Chulin 32

Today's stuff is cooling that flaming base. We are eight lines from the bottom of that flaming olive almond base. He who done three stuff to be learned as a shame of the leaser of your shame and brocha have a Miriam best marker Frida and schlemmer been higher layer. So we're at the tail end of the sukia dealing of course with the offices of schrita. Specifically the rub nelson and the chacham in whether schrita requires carbon the schrite or does not require carbon the schrite. Rub nelson said a dish that if somebody would take a knife, throw it at a wall and the it would somehow slice through the corner and the veshet perfect shot of an animal the law is the schrita would be kosher. Now this person had zero intention to do a schrita. He had zero intention to do what the gamara calls even a katika. All he intended to do was literally to be zorak sakin. He was playing some sort of game. It just so happens that he executed one of the great schritas of all time. I feel says rub nelson the law is that schrita does not require any carbon and it's for that reason it's going to be okay. We saw at the end of yesterday's stuff the gamara said what is the mccarter schitas rub nelson. It's being that you find misastic because the law is is puzzle. Why is this misastic because in the office is not okay. It's a caution big law if you're misastic going to be a problem. But ordinarily if it wasn't caution then it would be fine. That is the basis the schitas rub nelson. The puzzle the say that it's not going to be okay. I don't you see that misastic because it's puzzle. So shouldn't that be a liar that you don't need kavana when it comes to ordinary shchita? The Gemara asked a kasha and the Gemara said, "Nei, the way being a kavana l'z'vicha, but l'chaticha being a It's true, you don't need kavana l'z'vicha, but l'chaticha you do. And it's for that reason the chachamim say you can't prove that you don't need any kavana at all when it comes to the laws of shchitas chulin." The Gemara mentioned that Rava twice in Maseches Chulin and said that I have a stam Mishna which is mashma like Rav Nachman. That's important. The Gemara then went and digressed a little bit. The Gemara discussed a nida shenintza v'tov. So, there was a nida. This nida toivel, that's good, but the t'vila happened b'oness. And there was a big machlokes Rav and Rav Yochanan how exactly we treat the tahara status of this nida. Rav said, "Tahara l'veisa, but assur l'nachas truma." Rav Yochanan said, "Afilu b'veisa lo tahara." Rav said that on some level we're going to view this t'vila as being a t'vila, albeit only l'veisa as it relates to truma nacha. What's the difference? Her husband, in the words of the Gemara, is chulin. Truma is, by definition, kodesh. A t'vila b'oness is considered a t'vila as it relates to chulin. It's not considered a t'vila as it relates to kodesh. Rav Yochanan's chiyuv like and Rav Yochanan said, "Afilu b'veisa lo tahara." And the Gemara asked a kasha. Rav Yochanan on the shita How could Rav Yochanan hold that in the event that the nida was toivel b'oness, the halacha is she's going to be assur l'veisa? So, I say marriage a t'vila shelo b'kavana doesn't even work for chulin. We know Rava said that there are two stam Mishnayos that are mashma like Rav Nachman. That holds shchitas shelo b'kavana. And Rav Yochanan's shita is Rav Nachman's halacha k'stam Mishna. If that's the case, it means Rav Yochanan really paskens like Rav Nachman. if you have to really pass cuz like I'm not saying and holds that is like by let's say it better. She does is like by because the culture really is possible. Well, then uh my soul that's my in the world of doesn't so why is it that I need the is that she's going to be with her husband is and if he's cooling, what should be the issue? And the Gamara said that in the world of cooling is based on a remote because holds that at the end of the day there is a that teaches me that there's a certain level of that you have to have when it comes to it's going to happen the of the garden, but the bottom line is here there is a certain of that needs to be done and even who holds that in and of itself doesn't require you don't even need for but I feel lucky when it comes to there it's going to be different. Bottom line, that's a little bit of a recap of as it relates to the first part of today's we're now going to have the postscripts or a little bit more about this rather with and and even a little more than that as it relates to the general between and the as we first things first and what is the case of a need that was you have to speak rather whether she's her husband her husband everybody agrees she's also the to rather and the that's why we're talking about this right now. But the Gamara wants to know what is the case if is it a situation where this woman was a and then her friend threw her into the so to speak forced her to be but the Gemara says, if that's the case, l'chumra, kavana d'chaberta kavana d'malisa, it should be a pashuta good tevila. It shouldn't even be a situation where the tevila was on shlaim kavana. There should be no machlokes between Rava and Rabbah and Rav Nachman. There should be no shaychis for the machlokes between Rav Nachman and the chachamim. Meaning, for sure, without a question in the world, she should be mutar to her husband. V'oi, and not only that, but truma and mayaser. Meaning, not only is it a chazaka on malisa for chulin, it shouldn't even be a kavana d'malisa for truma. Meaning, not only shouldn't there be shitas Rav Yochanan as it relates to being asur to her husband, you shouldn't even have shitas Rav, who says that a chumei as it relates to truma is going to be brought in. You know how the tanas in the first mishna like Rav Ashi brought in the basuma, v'isha nichfa d'aita. So, all these people that are considered not to have das in the Yishuv because mis'aknes ason, since they have some pika'ach, someone that is aware, someone that's a a bas das that prepares them for tahara, so we're talking about these women that were either nidus or so in the event that someone that could do the bedikas and make sure that all the preparation is being done properly, and can also go ahead and be matir them in the mikva, d'alacha is as the truma, d'alacha is they're going to be able to eat truma. So, what do you see? That as long as somebody has das, even if it's not the toveles herself that has das, but even if there's a das acheres [laughter] magnus, so to speak, that in and of itself would be considered a das even with regards to truma. That can't be the case. Because over here, we have a Rav Rav Yochanan that holds that it doesn't even work l'chulin, and everybody holds it doesn't work for truma. If there's this das acheres, then it should work al libei d'kula alma with regards to everything. So, the Gemara says, that can't be the case. So, what is it? Amora Pappus. Rav Pappus said like this, l'chumra, Rav Nachman. According to Rav Nachman, the case will be isha nafla min a gisha. It's going to be talking about where she fell off a gisha. She fell off a roof. She fell off a bridge, and she landed in water. In that situation, according to Rav, let's speak this out, even though it happened 100% shleiva kavana, there was no kavana les viha or le haticha, proverbially speaking. A feel the halacha is, when it comes to chulin, you don't have to have any kavana. So, she's going to be muttar to her husband. Rav Yochanan is going to be cholek. He's going to say she's assur to her husband. That's only because there's a chilik between the standard you have to have when it comes to tfila than when it comes to shchita, per the end of yesterday's daf. U'le Rabbanan, according to the Rabbanan, she had the halacha. In the world of the Rabbanan, you're going to have to say that no. This woman did have a little bit of daas. She went into the mikva le haker. She went to cool off, to go swimming. Just so happened she was tamei. Just so happens it had arbah amos. Not me shomeim, and it qualified as being a kosher mikva. And as a result, it ended up working out in a situation where it was okay. According to Rav, being that she had some kavana le haker, it's the proverbial kavana le haticha, even though you have to have daas. You don't have to have daas les viha. You just have to have daas le haticha. So, there's a minimal level of daas you have to have. That minimal of daas was satisfied, and that's why the halacha she's going to be muttar to her husband. Because her husband is chulin. When it comes to chulin, it's fine. What about kashrus? Not kashrus. There you have to have real bonafide kavana. So, it's not going to be okay. Mesastic, the kashrus even by shchita the halacha is it's pasul. According to Rav Yochanan, it's true ordinarily kavana le haticha is enough. But based on that, it would be a nice shush ta'al here in the world of tfila. The problem is there's a special limud that's learned in Niddah Begadim that when it comes to uh tfila, when it comes to the higher level, there you have to have a higher standard. And it's for that reason it's not going to be okay. So, about the case of niddah she nents of a public camp being with somebody else as being makpid because if somebody else is doing it, that somebody else would be the daas. It has to be talking about where there wasn't a somebody else. What happened? It happened. But I from Massekhet. What was the Madrega Massekhet? Well, what level of Massekhet is okay and what level is not okay when it comes to Hulin? What's the Tsushtel? Yesterday's Dof thinks tomorrow thinks it has a perfect Tsushtel. What's that perfect Tsushtel? Shita. Is it a perfect Tsushtel? Only according to Rav it's a perfect Tsushtel. According to Rav So the bottom line is Rav, what the case is is going to be totally in Rav Nosson and the Hakhamim. If we know Rav holds like Rav Nosson, so it's going to be She Notlin in a Dasha. You don't have to have any Kavana at all. You don't have to have Kavana of the Zvicha. You don't have to have Kavana of the Khatikha. You're doing target practice. Just so happens you nailed a a Kona and a Veshet. So that in of itself is going to be okay. According to the Rabbonim, if that's Rav Shita, well then you would have to have Al Kaponim Kavana of the Khatikha. So what would the case be? It would be She Yard the Loket. But again, that's all in Rav. As Rav Lazer Rav holds that there's there's a distinction between Shita and Pilo. And it's for that reason the Mordechai, it's not going to be okay. So the Gemara writes there more about Rav Nosson and the Hakhamim. Omar Rav Shakh Paro. In the event that somebody [clears throat] Shakhted a Paro, what kind of Paro? Very important Rashi. Paro Aduma. So it was the red heifer. The Paro Aduma. Okay, the Shakh and the Machar Siman. And while this person Shakhted the Paro, he Shakhted another Behema with it. So we saw already in the Mishna in yesterday's Dof, something that we've seen already so many times that there's a concept of being able to Shakht two animals be Vasakhos. Theoretically, technically that's certainly a possibility. Is it Kosher or not? That's a Sugya. Hulin Kosher be Yedei Yishim be Mikrei Yishim be Misoyris. Right, that's all discussed. But physically could do it. So what happened over here was, this person was Shakhat Paro be Shakhat Behema Akheres Imo. And he Shakhted another Behema with it. And Rashi says the case was where he was Niskhavin to Shakht the beheima. It's very important. So, he had kavvana to shecht the parah adumah, and he had kavvana to go ahead and shecht another animal with it. Psulah, the halacha is with Divrei Yaakov. Everybody holds it's going to be pasul. And the reason is because we saw this already in two days ago's stuff. One of the halachas of parah adumah says that if you do a melacha at the same time that you're being osek in the parah adumah, that in and of itself disqualifies the melacha that you're doing. Being that you did another shechita at the same time that you were shechting the parah adumah, that's considered a second melacha. A second melacha at the time that you're doing this melacha is going to be an issue. Nishchita beheima acheres imo. What would be if while the shochet was shechting the parah adumah, he was nishchita, not shachat, but nishchita. What's the difference? A gashful miskavvin. Belo kavvana, you went ahead and you shechted another animal. So, the Gemara says gishmak. Le Rav Nosson, according to Rav Nosson, parah psulah. The parah is going to be pasul. Beheima ksheira. The beheima, however, is going to be put kosher. The parah is going to be pasul. The reason that the parah is going to be pasul is because you shechted another animal at the same time that you shechted the parah adumah. And even though you did it shelo le kavvana, but being that it's a shechita, so it's considered that you shechted another animal. Beheima ksheira. The beheima, however, is going to be kosher because even though you shechted the other animal shelo le kav- the kavvana, a feel like it's going to be fine. Le Rabbanan, however, according to the Rabbanan, parah ksheira. The parah is going to be kosher. The reason the parah is going to be kosher is because the shechit of the other animal is pasul. Beheima psulah. The beheima is going to be pasul because the halacha is you have to have kavvana. Now, there's a very important Rashi. Rashi says that the reason in the case of nishchit beheima acheres imo with Rav Nosson, parah psulah, is not the same as the reason why shachat parah with shachat beheima acheres imo with Divrei Yaakov, and you read the Rav's memory, it sounds like the reasons and the safek of Rav is all one and the same. Right, shachat parah with shachat beheima acheres imo with kavvana, everyone holds it's going to be pasul. Why? Because you just shocked it in another animal. If you didn't do it because of money, you did it to lay the money. That according to have nothing where she just lay the money is a kosher shita. It's going to be possible according to the home where she just lay the money is possible. So then it's not going to be an issue. As she says, natural. They're not one in the same. We explained the ratio of the way she explained the ratio and that is in the event that someone was shocked at part of the shock of being my hair is similar. The reason that the law here is the divine call possible is because you can't be always seeking a law while you're being always seeking in the law of the part of the dome. The reason is because you have to be all in when it comes to the avoid of the part of the dome. And if you're going to have in mind doing another law, that has to have a dash is what takes away. So after the garage, she if the issue was has a hard ass, then if you were in niche to have a him a hair is similar, I feel a little rough nothing who holds that the sheet is kosher it can't be because oh, I did another law at the time I was being nice in the part of the dome. It's true you did another law, but you did it that hard ass. And being that you did that law that hard ass means you weren't missing a hard ass in the equal law of the part of the dome and therefore that in itself shouldn't be an issue. Okay, so what is the problem? The problem is a crash in something else. It says by the part of the dome of the shock of being my hair is similar and we learn from there the law of being similar. That's the law. It says the shock of being similar the law of being similar that when you shock you only let it shock it you not let it shock something else. And it's for that reason the law of being similar according to have nothing that niche of being my hair is similar being my hair is similar therefore part of the soul because it's the shock of being similar the law of being similar. However, according to the law of being similar being that the law here is that that being my hair is going to be possible. So comes that you really only shocked it one animal. If you really shocked it one one animal, it's not going to be an issue. So in the ratio of the law of being similar part of the shock of being my hair is similar the divine call possible that's because of being similar. In the safe of the law of being similar being my hair is that's because of now the of I should apply in the just like it applies in the same as well. If it's it's a problem then for sure the is going to be a problem as well. Can say and you don't have to come on to that you would have literally there is the general that any that a person does doesn't matter what you do as we'll see in one second that in the itself would be a problem but the bottom line is time of the ratio at least the way Rashi explains it is based on it's based on the fact you're doing another time of this is based on the fact that if you have a you're going to be having an issue but the says it. The says I really don't understand what the dish of the latter part of what Robin said was to me this whole thing is pushing meaning it's pushing that this is it's pushing that if you the of the of the whether or not the good or not good is totally that and it seems like it's pushing the of the so the think that isn't and the the is also everything over here seems to be where it says Robin came in with the and it's very it's news to us but to the they didn't seem to be a great over here and the says I'll tell you what the is the really the one and everything that Robin said was the the is part of so I'll get that to me now what I thought of the of the of the true it says the of the of the but maybe that's the of the of the of the maybe that's only true if you another part of the of the but if the other one was of the right just like a of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the so come down you It's walking down. Gamor, we just had it earlier. Also means don't you the have it to you always find the Gamor says. So it could be that it would be another part I do and that would be a problem, but this not Gamor alone. That's why Robert said the whole Robert was only for that one line. Something Gamor the last what would be if while the coin was shacking is part of doing we decided this would be a good time to cut watermelon, right? Okay. Kasha from I said the part I do my happens up once a year I have all these only 10 of them in history and he decided you know something would have a nice citrus salad. So he goes and he's chopping the last gourds. Says the Gamor the cops will have everybody holds it's going to be possible. And the reason is because you must have you're doing a nectar the last let's say pong as you were hitting the part I do my you somehow made it through a watermelon too. Again, Kasha from I see after an imagination to understand some of these cases. In this case as the Gamor share everyone's going to hold it kosher. It's kosher. Why is everyone going to hold it kosher? It's not the ratio has got what there's no because it happened by mistake. And it's not gourds, right? Not watermelon. So I said for sure has to be done you to have a at the very least it's a maybe not the part I do my maybe the who and if you went ahead and you cut an onion at the same time that not the same from so in this case you don't even have from the safer. I'll leave it to it's going to be kosher either way. This concludes the first part of today's stuff which was very much a of the latter part of yesterday's stuff. And on that note we turn our attention to part two of today's stuff. So again, part one was wrapping up the Robert and the men. Additionally the Robert and regarding the needle she we now return to a very mission and a huge few lines of Gamor that's going to be the topic of the raid. in the world [clears throat] of basic Shchita school. It's up to Hilchos Shchita. Not for Sakan. So, Shoychet was doing Shchita. And while he was doing the Shchita, he dropped the knife. Big deal. And he picked it up. Nobody got hurt. Everything was fine. Nafli K'eilav or his beged fell off. Big deal. And he picked it up. His Shchita is a Sakan. Or before [clears throat] he did the Shchita, he was sharpening his knife for off. And because he had been sharpening his knife before the Shchita, and knocked him out. He got very, very tired. U'vacha Ve'eira Shoychet ad k'dei kach he needed a backup to go ahead and do the Shchita. Says the Mishna, all three of these cases, Im Shoychet K'dei Shchita, if he waited from the time that the Sakan fell until he picked it up to finish the job. Or from the time that his beged fell off until he put it back on. Or from the time that he had started the Shchita until the backup came in. If there was a Shiur of how long K'dei Shchita they might want to define K'dei Shchita. So, the Halacha is going to be Pashul. But Rebbe Shimon says it's not Sh- K'dei Shchita, but rather Im Shoychet K'dei Bikur. If it was the amount of time that it would take to inspect the knife, that's when it's going to be okay. This Mishna is what we know as the Halacha of Shiur. So, Shiur is one of the five Halachos of Mashiach. You see now, it's something that we've obviously learned a lot about up until this point. What's the Makor? It's a Mishna in Chulin Perek HaShoychet of Lamed Beis Amud Aleph. So, again, the Mishna says in the event that the Shoychet started doing the Shchita, and then there was a Shiur. And then he resumed it. Machlokes Tanoyim. Watch at what point we would say, oh, that Shiur is going to be Pashul. So, everybody holds there is a Shiur that's going to be a problem. The challenge is what's that Shiur? According to the Chachamim, it's K'dei Shchita. According to Rebbe Shimon, it's K'dei Bikur. So, they might say K'dei Shchita. What is the Shiur of Shchita? Omar Rav, Rav said, K'dei Shchita of Beheima Acheres. The amount of time that it would take to Shoychet another Beheima. And Rebbe Rav Kahana and Rebbe Asi said to Rav, so Rebbe Kahana and Rebbe Asi both told him of Rav. They asked Rav, K'dei Shchita of Beheima of Beheima you said is it going to be the same as a but I think you should maybe the same time it takes to do it I don't know if it's much smaller than a it's only one for starters so for sure it's going to take less time when you said you meant not only when you said even when you said I'll be honest with you. I went to the who is the of Rav so it was Rav's uncle from his father's side and from his mother's side as she tells you a little bit of the history here as he does throughout and he said when I was learning by him he so he wasn't with me and as a result I couldn't ask him this question so I'm going to the question but I'll be honest with you I don't have the answer to this question I wasn't in a massive with the with him to be able to ask him this question so I don't know stating that he says I don't know what he said today he said he doesn't know what he said when he asked the question to Rav Rav said I'll be honest with you I don't know what he said he said but we have an that Rav said it's the same as not surprisingly a few of them can't get over it I feel the same so the bottom line is big Rav and even Rav chimed in as well so according to Rav it's the same as that's what the she she is according to and according to Rav it's always the same even if you do it the she is going to be the same which by the way is a cool right just appreciate the same as a cool that means you have more time that you're allowed to pause in the middle of the time when you do it if it's a smaller amount of time if it's the same it's a longer period of time so the she is the same as >> [snorts] >> a different she it's the amount of time that would take to bring the behavior and the shark which means you have a much longer period of time but the says you have to feel me almost what you can go bring it go to the store put it on a boat ship it FedEx no I can't be you can't have a [ __ ] that's so all over the place I'm going to pop up and say I never saw no I can't even say was that a father the sheer is based on the hammer that's in front of you according to Rob and the matter of time it takes to do the street according to it's a drop longer it's the matter of time it takes to take the animal put it on the ground and then do the street that's what she says that the other is is that they take the animal they put it on the ground and then they shut according to that's included in the sheer of [ __ ] here I'm going to say they said which made of the in the name of the time that you want to know what the sheer is it's the matter of the time that it would take to lift the animal the and put it on the ground the and the other that right if you're talking about lifting animals and knocking it down to the ground then you want to not just know I'd like to have a little more information than that right am I going to war with a bull or am I going to war with a chef salad right it's not the same thing so he said it's but at the bottom line is it's not just the matter of time it takes to do the street it's not just the matter of time that it takes to put it down on the ground but there's an extra layer to it it's the other so if you think about it really >> [snorts] >> there's four sheets right because one is the sheer within the always the behavior or the behavior of life and then you have this sheer of knocking it to the ground and then doing the street and then the fourth sheer is the amount of time that it takes to lift it and then put it to the ground and then go ahead and do the street and somebody with a bad second meaning it's not to shut second. I feel color young boy. Poor animal. But even if it takes the whole day to go ahead and do the shita, share the law here is that it's going to be kosher. Says the Gamorah, by you rubber rubber had a shilo. She is mouse [ __ ] starful. Could she have been metzara and not been metzara? So what's the shilo she is my shilo starful. We have a sheer sheer. Whatever the sheer is holding in the side. So we have that sheer. So does it have to be in one shot? What if let's say the sheer sheer is 30 seconds, right? Just for argument's sake. So let's say a person goes ahead and he shoyers 5 seconds and then 5 seconds and then 5 seconds and 5 and 5 and 5. At some point you can add up to 60 to to 30 seconds that you need. Do you say that the sheer sheer always has to be in one shot? So I can pause 5 seconds a thousand times it's not going to mean anything. Or no, there's a Indian there's a cumulative effect. The sheer sheer doesn't have to be in I'm shish [clears throat] but it can be cumulatively as well. So this was rubber shilo. But the Gamorah says I don't understand how could rubber have asked this question? So again, rubber made a question and a comment, right? A comment and a question. What was the comment? I shake in the second row I feel color young boy shayer. What was the question? But you rubber shayer is mouse freaking more addictive as well. Maybe the day. Look here the first thing rubber said, the comment should be poached the iboya. Why? Because if you could check the whole day you mean to tell me that nowhere along the day are you being shayer? Of course you're being shayer. The carrots is the shiers and I'm star. So you see clearly she is not a star. So how could rubber say I shake in the second I feel color young boy shayer and then shayer is mouse [ __ ] starful. So the most of the hospital shayer. I mean I hear what you're saying it makes sense that you're added the entire day you probably exhale somewhere along the way but maybe you didn't. And as a result there's no heck work from rubber's comment to be poached the iboya. Hence the question and the comment. Play rubber and play rubber nuss. Rubber and play rubber nuss had the following iboya. And this iboya notice is talk to it's one line. There's two dots in a second, so we're going to be immediately resuming the regular program, but just for a fleeting moment, he threw out the following question. Show them yet see mana mana. The way Rashi explains, what would be if the Shaya did a shita on rova of the animal and then by the last miat he was shot. Would that be a problem? Would that not be a problem? The Gamara gives a one-word answer. Take who tish be a tired kushis be buyers. This one line as it says has to be the topic of today's rate. Says the Gamara by Shimon and Shimon said in the Mishnah in Shaka de Biko in the event that the Shaya was not a Kidei Shita but Kidei Biko, that's when you're going to have an issue. My Kidei Biko amra Yekanan. Yekanan said Kidei Biko shall come. You know the time it takes to go to the Haham and for him to be a Baka. Wait, the Gamara came and said for Shimon because where's the Haham? Is there traffic? Is he available, right? There's a lot of things that can be needed to take into consideration. So the Gamara said, you're right, Kidei Biko Haham. It means in the event that the Haham himself is the Haham, how long would it take for him to inspect it? And the Haham in the Gamara thought the amount of time it would take to physically go to the Haham. Come Ashmalan, that's too all over the place. The case is where he himself is the Haham. Now, why would we think the that the case is the amount of time it takes to go to the Haham? Because that's Halacha. There's Halacha called Kovid Haham. Remember the Gamara, one person was put into Herem. This guy lost his parnassa. There were a lot of things and different variables that played itself out for this Halacha. But high level, Shaya always has to go to a professional to give the Kovid to the Haham in the city to make him inspect. So the Gamara assumed for sure that's what's going on. The Teretz says Kidei Biko because there is a time that if the Haham himself is the greatest Haham, if you don't have another Haham, then he's allowed to even go ahead and do it. And come Ashmalan, that's the case that the great Reb Shimon was talking about. Moving along. Shaka de Shada shed in the event that the Shaya went ahead and he shacked at the vessel that he suffocates and possums I guess I got garious and instead of shacking the gargarious, which is what he was supposed to do, instead he was possums I got garious. So, what does this mean? Rashi says I knew equal. So, equal is one of the five halachas from Moshe missing, right? Clearly the topic or part of the topic of this Mishnah and it means that a person when he severed, quote unquote, the semen, but he didn't do it in the shrita to go away. So, what he did was he nicked it, he made a hole in it, he chopped it, he dislodged it from the jaw, but the point is different we showing them save in different misfires, but high level that's what it means. So, he did a proper shrita on the vessel, he took out the gears of the gargarious of the trachea, but he didn't do it with that shrita. He did it with that equal. He did like an here. That was his move. All right, or possums I got garious first. But, I got shacked at the vessel and then he went and shacked at the vessel. I shacked at the head of my head or he shacked it either the corner of the vessel. The hint in larger mesa and he waited until the animal died. Meaning he never even touched the other one of the semen. Or he did one proper shrita and then he did halada with the other one. So, again, what's the case of halada? So, we saw a little bit about halada already. We're going to see more about it, but the classic case is where he shacked it once in the guitar guy and then he put the knife under the other semen and then he went ahead and he chopped at it. So, in all of these cases, again, let's get the club. What were the cases? He did a shrita on the vessel but an equal on the gargarious or vice versa. An equal on the gargarious and then he did a shrita on the the vessel. Or he did a shrita on one of the semen and did nothing on the other one. Or he did a proper shrita on one and he did halada on the other one. In all of these cases, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said navela. Rabbi Akiva [snorts] and Rabbi Akiva said treifa. According to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, if you never did a shrita, if you never did a shrita, it's a navela. According to Rabbi Akiva, you did a shrita, it just so happens it's a treifa. Club, Rabbi Rebbe Yochai gave the following club. Rebbe Shimon ben Sheves and it wasn't his own club. He had a pick a ball off of the great Rebbe Shimon kosher this is treif also. Anytime there was a in the treif nevel it's going to be a nevel. Kosher treif also correct. If you did a proper treif the double of the possible but there was something else there was some wound that it had treif and then it's going to be a treif and then the Mishna concludes very important for the Gemara that we're about to learn that even though the was a between Rebbe Shimon ben Sheves and Rebbe Akiva Rebbe Shimon ben Sheves said nevel Rebbe Akiva said treif. Rebbe Akiva became around and Rebbe Akiva said that I'm asking that this is not going to be a case of treif being that it happened in the treif itself so for that reason it's going to be a nevel either way. So for the next Gemara that we're going to learn we just have to over the first two cases of the Mishna. Shochet as a or pasak as a gargeres or pasak as a gargeres the shochet as a shochet. The law in both of those cases is Rebbe Shimon ben Sheves said nevel Rebbe Akiva said treif that it's not really treif it's going to be a nevel. So let's get the case clear. He did a shochet on the shochet but he didn't equal on the gargeres. He damaged it to the point where it lost its case but at the same time at the same time it wasn't done but open shochet. >> [snorts] >> The law is it doesn't matter if first he shochet the shochet and then he was masik the gargeres or if he did it the other way around. There's a reason the Mishna needs to speak the saddles we'll see in the Gemara. But it doesn't matter which one happened first may call it was a major like this Rebbe Shimon ben Sheves in the name of Yeshua and Rebbe Akiva but the master Rebbe Akiva and at the end of the day everybody agrees that it's going to be a nevel. So the Gemara shochet as a shochet Rebbe Akiva right that's the synopsis the part of the Mishna that we need very mini. I'll ask you a kasha from a Mishnah and this Mishnah is the opening line of the next perek, one of the most famous prokim in Shas, Ailu Treifos. So the Mishnah says, Ailu Treifos Beheima, the following are a list of treifos when it comes to a beheima in the kubasa veshet upsukasa gargeres. Nukubasa veshet, if there's a neck of even a kosher in the veshet or upsukasa gargeres, in the event that it was nifsak the gargeres, something happened to it, it was necker, but it didn't happen derech schita, that would go ahead and that would render it into a a treifa. What's the kasha? So the Hilchos Treifos Rashi top line, alma, what do you see from here? Upsukasa gargeres treifa hi, v'lav neveila, and it's not a neveila. So what's the kasha? The kasha is, who is this Mishnah going according to? Now, you could have said something Rashi that who's the Mishnah going according to? Rebbi Akiva. Rebbi Akiva holds that pasukasa gargeres really is a treifa. That would sit very nicely with the Mishnah in Ailu Treifos, that psukasa gargeres is a treifa. Although the kiyum of the chazal by Rebbi Akiva hi yidei Ailu Treifos mani, that's why when the Gemara set up the question, it started off shachatas aveshit b'chul all the way to ba'al Rebbi Akiva. Because without the ba'al Rebbi Akiva, you don't have a kasha. Rashi speaking it out bokteiner here on the top of the amud day. So the bottom line is that l'churei [snorts] we have a steira. Our Mishnah says shachatas aveshit upsukasa gargeres, after Rebbi Akiva, l'chol dayos, everybody holds is going to be a neveila. As opposed to the Mishnah in Ailu Treifos says, nukubasa veshet upsukasa gargeres, that's the part we need, is going to be a treifa. So is it a neveila or is it a treifa? Now, you're going to tell me what difference does it make? Either way you can't eat it. I get you tuma, that's the classic nafka mina. If it's a neveila, it's metamei tumas masa, and if it's a treifa, it's not going to be totally at all. It's 100% going to be treif. This is the Gamara's case. So, a few things just to think this through together. Number one, it's obvious that the the Gamara understands that pasuk is a gargaris and pasuk is a gargaris is the same thing, right? So, it's one in the same. Again, it's hard to perfectly conceptualize this, but it's the same in here. Our mission says as if to say there was a pasuk is a gargaris, it's nevela. And the mission over there says pasuk is a gargaris is just an example of a treif. So, just like the 17 other examples of treif, this is just the 18th. This is another one of them. So, it doesn't make it a nevela. It actually makes it treif. Now, if I would have asked you this question without looking in the Gamara right now, what would you say? I'll speak for myself. I'll tell you what I would have said. I would have said, "What shychus?" "What shychus?" In the mission of treif, you did a shychus. It just so happens you found out that there was a pasuk gargaris. For example, you found out there was sirchus. You found out that one of the varum, that's not where it have a hole ended up having a hole. Okay, so it's a problem because it's a treif. But me the shychus, I did a good shychus. The mission of sounded to me like you never did a shychus on the gargaris. Shychus of a varum said pasuk gargaris. You didn't equal that, she said. You didn't even do a shychus. So, of course it's nevela. In the case of our mission where pasuk gargaris is all you did. Where all you have is the pasuk gargaris. That's about it's going to be a nevela. But the mission in the treif is is talking about when you did a bonafide shychus. It just so happens you found the mom. It happens to be the mom was in the gargaris. It was a pasuk gargaris. But the bottom line is what's shychus? I don't think it's a two style. In one case you did a shychus. In the other case you didn't do a shychus. Now, truth is, as we go through the Gamara, we're going to see the Gamara is a little bit going to say this. It's going to be Rish Lakish's Mahalak. A little bit. But even Rashi Lakish going to say that Shas says you would expect it to be said. So, what's pashut pshat? I mean, how do you even start this Gemara? What's pashut pshat? You have to say pashut pshat in the Gemara is that if psukos gargeres is considered a treifa, if that's an issue, then it's impossible to do a shchita in the gargeres. You meaning, the whole concept of shchita is going ahead and taking away the chiyus of that eiver. And if this will this eiver is already considered dead, it's a a siman of treifa, then the fact that you did a shchita, I don't think should be my will learn. I don't think it should make an after minute. Cuz the whole cheftz of shchita is being poisek the chiyus. Remember we had a lashon Gemara earlier in the mesechta of meisa omed v'shocheit. Doesn't make any sense. You can't do shchita on something that's already dead. So, even though at first glance that's the distinction between the two cases, and I think Bal Habayis is correct, you would say for sure that's the nafka mina. But the Machshav so, you see the Machshav held that I don't think it should make a difference. So, shochetes v'sheid u'poskes gargeres, if that's nevela, I think even if you did shchita on it it would it would also be nevela. It's considered that it lost its chiyus and it opened that's not considered kasher. The bottom line is this is the Gemara's kashe again. We'll see the Gemara will say something similar, but just to put it out there to be able to be even mefaresh the words and why the teretz is not even as obvious as the kashe is. But the bottom line is off the Gemara. It's again, what's the sfira? The Mishnah says shochetes v'sheid u'poskes gargeres or vice versa, the Halacha is Rabi Shimon bar Yochai said nevela, Rabi Akiva said treifa. But really Rabi Akiva that it's really nevela. And the Mishnah says mefaresh psukos gargeres is one of the eilu treifos. On my rubber, rubber takes the first step at it. He said like kashe is not a kashe. Kashe shochat v'sheid poskes, kashe poskes v'sheid shochat. You know what the cheilik is? Our Mishnah is talking about where first you shochated the v'sheid and then you did the psukos aggaras. As opposed to the missionary treifas, he's talking about where first he did the psukas aggaras and then you shachted the basar. What's the difference? Shachat ulo b'seif pasak, if you first you did the shchita and then you were pasak, nifsal as b'shchita. He, then the psul happened in the shchita. And being that it happened in the shchita, so the shchita kiilu was a problematic shchita, right? You started the shchita already. And then the problem added. So that's considered a psul in the shchita. Psul in the shchita makes it an avail. Pasak ulo b'seif shachat, if it was pasak and then you were shachat, ki dover acher garum odi pasul da. Then we look at it as if it was a dover acher that went ahead and caused it, because the psul didn't happen b' idon hashchita, it already had pre-existed before the shchita. In that case, it's going to be a treifa. It's not going to be a It's not going to be a nevela. So again, it's a technical distinction. It's a little bit of a hard svara, but the Gemara says the chiluk is, did it happen b'shas hashchita or did it happen before the shchita? This is one problem. You can't even read the Gemara straight, right? [clears throat] Can you say the Gemara with a straight face? Of course not. It's who know the rav Rav Achmad asked Rav Achmad the shachat pasak as aggaras. Pasak as aggaras pasak shachat as a version of nevela. The Mishna says not that way. Right, our Mishna davka was very wordy. Remember we spoke out in the Mishna that the wordiness is going to play itself out in the Gemara? Thus is the place. Right, you see clearly the Mishna said that it doesn't matter if first you shachted the basar or if second you shachted the basar. Either way the halacha is, it's going to be considered a nevela. So the Gemara says that Rava says not Rav, I knew that Rav Achmad bar Hunna. But eima b'seif shachat as a version of nevela. The way I read the Mishna, the two cases are mamash the same. Shachat as a version of nevela achacha pasak as aggaras. Or pasak as aggaras and not achacha shachat as a version of nevela. Even if you look at your Mishna, it says the word achacha, but it's ufar shachat as a version of nevela. That was his answer. Amalei, so Rav Achmad >> Then you're just repeating yourself in a very right funny way. Now, the truth is we know the time of the mission there's something called poetic symmetry. The niggun like you have to know that's like even the rubber match show. I didn't have to switch them with the niggun. But the bottom line is at the end of the day it got to make any sense. The design of the mission and the second mission and it says I have to notice the changes it not the what's the alien. It's totally different in the mission. So if you look at the mission there's a says over here but I got but some take out the word if the state in the mission then the if it doesn't say in the mission then the mission so the is totally in the the two is on the sheet also but the bottom line is the mom says that I think that have been rubber's first parents because he told him I understand. You tell me the is before I even try understanding the it's dead on arrival and has absolutely no because at the end of the day the mission that clearly was talking about both cases. Hello my rubber so rubber said I'll tell you different mission. That when the mission start it would trace this. So what's the first word of the mission it would trace this right? No, we have to be my gear. It's not trace this but it was Katani. It's not trace this that famous heart parent that you need the pictures for. It's not trace this. The name of the parent is the mission the mission trace this. Some of them are not available some of them trace this. Not all team not all team all 18 things mentioned in are treifas. In fact, psukas argaris is actually going to be an aveila because everybody holds it's an aveila. So, I read this Mishnah and I was like, "Yeah, it'll be a kashya with the first commission of it that the flaming base is a madala." So, it says rather, you have to say to answer this kashya that that Mishnah in the chanamy doesn't have to say aveila treifas. Aveila asura is katani. Yesh may hen aveila yesh may treifas. Now, if that's the case, why does the gemara say meaning that Mishnah now only tell me treifas? That Mishnah is telling me aveilas as well. Well, if that's the case, there should be other cases mentioned in the Mishnah. Filuksha navi de chiskia, which have chiskia's alacha and all this should sound at least a little bit familiar because we had chiskia with the eldafta falafel of maran. Am I chiskia chiskia said, "Aso kistero." In the event somebody went and he chopped the animal into two parts, aveila it's considered an aveila even if it's mefarcheses. That was the chidush. It's considered an aveila. Filuksha navi de rav elazar, which we mentioned rav elazar alacha of rav elazar rav elazar said on that same exact amud, "Nokla yarech." In the event that somebody removed the thigh, the right? And removed the cholo as well. But, you know you know, right? If when it sits down, you're able to see inside, that means the cholo is also not there. Aveila it's an aveila. Meaning, these are two cases where the animal is alive, but it's considered an aveila. Just like psukas argaris, the animal is alive, it's considered an aveila. Here too, the animal is alive, it's considered an aveila. What's the kashya? The kashya is, how come these things weren't mentioned? So, the gemara says, "Ki tonin aveila diloy metamei mekayam. Aveila metamei mekayam loy toni." We're talking about cases of aveilas that it when the animal is alive, it's it's not metamei. So, psukas argaris, if the animal is alive, it's not going to be metamei. So, it's aveila not treifa. The Mishnah is including not only treifas, it's aveila asura, it's including aveila as well. But, being that it's not metamei mekayam, it makes the cut. As opposed to chiskia's alacha and rav elazar's alacha, where it was chopped kistero or if the yarech and the cholo was taken, over there over there, it is metamei mekayam. Even when it's alive, it's mefarcheses, it's metamei tumas aveila. Those things are not going to be mentioned either way. So, we have already two turrets into the kasha. The first turrets was kasha shachlus pasa kasha pasul shachat. The second turrets is that the mission over there is talking about including it in the treifas. I mission is only talking about treifas and also there are treifas and they're in an availas and this goes into the an availa bucket. Rav Shimon ben Lakish said a different turrets. He said kasha shachat ben mokem chatah kasha shachra shuloi ben mokem chatah. One is talking about where it was a psukas agar geres and you did a shchita like this is the turrets that we mentioned earlier. But you did the shchita in the place where the psukas agar geres is. The other one's talking about where you did the shchita not in the mokem of the psukas agar geres. What's the chashbon? Shachat ben mokem chatah if you did the shchita in the place nifsul beshchita hey. Well then the shchita was never a shchita. What you shachted the agar geres that was nifsak doesn't come out as a shchita. I mean that it's not a master shchita. That's our mishna it's going to be an availa. Shuloi ben mokem chatah if you went ahead and you shachted the konen but not in the place where there's a psukas agar geres kidova racha goram lo lipasul damyo and there we look at it already as something else and that's why it's not going to be considered an availa but rather what it's going to be is going to be considered treifa. That's what the gomorrah is saying is that in our mishna you never really did a shchita. You never did a shchita because even if you want to tell me you did a shchita you did a shchita in the mokem where it was already nifsak agar geres. Over there you did a shchita on the konen. Granted the konen has a psukas agar geres the fact that it has a psukas agar geres that's enough to make it a treifa. It's also enough to say that if I would do the shchita there would be nothing. The remesa omer beshchita but as it relates to the rest of the konen it still has enough life and vibrance to say that if I would go ahead and shacht shuloi ben mokem chatah in that instance it would still be a shchita. But the gomorrah has a problem. And this problem by the way is going to segue into tomorrow's one of the shadaf but for now we'll just mention the words. Tomorrow's daf starts gufa with this nekuda. Me am Rav Shimon ben Lakish shachi did Rav Shimon ben Lakish say this? Rav Shimon ben Lakish If I want to do it like this, I have to do it like this. And after he did it like this, before he did it like this, the one got a hole. So in the is one of the three. So he did it like this. The one got a hole. Before he finished the one got a hole. The first one would say it's a problem. The animal became a before you finished the one got a hole. You know the reason is command the you see from here. The is attached to the being that is attached to the as soon as you sever the from the life force the brain of the animal. So at that point it's not considered part of the animal anymore. As a matter of fact, we look at it we look at it as if it's sitting in a basket. At this point it's not here. And just like if when it was wouldn't be a problem. So too when it's it's also not going to be a problem. But what's the question? The question is what has a question that a in the once it lost its nothing it's not enough to make it into a so why don't we say the one is a command the if it was then that should be as if it's in the And if it's in the there should be no way to go ahead and to do it because what do I care if you did it in the or not in the at the end of the day once it loses its it's command the again this is a little bit of a tie in this whole that's what we mentioned before we started the fruits of the and the sort of flip flopping on this but the time is at the end of the day we should toss it there's no way to make this work because is the after you did it on the kind of which means you chopped off right of it that's all it means. At that point the Raya, having a nectar is nothing cuz it's commander might have been the cooler damage. It's the color the color itself. If Raya right when we look at the Raya commander why is it? Because the color was Nifsak. What does Nifsak cuz Raya got taken out. So I say anything attached to it anything that gets its here's [clears throat] through it even that's not considered to be in the animal. So the color is not in the animal. So if the color is not in the animal how in the world are you going to be able to go ahead and and do a Shita? How could you tell me that the missionary is talking about when you did the Shita not in that market? The color if there's a well that means it's dead. The if you do the Shita here wouldn't be a Shita. So even if you didn't do it here it should be and it should never be an issue. So the Gamara says because of this it's an easier terrorist in the world and that is that in our mission itself there was really a between before that is a and in our mission it was not and in our mission it was it's talking about a little bit of I wasn't a it's true and not the of there should be no such mission anymore of but there's such a and sometimes a mission wants it here it stays not going anywhere and as a result that mission is as is it's going in and there's nobody really that would hold of that bottom line is we had a steer. Our mission is not well. makes it unavailable mission is clear is an example of Trafer. What's the and really the Gamara suggested four roots and terrorist Gamara was it could be did you do the shchita first or was nifsaka gagaris first? If you did the shchita first, so then the nifsaka gagaris happened be eaten shchita, so that would make it a treifa. If it happened in the reverse order, well, then it came like a milsa achrisai, then not. Gamara was very easily daicha that connect to our Mishna. The second terrorist Gamara said was could be the Mishna over there when it mentions psuksa gagaris doesn't mean it's a treifa. It actually means that it's a nevela. I it says a what treifa is ela asures ketani. The third terrorist of the Gamara was that could be there's a nafka mina was the shchita done where it's nifsaka gagaris or was it done in another part of it? Gamara had an issue, Resh Lakish is the one who said it and Resh Lakish lishitasai holds command monach b'dikula damya even for the raya that's attached to the konis kavochamin the kon itself. So if the konis not in the animal, you can't do a shchita on the kono. The fourth terrorist which sounds like the Gamara's terrorist that it's a freedom with and that is that that Mishna is as is. No akimtas and all these different Mishnayos, but pashut shatin that Mishna is it's Rabbi Akiva choidem the fact that he was choiza to hold like Rabbi Yishmael being that Rabbi Akiva the chachma held that really it's a treifa. That Mishna in Eilu Treifos is going with shitasai ex here. 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 shaya for one second. Okay. So the raid is going to focus on one line on daf lamed beis amud alef where the Gamara brought a festi baya. Bayi Rav Huna brei d'Rav Nachman. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Nachman posed the following question. Shahu b'miutzi mona ma? As she explained, the shaila of the Gamara is what would be if a shochet shachted roiv of the simanim and then he was shaya. He was shaya. Is that sh'hiya a problem or is that sh'hiya not a problem? And the Gemara said, "Take who tishbi at Kushim be voice." Now, what are the start of the shaila? So, Rashi explained. Rashi said, "Do you say that being that he shechtid roiv and roiv is really all that you have to do is kosher at that point. That's kosher. So, what's going to be the run if afterwards you were shaya? You were shaya at a point that the animal was already kosher. Once I do a kosher sh'chita of the chaya, at that point all bets are off. I could do whatever you want. Or you tell me, or do you say "K'eivan d'havah d'igmarah being that afterwards he went ahead and he finished the sh'chita, kulo chada sh'chita, we have to look at the whole Indian as being one long sh'chita." So, what's the shaila? The shaila is really in order for a sh'chita siman to be a sh'chita siman, all you have to do is shecht roiv of the siman. In this case, I shechtid roiv of the siman, fine. Not vas, there's 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 makom 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 you tell me, "K'eivan d'havah d'igmarah kulo chada sh'chita, being that I decided I didn't have to do it, but I decided to do it. And once I decide to go ahead and do it, now already it matters how I do it." I'm a kol hamoyisif k'garei'a. So, ainachna mi'ut, I didn't have to do it. But l'maisa, I did do it. Once I volunteered to do it, so at this point we need to chashvin, we need to reckon with what it is I did. And at that point there is a a makom to say that in the event it it was a sh'hiya, it's going to be an issue. What was the Gemara's maskana? Take who. Rashi says that being that the Gemara came out take who, l'chumra d'halacha have to go l'chumra. And therefore, if somebody's going to be shaya in the mi'ut pasul, the halacha is it's going to be a problem. Truth is, we had a very, very similar Gemara on Daf Lamed Amud Beis. And there, it was Rav Papa who clarified the shaila. One line Gemara right before the Mishna. Hash, Bayi Rav Papa, Rav Papa clarified Hash Ichlid B'Mei Yitzumanim. If somebody did roiv of the shchita, and then he had chalada in the middle of the simanim, mah what's the halacha? And the Gemara says, Teiku. Over there, just like the Gemara said, Teiku over here. So, in our sugya, it's Bayi Rav Puna B'Rei Rav Nachman Sh'Chav B'Mei Yitzumanim. And on Daf Lamed Amud Beis, it's Bayi Rav Papa Ichlid B'Mei Yitzumanim. In both places, Rashi explains the shaila in the identical way. And in both cases, the Gemara gives the same response, Teiku. And in both places, Rashi says, being that it's a Teiku, it's a safek, and therefore the halacha is that we are going to go l'chumra. So, according to Rashi, we have two Gemaras that essentially discussed identical shailas. Very long discussion shaila, but identical shaila. What would be if the shchita be the shchita k'sheira on roiv of the simanim, and then in the middle pas shur he made a mistake. On Lamed Amud Beis, the mistake was he did chalada. On Lamed Beis Amud Aleph, the mistake was he did sh'hiya. 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 should be a problem? Maybe call it masok r'eiyah. You didn't have to go weiter, but the minute you decided to go weiter, that in of itself maybe creates a an issue. And Rashi says that the maskana of Teiku in both cases is the same as well, and that is that we're going to go l'chumra. Tosfos, in a very long Tosfos on Daf Lamed Amud Beis, asks a great kasha on shitas Rashi. His kasha is from another Gemara that we learned together on Daf Yud Tes Amud Aleph. By the way, we're going to chazar a lot of what we did this first month in Chullin in this way. You remember, there was a Mishna on Daf Yud Tes Amud Aleph, a machlokes Rav Yosi, Rav Yehuda, and the Chachamim. What would be if somebody did roiv of the shchita 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 vessel, he gets everything right, but it's on the wrong part of the corner of the vessel, it's what's known as a ground. And the shaila is, what would be if the over of the shchita was done shilo ba'agrama, but there was a meat of the shchita that was done ba'agrama, would that be a problem, or would that not be a problem? And it was machlokes between Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Yehuda and the chachamim. But then there was a very long discussion of the mar, one of the most long discussions of the mar that we've learned together so far in chulin. And daf sum of alef, with the Gemara tulish shonus in terms of what exactly, what exactly the case was where Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Yehuda and the chachamim were arguing. In one lishana of the Gemara, the machlokes is talking about the machlokes is talking about where you shachted roiv of it good, and then afterwards you went ahead, and then afterwards you went ahead, and you colored out of the lines. According to the chachamim, even though roiv of it you got right, remember the chachamim don't hold of roiv in that side of the Gemara, and as a result it's going to be a problem. According to Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Yehuda, that's not going to be an issue. If, however, you did the first part of it out, and then afterwards you got roiv of it right, in that situation al libei de kul alma, al libei de kul alma, it's going to be a problem. The mar had another side. It could be [ __ ] Could be the whole shaila of Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Yehuda and the chachamim was where you started off getting it wrong. But in the event that you went ahead, and you did roiv of it right, and then at the end you messed up, al libei de kul alma it's going to be okay. That says, according to the first lishana, the machlokes of Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Yehuda and the chachamim is when you got two thirds of it right, and then the meat basar was the issue. According to the chachamim, this is a big problem. According to Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Yehuda, it's not going to be a problem. According to the second lishana, in that case nobody holds it's a problem. Because you got roiv of it right. The shame of it was with the first right it was a problem. Where I started off by a grama and then afterwards I made up for it in spades. There are basically the whole thing that I made up for it it's going to be fine. Going to mean that I started off not okay it's not going to be good. One [snorts] thing is clear in both I live with if I get it right and then afterwards I end up by a grama that it's going to be fine. In the first that is and in the second everybody agrees to that. But for sure in it's going to be okay. We pass if you remember from that I was a little bit a little bit a little bit That that's the case what emerges is everybody holds that if I did the two thirds right and then the last minute past right did by a grama it's going to be kosher. So this why isn't it by the base or on the base with we had by the nothing and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a and in both cases it was a versus a grama on the other hand. What's the difference? The grama and the happen in the of the street. The grama happens not in the of the street. If I feel the street in the of the street that's considered a of the street and there the is that in the event that I mess up so then maybe it's going to be an issue. The grama being that it's happening so of the street so there is really no psyche, it's as if someone had it chopped off the foot. It's not the makam shita. The starting point of every shita is you have to be in the right makam. If a man in the makam is not a shita, the whole Indian of there being a mustik that the meat basar can impact is if it's a chef's of a shita. How long does a chef's of a shita? Shita is a chef's of a shita. Now, I just didn't do it properly. How long is not a chef's of a shita? Because it's shalom and I mean that it's not a chef's of a shita, there's no way it's up to revam. You can mess up a shita with a meat basar if it's not the chef's of a shita. Why? Because it wasn't in the makam of the shita. In fact, revam went further. The revam said that what would be if there was an equal on the meat basar. So, that's another one of the five alachas of Moshe and Sinai. What would be if the meat basar was nekar? So, I guess pasha to me that would be like hagrama. It wouldn't be like halada and like shita. And the reason is because equal is not a shita at all. And being that it's not a shita at all, so it's pasha you couldn't mess it up. If I did a shita on the meat basar, nervous, I tripped up, I did the shita in the wrong way. I did it by the halada, you couldn't see the knife. I did the I waited too long. Okay, so there is a sugia of shita with a meat basar of a of a significant shita. Significant shita because it's not in the makam. Is it significant shita because it's an equal? You have to know what about the raso. He doesn't talk about that. But the bottom line is not all five of the alachas of Moshe and Sinai are created equally. Some of them are the chef's of a shita. Nervous, this is shulchan aruch of how you do the shita. Others are not the chef's of a shita. With the chef's of a shita, that's what there's a sugia of the meat basar. With not the chef's of a shita, then not. Either way, toises goes further. And toises says that as much as Rashi said upshat, which at first glance is shver upshat, and the revam came to the defense of Rashi. But at the end of the day, toises brings revam to town. Revam to town couldn't hear Rashi's upshat. Revam couldn't fathom for the life of his how it's possible that if I did a kosher shita, I don't care if the did it makam, not makam. At the end of the day, the animal was kosher. And now I'm going to go right there and I'm going to cut the meat and now because of that I'm going to create an issue which is impossible. And because of that we're going to tell that the animal is not kosher. And the animal is not kosher. Both of these both of these are talking about with the with the meat that is not kosher. But the bottom line is you walk away with a major issue. This is right. This is as fundamental as it gets. And you have tremendous according to in the event that would be a problem. Take a look at the problem. There's no problem in the world. If someone does a look at the problem. There is no issue. This is absolutely positively not going to be a problem. In fact, if you take a look at the problem. Look at the problem. Look at the problem. That if somebody does a look at the problem. Look at the problem. Look at the problem. Look at the problem. Look at the problem. Look at the problem. Look at the problem. Look at the problem. Look at the problem. Look at the problem. Look at the problem. So I think it's for a minute to talk a little bit about it. It's a fascinating I think it's good to talk about it a little bit. So again, that if it did after the animal is 100% kosher. But let's get this clear a little bit. If it's an oif, you only have to shacht one siman, right? So, you shachted roiv of that siman. If it's a beheima, the shiya happened after you shachted roiv of the second siman, right? Because, for example, if you did a shiya in between the two simanim, that in itself would be an issue. Chalada doesn't matter which one it is. But, the bottom line is in a case where the animal became kosher because it was roiv roiv beheima, I did everything. But, I still lo achi you went ahead and you messed up. So, shitas 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 meshubad, we have no choice, we have to go with chomer. The Rashba in his Toras HaBayis and the Maharshal in his Yam Shel [ __ ] right here in Perek HaShocheit, they both bring shitas Rashi. They both meyarich in shitas Rashi, and they both say that when Rashi went to Gemara, and Rashi saw an ibaya of heichel b'mei basra o shav b'mei basra, that maybe it should be a problem. The problem is only mid'rabbanan. It's poshim mid'oraisa, so it can't be a problem. How can it be a problem? Once you have a kashrus sh'eila, do you have a kashrus sh'eila? The whole issue is mid'oraisa issue mid'rabbanan. What would be the reason for there to be an issur d'rabbanan? The reason that the demakim to have an issur d'rabbanan is because there's a g'zeira mid'basra o mid'kam. But, really, avada ikkar hadin, so the Rashba in Toras HaBayis when he discusses shitas Rashi and the Maharshal in his Yam Shel [ __ ] that it's poshim mid'oraisa, there was never a tzav. Mid'oraisa, Rashi knew everything Rabbeinu Tam tayan. Now, he held that this is a svara mid'rabbanan to be gozer mid'basra o mid'kam. Stating that the Tzafna Shur in Siman kuf gimmel, that's where this halacha is discussed. He brings from Rabbeinu Yerucham that Rabbeinu Yerucham went up in shitas Rashi that this is not a sugia mid'rabbanan, this is a sugia d'oraisa. And the truth is there's a very starke hechrech to say that it's a sugia d'oraisa. Because Rashi by both Gemaras, when the Gemara said teiku, Rashi says the halacha is you go with chomer. And the chomer bishlama if it's a safek d'oraisa, safek d'oraisa go with chomer. If only a sfeika d'oraisa, then why are you going l'humra? So, what's pashut the ta'aritz? So, some say this is a shita sayrei and that holds that every single time you have a teiku in shas, even if it's a teiku by the rabbonan, tishbi yitaritz kushyos u'bayos u'smihos until Eliyahu ha'tishbi comes, we have to go l'humra. And Rashi maybe held like that shita sayrei. But k'muvin, it's a little bit dakhuk. It's yoiser mistaber if Rashi said that you're going to go l'humra, it's probably because it's a sfeika d'oraisa. If that's the case, that means if you mess up on the meat basar, even though you technically already have a kosher shchita, it would be okay. And at first glance, tzorech iyun, but tzorech biur, what's pashut shina Rashi? How can it be that once I already have a kosher shchita, it's true, it's different than a but at the end of the day, what's pashut shat that this shita means? Sicha shidua. In the sugiyos of humra, that the Beis HaLevi in chelek beis, siman yud alef, said a biur nifla to say shina Rashi. And that is yish laka. Beis HaLevi doesn't say it in these words, but just to set it up in a very simple way, I think. And that is yish laka. What does ruba k'kula mean? When we say there's an idea of ruba k'kula, what's the shat? Is the shat in ruba k'kula all I have to do is roiv? So, you have to shacht the siman. Oh, ruba k'kula, so really I only have to shacht roiv the siman. Or ruba k'kula doesn't mean that the shiyur is roiv. Ruba k'kula means that the shiyur is kula. I really have to shacht the entire thing. Now, ruba k'kula tells me a chiddush, that when I shacht roiv, that miut that to you doesn't look severed, well, if you would have das Torah, and you would have in your eyes to dig a hole again, you would know that it really is severed. Because by me going ahead and doing roiv, it's nachshav k'ilu the entire thing was really done. Is ruba k'kula the ta'anis that the sheer is right and anything beyond right is no sight is not part of the shita or Rubik cool lie is the tight the sheer is cool lie but when I go ahead and I do right it's as if I really got the cool lie something base of levy if Rubik cool lie means that the sheer is right so what happens after the right is no sight is to the shita if however Rubik cool lie means that when I do right it's as if I shacked the cool lie that means that the cure of the shita is really not happening in the right it's happening in the cool lie now granted no one's going to argue and this is the leap you're going to have to take my mom and shacked however you're going to ever want to learn this rash that if the person wanted after he shacked the right he could have swords down literally and he could have dropped the guns and the knives and walked away that would have been fine and would have been next up as if he did cool lie by doing right but he decided not to but here's the point when he decided not to and he shacked in more than right it was how shacked in that meat faster you know why cuz even when you do Rubik cool lie it's how shacked in the meat faster because that's the tight Rubik cool lie that when I do right it's next up as if I did everything a Rubik it's how shacked in the meat faster so now you did a nice shita but how long did goodbye you're out I did a nice shita with you I I didn't have to treat 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 shita cuz they ate but you did it with a shita if there's no how low shacked in the meat faster then it doesn't make sense that how low then shia should be a problem but she'll tell me but there are a lot of eggs there but that's the rash for the answer to the question but that's the more conventional way to understand rash the more of a bad guy to wait to understand rash I'm going to see him a war but I mean you're working and it's actually much more away from the fact that rash seems to have approaches as a sacred day riser. Well, that's the case of the base of living. It's more to say a word. And the word is you have to say that when you go ahead and you shut the meat faster, it's a shrita. It's a shrita. It's a shrita. What do you mean? Once I do right, I don't have to shut more. But that just means that without shutting more, it's considered shaka. But I thought that at the end of the day, at the end of the day, if I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to shut it, now we're going to be held the shrita and the meat faster is not out there. It's going to be called the shrita because of the fact that I shut it. If I don't shut it, then it's held the shrita all the day the right. And I had that option. But the minute I go ahead and shut the meat tell me it was held the shrita out there. No. If I go ahead and I shut it, now it's already held the shrita all the day my shrita. And it's for that reason, if I do it the other or if I do it the shia, that instance, that instance is already going to be a problem. One of the things the base of living says you could be my beer is and again, I'm going to do this in the spirit a little bit of hazard. We could do the shorter version of this. I think it's much better having a lot of more than that. And that is that Rashi himself on that lemon number base in the Sugio of held the meat Simona mouth take. Rashi himself asks the great Sakasha on himself. And that is Rashi says that if you remember, we had a Gamara. What would be if somebody shut it half the gargaris? The show about to they shut it half the gargaris the Gamara. So that was the shrita of the shita right? So what would be is the shika when he shut it half of the gargaris. And then he was show you. And then he completed it what's the partial show? The reason is cuz it's a gargaris up to half is not an issue. And being that it's not an issue, you didn't even start the shita yet. So you were show essentially fired the shita. If you were show fired the shita, if you go on the shita outside So it was never a shia. It's going to be kosher. If I start the shita and I'm show that's a problem. When it comes [laughter] to the corner, being that up to half is not an issue. So, we don't look at it as it. If you don't look at it as it, you're going to have a it's not going to be an issue. Now, the asked the question. holds and in the case of the when said what it means is that even with regards to the of if you would go ahead and you would half with regards to the of this in [snorts] of itself would be considered the asked the question that according to that holds this why isn't that half of the is for about this is for this is for Frank Frank the if you're going to tell me that is so when you would half of the what were you really you were really right and if you were right so that means that when you were sure now you were sure the you were sure the the and if you were sure the the so at that point you should have yourself a problem right so the question was that is not so I didn't start the when I was sure at half of the but if so when I half of the now did I start to I finished it I'm done already right right I'm this of that one so if I that one and now that I'm sure I was a sure with if I was a sure it should be possible what was the question me for him we're not talking about a you're right in the case of a when you did half of the and then you were sure so then you have a pain of this but we're talking about when you did a knife if you the knife there's not a problem cuz when you the knife all you need to do is one and if you would half of the of the of the knife the My mom the the said it's not a problem right those were the words of the Gamara. My mom hold next to it is correct, so then you're done. So what's the shear? There's not going to be a problem. And if you hold next to it next to it is not correct, so then you didn't start the shear. So either you finished it if next to it next to it is correct, or you didn't start it cuz next to it next to it is not fake the hill of Gamara shear. Now it's interesting Gamara shear asks it on base not on base of it all. This is actually more appropriate to base of it all. But again, you see Gamara shear holds the two shadows and manage to say why is one proper and one is I want to break down the base of it all. But you see clearly Gamara shear held it was the same kasha. Fake kasha kasha. If you're going to tell me that shear of me a bastard is a take all, so what was the Gamara's my mom of something? What's so my mom of something to get about this? It's not so partial at all. It's totally in this crazy shear over here. It's totally in what's the law in the event that somebody shear of me a bastard. What did Gamara say? You want to know why there's no problem with next to it next to it correct if you go ahead and you shear that next piece. The reason is because we're dealing with a knife. A knife even next to it next to it is correct if done. So if you're done, what's the problem of shear? I'm that's the Gamara's boy of me a bastard. And the Gamara applied with a take all. So what the Gamara was not sure about base of it all, the Gamara was not sure about on half of the base of it all. Fake the hill of Gamara shear, what's going on over here? And Gamara shear says and I mean this is a bomber kasha and really it's there's no way to learn my understanding this is a kasha only according to kasha according to in fact time brings this as a right in all kasha. It's one of the times kasha on Gamara shear. But Gamara shear itself does address this kasha, right? The time he addressed this kasha and he said a reason. And you know what he said? Not so much a who she knew it. Not so worried about that Gamara. The who the cuz that was all one big cuz the Gamara knew at the end of the day that next to it next to it is not correct. Anyways, the whole kasha in this following the whole rough sheet of next to it next to it is correct was a piece of shear in me. Cuz this is not it. But at the end of the day this is not mother's here nor there. This is this is where Russian priests are ready to discuss. Dr. Salabi of the stock to base Salabi that the theme might have one in Russia. I need the cash is like the stone and I think the terrorists mom is between top. What's the reason Dr. Salabi that they'd be mocking to say? What's the reason that they'd be mocking to say that in the event that somebody goes ahead and he shove me a bastard it should be initial. What's the Sugio here of some of the bastard? The Sugio is what's the stop him. On the one hand I did a sheet on the right. Being that I did a sheet on the right so it was already how sheet on the mid bastard. It's how sheet on the mid bastard it's shocker. So what am I going ahead it's kosher. So why am I going ahead now this is a hook of a tool that I'm doing afterwards. What's the other side? The other side is but at the end of the day it's it is how sheet on that and being that it is how sheet on that so it's for that reason it could be a difficult I decided not to work with Rubik who could like I want to go ahead and do a sheet of some that's the case it's going to be okay. That's all truth of the base Salabi if I shocked it right. That's good if I shocked it right. In the case of max max arrived which is what the commander is handling on that professor Manal. Dr. Salabi I'm going to tell you double portion. Even if you hold max max is correct it's impossible to say that the sheet that I did in this max max is correct should be how in the other max that I didn't do a sheet on. You know why? Because my causes high max to me high max. If I for sure did a sheet on the right and there's a lot of Rubik who could like so there you could say that what I did in the right I really did in the mid and therefore there's mocking to say being that the mid was done by conscious even though I decided to go over it again it's going to be kosher. You know what I mean that and that's the shadow of the table. Over Dr. Salabi where I'm working with max max is correct where that all I have so there's no mocking to say max max is correct that if I do a sheet on this half for sure for sure that means that it's going to be shchit on the other half. It's It's an impossibility, right? You can't say that the shchit is going to be on the other half. Because then you're going to have to say my causes, right? The causes This should be any any better than that. Let's read inside. The cause that he MS You can't say that the reason the other half is is because of the right there. Maybe it's the other way. Being that half of it is not the half that should also be a problem. Because of the It'd be to say that as long as I have Being that I don't have that in itself would be okay. It would be that I don't need on the other half. Then how in the world would this work out? So the lady If you hold you need right, then this is to say the way works is works on the entire center. And when I right of it, I get on the entire center. And that's the how do you treat now the If however is and when I that that in of itself is going to be okay. The of the can't be that when I get as if I got the whole thing. Because there's no real right. What's if not some after the right then, it can't mean Rubik cube light because Rubik cube light starts with a mitzvah and the mitzvah, 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 tension of the right. If the gather of 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 no reason in the world why a year or a should ever be an issue. The only time there was a time that the year 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 then already this to say that that really it's in If I decided to go ahead and I decided to do it on myself, so the is that maybe there's going to be an issue. But, in the that's which is going 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 All I need is for it to be in the I don't need to be in the whole all I need is for it to be in the if all I need is for it to be that means the other half is no to the that's like a like that 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, the that the whole that it shouldn't ever be an issue when it comes to the that whole that's only in the that's only the if the is where the is Kamaio, there there's a halacha that you have to have the roiv. And if you don't have the roiv in that, there is a halacha that it's that what you do in the roiv is chall in the entire siman. And being that what you do in the roiv is chall in the entire siman, so there, if it's chall shchita there, when I do the shchita of a boil, that's considered the shchita. So now there's going to be a sugia of me a basar and that's why you're a poil. That's why Rabbeinu Berechya of Nassan. But on the side of machsom machsis keroiv, it can't be that the geder is that we look at it as a roiv and it schleps the shchita to the other half. Because just like I have a machsom machsis keroiv on one half, I have a machsom machsis keroiv on the other half. So what's the ta'am of machsom machsis keroiv? The ta'am is [laughter] 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 shiyur. So we didn't notice this when we learned daf chof tes in real time. We didn't realize that really this shiyur over here of machsom machsis keroiv or not in the world of the Beis HaLevi mamash flips the whole halacha of how shchita works. If you need a bonafide roiv, then the geder is the shchita is chall in the entire siman. And that's the whole basis to the shiyur of hechsher b'mei tzimanim or shav b'mei tzimanim. It's all based on the fact that it has to be chall shchita there. Ordinarily, I could drop the guns and get the shchita. I decided to go by there. That's my prerogative. Now now you better get right cuz you're doing a real shchita. On the side of machsom machsis keroiv, the understanding of shchita is completely different. You don't have to shecht the entire siman. Then all you have to shecht is machzis of the siman. If all I have to shecht is machzis of the siman, the other half is no shiyachus. So in the world of machsom machsis keroiv, then it's poshut a shiyur b'mei basar wouldn't be an issue. And that's why it was so poshut the Gemara on daf chof tes amud aleph that that's why it's going to be okay. So again, what's the lomdus? Let's get the lomdus clear one more time. We're going to do a part two to this next shiyur tomorrow. But let's just get the lomdus clear. The lomdus what the Beis HaLevi is saying is is that when it comes to shchita, the halacha is rubo yachol l'eichal kamaio. The mission has said it once, twice, three times in the beginning of Parshas Acharei all the different times that it was mentioned. But the bottom line is this is a cloud that has to be closet many times and underpins the entire sheet. Everyone knows sheet you have to check all simon or you have to check this right. And it's based on the concept of Rubo come out. So the base of lady together of Rubo come out is not that the sheer is right. Together of Rubo come out is that the sheer is cool out. But when I do right, it's next of as if I did cool out. You would think in order to do cool out you have to do cool out. Come out and right can make it as a cool out. By the way think of every tarovis in the world. You have a tarovis of this of a hector. So if the hector is the battle of the issue. So even though I have some issue and some hector, but it's never. The whole thing becomes hector. Even though it's not really hector, but right makes it all hector. Even though I didn't check the whole simon, but right makes it that I checked the whole simon. That's the crux, the power of a right. But the bottom just a muscle. But the bottom line is there is an idea of Rubo shall come out which says that if I check the right, it's as if I checked the entire simon. But here's the point. When I check right and I go fighter, that mute pastor is part of the sheet. I didn't have to do it. I could have relied on the video. I went into the which is the by the way it's supposed to be by the way makes a big deal about the fact that Rashi sheet that throughout the sugi is out. That you supposed to check the entire simon. And he makes it very much Rashi as if to say if you didn't check the entire simon would have been less comfortable with this word. I ain't sure. But the bottom line is if you supposed to check the entire simon you can get the entire simon by checking a right. But if you don't work with the right and you decide to check it by yourself, it's how sheet out. If it's how sheet out 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 possible? At the end of the day it's going to be fine. But it's all predicated on the fact that it's how sheet out in the entire simon. I right that means when you You right you getting the whole simon. But if I physically do the whole salmon, then it's how does she tell you that my physical after she is a lady to bring out this point in a shower for a second that when the Gamora is kind of an Alice that if you hold maxam maxis career a sheer in the last max it would be no issue whatsoever. Completely oblivious to two biggie boys coming up in the next few dozen. And actually himself much of this guy should be in the time himself much of this guy. So, if the base of ladies in the half of the because if you hold max like a maxis career, it can't be by shocking a max and you're going to get a sheet on the other half. Must be on that side it's a fleeting happening in the world. But, in that fleeting happening in the gather of sheet is 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 sheer and there's a hollow there, 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 cave of the Sugoi it was partial. It's only the fear MS. The Mascola after we know for a fact that maxam max is a inner career. That can pay such a thing. It works with Rubik's Cube boy. Oh, Rubik's Cube boy that means it is how does she tell you even in the mid bastard. That means when I shock the mid bastard, then it's how does she tell you that my sheet is as mocking to say better get it right. What's the other side is kosher right? So, then if you take a look at the base of ladies, the base of ladies says that I believe that actually really meant my parents. I'm German he makes it work. But, either way he says we would tear it knocking. Says it's knocking out of the way to kill it is a clear killing in the long list of the base of ladies. But, what's the bottom line? We had the poppity boy on the flame of the base hack of the mid to money mouth take off. Rapunzel nothing to buy on the base of an olive shove the mid to money mouth take off. Actually the sheet of the same both places learns the boy identical. It's all about where you got right of the sheet of right and then the last part, the part that you didn't have to do, you were a moist of career. you violated to hear. What's the hollow there? The hollow there is take it you're going to go with hollow there. Rubik's Cube time hollow there. Rubik's Cube time no way. If you did right with the shita go to the minute you messed up in the last minute, there's no way it's going to be initial. What's the case? The case is where you messed up in the first minute. But that's the shita of Rashi. Shita of Rashi means that even if you mess up in the minute past there's an inside of the word it's going to be a take. How does the shita without you test them out without grammar? It's place is kosher. It takes me to the cuz that wasn't in the shita. Here it's a shita of the shita you just did the shita 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 shita. That's what the is going to be. As relates to Rashi, Rashi of the Rishonim who the Rashba and the held that Rashi just meant with the Rabbonon with the minute past after the minute comma. It's a little bit Rashi says by both takes you go to if it's only why would you go to that is the shita of every take even when it's a shita of the Rabbonon you always go to but the thief epic period that brings to Rabbonon went up in Rashi to the Rashi. And if that's the case, sorry what would be the we said over the base of base of Rabbonon was that it's true but again is not that the shita is right and whatever happens afterwards might as well happen in the foot. The gather is by doing right you're getting the shita in the rest. And therefore there's to say that if I would again I don't have to go by it. You can argue this point. Hence by and hence by but there is clearly a rational way in to understand. It's super partial to understand that if you decide to go ahead and go by there now the shita is happening you don't know my so. So it's happening you don't know my so. You did the shita you did the shita once you did the shita the shita then it has to be initial or maybe not. That was the take of the I grace the catch of if it's correct it's going to be that if you half of a by knife I don't care what you do afterwards. That's because if you hold correct it's partial the shita is only happening in the what happens afterwards is that cuz there's no way for a master a master to slap another master a master cuz my house is high master a master may I master a master. The whole mark him to say that is that's in Rubik a cool way. I mean that the holy boy is predicated on the [ __ ] that happening on the mere master. It's only by Rubik a cool way with his mark him and learn this to say it's how the [ __ ] in the mere master. Master a master correct there's no mark him to say that it's how the [ __ ] in the master master. Right? It's no swerve in the world to say that. It's that reason it was partial in the Gamora. This lady held that this is not my own fault that I'm saying to me I should rush his castle. It's rush his own territory in Sham. The bottom line is a lot just happened. A lot of learn this. This is just the full spars as we like to say. This is the appetizer and his Sham will build on this learn this very much. That already by the way is going to get into the world of super learn this tomorrow Sham.