then what's going to happen is the in are going to meet up, right? Just speaking poetically. So the water that was in the is going to now meet up team up with the water that's in the they're going to bear together and then now going to be and they're going to be so says what's the issue this is very simple that right now the is what happens if you add water now the is going to be and the was never became so now you're going to end up with what's going to happen when you have it's going to be who's it who's it this is a proper pronoun There's only one it over here. There's no two choices. It's going to be very subtle. Wasn't so right. Every letter in Rash, every word, every syllable in Rashi is you know why can't become. So what do you mean that the may is going to become the and be that's not possible. What the means is something else. Doesn't mean that the is going to become the just means more simple meaning the means the same thing. But don't say that when the becomes the it's going to be because how in the world will the have the ability to be notab. So if not if it's not on its own it can't be if it's in now where it's the what then does the mean when it says it just means that when the is the you don't have to worry about the may now that the is the way we explain the now you do have to worry about the seir so Tyson first of all who cares about AND BESIDES TYSON SAYS DUCK RASHI says something I don't think is true because a seer can't become tom and it can't become tommy when it's on its own it can't become tommy even if it's Even if it was together with where the is even though the itself does have an ability to be. Okay. So at first glance it seems to be a a subtle between tucked away in stating that in a classic piece it's in one of the most famous in heclares a very sh in and after a plea with regards to his shila he says I believe that this shil is really it's rational is rashing that we just spoke out right here. So this is what seems like a a rash that it's hard to even notice. It's so short and you go through so quickly that took out from here a tremendously that is false. He said what would be if somebody has of tites that he that were and he has a of that was not and they were they all got mixed up and he can't remember which ones were prepared and the one that was prepared do you say or do you not say so there's one of that he knows for sure he didn't spin and the question is now that it was with those that were done do you say you don't say now one thing is clear That's speak out in different places that even though usually you find it in the context of that's with so the context usually is with regards to but that's wasn't said regarding is a cla it's not talking about it's not about mitzvah not talking about it's not talking about it's a it's a cl that has and says so if we're dealing with there's no reason that can't be when it comes to to so what was the shil was something else he says usually when you think of so you have something that has an issue with it because it was it was so that it's the that has something wrong with it was with things that don't have that problem. So somehow the this thing has goes away via the of So has an issue has an ability to make issues go away. But that's when the problem with this thing is that it has a positive issue. What if something's missing something? What if you have something it doesn't have an issue per se? It's not a doesn't have a there's no truma where the says but it's missing something. For example, there's a that when you prepare is you have to prepare or the same sha would be with matas. Matas have to be be prepared. There's a certain that you have to have when you prepare it. There's a certain that you need to impose on this thing when you're preparing it. So in that case would work or would not work. Battle boy. But this he said I can hear that B should be able to remove the do but that B should be able to p that it will give the do the H said that I don't hear that and that was a shock That was the shil. Do you say now that the tit that weren't prepared could be enough? What's the sh again? The sh is here. What you want is that the sites that were prepared should take on the the ones that were. So they have in it this of could it now impart on the this of or could it not impart on this is with all over just to speak out one that he mentions and that is a well-known the what happens if a bunch of people that were on death row all got mixed up they were so they were the skull and the now no one knows who's supposed to get who's supposed to get so says that's and the skull is going according to who holds that they get and the reason they get is because according to is more cool than you give them the so if somebody had that he's being that is more than it's as if he also had that so whatever the is that you need it sounds like that of and you always get the is true even if the was derived meaning let's say again going world is more than there were 10 people on death row nine of them one of them is they all got mixed up all 10 people are going to get why don't you say that the person that's is to the nine people that says this person is getting killed can't tell you which this person is supposed to get regardless. Every single one of these people is unfortunately going to have to be killed. The question is which you want. And by the way, you know, everyone knows that's what's so ordinarily that's if she was married, she gets and if she was an she gets but a doesn't get doesn't get instead what does she get? She gets frricked. How do you know a basin is a basin? Maybe her fault is a coin. Maybe her father's not her father. They tell you to go bus arrive according to that says that when it comes to which you don't go bus arrive how do you ever give a bus oh you going bus arrive you going bus ARRIVE YOU DON'T GO BUS ARRIVE that's what in a few cuz every is all predicated on without the you have no idea that she's a bas. So you see the is which she's supposed to get. Now in light of the raid that we spoke at this week what's the obvious terret is ruba the leakan but we'll leave that already for another day. He says, "I think made a choice in his understanding of works for everything. It works for DNA. It works for Dina. It works for DA, right? Reason to pass in and determine which a person is supposed to get. That's where we draw a line. What's the what's this says that we're saying works it works but only works but it can't work to take the mil of the and impart it on the so says that if you want to give a person that has to be a that this person is without a can't be. If that's the case, if you need a positive as an oxymoron on the person in order for him to be able to get of or a specific type of and being that can't accomplish that because can only remove but it can't impart to say that's why it's not to take a person that really was and givea Because to be you would need a positive of you would have to take on the and you can't take on the because doesn't do that just like in one side of doesn't have an ability to impart on somebody works for everything. Why shouldn't it work for Lisma? The ter is because is is a mile and is don if it's going to remove the of the but not to take on the mile of the in this case the would be the that's not something that would be able to do says if afterm moves after the whole where do you see that? Where do you see that? You see that in our because that really is not. does not have the ability to it's lacking in its DNA the ability to ever become to the brie of can't become stating that said that if you'd have a with the would be the then would be able to be it wasn't really the and that's why commented on I don't know Rashi had to say that it's not a it's not true SAID BECAUSE SO if it's not if it's not on its own why should be able Now that it's in a you know what the rashi is that when the is together with the may it becomes bottle to the may it takes on the milo of the mat and the milo of the mavato is and if has an ability to become now that sir would have an ability to become as well says like that does not have the ability to give the So on its own doesn't have an ability to become it could be but from today till tomorrow it's not going to take on that new status of having an ability to be whereas that it has the ability to take on or if it has on it's says says this whether could become now that it's a shas that were prepared or that were prepared was with sites that were prepared. Do you say do you not say which comes down to a major again another tremendous that we have over here as it relates to this just one more we don't have time to go through this properly but just one more that I think is mentioning and that's when we learn when we learn so we spent a lot of time Coca-Cola part one Coca-Cola part two the chuva which is brought down every day there seems to be a ste and and misha and then rabbi binfeld and all the fun raid as it relates to the of Coca-Cola. What was what was the Rajbas you saw? There said to read it from the and that is that anytime you have a a talis where the ingredients the recipe calls for a specific to be inside the recipe is you don't say mean the only time you say is you have a boss fell into a boss but If you would if there would be food that you're preparing, forget but you're preparing food and the recipe calls for inside the in that case you don't say that's what are some of the practical applications for it. So, one is the whole cherry cask issue because what's the issue with cherry cask? The the scotch makers store the scotch. They age it in barrels that were once used for cherry cask. So, what's going to happen? A little tam of the cherry wine that was previously in the sherry cast is going to penetrate the scotch and you have a little bit of you have a little bit of of a tamy of which is a problem. Now, the truth is at first glance, ask any man on the street, he'll tell you what's the problem. It's a mu. So it's what's the ter is because although it is a double but it's right then it's us and that that's the derek that's the way they make it that's precisely why we have an issue otherwise it'd be no issue that was the whole Coca-Cola issue where if wrote a a truva in the 1930s in Atlanta Georgia when he was given access to the ingredients of Coca-Cola and he saw they use glycerin and glycerin is a but it was but it was a double buff it was so mu it fit place. He knew it was bottled. He said, "But it's a he brings from the in his said it always bothered him because in our we have a case where is made up of two ingredients primarily and it has it also and the has a whole discussion which one is the right and depending on which one is the right that will determine the status of this because the is going to be says according to the says that if it's the to do it this way it's going to be a problem what was but according to this it was That's how they made it. The way they used to make is they would take water, they would mix it together with the fish. If that's the case, then there's no B because something that happens if accidentally incidentally something happened falls into this is the this is the recipe. So to the extent that this is the recipe but um let's try to go a little bit next so the peric began with a case where somebody bought a from and he has no idea if this gave birth to a baby previously or didn't give birth to a baby previously says what happens if somebody buys a from an and the animal that he bought is nursing a child. So is then already for sure we assume that it's nursing its child. Meaning you don't assume right when the person looked in he was looking at all the animals. He saw one animal was nursing. So you could assume for sure that it was nursing its own child and as a result the next animal that's going to be born is not going to be considered. What happens somebody goes into his ader. He has a whole bunch of animals and he saw the mafio were miniko fishik meaning all the animals were nursing babies. They all had babies, but he didn't know which baby belonged to which if they all have babies. So they're all there's no sh anymore that there's going to be in this because some of them had not given birth to babies previous again the case was where person had a a lot of animals some had given birth and some had not given birth. Now he walks into the ad he comes home from a trip and he sees can I know? So you see they all have they all have babies. They're all nursing. That means there's Byus over here in his because the ones that had not given birth previously clearly had given birth. Probably he doesn't know which one is which. So is he's lad assumed that each mother is nursing its own child and as a result he knows which one is the he remembers which animal had not had a baby yet. Thus he knows what would be the other side that maybe they're nursing the other animals child. That's the Mishna said, but we could assume that each animal is nursing its own child. And as a result he knows exactly which one's the which one's not said in the name of is like all the in our par I heard from ra that all the in this paric the third is like the is mentioned with the exception of the meaning any statement in a in the third parag that's totally So that rab said I'm not being but whatever you have in a here in the third per that's not mentioned as a what was he trying to say we know that is always like but in our in our per we have a little bit of an anomaly not something you never find but a little bit of anomaly and that is you have that are mentioned in the names of specific like this we just learned there's no one that argues but it wasn't mentioned as a said you don't have so said you want to know is like or the previous being that they're not it was necessary for Rav to tell us what is but at the same time said so all these that are mentioned by specific they're not and there's no one arguing with them is like those if there's a that's already a different said must have said this while he was falling asleep. Why? Cuz it doesn't really make a lot of sense. What was going back on? He's going back on the first Mishna. What was the first Mishna? Somebody buys a animal from a guy and he has no idea if the animal gave birth or didn't give birth. If it's a goat the first year, if it's a the first two years, that was not had the BA that had four. So that was definitely that can't be what Rav was referring to when he said the is like that because he clearly said I'm only referring to that. Maybe he's going on the second for that I need. Everybody knows is always like maybe he's going on the this last that we just learned where there is maybe he's going back on the next already said. So why have to say it twice? Maybe he's going on which is a but that is said that really I don't understand this comment of what was saying but it's not true because really was going back on the we just learned the that's why the is bringing the right here because it was really regarding this Mishna Rab wanted you to know that is like Rab said that I only ra clearly said that his statement is only true for a mishna where there's no and here there is where's the in the that what it says in the is not considered a a meaning although it there is a there's a t that argues but that t wasn't mentioned in the and the fact that that t wasn't mentioned in the that ra viewed as not being a real and that's what was trying to say meaning ra could have simply said ra said it in a more elaborate way. And this is Rav who who said so why did Rav say it in a more elaborate because he's coming to teach us something, right? Always mad. So Ra is teaching us something. What's Rav coming to teach us? He's coming to teach us that if you have a Mishna and then there's a Ter that argues with that Mishna and Arya, it's not the same. A mission and a Bryson are not on the same level. This is another one of the clash you can take out of this stuff. So much air, right? mentioned that the gamorra had said that an amora you can't be mafarish so much you can be mafar is another rule that a mis and aishna is not the same as mis from a and that's why rav was adding language to make it clear that this is not really a it's not anishna the point is what was coming to say was that is like just to end on a light note and that is So Rav said that and what was comment [snorts] Rab must have said this while he was sleeping because really if you think about it what Rav said doesn't really make that much sense. Now the truth is at most first glance how could have spoken this way about Rav I mean Rav we know who Rav was I mean imagine God will say something a god and and somebody would go ahead and say he must have said this while he was falling asleep because it doesn't make any sense we know was a bat we speak so much about that of Rav and how after Rav was nif his decided to perpetuate his memory by keeping up maintaining these you know two of those were maintained by one of that he never looked outside of his the says that and were both of they both took it upon themselves that they would keep this they couldn't do it it was too hard the they made themselves blind the two and you know they became blind you know the rest of the story they made themselves blind because they couldn't keep this that's who is a tal of rah. He took on the of his rebi rah to such a degree that he made up. Oh, the reb didn't look at his. He's going to do the same thing. And he couldn't do it. He made himself blind. That's ne and part of his mira was related to the kabal they had made for his is the one that said hastily he's going to get. Why? cuz he was always min you know what the rest of the story is that's what we spoke out from the kadash from the beginning of the week that another one of the 10 of is that he never walked without fill in and after he was nations took on a second took two out of the 10 he said he's also going to never walk and he said tastily he said I'm going to get for it maybe he didn't say tastily for not looking out of his because he couldn't do it but this is something that he did do but the point is he said he said tasty said this is who had a tremendous covenant and er and he gamor we earth. This is the way that he's talking about rap. Now truth is the first that popped into my head is the said was so it's a little bit the truth is exactly what means but that's the so the truth is a tru from the we've mentioned this tru in the past it's in and asks this exact kasha but really it's a more general schmoo he talks about this different gumaras where you find in the gum where am seem to have spoken to each other disrespectfully and and and it doesn't seem m and at first glance tell you something interesting that the end of his he brings four chu from he brings four chu from related to so I looked up the chuva last night I'd never seen the chuv inside but I knew of this of this so I looked it up. I thought it would be a perfect for the his is a classic from the you know what the cha was that he is the first thing he brings at the end it's not at the end it's end he brings this truth from the is also bothered with these you have a whole and then you have different comments like this one right here said either way the the is he basically says that you have to go through each individual case and you have to tak and he says that it's posit that had such cover for Rav he had such tremendous er for him that he felt there was no way Rav ever made a mistake it's not possible Rh could have made a mistake I mean that it's not possible Raf could have made a mistake it must be Rav was falling asleep that's not what happened he wasn't saying it in a derogatory way he was saying he was saying he say that's not possible rav the reb never made a mistake you know it must have happened it was probably and somebody didn't understand exactly what he said and and and maybe whatever and this is what came out BUT THERE'S NO WAY RA MADE A CHOICE he said this comment didn't come from disrespect to just he meant it literally he really thought that's what happened because it's not physically possible there's no way in the world that ra would have made a choice incidentally we had an olive of today's daf The gar said was quiet right that was the third they asked was quiet there brings you find right what's right very says he never spoke so you find he brings all the places in you find it's a long list we've spoken to in the past this part of it theor says that pano said that whatever You find the word it means that Rav didn't have a terret but he had a terist he had a ter ask me a sometimes proves things based on ends the conversation why does it end the conversation the terret is we don't pass based on we pass based on not based on some we to this but we'll stop