בענין שהי׳ במיעוט בתרא

So, as it relates to raid, so we mentioned already what part of the daf the focus is going to be. Just want to be shy of one second. Okay. So, the raid is going to focus on one line on daf on the base of the daf with the Gemara brought up festive by Rav Huna brother of Rav Nachman. Rav Huna brother of Nachman posed the following question. Sha'ab mi'ut simanim. As she explained, the shaila of the Gemara is what would be if a shochet shechted ro'ev of the simanim and then he was shaya. He was shaya. Is that shehiya a problem or is that shehiya not a problem? And the Gemara said, take tishbi at kashya of the ba'is. Now, what are the stadam of the shaila? So, Rashi explained. Rashi said, do you say that being that he shechted ro'ev and ro'ev is really all that you have to do is kasha. At that point, it's kosher. So, what's going to run if afterwards you were shaya? You were shaya at a point that the animal was already kosher. Once I do a kosher shchita, at that point, all bets are off. I could do whatever you want. Or do you Or do you say keivan d'havah d'havah gamrah, being that afterwards he went ahead and he finished the shchita, kulah chada shchita, we have to look at the whole Indian as being one long shchita. So, what's the shaila? The shaila is really in order for a shchita siman to be a shchita siman, all you have to do is shecht ro'ev of the simanim. In this case, I shechted ro'ev of the simanim. Fine. Now, what is the mi'ut? What's known in the vernacular as the mi'ut pasul, that still needs to happen. But that mi'ut pasul is extra credit. I don't really have to do it. So, there's what to say, I could do shecht whatever I want during that mi'ut pasul. Why should that be an issue? What's the other side? Or do you say keivan d'havah d'havah gamrah, kulah chada shchita, being that I decided I didn't have to do it, but I decided to do it. And once I decided to go ahead and do it, now already it matters how I do it. I'm going to call my stuff correct. So, in the way I didn't have to do it. But the nicer, I did do it. Once I volunteered to do it, so at this point we need to help them. We need to reckon with what it is I did. And at that point there is a a mocking to say that in the event there was a shield going to be an issue. What was the Gamora's mask on a table? That's what she says. The thing that the Gamora came out take all the love that Allah has to go to Gamora. And therefore, if somebody is going to be shy in the mirror pastor the lucky is going to be right. Truth is, we had a very very similar Gamora on that lemon on the base. And there it was Rapapop who cleared the shiva. One line Gamora right before the mission. Hush. Boy, Rapapop Rapapop cleared hush he didn't yet see money. If somebody did right of the shiva and then he had a lot in the mirror of the same in now what's the law and the Gamora says take all over there just like the Gamora said take all over here. So, in our sugar it's boy Rapapop and Rapapop shut up in the mirror of the same in and on that lemon on the base it's boy Rapapop he didn't yet see money. In both places Rashi explains the shiva in the identical way and in both cases the Gamora gives the same response take all and in both places Rashi says being that it's a take all it's a soft and therefore the law is that we are going to go the home. So, according to Rashi we have two Gamoras that essentially discussed identical shiva. Very long distance shiva but identical shiva. What would be a shiva did a shiva shiva on right of the same in and then in the mirror pastor he made a mistake. On lemon on the base the mistake was he did a lot of on lemon on the base of the mistake was he did shiva. Would that be a problem or not? What's the side it shouldn't be a problem it's already kosher. What's the side it shouldn't be a problem? Maybe call my stuff correct. You didn't have to go right in but the minute you decided to go right in that in of itself maybe creates a an issue. And Rashi says that the mask on all of take in both cases is the same as well, and that is that we're going to go to Tosfos in a very long Tosfos on asks a great kasha on shitas Rashi. This kasha is from another Gemara that we learned together on By the way, we're going to chazer a lot of what we did this first month in in this way. Remember, there was a Mishnah on a like R' Yosi and R' Yehuda and the What would be if somebody did over the shchit in the right place and he did a meat of the shchita in the wrong place? So, if someone does a shchita on the corner and the gets everything right, but it's on the wrong part of the corner and the it's what's known as And the shaila is what would be if the shchita was done but there was a meat of the shchita that was done Would that be a problem or would that not be a problem? And it was a like between R' Yehuda and the But then there was a very long One of the most long ones that we've learned together so far on with the Gemara actually showing this in terms of what exactly what exactly the case was where R' Yehuda and the were arguing. In one listener of the Gemara, the is talking about the is talking about where you over did it good and then afterwards you went ahead and then afterwards you went ahead and you colored out of the lines. According to the even though that you got right, remember the don't hold of that side of the Gemara, and as a result it's going to be a problem. According to R' Yehuda, that's not going to be an issue. If, however, you did the first part of it out and then afterwards you got of it right, in that situation I'll leave it to It's going to be a problem. The It could be It could be the whole of but in the event that you went ahead and you did of it right and then at the end you messed up a little bit of cool yama it's going to be okay. That says according to the first the is when you got two thirds of it right and then the mid posture was the issue. According to is a big problem. According to it's not going to be a problem. According to the second in that case nobody holds it's a problem. Because you got it right. The one with the first one was a problem. Where I started off by and then afterwards I made up for it in spades. There you hold I made up for it it's going to be fine. According to being that I started off not okay, it's not going to be good. One thing is clear in both I leave it to if I get it right and then afterwards I end up a drama that it's going to be fine. In the first that issue and in the second everybody agrees to that. But for sure in it's going to be okay. We if you remember from that was from That if that's the case what emerges is everybody holds that if I did the two thirds right and then the last I did it's going to be kosher. So it says why isn't it on the base if the mid posture or on the base of where you had who had nothing show the mid posture and in both cases it was a and it says being that it's a you go to the right. Mid posture and show the mid posture from and posture from we pass like which according to which according to both that is it's going to be kosher. So it says from the that the Rebbe said you have to say there's a difference between Halacha and Shira on the one hand versus Hagroma on the other hand. What's the difference? The Halacha and the Shira happen in the Makom of the Shira. The Hagroma happens not in the Makom of the Shira. If I theoretically do Shira in the Makom of the Shira, that's considered a Hamshacha of the Shira and there the Halacha is that in the event that I mess up, so then maybe it's going to be an issue. Hagroma being that it's happening so later Makom the Shira. So when there's really no difference, it's as if someone had chopped off the foot. It's not the Makom Shira. The starting point of every Shira is you have to be in the right Makom. If a man in the Makom, it's not a Shira. The whole union of there being a Musak that the meat basar can impact is if it's a Hefsek of a Shira. Halacha is a Hefsek of a Shira. Shira is a Hefsek of a Shira. Now what if I just didn't do it properly? Hagroma is not a Hefsek of a Shira because it's so late in the Makom. And being that it's not a Hefsek of a Shira, there's no way after the Rebbe, you can mess up a Shira with a meat basar. If it's not the Hefsek of a Shira, why? Because it wasn't in the Makom of the Shira. In fact, the Rebbe went further. The Rebbe said what would be if there was an Ikur on the meat basar? So that's another one of the five Halachas from Moshe Rabbeinu. What would be if the meat basar was Nekar? So I guess it's possible to me that would be like Hagroma. It wouldn't be like Halacha and like Shira. And the reason is because Ikur is not a Shira at all. And being that it's not a Shira at all, so it's possible you could have messed it up. If I did a Shira on the meat basar nervous, I tripped up, I did the Shira in the wrong way, I did it by Halacha, you couldn't see the knife, I did it by Shira, I waited too long. Okay, so there is a Sugya of Shira with a meat basar. Oh, but I would say it's not Shira. It's not Shira because it's not in the Makom. Is it not Shira because it's an Ikur? You have to know what about the Rebbe. But the bottom line is not all five of the Halachas from Moshe Rabbeinu are created equally. Some of them are Hefsek of a Shira nervous, this is how you do the Shira. Others are not Hefsek of a Shira. Where it's Hefsek of a Shira, that's where there's a Sugya of the meat basar. Where it's not Hefsek >> Either way, it goes right there. And twice this says that as much as Rashi said of shot which at first glance is better of shot and the Rebbe came to the defense of Rashi. But at the end of the day, he brings for me the time to be the time couldn't hear Rashi's shot. But at the time could not fathom for the life of his house possible that if I did a kosher shita I don't care if the did it mock him not mock him. At the end of the day, the animal is kosher. And now I'm going to go right there and I'm going to slap the meat pasta. And now because of that, I'm going to create an issue that's impossible. And because of that, we going to tell my whole different in the sugya. We going to tell my whole different in the sugya of the meat and the papa shalom and the base. And the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat and the shalom of the meat And we going to use of the sugya that you test you have to come on to the Rebbe's terrace. We going to use of other cashes that Rebbe had. But the bottom line is you walk away with a major Rashi and Rebbe and this is shita, right? This is as fundamental as it gets. And you have a tremendous according to Rashi in the event that would be a shita in the meat pasta take all the that is would be a problem. According to Rebbe there's no problem in the world. If someone does a shita in the meat pasta there is no issue. This is absolutely positively not going to be a problem. In fact, if you take a look at the shita of the that if somebody does a shita or a with the meat pasta, you have nothing to worry about. Based on the shita of Rebbe. By the way, the Rebbe has a different in the sugya not like Rashi. More like Rebbe it's a shita and Rebbe and Rebbe and Rebbe and Rebbe there's a lot of Rebbe. But the bottom line is the pasta of the is not like Rashi. And then the Rebbe says you to be machmir with the meat basar with Rebbe no again." And that's based on Rashi's pshet in Kudashim, that even though I already got it kosher, but there's a musaf of being musaf gorer. The animal's kosher, but I somehow have a way to go ahead and mess it up after the fact. So, I think it's kedai for a minute to talk a little bit about shittas Rashi. It's a fascinating shitta. I think it's kedai to talk about a little bit. So, again, Rashi holds that if a shoychet did a shchiita, he shachted rov of the simanim. After the animal is 100% kosher. Right, let's get this clear a little bit. If it's an oif, you only have to shacht one siman, right? So, you shachted rov of that siman. If it's a beheima, the shiya happened after you shachted rov of the second siman, right? Because, for example, if you did a a shiya in between the two simanim, that in itself would be an issue. Halacha, it doesn't matter which one it is. But, the bottom line is in a case where the animal became kosher because it was rov of the kavois, rov of the simanim of the beheima. I did everything, but I still walk you went ahead and you messed up. So, shittas Rashi is that it was an ibaya in the Gemara, and being that the Gemara said teiku, so at the end of the day, we're we're meshubas, we have no choice, we have to go with him. The Rashba in his Toras Habayis and the Maharshal in his Yam Shel right here in perek asher they both bring shittas Rashi. They both myrekhin shittas Rashi, and they both say that when Rashi learned the Gemara and Rashi saw an ibaya of hekh with the meat basar or shav meat basar, that maybe it should be a problem. The problem is only with the rabbonan. It's poshut mid'oraisa that it can't be a problem. How could it be a problem? Once you have a kosher shchiita, you have a kosher shchiita. The whole issue is mid'oraisa uh issue mid'oraisa. What would be the reason for there to be an issue mid'oraisa? The reason that they would be machkim to have an issue mid'oraisa is because there's a gzeira meat basar or meat kavois. But, really, avada ikar hadin, so the Rashba in Toras Habayis when he discusses shittas Rashi and the Maharshal in his Yam Shel that it's poshut mid'oraisa there was never a tzadd. Mid'oraisa, Rashi knew everything Rabbeinu Tam holds. Now he held that there's a swarm of the rabbinical to be going to meet basra up to the milk town stating that it's worth showing him that's what this is discussed. He brings from that went up and Rashi that this is not a of the rabbinical this is a day right so and the truth is it's a very good to say that it's a day right so cuz Rashi by both when the said take a look. Actually says that he got to go and the rabbinical is a day right so speak of the right so if it's only of the rabbinical then why you going to so what's the carrots so some say this is a rabbinical that holds that every single time you have to take a chance even if it's a by the rabbinical teach me cuz me until it is becomes we have to go to and Rashi maybe held like that but it's a little bit it's nice to if Rashi said that you're going to go to it's probably cuz it's a day right so. If that's the case that means if you mess up on the basra even though you technically already have a kosher it would be okay and at first glance you can be what's possible Rashi how can it be that once I already have a kosher it's true it's different than but at the end of the day what's possible shot that this should be since you do that. The Jews of food. That the base of Levy and base similar to it. Said a beer in this world to say Rashi. That is. It's like this Levy doesn't say it in these words but just to set it up. In a very simple way I think and that is like that. What is like that when we say there's an idea of like what's the shot is the like all I have to do is right. So you have to check the cinnamon. Oh like that so really I only have to check with the cinnamon. Or like cool, it mean that the shear is right. Rubik Kukuloi means that the sheer is Kukuloi. I really have to shacht the entire thing. Now, what Rubik Kukuloi tells me a chiddush that when I shacht roiv, that meat that to you doesn't look severed, well, if you would have dasturio and you would have in your diggoyim, you would know that it really is severed. Because by me going ahead and doing roiv, it's nachshav ki'ilu the entire thing was really done. Is Rubik Kukuloi the taish that the sheer is roiv? And anything beyond roiv is no shiyachus, it's not part of the shchita. Or Rubik Kukuloi is the taish the sheer is Kukuloi, but when I go ahead and I do roiv, it's as if I really got the Kukuloi. So, the Beis HaLevi, if Rubik Kukuloi means that the sheer is roiv, so what happens after the roiv is no shiyachus to the shchita. If, however, Rubik Kukuloi means that when I do roiv, it's as if I shachted Kukuloi, that means that the kiyum of the shchita is really not happening in the roiv. It's happening in the Kukuloi. Now, granted, no one's going to argue, and this is the leap you're going to have to take one of shach, however you're going to ever want to learn this Rashi, that if the person wanted after he shachted the roiv, he could have swords down, literally, and he could have dropped the guns and the knives and walked away. That would have been fine. That would have been nachshav as if he did Kukuloi by doing roiv. But he decided not to. But here's the point, when he decided not to, when he shachted more than roiv, it was chals shchiten the meat basar. You know why? Because even when you do Rubik Kukuloi, it's chals shchiten the meat basar. Because that's the taish of Rubik Kukuloi that when I do roiv, it's nachshav as if I did everything. A viffel it's chals shchiten the meat basar, so now you did a meisa shchita b'chalada. Dead. Goodbye. You're out. I did a meisa shchita with you. I I didn't have to. You didn't have to, but you decided to. You could have leveraged You know, sometimes people in life they give you a way out. You don't take it, you don't take it. If you wanted, you could have gotten that meat faster on a shrita. Cuz in the end but you didn't with a shrita. If there's no halal shrita in the meat faster, then it doesn't make sense that halal then shia should be a problem. As you'll tell me but there are other examples. But that's the ash for the shlima, but that's the more conventional way to understand Rashi. The more of a balabatish way to understand Rashi. But I mean you're looking and it's actually much further away from the fact that Rashi seems to have approaches as a safek d'oraita. Well, that's the case of the Beit HaLevi. It's much to say a vart. And the vart is you have to say that when you go ahead and you shat the meat faster, it's a shrita. It's a shrita. It's a shrita. I What do you mean? Once I do right, I don't have to shat more. But that just means that without shating more, it's considered shat. But at the end of the day at the end of the day, if I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to shat it, now where it's going to be called the shrita on the meat faster is not out the right. It's going to be called the shrita because of the fact that I shated it. If I don't shat it, then it's called the shrita on your day the right. And I had that option. But the minute I go ahead and shat it, you're going to tell me it was called the shrita out the right? No. If I go ahead and I shat it, now it's already called the shrita on your day my shrita. And it's for that reason, if I do it with halal or or if I do it with shia, that instance at that instance it's already going to be a problem. One of the things the Beit HaLevi says you could be mavier is And again, we're doing this in the spirit a little bit of hazara. We could do the shorter version of this, but I think it's gishmak to have hazara in a lot of gemaras now. And that is that Rashi himself on daf lamed amud bet in the sugya of hekhde d'meir simanu ma'u teiku, Rashi himself asks a great akasha on himself. And that is Rashi says that if you remember, we had a gemara. What would be if somebody shated hatzi gargeres? The sh'or b'kedei sh'ita acheres the gomel. So the halacha is shchitah is kosher, right? So what would be is shoyech when he shachted half of the gargeres. And then he was shoyeh, and then he completed it kosher. What's posul shacht? The reason is cuz psukos of gargeres up to half is not an issue. And being that it's not an issue, you didn't really start the shchitah yet. So you were shoyeh essentially posul shchitah. If you were shoyeh posul shchitah, if you gomur shchitah posul, so it was never a shiyur, it's gonna be kosher. If I start the shchitah and I'm shoyeh, that's a problem. When it comes to the konah, being that up to half is not an issue, so we don't look at it as shchitah. If you don't look at it as shchitah, if you're gonna have a shiyur, it's not gonna be an issue. Now the gomorrah asks the kasheh. Rav holds mechtza mechtza is koroyev. And in the sugah of beitzah and daf chof tes amud aleph, and daf chof tes amud aleph, the gomorrah told them when Rav said mechtza mechtza is koroyev, what it means is that even with regards to the halachos of shchitah, if you would go ahead and you would shacht half, with regards to the halachos of treifus, a mechtza mechtza in of itself would be considered a roiv. So the gomorrah asks the kasheh, that according to Rav that holds mechtza mechtza is koroyev, why isn't that shacht at chotzi gargeres posul because of kedushas shchitah acheres and gomur shchitah is kosher? Freigt. Freigt the gomorrah. If you're gonna tell me that mechtza is koroyev, so when you were shacht at chotzi gargeres, what were you really shoyecht? You were really shoyecht roiv. And if you were shoyecht roiv, so that means that when you were shoyeh now, you were shoyeh be'emtza. You were shoyeh be'emtza of the shchitah. And if you were shoyeh be'emtza of the shchitah, so at that point you should have yourself a problem, right? So the gomorrah's kasheh was bishlamah if mechtza mechtza is not koroyev, so I didn't start the shchitah when I was shacht at chotzi gargeres. But if mechtza mechtza is koroyev, so when I shachted chotzi gargeres, now did I start the shchitah? I finished the shchitah, I'm done. It's already a roiv, right? I'm these of that one siman. So if I shachted that one siman, now that I'm shoyeh, I was a shoyeh be'emtza with simon. If I was a shoving simon with simon, should be possible. What was the Gamorah's carrots? Me sound the behavior like that. We're not talking about a behavior. You're right, in the case of a behavior, when you shafted half of the gargoyles, and then you were sure you So then you have a sheer pain gargoyles like that. But we're talking about where you shafted a knife. If you shafted a knife, this is not a problem. Cuz when you shafted a knife, all you need to do is shaft one simon. And if you would shaft mechtal mechtal of the gargoyles of the knife The moment of shafting Gamorah said it's not a problem. Right, those were the words of the Gamorah. The moment of shaft. If you hold mechtal mechtal is correct, so then you're done. So what's the sheer? There's not going to be a problem. And if you hold mechtal mechtal is not correct, so then you didn't start the shaft. So either you finished it if mechtal mechtal is correct, or you didn't start it cuz mechtal mechtal is not like the hell Rashi. Now it's interesting Rashi asks it on laminal base, not on laminal base at all. This is actually more appropriate for laminal base at all. But again, you see Rashi holds the two shallows and manages the same. Why is one Rashi upper one of Rashi and Rashi But you see clearly Rashi held it was the same kasha. Like Rashi kasha, if you're going to tell me that shoving me a bastard is a takeo, so what was the Gamorah's me mana of shaft? What's so me mana of shafting about this? It's not so partial at all. It's totally in disgrace the shallow over here. It's totally what's the law in the event that somebody is shoving me a bastard. What did Gamorah say? You want to know why there's no problem with mechtal mechtal is correct if you go ahead and you shaft that next piece. The reason is because we're dealing with a knife. A knife even mechtal mechtal is correct, you're done. So if you're done, what's the problem of sheer? Um that's the Gamorah's boy on laminal base at all. And the Gamorah applied with a takeo. So what the Gamorah was not sure about on laminal base at all, the Gamorah was totally sure about on test at all. Like the hell Rashi, what's going on over here? And Rashi says and this is a bomber kasha. And really it's there's no way to learn my understanding. It's a kasha only according to Rashi, not a kasha according to Rashi. In fact, Rashi it comes this as a riot of cash is one of the times cash is a rashid. But rashid himself does address this cash here, right? The sabbath time he addressed this cash here and he said a reason. And you know what he said? Louis some of us she knew you. Not so worried about that tomorrow. The who the doctor cuz that was all one big deal here cuz the doctor knew at the end of the day that not correct. Anyways, the whole cash in the long run the whole rough sheet of correct with the shaming cuz there's issues and this is not it. But at the end of the day this is neither here nor there. This is this is the way rashid started to discuss this. Doctor Levine of the doctor Levine that we might have run in rashid and if the cash is franklin stone and I think the terrorists is the two top. What's the reason doctor Levine that it'd be mocking to say? What's the reason that it'd be mocking to say that in the event that somebody goes ahead and he shove me at it should be initial. What's the over here of some of the the here is what's the stuff? On the one hand I did a sheet on the right. Being that I did a sheet on the right so it was already house sheet on the house sheet on the it's so what am I going ahead? It's kosher. So why am I going ahead now? This is a hook of a tool what I'm doing afterwards. What's the other side? The other side is but at the end of the day it's it is house sheet on that and being that it is house sheet on that so it's for that reason it could be I did for I decided not to work with Ruby I want to go ahead and do a sheet of some of that's the case it's going to be okay. That's all true doctor Levine if I checked it right. That's good if I checked it right. In the case of next to arrive which is what the is handling on that of an hour. Doctor Levine I'm going to tell you double portion. Even if you hold next to next to arrive it's impossible to say that the sheet that I did in this next to next to arrive should be in the other next to that I didn't do a sheet on. You know why? Because my causes high next to me my messed up. If I for sure did a shita on roiv, and there's a lot of roiv could cool off, so then you could say that what I did in the roiv, I really did in the miut. And therefore, there's no way to say being that the miut was done by conscious, even though I decided to go over it again, it's going to be kosher. You know what I mean? And that's the shalom with that table. I was talking to Beis Halevi where I'm working with mechtza al mechtza keroiv, with that all I have, so there's no way to say mechtza al mechtza keroiv that if I do a shita on this half, for sure for sure, that means that it's going to be chos shita on the other half. It's It's an impossibility. Right? You can't say that the shita is going to be chos on the other half, because then you're going to have to say my causes, right? The hechesi, this should be any any better than that. Well, let's read inside. The kozeh nichal lifnei emes the mechtza al mechtza in the keroiv. For I'm miskashya beheimah rakisha shocheches roiv. A v'da feimah d'ha asiflei mei koroiv. Al liba d'Rav mechtza al mechtza keroiv, the gam b'shocheches rak chatzi asim in shochat atiro. U'l'fi zeh, harei ein mokem loimer da'as ha'midei'as b'chilo. U'mishum d'chashvinan gam l'chetzi asheni shel asim k'ilu shochat. You can't say that the reason the other half is shochat is because of the roiv. Harei mai omei chatzi asim in anishkat m'chetzi anishat d'neimah d'zeh yei chazeh. For I never heard that. Maybe say the other way. Being that the half of it is not shochat, the half that's shochat should also be a problem. U'v'al korach chavinan muchrach loimer. It would have been muchrach. The kacha halacha. The kosha chatzi shel asim in shochat niteres b'chilo keivan d'ein roiv asim kai. It'd be muchrach to say that as long as I shochat half, being that I don't have roiv remaining, that in itself would be okay. For you muchrach loimer da'achetzi asheni ein tzorach b'shochat k'me d'reisha gam l'chatchila. It would be muchrach that I don't need shochat on the other half. D'ein loimer d'l'chatchila tzorach vadai d'yei makem gam b'di'eved. Then how the world would this work out? So the base of the navy if you hold you need right so then this market to say the way it works is works on the entire center. And when I say right of it I get on the entire center. And that's the side wall. How do you treat now the mid pasture? If however is and when I say that in of itself is going to be okay the gathers of the base of the navy can't be that when I get as if I got the whole thing because there's no real right. What's made of it then? It can't mean because it starts with a and the numbers are not working in your advantage. So what then must the gather be? The gather must be that when I go ahead and I do that's all I need to do. The other doesn't bother me and that's the if the gather of the bottom is that all I need to do is that if the gather is that all I have to do is that well if that's the case that other area is not part of the if that area is not part of the there's no reason in the world why a or a should ever be an issue. The only time there was a that the and the should be an issue is if that's part and parcel of the if you hold that you need a bonafide right which of course is the and then already [snorts] this market to say that that really it's how in if I decided to go ahead and I decided to do it on myself so the that maybe there's going to be an issue. But in the which is going next time next to arrive that would then mean that in order to do a proper all I have to do is so what's the why should the whole thing be okay? The must be I don't need to be in the whole corner. All I need is for shita how matzah. I don't need to be how in the whole matzah. All I need is for it to be how in the matzah. If all I need is for it to be how in the matzah, that means the other half is no shaikhas to the shita. That's like a grumble like the Rebbe once said. That's like the foot. That's not part and parcel of the equation. If that's the case, it's possible it wouldn't be an issue. So, zukt the Beis HaLevi that the whole half a minute, that this shouldn't ever be an issue when it comes to the meat basar. That whole side, that's only nigaya where that's only nigaya if the halacha is ruba shalach kamayo. Where ruba shalach is kamayo, so there is a halacha that you have to have the roiv. And if you don't have the roiv, in that still there's a halacha that it's that what you do in the roiv is how in the entire siman. And being that what you do in the roiv is how in the entire siman, so there, if it's how shita there, when I do the shita of a boil, that's considered the shita. So, now there's going to be a sugaya meat basar. That's why you have a problem. That's why you have a problem with basar. But, on the side of matzah matzah karov, it can't be that the geder is that we're looking at it as a roiv, and it schleps the shita to the other half. Because just like I have a matzah matzah karov on one half, I have a matzah matzah karov on the other half. So, what's the ta'am of matzah matzah karov? The ta'am is all I need to do is half. If all I need to do is half, it means the other half is nothing. If the other half is nothing, there's no way in the world, there's no reason whatsoever that there should be an issue of a shita. So, we didn't notice this when we learned daf chof pes in real time. We didn't realize that really this shaila over here of matzah matzah karov or not, in the world of the Beis HaLevi, mamash flips the whole halacha of how shita works. If you need a bonafide roiv, then the geder is the shita is how in the entire siman. And that's the whole basis to the shaila of "Hech vi be miut simanim?" Or "Shav vi be miut simanim?" It's all based on the fact that it has to be how shita there. Ordinarily, I could drop the gun and get the shita. I decided to go right there. That's my prerogative. Now, now you better get right cuz you're doing a real shita. On the side of matzah matzah karov, the understanding of shita is completely different. You don't have to shat the entire siman. Then all you have to shat is mecht of the siman. If all I have to shat is mecht of the siman, the other half is no shaikhas. So, in the world of mecht on mecht karoy, then it's posha the shiva me abasa wouldn't be an issue. And that's why it was so posha the gemara on daf kuf tes amud alef that that's where it's going to be okay. So, again, what's the lamdis? Let's get this lamdis clear one more time. We're going to do a part two to this masha tomorrow. But let's just get the lamdis clear. The lamdis what the Beit Shmuel Levi is saying is is that when it comes to shita the halacha is rubo shalo achad kamayo. The Mishnah said it once, twice, three times in the beginning of perek shachit. All the different times that it was mentioned. But the bottom line is this is a klal that achas ribi chazit many times and underpins the entire shita. Everyone knows shita you don't have to shat all siman. All you have to shat is roiv. And it's based on the concept of rubo kakulo. So, the Beit Shmuel Levi the geder of rubo kakulo is not that the shira is roiv. The geder of rubo kakulo is that the shira is kulo. But when I do roiv, it's mecht of as if I did kulo. You would think in order to do kulo you have to do kulo. Kamashma lan roiv can make it as a kulo. By the way, think of every taruvis in the world. You have a taruvis of this of the hector. So, if the hector is mevatel the issur, so even though I have some issur and some hector, but it's not back. The whole thing becomes hector. Even though it's not really hector, but roiv makes it all hector. Even though I didn't shat the whole siman, but roiv makes it that I shat the whole siman. That's the koach, the power of a roiv. But the bottom just a mashal. But the bottom line is there is an idea of rubo shalo achad kamayo which says that if I shat roiv, it's as if I shat the entire siman. But here's the point. When I shat roiv and I go weiter, that meat basar is part of the shita. I didn't have to do it. I could have relied on the bidi aved. I went and did le chatchila which is the halacha in Shulchan Aruch by the way. You're supposed to do le chatchila. By the way, the Beit Shmuel Levi makes a big deal about the fact that Rashi's shita throughout the sugias are that le chatchila you're supposed to shat the entire siman. And he makes it very much Rashi's shita as if to say if you didn't le chatchila after shat the entire siman, Beit Shmuel Levi would have been less comfortable with this word. I ain't shocked. But the bottom line is is the entire semen is supposed to check the entire semen. You can get the entire semen by checking the right. But if you don't work with the right and you decide to check the by yourself, it's how you do it. If it's how you do it, there's nothing to say. You can't do it. You can't do it. What's the other side? The other side is kosher. Once it's kosher, how are you going to make it at the end of the day? It's going to be fine. But it's all predicated on the fact that it's how you do it in the entire semen. I write that means when you do right, you're getting the whole semen. But if I physically do the whole semen, then it's how you do it. They said to bring out this point in a way said that when the entire that if you hold a sheer in the last would be no issue whatsoever. Completely oblivious to two big buyers coming up in the next few days. And himself to discuss himself to discuss. So if you say you can't do it, but if you hold it, it can't be by checking a you're going to get a on the other half. Must be on that side. It's a fleeting half a minute. But in that fleeting half a minute together of it's only how in the half. And what happens in the other half? Might as well happen in the foot. It has nothing to do with anything. So if there's a and there's a who cares what's going on over here? There's no reason in the world it would be an issue. And it's for that reason in that of the it was partial. It's only with your MS. The after we know for a fact that it's in the after we check it. It works with Rubik's that means it is how you do it even in the that means when I check the then it's how you do it. I did my job. As long as you get it right. What's the other side? It's kosher. So then if you take a look at the entire the entire thing says that I believe really meant my turn. I ain't sure when he makes it work. But either way he says it's not a lot of work. It's a lot of work in the long run. What's the base of life. What's the bottom line? We had the opposite boy on the flower of the base take all both places learns the boy identical. It's all about we got right of the street right and then the last part the part that you didn't have to do you were a moist of if you violated or you violated what's the the state good you're going to go But in time you can say no way. If you did right of the street to go and then you messed up in the last minute there's no way it's going to be an issue. What's the case? The case is where you messed up in the first minute. I would say this is she does is that even if you mess up in the this is inside going to be a take head of the without you test for that grandma this place is casual brings that wasn't in the here it's a of a street you just did the street in the wrong way. There you're in the wrong place you got the wrong address wrong zip code you're living in the wrong area there's no issues. That's what the is going to be as it relates to right of the we shine them over the and the held that just meant with the with the it's a little bit actually says by both take with you go to if it's only why would you go to tell us she does every take with even when it's a you always go to the thief epic period the brings from the street and if that's the case it's all what would be the we said over the base of life. Base of life is what that it's true but again it's not that the street is right and whatever happens afterwards might as well happen in the foot. The gather is by doing right you're getting the street in the rest and therefore there's to say that if I want to get I don't have to go by to you can argue this point hence by your and hence by your but there is clearly a rational way in lowness to understand. It's not super lowness, it's partial lowness. To understand that if you decided to go ahead and go wider, now the street is happening out there on my side. So, if it's happening out there on my side, you do the street of You do the street of Once you do the street of the street of that in itself is or maybe not. That was the take of the I actually graced the catch of if next to next is it's going to be if you shifted half of a similar by life. I don't care what you do after it. That's because if you hold next to next is right, it's possible that street is only happening in the next. What happens afterwards is that cuz there's no way for a next to a next to to slap another next to a next to cuz my house is how next to next to me I next to next to the whole market to say this after I think that the whole boy is predicated on the street to happen on the near it's only by Rubik with this market in lowness to say it's called the street in the near next to next to there's no market to say that it's called the street in the next to right? It's no slowly in the world to say that. And for that reason it was possible in the Gamora this lady held that this is not my own part that I'm saying to me I should watch this cuz it's Rush's own territory and so on. The bottom line is a lot just happened. A lot of lowness. This is just the full spies as we like to say. This is the appetizer. We'll build on this lowness very much. That already by the way is going to get into the world of super lowness tomorrow show.