Chulin 134

Today's d is and we are 12 lines from the top of so the topic is the also known as the cave says If who qualifies as a member of the nation as he has to take the the four-legg the jaws theo and the abism and give it to a we saw in the garra that a himself is potter from being mafish the zya and additionally if somebody would She the animal of a non-Jew who would be potter from the and the additionally the Mishna said that if a Y has a that's a non-Jew or a the fact that the nonjew the has some ownership in this animal that too would be enough for him to be from the note says the if somebody owns the head of an animal or he owns an animal and he has a cen who's a partner in the head of the animal. So he's the not a partner in the entire animal. He's only a animal. He'll be from the that's in the head. He'll be from the jaw is in the head of the animal being that he has a in the head. He's going to be from that. If but as it relates to the other and the rest of the animal then it sounds like he's going to be if he has a that's a partner even in one of the animal that's enough to disqualify him from all the in other words according to Rafun if you have a partner that's a but the kayen is not a partner in the entire animal he's a partner in of the animal. So then if that of the animal has a mat, you'll be parted from that mat. So if the is the is in the you'll be part from the but you'll be in the I have a that's a partner in this animal. Yeah. But the co's only a partner in the rush and the and the is not in the rush according to if you have a that's a partner in one a of the animal that's enough to ponder you from all the sells his animal to he says I keep the head and you could have the rest of the animal or even if he says says I'll keep 100th of the head the rest of it belongs to you is going to be if he repeated the same thing with the even if the cut back for himself only 100th of the is going to be if a sells the or keeps the for himself and he says to the you can have the rest of the animal even if he only keeps 100th of He's going to be. So this is exactly the case that Rahun and discussed. Now what did the Bryer say? The assumes that the Bryer repeated three separate cases. Doesn't it sound like because each case means something else where the kay held back the pot where the client held back the held back the you from the cave that's raun if that's the case isn't it on who said that if a is a or in this case if he holds back anything that's enough to say that the is going to be potter from everything says no If it was a mafurish of rice, it would be a but there is no murish of rice. So all the B is said was you're assuming in the pot means going to tell you the B means you're potter from everything. But theor says if that's the case for listening shouldn't the B have said that sounds like maybe misleadingly you're only from that one individual. If is right that you from everything then the price should have clarified that meaning this first price is not but the second price is the price that if the client held back the orund of the he'll be but clearly he'll be checkmate you're right there's no way out clearly is up from this price. So thus the is not like the is that if the ken is a partner in the ro or if he sold the animal and kept the ro back for himself. So the is the is being that he has a partner in the ro will be from that individual mat that's in the also known as the but as it relates to the other he will in fact be made a mistake but I'll tell you the rest of the story. I'll tell you what confused and misled. It was the following time to the estim and the 24 muna were given to number one. What does that mean? So there's a general a that talks about all the it's the we spoke about yesterday. But the point is is that there's this general that describes all as being mat that were given to a hiring that's and then you have all the that single out the respective mat individually. So the matun were given there's the one general the and then there's the prat all the individual additionally when the talks about the kahun the mentions who says that and your family this is an expression that you find used in the says I'm not just giving it to But it's a bris as in briso it has the the power of bris but a bris melik the br of salt. So that was really powerful. What what's the significance in the bris of salt? So salt is a preservative. soul to something that's and the point was is that but either way so the did two interesting things when it mentioned number one it mentioned number two it used the word what's the significance the teaching if someone is as if he was audition It's as if he brought the where the also uses the concept of brisk someone that's he violates the which is brisal. Okay. So now we have a little bit of background about the we understand the severity of it. Now what are they? do a 10 that involved the base that had to be eaten in the base of four could be eaten and another 10 could be eaten anywhere in what were those are two separate those are the brought on together with that's six those are the And that but had to be eaten in the one of the foreigner and the parts of the carbon and parts of the carbon was only that were given to that could be eaten anywhere in additionally the of even the of was given to and that's something that you could benefit from anywhere in life and the 10 that were in the that's the next what we're learning right now that means if somebody was and then comes the get it something called if someone is something he says I want it to be but specifically it should be the gets it and finally Bottom line is does he have a that discusses the 24? So whoever this royal in the minion of 24 were mentioned as one that's they must all be one. So if they're all one and I'm pter from one in this animal cuz I have a partner in the rush. I should be from the says because they made a mistake. That's what the says go through the list. We mention and as one and we know they're not one that they're similar that are similar. It's the same. They have for the most part the same. So as a result they're similar. So in the list of 24 we count them as one. I mean really if you break down the 24 it would be more than 24. That's what the Gar said. But said was mistaken based on his reading of this he thought that this mentions this royal not as three of the 24 but as one of the 24 manusun the emphasis of the B is trying to say that they're all somehow the what would be in the reverse case. What happens if sells an animal to Israel and he says I'm selling you the head but I want to keep the rest of the animal for myself. What's the question? The question is do we say that the is in the because that belongs only to the and not to the or not. Do you say that you see we look at each a individually? So we pass like each a is viewed individually. Okay. So the owns the without a partner. So let him be the well you don't say that over here the belongs to once belongs to so you take the and you throw it together with the if the belongs to and obviously you're going to be from the pot that belongs to you have to be from this as well from the next par owned sheep that from if they gave it to Israel to do the Giza to shear the wall. So is it doesn't make them despite the fact that the one that's shearing the wool is a and he himself it was if it was his animal he would be in this case you're going to be pot it's similar to the case where an animal of a non-Jew or a where the is even though still you'll be from that same is true for but we need the next part if somebody buys from he buys his wool. So he's popular and then the price says and this is in contrast to where if somebody would buy this royal he would be the bottom line is what do you see from here that if somebody buys this royal is going to be what do you mean I only bought this royal I didn't buy the rest of the animal owns the rest of the animal so the owns the rest of the animal go buser You go say that. So you see from here from the fact that I'm go bust the of the animal from the fact that you see you don't go bust the of the animal I don't care that the owns the majority of the animal owns the part of the animal that involves the that's going to obligate him now in the event that if the sells the animal to he tells him I'm selling you the animal I'm Leaving the maton for myself which is the inverse of this last case. Last case he sold the maton. He kept the animal for himself. In this case he sold the animal but he left the mat for himself. The is the buys the animal is what's have it. It's posit he he never bought it. What happened? A owns an animal. He says I'm selling the animal to you but I'm keeping for myself. Okay, invitra this works. So now the Israel owns an animal but he doesn't own this because there was a so for example when you learn this so there comes up a lot of are that's a case where Ruven divorces his wife and he says you can marry anybody you want. So there why because the terrorist says and and the fact that you're not allowing me to marry anybody that I want that's but ordinarily work with the concept of so the works for sure as it relates to the doesn't have anything what happens if would sell the animal keep the maton for himself but his was different he didn't say I'm selling selling the animal to you said I'm selling the animal to you on the condition he made a he stipulated the is so what's the does not get to keep the mat and as a result the has to give the noise but he can give it to any kind he wants he doesn't have to give it to to the person that that held it there it's a blatant contradiction to our two different it's a completely different in our the retain contains the maton as a result the has no maton in the bryo the get keeps nothing what happens the gets the whole animal and he gives the maton whoever he wants to give it to the kash is the ar the case is the same in our he sold the in the he sold the shar no it's not the same I mean this is 101 in Londis. Two completely they look similar. Yeah. But two completely different transactions took place in our Mishna. What happened? There was a sh in the Mecca. I'm not selling you everything. I'm selling you almost everything. But I'm not selling you everything. What am I not selling you? That's something you could do from a standpoint. I never sold you the mat. Well, you don't have a now to give the over here. I sold you everything. I MADE IT TONIGHT. The tonight doesn't work. Why doesn't the tonight works? That's a whole discussion. An easy answer is it's a but whatever. Either way, it says I'll ask you another cash and here it's you have a blatant steer. So this cash is not a cash on it's a cash on the price. The two prices don't the first price. And here again this is more of a but is whether you look at almanas all you have to say is ka and you can go right there so it's too easy but either way that's the do you look at almanas as or do you not look at and you have to know either way it's like okay so the had said that what happens that somebody buys not an animal from a cayenne but he buys the intestines from a a cayenne. So the Mishna said that there's two or I'm sorry he bought the intense from somebody. He walks into a butcher store and he tells the butcher I want to buy the ben of this animal and in the there were the ca the ca is one of the that has to be given to a so how do you look at this from a perspective? So the said it depends reading from the Mishna on the bottom of four lines from the sell and there was the inside. and he has to give the cave to the and he can't force the seller the butcher to reimburse him what he had to give to the because it's understood that the cave is in the and the and the ca goes to the if however he didn't say sell me but rather he took the he weighed it so he wanted a specific amount and a specific weight of he has to give it But in this case implied in the first line of the is and that is it sounds like in the we're going to focus on the second case of the where somebody bought the that we're talking about the has a right to go to the and take the ca from but it sounds like he would not have a right to go to the and take the from him. So it sounds like he only has a to go to the lake. He doesn't have a to go to the which if you think about it why he can go to the lake has I'm a you have ka we need a dog. If however the kayan would go to the butcher the he would have no claim against him. He wouldn't be able to take anything from him. Why not? You had my ca you sold it. But if you're a Gazin and you sell the Ga, you would think that I have a right now to go and and summons you to court and see if I can get what you sold, which was mine. So the Gar is going to begin with a and the is that why is it not such a clear dak, but this is the of the Gar. Why is it that the Coyan only has a right to go to the lake who has the ca sitting right now defrosting waiting to be put on the grill? We should be able to go to the as well said because of this that we just spoke out. You have to make an the is talking about where you know who weighed the it was the buyer that weighed the meaning never touched the shock. But what if the butcher the would touch the and then then if the wants he can go he says not only but meaning he can go to the if he wants to he can go to the if he wants to as well meaning felt that the reason this is correct that the can't go over to the butcher is because the butcher never made he never touched the heed the animal was sitting there he never waited and put it in the bag and and said thank you for shopping with us was the one who picked it up. He waited. He walked out with it. So being that the himself never made contact with it, you like the receipt being that the never made being that he never made contact with it. So maybe it's not considered a golin and therefore the the coin has no to the he can only go after the lake. However, if the would have waited in that case, he'd be able to go to the argued. He says, You can never go after the You can never go after the You can always only go after what's the somebody steal something. The Bible wasn't and now somebody comes and this person ate. So now there's two Ruain was the Glin Shim ate what Ruain stole. Now the Nigel comes and he says, "Where's my food?" Well, he stole it. He ate it. Okay. Who who do I go after? So famously said, you go after any one you want. If you want, you can go after the golin. He for sure is someone you can go after. He's the gland. And if you want, you go after the person that ate it. He goes, he ate it. So says, "Isn't this it sounds like Rav holds that if both would be complicit?" Meaning the butcher would have waited. He's the gland. And now the bought it. He has it sitting in his house. So whereas who says you could only go after he holds not like doesn't hold now? So what does hold in our mission you can go after if he doesn't hold of so what then who then could he go off there only the gaz. So it's although the Gmorra is saying is less but if you really want to go into it is going to differ in the case of G and in our case and the reason is very simple because in our case being that the has it if you could only go after one person you're for sure going to go after the in's case it's gone one person stole it one person ate it if you you don't know the and there's no such thing as and you have to pick who to go after it makes sense to go after the gossip in's case it would make sense to go after our case it would make sense to go after but the bottom line is who said that with waiting go after either one you want whereas who said no you can only go after one person probably says everybody holds the question over here is whether in fact what's the could you steal or could you not steal again we saw this a little bit in the beginning of the peri but That's the question. Could you steal the ravalus if you can steal? So the picked it up and waited a boy as long as there was no heal. He physically can't steal. If you can steal then maybe but over here it's not something you can steal. Either way the is a real it's not but rather it's in they said it in a roundabout way. They discussed it in the of the last case of the Mishna. But really when you break it down what it boils down to is this fundamental question says in fact there was another version without the whole context of the who just very straightforward between the shar is saying the same exact thing. It's for sure whether school exists. The question was merely the context of exactly how this is said before we go right there just one on yesterday's and that is we saw the Gar talked about famous said only someone who believes in the but said it's not only but the same is going to be true for all 15. We spoke yesterday that says what does it mean that's not he says in his heart that it's it's silly never told I mean this is a person who's a he's a first rate he doesn't believe in the whole of this is the that's said that any that's not I saw that the brings a chuva from the mar that Maram's chuva is in alf it's sim and the chuva was written to also known as the ner and it seems that the naser told the maran that the yoy told him that I think he could bring from this right here that somebody that denies of the is not considered a m. So in the beginning of we learned a lot of as it relates to a all these different. So he said, I think you see from here that if someone denies a in the it doesn't make him a M. Why? Because if you're going to tell me that someone denies one in the or one in the one in the he's a m you can't treat him anymore as a as a so's big over here said it sounds like he could do the it sounds like you can trust the right. It's just a question. this is doing you can't you can't no you don't give him the the you don't give him the okay you don't give him the we spoke about but in terms of being a and allowing him to function as a it sounds like there's no question you're allowed to but the way learns means he's a HE DENIES THE WHOLE OF WHAT ARE the so how is a person like this even allowed into how does a person get onto first base how does this person get to first it sounds like that's not an issue So it sounds like the issue is it's a but in terms of functioning as that may wrote to the but it's just to speak outer on this right here the brings that on says that the is a that's a baker is an epic that mean a person that's but the point is is that what do you mean he has much bigger problems as it relates to being than just but either way the says I'm going to tell you a different says in his that what's the reason gave us carbon it's not because Hashem really wants or needs doesn't have anything from but when the and the when they left mitim and now became the only way that they were able to conceptualize serving a deity was through the worship of of carbon they didn't know any other way that's what used to do now the way the Ram details in his mira they used to bring beers and lions and elephants and and all the carbon that we bring are the antithesis of what the desar used to do. But the concept of taking an animal and slaughtering it for for a greater power that's something that the believed and that was the way they used to worship and the Ram says that's the only way the Yidden understood worship had no choice but to give the Yidden a mitzvah of Raman brings this Ram in the beginning of he asks many on this Ram his biggest question that he asks is that it says in the how could the Ram say that has nothing from It's a mikram. It says, but either way that's on the ra. The question is what did the mean? Most people learn that the rabb meant what what the rabb says he meant in the cashes. But brings from the inn who says a whole different in the ra and he says the belt makes a place in the ram. The Ram never meant that. What the Ram really meant was But the point is he didn't mean the way people understand the Rama. Here's the punch line. The punch line is says, you know what? Not the he thinks made it up. No, no, no. He understands he's not an in that sense. He's not a man, but he BELIEVES WHAT SOME people think the Rama meant that gave us a mitzvah of carbon, but he never really wanted the carbon. It was all to be the of the who at the time because that was the only way they understood how to worship. IF THAT'S WHAT the thinks, he doesn't appreciate that Hashem has a from the that he's doing. And in his mind, he thinks all he's doing is somehow distancing the Jewish people a little bit farther from the of that person is the has to believe that the doing is and he thinks it's all the simple reading of the so you see how felt that that's not the he that's either So converted and he had a cow a cow. So like this actually if it was before the gas he's being that heed it before the he's going to be if however he shacked it after the gay. So it doesn't matter that he bought it before, but if he is did it afterwards being that he's aid safic, let's say it is a suffic. We're not sure when exactly the gus happened relative to when this was slaughtered. So what's this was Sunday that if you have a suffic we treat it like a suffix you have a suffic right now if I have an obligation can't come to me and say give me you're not sure whether I'm just like the ley ra said potter thus because of here it's a you have a suffic whether this g Not like came from to he related the following incident that took place between cash on this mission. Our mission is clear that if you have a suffic whether someone's suffic from a so was discussing ant holes that are inside the that a person has on his field and the person when he went through his field he found little strands of straw inside the hole. What's the shila? The shila is is that leet or is it not le? And really it depends on when it fell. If they fell while he was harvesting, it would be considered le if however they were there prior then it wouldn't be considered. So the says very simply if you see it amongst the meaning you didn't harvest your field yet and you see in the ant holes a little bit of it's clearly not like it. If however you found it after you're ready the ones that towards the top towards the opening the mouth of the hole so that you have to be concerned maybe fell while you were harvesting you have to give it to the and the ones that's on the bottom you give to the said no you always if you find it in an you're giving it to the you know why because it's always a sophic says and sophic it like it. So we know so in our mission you have a say you give it you keep it because and here you have a say but you don't say but rather we say what he told him very often in don't ask me questions from that mission you know I I know of that and I know it's but we're as it sounds like everybody was in agreement that said it. I don't agree that every okay everybody agrees said it but rather it was that said it may not you can't ask and Rashi says this was an expression he says you're telling me that said it because said it. So you're not impressed. He said I don't care that a said it and I wouldn't even care if the wasn't a who was a even if it was Ben who Rashi says was a but regardless doesn't matter who said it I know the reason for that doesn't mean right those are poor people doesn't mean you're supposed to be mastic them when they come to right so if you're a judge and an on a rush is standing in front of court, you know, understand, be sensitive to his financial situation and try to show him favoritism. That's not what it means. What does it mean? It means if there's a suffic whether you have to give something to you're supposed to give it to him says you leave it. You keep it. I have a say it. And by the way, I think it's a mayor. Anybody of you going to tell me that's so forget the steers mayor but I know the reason of that the reason of that is is that you always give it to the rush. So based on that you give it to the as well. So he wanted to know why in our mission do we say how does that a with that and b with the concept of said it's very simple basic Columbus who owned the before the suffic when did the gay happen before the gus happened owned it own it so being that the said that your potter So you're going to remain potter but over here there was a there was a a field and a field means now you have a you go based on the which is and therefore you're going to be said that answers this question but I'll ask you another and this is a this is again a non-Jew that converted to Judaism and at the same time he was baking and he had dough. So the is like this actually in if he prepared the dough before the gist because at the time that the dough was prepared he wasn't a thus if I prepared it after the gist what's if you're going to tell me that the way you look at the suffic just like in our over here the as well so you should be part so no is already Because in you're dealing with a sufferer if you eat dough without being it's like eating there there's this questions of that's very very this original discussion was dealing with two that didn't involve doesn't involve even though yesterday said that if somebody eats it's as if he ate but the said that we don't pass like that so there's no question And in the case of like it's not a sh there's a mitzvah to give there's a mitzvah to give like a but there's no when you're dealing with of course you always go to how do I know that when there's eight where discuss when it comes to you have a sh was now later yes there's a suffic when the garis happened relative to a specific eight times that it was discussed four of for a description of exactly what these things mean. But the point is we are carbon a woman is the and there's a suffix when she was relative to when she had a baby. So does she have to bring the carbon or does she not that's what we just discussed relative to in those cases the questions of Rashi says that they involve misdes It's just a question of a mitzvah. Either way, Sabay said, "I have precedence for what I said." Regardless, the began its discussion with a question that reported when he came from asked what was the question. Mishna says suffic regarding the discusses where if you find this le in an ant you treat it as and seems to be suffic when came from he reported as he often did a little bit differently he said the steer wasn't from but it was a steer from to which would mean it's not really so relevant to our peric double learning right now. Rashi said he must had another that also mentioned and that was the original question that had begun this discussion. Either way digresses a drop ley planted in to take the coming I have the le it's been sitting outside for days. Nobody's coming to take it. Like what what's my obligation? It says he's supposed to leave it for the you don't have to leave it for the ravens. You don't have to leave it for the bats. If no one's coming to pick it up, you can keep it for yourself. You don't have an obligation to take your truma from the and bring it into the city. Or if you live in the midbar, bring it into the to go find a kite. That's not something you're obligated to do. You don't have to search after a kite. But at the same time, what you do have to do is ancient K. If there's no K where you are and the Tuma is starting to spoil, you at the very least would have to expense a little bit. So you'd have to hire a par and store it. Maybe they have such a you don't want the tuma to go back. You don't have to go find a but you can't keep it. So what's the difference? Why is it that when it comes to said you don't have to leave it for the ravens and the bats keep it mean you don't have to store it and wait for to show up you leave it there if nobody picks it up enjoy it whereas when it comes to truma you have to go find the truma so what's the obvious answer it's it's you need to be maf you can't just eat it if doesn't show up but says what which is not we said we don't pass yesterday's where the minute is that people would not remove the skin of an animal before they cooked it. So if you have so you shouldn't take anything off meaning if Dominican this is the way people cook it when they put it on the grill. So you should leave it in its natural form when you give it to the you can give it to the anyways the question should I skin it should I remove the here don't touch it leave it if people leave it then you shall leave it if however let's say the so then you would say okay go based on the be no also we need the next part of the let's say there's no if you can't find the then what you should do is you should be so you should take transfer the kaduca onto money. Wait until you find the kay and give him the money. Here you have again a where you have to find the ken. You see you can't just let it go bad and say I'm not leaving it for a raven so I'm going to eat it. No, you have to do something. You have to be proactive. You have to make sure the kite's going to get it in a healthy form. I hear it's not a question of now you tell me where it says you have to find it says right so in the beginning of the week we saw what was the you have no it says thus you don't have that was the verb we spoke up for why we tell the that's what we tell the g follow about the mitzvah of like because we show him that you don't even have when it comes to giving over here you have it in the context over here you have it with regards to a different if no comes you can keep it which is a whereas truma where it says so you have the you have no choice they have to find it says says the word twice by so if the extra is coming to teach me not regarding but regarding then I know what to do with it but according to this that we're saying that the only time you have is by but by and by you don't have so why did the use the actual word look completely different if somebody's makes his wakes up in the morning so he He had remorse. He was masquer. And then the morning he woke up, he says, "Yeah, maybe that wasn't such a good idea." So he goes and he makes it. So if someone's claiming something from half he's part from but let's say you yourself made it half you were in a half you'll be you'll be from the why you those four things because it says twice once to tell me it was mine once to tell me that if I was and I was I'm still going to be one final somebody walked into Bish and he had a sack full of coins and he was going to give it to the rabbis. So the Gmorra says got up and he wanted it. We had this in yesterday's right used to go after the and he would take away the then he would ask nicely and then he didn't even take it anymore because it says you're not supposed to take it take it. Now the truth is that venasan is talking about matan. This is not matan. This is just money and but the assumption is if there's an idea a principle of as it relates to you should have it here as well was taking it was he was actually entitled to it this is the course but say he's he should be more handsome than and his brothers wiser wealthier. What if not wealthier? So you have to you have to make sure he becomes wealthier school as he was entitled to take this. Just to end with one and that is that just finished with something that we saw in greater detail in yesterday's d and that is that even though are entitled to this royal and they shouldn't go after it. It says not the the owner decide who he's going to give it to. Don't even try to in a in a nice roundabout way get the miskuna. And if you remember the Gomorrah told a story the Gomorrah said that Ra and Raf Safra were once sitting in somebody's house and the gabi of that house was a and he was going to take the roy of the iglats of this very animal that had just been slaughtered and wanted the tongue of that animal. The tongue is part of the he wasn't really entitled to it. So he asked the the says you're a cayenne and said that if a wants he can be mak is so that the can get it directly from the other is like it doesn't even have to stop over in the kan's hand. So Raba says you know maybe zak to me the the tongue it's I want it with mustard that's what raba said he wanted and said zaka wouldn't eat it raba did eat it but rashi that asked the kasha rashi says it sounds like from the rabba wasn't a kayen because if raba was a kay could have demanded it as he said I'm a kayen you know I want the tongue can I please have the tongue if raba needed to come ontoes of yesterday's d take it via the ken with that it sounds like rabba clearly was not a And it talks about the curse of the family of a when no one was going to live to 18 past 18 years. And and the gar over there says that and both came from the family of a who was lived till he was 40. He lived 60 years. But the point is if came from the family of that by definition means he was a kay. If he was a then why did he have to go through to take the man was entitled to it as a rash said a very said that mean that it says didn't want to take it he didn't want to take it as because he knew the that is not supposed to go after but he felt that if he's taking it not but I'm going to get it secondhand already maybe in that instance it's okay so you want to know if rubber was entitled to take it yeah why flush is going to not it. So if you wanted he could have taken it. THE PROBLEM IS YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TAKE IT OUT. So said I'm not going to take it. So he went over to the guy. He said listen I know you're going to get it and do me a favor to me. He's not taking it as being that he's not taking it as it's for that reason it's going to be okay. If you take a look at typhus the last on the short tus it's an easy tus SAYS BECAUSE OF this where it's mash that could not go directly and take the maton he had to take it indirectly you see from here that he wasn't a both came from you have to say that it wasn't it was really and so many times in there with and the propag is not it's rabb because if in fact came from a then was a if he was a why do I have to go through this whole why do I need to take it this way just take it directly it wasn't okay bottom line so we have the right was it of that came from bi or was it raayo that came from bi rashi scar says that it was Ra which implies Ra was a kite. If that's the case, why'd you rather have to go through this roundabout way in our to take the ter because he held up this of that held of and the last that we just learned held not that way is held that if could have taken an alken wasn't a garrison is not the garrison is really in a very short comment in his on a rush. says, "I'm going to bring you a that I think is a not meaning to that." It was not to that says as follows. Kamed Rabo Abaya and Raa were young children and they were sitting in front of Rabba Rabba who would become Ra's rebi he would become Abaya's Rabi Mu he adopted Abaya was a and adopted him and brought him into his house he literally raised him so Rabbi turns to these young boys and he says you know when you make a who you making a toem who are you talking to I'm relay This is what I mean. So, where is hem? So, pointed to the ceiling. He pointed up, let's walk outside. He pointed to the heavens. said, "You're both going to be big." A farmer can look at his plants and and he could already tell from a very young unripened stage what the future lies for these for these fruit for these plants. But either way, Rabbi was amazing and he was able to tell from this story that Abaya and Raa were destined for greatness. There's a lot to take out of this gam but we need a very arbitrary point and that is that and were children at the same time they were both kids that's the boots and boots they were both young at the same time and rabbis saw in them that they were prodigies that they were destined for gods but the point is that they were children at the very same time another brought us this is a gur the discuss is used to dream the same dreams every night and they used to go to a place of we mentioned this briefly yesterday and he used to be used to pay him he got great interpretations didn't he got lousy interpretations one day rabba heard that really the piss of it all depends on the person so he realized that if he's on his good side everything is going to work out better so the Garra says from that point forward used to go would go and he would pay and every dream that he would tell him everything was great. So one night Ra has a dream and he comes to and he tells him I had a dream and in my dream Abay's house fell it literally came down to the ground and the dust of house covered me what does this dream mean you told you you know what it means is going to pass away and you're going to his yeshiva his all going to go to you you're going to be to every continues telling different dreams. At the end, the Gmorra says that all the dreams that Raa had and told him were going to play out played out the way he said it was going to. If that's the case, it comes out very clearly that passed away before Ra, right? It's clear because that was the dream. The dream was that Abaya's house fell. Ra was covered in the dust of Abaya's house. The piss of the was that he's going to go ahead. Which means that who outlived who outlived another's wife once came to court and she said you know my husband passed away and the estate is supporting me and I want you to support me. So Raa sat down with his best and they decided how much support needed. Then she said, "I want some wine also." So told listen, I knew your husband very well. I knew he never drank wine. If he didn't drink wine, you didn't drink wine. So she told him, she says, "You know how much wine he drank?" And she exposed her arm and she said, "This is how much wine. You thought you knew Abaya. I'm telling you that Abaya used to drink wine and this is how much wine he used to drink and he used to give me wine. I'm used to drinking wine and based on the I'm entitled to wine. The gumar says that when she exposed her arm, so older were a little bit taken aback that this act of somewhat pitus took place in the in the court in the best of the says left and he was wife who was daughter who was in today that in the middle of the day you're coming you're being said it was also's wife was very upset at his wife. So she chased her and she started hitting her live until she literally threw at she said you already killed three wife's wife had buried three husbands and now you want to kill somebody else but again it's an interesting story but what's the takeaway for what we need right now is who died first died before I have a few says were give or take the same age. They were children at the same time. They were both children standing in front of Ra. I have two and a says that passed away before. If that's the case, and both came from the family of who learned till he was 40 said lived till he was 60. If they were kids at the same time and lived 20 years longer than who died first passed away before it's not TRUE must be the notably whether it was whether it was I Lead on a check made proof that it's rabbi.