Bechoros 24

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 the Kumishir category on the Lakewood Dafomi app or on whatever platform you're listening from right now. Today's is and we will begin from the Mishna 19 lines from the bottom of so we're moving along in the third per of and the Gmorra is going to present another Mishna that discusses the of somebody who bought a from an but he didn't get a report in terms of the history of this animal to know whether or not this animal has given birth to a baby or hasn't. If it hasn't, it's a well that means that in the event that in the possession of the this animal is now going to give birth first to a it's going to have. If this is an animal, well that means that the firstborn child was already born in the of the which by the way means that that animal never had kadusha anyways but the firstborn zakar to the extent that's what it is will have no kadusha it will not be subject to the laws of now really this topic was the first part of the peric the opening Mishna brought a major misus tano with regards to this very specific case. Somebody bought a behemoth for has no idea what exactly the history is. And we saw it was a huge discussion amongst Tan. In the Mishna there were twoas in the B. There were fouras. Our mission is a continuation albeit with a huge con. And that is said and that's really what distinguishes this from the previous discussion. If somebody buys a behem from it was a female but it was also a it was nursing says you don't have to be concerned that maybe the animal that this mother that you purchased is nursing is not really her animal and it's a rather we assume that to the extent that you're buying an animal and you see this animal doing what mothers do and that is being manus. Well, that's a unda that for sure there's a relationship between the mother and this child for sure this is a animal that already had a child although an entire dam but if we were learning the assumption is that the animal that's being nursed is the child of the animal that's nursing and it's for that reason the whole earlier part of the perk is going to be non-applicable meaning said that as much as ordinarily when somebody buys a behemoth from you have to start claring but to the extent that it's a then there's really nothing to talk about so you know exactly what's going on over here you see for sure that this is a mother which means it already had a child which means that in the event that after you purchase it gives born to a firstborn zakar it's not going to have any another [snorts] that said very much If somebody walks into his barn, minikos. So this person had a whole portfolio of animals. And some of them were mafio, which means these were animals that had not had the children yet. And there were those that were mafiro, meaning these were animals that had had children already in the past. The bottom line is he has a whole bunch of animals. And now he walks in and he sees Barashem. Everyone already has a little baby. Every single one of these animals is being manik. But he's still a little bit unsure because he doesn't know whether or not the animals that are being nursed belong to the animals that are nursing. Or maybe uh one behemoth is nursing the child of the other behemoth and vice versa. It says you don't have to be concerned, but rather you could assume that for sure the babies belong to the behemoth that's nursing them. It's very simple. to the extent that somebody had an animal that he knew was now going to give birth to a firstborn bea and depending on whether it's a z is going to determine whether or not there's a there's noar so let's say he sees that that animal is nursing in a ka so could he confidently assume that oh must have given birth to an a and that's the case there's noar or maybe he has to start getting a little bit paranoid he has to start saying that maybe it really gave birth to a I know it gave birth. So maybe it gave birth to a and to the extent that it gave birth to a there is going to be if it gave birth to why is it nursing in a says this is not something you have to worry about and our gives us two that are [snorts] very much related to each other. The first is if somebody buys a behem from an that was the first part of the peric doesn't apply at that point you know for sure that this behem already gave birth to a child and to the extent that you know for sure it already gave birth to a child if now it's going to give birth to a it's not going to have similarly it's not the same but similarly if somebody walks into his own there's no in this part of the but somebody walks into his own ether and he sees that all his animals are being minikos right now which means that all his animals have babies that hadn't been the case prior in fact previously had a whole bunch of pregnant animals and now he has a whole bunch of animals that are manikos some of the animals that he had had previously given birth others hadn't to the extent that the ones that hadn't were to give birth to aar did to the extent to give birth to you would have and right now he walkked looks in and he sees a picture of what's going on. Could he assume that whatever's going on is exactly what happened? So for example in the event the ones that hadn't given birth yet right now so that means there's no question ofar he has nothing to worry about or maybe you have to be concerned says that I'm very very confident that you don't have to be worried about that and as a result you can match mother to baby based on the minikos and to the extent that the one that hadn't given birth yet right now is being miniko in a ka in that instance this is not something that you would have to worry about now one giveaway from the Mishna is the Mishna is introduced as being the opinion of a really both of the Mishna are the of which a little bit implies that maybe there are others that and as we'll see the majority of today's is actually going to be the and we don't know who but and so this even though in our Mishna it's presented as said it and doesn't sound like anyone argued with it we'll see in the gar that's very much not the case but first before we get into the lumbus a little bit of klhashas so klashas is an idea that permeates shas and really it's tucked away in a whole bunch of different places. One of the important in the world of is the latter part of says the said in the name of the great so if you go through our peric it's a unique peric in the sense that there are a lot of that are presented as the opinion of a tana without anybody arguing with it Exhibit A the Mish that we just learned Rabum said and the Misha doesn't mention anybody arguing with Raml the Rakman said in the name of Rav that I want you to know that go through our peric and every single Mishna that you're going to find the is going to go through them very very quickly we are and said and it doesn't mention that everybody's you should know the is like that with the exception of a meaning if you're going to open a a Mishna and you're going to see that said something but then there's Well, then obviously there's two opinions. If there's two opinions, so then my rule is not going to apply. But anytime you're going to find that we have said and there's no is like that just appreciate the cloud that Rab is giving us. We know who said it but the concept of is where a Mishna is presented anonymously. So [snorts] we don't know who the author of the Mishna is. Now we have him in terms of who Mishna is. That's where is referred to in says at least that's one of the reasons that Rashi gives infamous but the bottom line is that we know there's a rule that says this is not because over here there are that I mentioned but it has vibes in that it's in a Mishna and you have eight tana talking and there's nobody that's arguing but you need a rule for that and Rob said I'll tell the rule and by the way this rule only applies for the third par of so as it relates to all the other that you're going to have to figure out on your own but for the third of you should know this said has heard what Rav said and he said I hold must have said this while he was falling asleep because let's be honest if you really dissect what it is that Rab said it's very hard to understand why because What part of the peric meaning which Mishna which that was said by and nobody's arguing with him was Rav referring to when he said that is like did he mean the first Mishna the first Mishna that discussed somebody buys a from doesn't know the history of the child births of this animal over there was right in the B there were another two opinions but there were two opinions in the Mishna so that doesn't work meaning that can't be a case that even fits the CL maybe the problem is for that you don't need because for that we have an uber cl and that is so we know a lot about this cl right a lot of related ribbes number one what about if is mentioned in a is going to be like him over there that's a huge discussion is it mishnak as opposed to the bryer well mishn means the of rebel Yeah. Another important in this is the because there are sugis in where we don't pass like and always how could it be that we don't pass like if we have a rule that says rebel and the rush says an unbelievable that there's a that the language that was used to describe this cloud is kavani. What does that mean? mean is like a little there's there's a little bit of it. It's like but it's very pure, right? It's but the question is what or why would this word have been used? So the said that is 102 and there's 102 times with which means that it is possible that you'll have even a Mishna's rebel of where won't be like him. The bottom line is ordinarily we assume that's the case, right? This is a little bit of a on the rush because if you're going to tell me just because of that means is always like maybe I need to tell me that is like but the bottom line is says the can't be that's what Rav is referring to because based on the rule of we would know that anyways says maybe he's referring to our but the problem is like there is a now we learned the Mishna we didn't see But we set it up a little bit as we'll see soon. So this doesn't seem to fit the criteria to even enter the rule of anyways. Allah says the maybe it means the coming ups the next and there too it's said but it can't be that's what is referring to because already said that I mean this fits the rule and I have any reason to assume that it it can't be this is what Ra was referring to the problem Rav said it already and Rav Rav who is a shaskkin who doesn't say an extra word who were media is facial expressions. We make the yukim from right. We always say some of the most famous are what the ra didn't say right. The bottom line is can't be that if already said he would have said maybe he's referring to the after that discusses of the hear of that butle open up that that's also says I don't understand what's going on with and it's for that reason said I must have said this while he was falling asleep but the says there was meaning to said when said he was referring to that's why we're having this conversation right now okay if that's the case what exactly was Rav coming to teach us right what was the problem with saying that meant our Mishna because even though in the Mishna there's no but in the price so there is really the takeaway from Rabis It's not just a takeaway. It sounds like this is what Rab was trying to teach us and that is the that when you have a a on something that is mentioned in a Mishna, it doesn't carry the same level of of weight as the Tana that's mentioned in the Mishna. But the bottom line is this is what Rob must have been referring to. What he must have been referring to was I what did Rob say? any t that's mentioned in a mishna without a what he meant to say was without the fact that's already different but the says I have a problem with this because that said being that said that is like all the in now he said it because he wanted you to know that but at the end of the day he said it right. So if that's the case let's go backwards. Why did he have to say that right? One of the suggestions we had that what was referring to was maybe he want you to know had a problem with that because he already said okay so he didn't say it for that he said it for we got the first part of the figured out but now let's work backwards once I know this rule. So why do I need Rav to tease out and to tell me that is like him? So says had Rav only given you the general rule and he would have told you that is like I would have thought that maybe what Rav meant when he said that is like he's referring to now says one second there'd be a little bit of an issue with it because that of Perkin sounds like two it's not one. Now if it's which is what it is there are two the two and but if it's could it be two yeah the you see it really is right the reason has to speak this is when you learn the but you'll see when you learn the it's really two okay so maybe really was referring to and the is not like because he said and this has in a so you to circumvent this right this is doing a lot of talking but so what Rav said was I want you to know that is like if I know that Rav already told me that is like so it can't be that his cloud was I'm going to work backwards must be that the cloud is referring to I must be that they have in the is not really a so the bottom line is really what's the takeaway of this a lot of right we had the concept of we had the concept of the idea it sounds like this is not just a nuance shila in understanding what meant but it sounds like this might have more global ramifications another thing that you have over here is this is an Indian that we've spoken about many times over the years where we speak out to from the quotes in the end of his where he brings a few chu one from the another from the that talk about different where it looks like there were and even tan that spoke disparagingly about others and it looks at first glance like they might have violated the laws of of lashhara that are discussed in it's an inside joke in parishes right it looks a little bit like these might have done that and brought a few tras that he thought were very important to understand and one of them is the ch from and in this he talks about this of how could it be the said but we spoke out over the years another and this is in the to say for IM where he says an unbelievable insight. We know that theor brings from the rai pano that says that whenever you find in shik it means that rav had what to be mishe but being that this was a nigler he was quiet meaning is a theme that you find throughout chas and usually it sounds like rav was stomped no it means that in nigla he didn't want have what to say but there was a which means then that rav in addition to being a great ammo, a great he's also a great mak. He's tremendous in the world of Kabala. In fact, brings in that same piece that Aba who's mentioned throughout the Zoresh is the and that's who Raab is. But the bottom line is said that ya that the Arizal said and the said that the biggest of kabala a person could get he can get while he's sleeping because when a person is uh awake he's limited but when a person sleeps it's 1/60th of misa and you can come to incredible incredible that a person can't come to while he's so said when he would hear said something that to him at first glance he couldn't understand he said this MUST BE LIKE THOSE MUST BE not this must be it must be the he was saying he was saying and it's above our pay grade and that's why we don't understand it but either way we move along we have a whole we had aishna [snorts] the Mishna which is an addendum to everything we've been discussing here in the beginning of the third paragl says if somebody buys a oh you don't have to worry about the two sheet is the four sheet this additionally if you walk into your and you see all your babies are all the all the mother behemoths are nursing so you could assume that the mothers are nursing their own uh child but rather already was megala to us or the gam in its discussion of ra's mera on our mishna was maggala to us that now everybody agrees with this where Is this in a says the price? What exactly is this price of the time? Somebody buys him. Here's the price that if somebody buys a literally the first case of our Mishna and then afterwards this gives birth to a firstborn. So meaning why would you think it's for sure not because it was and it's very possible that it was so it's possible that that animal that it was nursing really really belonged to someone else. By the way a very important uh point that needs to be brought up. Rashi addresses it right away in the Mishna. What about the fact that the animal is the fact that she has milk should that in and it of itself not be a raya that it must be a mother. Rashi says see the beginning of the peric the gumar already went through it and the garra said even though there is a but the gumar said that it's not that that in itself would be araya so inashi already says refer more to the earlier sugas and to the masa that it itself is not a so the fact that the behem has milk is not a that he gave birth to a child the fact that it's nursing that you would think would be the of this crisis says no because I'm concerned that maybe this being nourished is not really its child because there's an idea says no there's no question in the world that if it's being added to that he said if somebody walks into his at night so he walks into his barn at night and he saw Mafirro [snorts] is the eldest. So he saw 10 or 15 of his animals and some of them had given birth previously, some hadn't and they're all about to have children right now. Okay. But it was at night so he can't really see what's going on. He comes the next morning got up and he saw they all gave birth that night and he saw. It looks like that all the were born to the ones that had had children already and the were born to the ones that were that [snorts] didn't have children yet. So if that's the case at first glance he's like wow I dodged the bullet. It doesn't look like I have any over here. And if that's the case, I don't have to uh give anything to the says you're 100% right. And as a result, everything is going to be okay. Now, if you notice this price very much mirrors our Mishna. In fact, look at the part of it says two things in the which literally mirror the two things that he said in the Mishna. The Bryce had two cases. There's no afterwards. Everything is if you enter your and you saw 10 or 15 animals, it was at night. You know who was who. And then in the morning, it's whatever you see, you see. Because we assume for sure that the animal that's being nursed is the daughter or the child or the of the animal that's uh that's nursing. Incidentally, Typhus says that why does this case have to be in such a like convoluted way? You went at night and then you came back in the morning. But the bottom line is the bottom line is is that in the mirror but there's one there's one thing in the that we didn't have in the said this is the that was referring to that we didn't have in the for whatever reason that we do have in the either way we address that. So we know that is like Rob gave us a cloud for that. We also know that even though in the Mishna doesn't look like anyone's with really the where is it? It's in the now is going to do a deep dive into the let's get [snorts] is that if somebody buys from and the behemoth is nursing so we assume for sure that this bea already gave birth to a child. There's no question in the world that that's what happened as a result in the event that now it gives birth to a it's not a not even it's not something you have to worry about said it in another he gave us two of the other he gave us was if somebody walks into his and he knew that he had animals that were all supposed to give birth and now they all gave birth some of them at the end of the day you match the mother to the animal that it's nursing and as a result to the extent that the one that had it given birth to a the child would have been a now it's in a well then you don't have to worry about it meaning you're allowed to mix and match this is something that you're allowed to do the clearly but that is really we have mentioned twice we have it in our quote unquote proverbial and we also have it in this now said his the first of his two in the bry The he used was right that's the equivalent saying in the right he uses is referring to this identical case says those words did he mean that is the is world that an animal will not nurse another animal unless it gave birth to a child. But to the extent that it gave birth to a child, then then this whole goes by the wayside. And if you see an animal nursing another animal, you have to be concerned that maybe the animal that it's nursing is not really its child. The means that if you see an animal nursing, for sure this is a mother because if it's not a mother, it's not nursing someone else's child. But all you know is that it's a mother. You don't know that it's a mother to this child. Means that it's for sure this child. And as a result, no laws of are going to apply. Is it because we assume that for sure this is the animal's child? So we know it had a child and we even know this is the child or I don't know if we know that this is the child but we know for sure that it had a child because had it not had a child it would never be nursing someone else there's no because the extent that you know it had a child right the only thing we want to know is is if the next child if it's a is it going to be a right the animal that you bought from that's the first mission of the that you know for sure is not a so the only question is whether or not the next one the is going to be because I'm going to be so to know whether this is the child or this is just the child this is the child says the right if you're going to tell me that means this must be the child because there's that is not going to nurse a child that's not the behemoth's child What lucky you going to get for but if you're going to tell me that it could be it's lucky you wouldn't be allowed to go ahead and but to give that you can't do me and as a result you wouldn't get says what's the said right that's the first of the two said it's the same two in the we happen to be posing the on his that he said in the and that is when he said he doesn't mean that there's a must be the child or does he merely mean that there is a child this is a child is there no would be in discuss but the would be in specifically with regards to So the says let's go through all the that we have and let's see if we can come up with some sort of now if you think about it sort of said the same four times twice in the Mishna and twice in the rice. Now he probably didn't say it four times but we have four presentations of it all. So we're going to analyze each one of them and we're going to see uh what exactly we can come up with. So it says the let's take a look at the said in the what's the oh this is a pretty good at first glance right what I mean it's not only that it didn't give birth to a child that this is not the child is all you need is that it never gave birth to a child. You're saying good, say better. And you are saying better meaning that is a little vague in the ironically is more clear in the Mishna and what you see in the Mishna, right? It's supposed to be the other way around. But it's more clear in the Mishna in the theme of the first part of today's but the point is that from the you see that goes so far as to say that this must be but the says I hear but let's be media of the mission. is like subtle does it say who grammatically that's completely incorrect what it should say is who right would mean this is so why are you talking about it in the past tense right must be what the Mishna wants to tell you again in a very subtle way is as follows The is referring more to the history of this mother. Meaning we are that maybe this animal is not its child. But we're not that this animal never had a child. And that's what the lotion of means the mother. But and it could be as it relates to this child. There is no that this child belongs to this mother because the just is that must have had a child otherwise it wouldn't be manic but that it once it has a child that it would only be manic its own child that's not something we necessarily have a okay so we have no from the first of the four statements of let's move to the second which is the safe of the if somebody enter this is What do you mean you're not at first glance, right? If you were doing this, you couldn't even start the without knowing this. We almost spoke it out because it was so obvious. We said, "All right, we'll just get there." But the bottom line is it's like murish in the s of the Mishna, right? I just want to bring out how much this should bother you before you start the because really it's a murish Mishna. Second case is the right in that case we know they're all mothers but what's the child? The child is do you match? So you see yeah that maybe this mother is nursing someone else's child for sure it's nursing. So what's the gives a very says but that's if you have an animal in a barn and this mother's child is there and the other behemoth's child is there. So what they're going to mix and match the babies? It doesn't make any sense. No, for that for sure there's an um and over there there was never an the would be as it relates to the first case of the Mishna where you don't have a whole bunch of animals and a whole bunch of babies. What you have is somebody bought a be from it's you see an animal right there that it's being manic. It's the only animal in the barn right now. Right? So the question is do you assume that it's its child or not? a if there's multiple animals and multiple babies and you know for sure this mother's baby is there then there's going to be an that it's nursing its baby but over here you don't even know if the baby's there and hence it's for that reason we had the bite the laws of of okay so uh we thought we had a ray from the ra the Mishna felt like a very good rya little bit of a dick super subtle we knocked that out the safe of the Mishna for sure looks like a good raya Well, we knocked that out as well. Okay, moving along to the bryo. The ratio of the right, that's for what we're trying to figure out. So really, what we're left with is the safe of the bryer, right? [snorts] So now we have the safe of the bryer. The safer of the is talking about a situation where you know for sure that the mother belongs to the baby behemoth that it's nursing right the safe of the bry mirrors the safe of the of the Mishna now we already established that there's no ria from the safe if there's no r from the safe of the mission there's no ri from the safe of the b because it's essentially the same case the price was a little more dramatic 10 or 15 animals night morning. But it's the same concept, right? Why is there no raya from there? Because being that you know for sure its child is there, then once its child is there, for sure it's going to be nursing child. The sh is when you don't know if its child is there. So you assume that the animal that it's nursing [snorts] is it. So we know already there's no rya from the safe of the bryer. So what more really is there to do? So really the dict is because if you look at the bryer, the lion of the bryer is a drop different than the this is so subtle. the but again it's Kishmak especially we set up the D that we'll talk a little bit about it's it's so subtle but it's it's profound right in the Mishna the two cases were presented as two independent cases number one number two right two a first case and a second case the B also brought two cases but the B had one word regarding the first case is more than just like it sounds like HE SAID THE SAME TWICE RIGHT HE gave you the same conclusion two times and there says the maybe there's a little bit of a reference to the shil says and in the brackets it says but you need the brackets that's the whole punch line my isn't that what the is coming to teach me that the is the same thing what does that mean in the it's and we know why in the it's because over there it's posh over there there was never even an but from the fact that you have the connecting the it sounds like that the the between the let's give away the answer a little bit is not just that in both cases you right it sounds like it's more than that the is coming to And that is that in both cases I know for sure that this animal that it's nursing is its offspring the world of it says isn't means that in both case the bottom line is we're left with ana. So we have a little bit of ana in the world of says if somebody buys from and that is a you don't have to be worried about the laws of because from the fact that it's being that is a that this uh animal gave birth already. Here's the question. Is it a right that it gave birth to this animal or is it not a riot that it gave birth to this animal and makes no difference because once it gave birth the next that's born is not going to have if you would go ahead and check which you couldn't do but if you did it would you get malus if it's a suffic if there's an that this is its child in that situation you would get malus as it relates to the don't even hold of this according to the could be the child never gave birth period. Not only it's not its child, it doesn't have any child and it's nursing because in his view of the animal kingdom doesn't [snorts] work that way. The animal is willing to be but it's not going to be to the extent that it wasn't says the name of the great if somebody saw literally a pig and it was says it wasn't just it was being right it was literally nursing from a female sheep. So is the a person who goes ahead and buys this will be meaning to the extent that this now gives birth to a firstborn which is a way of saying no is going to come and he's going to pin whether you're allowed to eat or you're not going to be able to eat. So the case first is nursing from a a pig is nursing from a female sheep. What's the is for a next firstborn until is going to come and he's going to reveal to us what is who said this who said in the name everything that we just said matters. tackles this uh that Rabbi said in the name of the great Rabbi. He says at first glance this seems to be a contradiction. The first thing said was that if you have a that's being from who's that like that's right that's the first of the iss that if you see that it's nursing there's no question in the world that it had a baby. So if that's the case, if there's a that's going to be born afterwards, you can be right because according to the that's born later should be. So clearly it's but what did um say afterwards? What he said afterwards was that must be why isn't this? So the reason is because we had a Mishna earlier in the MS that said that if a kosher animal gives birth to a non- kosher animal the animal is kosher and vice versa it's going to be non-cooser. So over here to the extent that we assume that like what does mean oh it's its child. So if it's its child that means the was born from the was born from the so even though is a non-coosher animal but it has a kosher mother and if it has a kosher mother it's gonna be a kosher animal. I must be that part's going like afraid now without going v after learning the last is it really such a steer is it really such a no it's not such a really it should be totally in the that the had in the previous and which was really if you hope is that the Kazak is that this is its child and it's a great kasha because it's its child it's child this is a koshaz but if you're going to tell me that that said that meant that it had a child this is it because you know for sure it had a child but at the same time it's going to be because at the end of the day there is a suffic to be had over here we'll get to that theor is going to address this but first let's go through the exercise. The Gumar continues and the Gomorrah says that in addition to the steer between the two halves of statement there's more problems here if you're going to tell me then when we say right that's the way we understand it the first part sounds like the second part sounds like [clears throat] it is well if that's the what does it mean that you can't eat it until is going to from Pasin. There's nothing to pin. What needs to do is he needs to reveal, right? I don't know what to do. Like who really gave him the money? Right? That's what we need. We need the revelation. Said it sounds like he's going to tell you that like it sounds like there's like some he's going to you don't need a sack. What you need to know is this. It's child. We know this. We know the sug is if the mother is a it's kosher. If the mother's it's not kosher. That's what we need to know over here. So this is not it's really that's the second says the maybe we're getting this whole wrong. I mean we have a sounds and sounds like says maybe really was he didn't know if is like or is like can't say this with a straight face, right? How would that work out? Let's do it without seeing it inside. So, working backwards that'd be good, right? That would be you can't eat it. And by the way, you can't eat until comes to tell you that's that's right. It doesn't answer that question. Doesn't make sense. We know he wasn't because who said this? And we have another time. This is not any of those exceptions to the rule. So we know for sure that has to hold like. So if that's the case, what's going on over here, right? So let's explain the cash a little bit better after all the back and forth and that is because that sounds like and the fact would be like himself that what But the problem is what did when he said the second thing when he said why would it be to the extent that there's an that this is its child. So if you know that this is its child so then it has a kosher mother. So even though the kher itself is a non- kosher animal everything should be okay. So really that's the is that is because and we know like if like why and also what's this is going to come he's going to issue some and that's somehow going to clarify as right what's because that's his rule. That's his uh but at the same time what was the suffic and therefore he said right in the previous what WE SAID WAS RIGHT WE KNEW there was no and is unequivocal. But at the same time, there is a suffic. What's the suffic over here? IT'S WHERE THE BABY WAS, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT the would be. Could you eat it? Can you not eat it? And he said no's going to come and he's going to pass he'll be to us once because I know it's so really all you need to figure out is what said and then you can know but he had no way of knowing which is and once he does that everything is going to make sense but the just asks one if Really all is doing is is telling you that you know that I had the same. So why do you have to come up with his own case? Why you talking about why would you want to be mentioned in yoga? He could have said the same exact where it was which uh by the way first of all why you want to talk about that's just the herish but it's just a more normal case right that the gave birth to a makes more sense. gave birth to a and you declare the same exact now WHERE'S which was exactly the knew that just like we understand that but wanted to say this over he wanted to say in the case of because he thought there's a special over here this underpins this is going to take us till the end of the because only told us his suffic with regards to I would have thought that maybe the suffic is only by a sufficer because I would have thought that that even if you're going to come out and you're going to say that doesn't mean that this is its child because even on somebody else's meaning if that's the way you're going to be the suffic regarding the why because you would today very rationally and logically the only makes sense if it's but if it's not it's not so wanted he wanted you to hear the the total all the parameters of the shil so he said I'm going to declare the shila he wanted to show that in his mind this is the shil even where it's a laugh about he could have declared the shil in a more uh quote unquote normal case of of course and it would have been the the same sh it's a you want to know is there that it's its child or it's not the mother's child regarding but you would have thought over the in that way I mean if you go back and you learn over the to say that the only time there's even to assume that it's not its child is only because it's a because It's part. So once a mother gives birth to a then it's going to go in even on another. So there's no this is its child and therefore if someone went was you wouldn't be able to give but let's say it's a it's to say that once a mother gave birth it's going to be even on the only time a mother is going to be on if it's its child because you know that's a mother and a child. But um in terms of uh if it's no way in that situation, you could assume that it's not his child. NO, I'M ACTUALLY not so sure. I could hear the even where it's and that's where said it in this case even though it's a little bit of a again using this word loosely an abnormal case that with this understanding of meaning is really saying right what'san saying when he utters uh these words right that was original saying really what he's saying is I have the suffic of the bay that I had that same suffix and he wants you to know I even have the suffic by I even have it by because based on the you could hear that maybe it was only suffic by for sure must be at no I'd rather think even by not telling the first part of the saying good I'm saying better I hear this suffic even with that understanding even though it didn't sound like he was saying any [snorts] sound like he was like being himself but that statement essentially was expressing the albeit even where it's right says this is with something that said what does mean again day Today says you we speak out the ask some places Rashi says means right it's like a way of saying orbe sometimes rashi says is the name of a person what did the say it depends if he had another name like so then must be some it must be some adjective that's describing his greatness if the gar just says is Bibi then Bubby could be the name of a person. Why does it have to be that way? I do this sense because you don't find anyone in that had two names. I of course thesis on that but the bottom line is the if somebody saw that was so was following but like Rashi said earlier what does mean? It was being it was nursing from what's say what's like what do you want to know right be more specific please I mean the case is an interesting case but could you please be more specific says right did he mean with regards to was that he wanted to know if the next born would be subject to the laws of what would be the mean this is just a very roundabout way of claring is like our or is like well if that's the case then why you have to be talking about you could have been talking about something says that what was asking was he was a that's only we'll see he was also could you eat this right now and that's true Rashi says not only how [snorts] so explains his with regards to why I mean according to right an animal will not be manic another animal unless it gave birth to a child right so you know for sure it's going to be but said that sometimes it does and it's for that reason any that's born afterwards is going to be a aar stating that he wanted to know that it could be that even though could be the only time it's if it's if it's not in that situation it's not going to be so in this situation for sure it must be its child and even maybe not maybe even no he'sing by not you want to know he'sing because he wants to know a sh in the and there's no we know they were VERY CLEAR IN THE what they however were talking about was a quote unquote normal case they weren't talking about the case of the they weren't talking of a case where it's so it's the clar and that's exactly what is doing he wants to know what be and he wanted to know the even meaning his was Even if you're going to tell me like in the previous even if you're going to tell me like in the previous assuming there's no other animals over you don't know for sure its baby is here. There's no that this is its child. There's just a kazok that it had a child but there's no kazok that this is its child. Well, if that's the case, maybe that's only true uh deina. That's if it's uh its men. So, if you see an animal nursing mina, it's its child. Mina, if you see a nursing mina, there's no way in the world would ever nurse unless it's my babies. What are you gonna do? So, if that's the case, that's the only way that it would ever happen. or maybe so could you eat this or can you not eat this? The bottom line is says when said his that what was he saying? I know that is like because that's my I know that is like but at the same time with the of the and by the way to me I hear the suffix I I I want to emphasize says that I hear a special shout out of this suffic even in a case where it's even though there'd be mock to say that the suffix would only be by amino I could hear this suffik I could hear the suffic even says the one statement really is with what once said over the name of because once said over we don't know who he was but he was this was he says but this once specifically acknowledged that this in this of between a and a and he heard it sad to say that it could be even if it's because as much as animals not and he had sad to say that in you can somehow nuance and you could say that even if ordinarily we take on the second side of the original that there's no right this is a cha that's maybe only where it's not where it's so you see that once said over this from so if he said over this from you see he was He was fascinated by this. This was like a real to him. And that's for what himself was referring to when he made that statement that Rabbana said over in his name. Anyways, bottom line, what do we do with this, right? How do we this that's does it change anything with regards to and it's even and it's even as it relates to says the one word answer another and that is which means or to say it in the it's going to