Chulin 20

Today's daf is Chullin Daf Chof. And we are at the Mishnah in the middle of Daf Yud Tes Amud Beis. Today's daf is being learned as a zechus refuah shleimah for Eliezer Yeshaya ben Broch. So, we're moving along in the first perek of Maseches Chullin, Perek HaKollel Shocheton. We're now holding in the part of the masechta that discusses the five halachos l'Moshe mi Sinai that govern hilchos shechitah. As we saw yesterday, the halacha that's discussed first is what's known as hagromah, which loosely translated means the place on the kavah and the veshet that the shechitah has to take place. We made a big deal about the fact that although the Mishnah sounds like it's coming to present the exact location location location of where the shechitah has to happen, really all it discusses is is the gvul ha'elyon of the kavah. Doesn't say a word about the veshet, not how high up on the veshet you're allowed to go or how low down on the veshet you're allowed to go. Doesn't mention anything about how low on the kavah you're allowed to go. The only thing it mentions is how high on the kavah you can go. The Mishnah, the stam Mishnah on Daf Yud Tes Amud Aleph, was very much of the opinion that the highest place on the kavah one's allowed to do the shechitah is what's known as the tabasach gadol. Stating that, we saw that all the Amora'im pasken that really you're allowed to go higher than the tabasach gadol. Rashi [snorts] spoke out in the sugiyah, yesterday's daf, Daf Yud Tes Amud Aleph, that it's based on a shittah of Rav Chanina ben Antignos mentioned in a braisa, who holds that you can go even into the koivah. The question is how high up in the koivah? That was very much a discussion. Initially, the Gemara said the hilchasa, the halacha is that you could go into the koivah, and like the opinions mentioned in the Mishnah Yomi Tress of but rather like the sheet of another thing that we saw very much that's related to the law of hagroma is that even if a chelek [snorts] of the shchita is done in the right place, but if a chelek of the shchita is done in the wrong place, that could be an issue. As a matter of fact, the shchita is that even if of the shchita was done in the right place, but if only a meat of the shchita was done in the wrong place, that too [snorts] could be an issue. A massive discussion amongst Amora the primary topic of whether that's true if you got roiv first right and only afterwards deviated into the place that you weren't supposed to go or is it only an issue where the shlish was in the wrong place and only then did you get roiv of it in the right place. It was as to what exactly the sheet of what exactly the sheet of was, but that's all yesterday's stuff and the day before's stuff. Today's stuff is going to pick up and discuss another halacha that falls under the umbrella of hagroma and that is when the shochet goes and he attacks the animal quite literally. Does he do it from the front of the animal meaning the throat side of the animal? Does he do it from behind the animal meaning the neck side of the animal? What if he comes from an angle? What if he comes from the right side or if he comes from the left side? How exactly would that play itself out? Now, the Mishnah we're about to learn is interesting because the Mishnah is not just going to tell me the halacha of exactly how you do shchita from the hagroma front, back, or side perspective, but it's going to tell it to me by comparing and contrasting it to the laws of Malika's life. And this requires us to just hazard for a moment what exactly Malika is. So [snorts] really before we even hazard Malika there is a nafkaminah between shchitas behema and shchitas oif. The primary nafkaminah is that shchitas behema requires the severing of the two simanim, the kana and the vashet. For shchitas oif, it's enough if the shochet shacht only one of the simanim. Just like there's an idea of Rubik Akiva which by the way we saw in yesterday's daf, last daf everybody agrees with. But just like there's an idea of Rubik Akiva when it comes to the two simanim of a behema, there's an idea of Rubik Akiva when it comes to the one siman of an oif. But the point is biggest difference between shchitas behema and shchitas oif is shchitas behema requires the severing of the two simanim. As opposed to the oif, only one siman is enough. Another pretty big difference between shchitas behema and shchitas oif is shchitas behema's for sure mid'oraisa. The makor is Parshas Re'eh, perek beis. This is a vachter kasheh to be sicher. As relates to shchitas oif, it's a debate in the Gemara whether shchitas oif is mid'oraisa or whether shchitas oif is only mid'rabbanan. In fact, on the side that shchitas oif is mid'oraisa, there's a debate in the Gemara. Is it learned out from shchitas behema or can't maybe halacha l'Moshe mi Sinai it was a separate halacha l'Moshe mi Sinai. Whereas therefore shchitas behema is mefurash mentioned in the Torah, shchitas oif is a little murky. Ad k'dei kach, there's a man that holds shchitas oif only mid'rabbanan. And even within the world of shchitas oif meaning mid'a big din d'oraisa, there's a man that says actually not mefurash in the Torah. You're not going to find it anywhere. You're not going to find it explicitly, you're not going to find it implicitly through the Yuga Mida Shaiton and the dressers pen or the Lamon base Mida Shaiton and the dressers pen, and you're going to have to resort to the fact there must have been some tradition that was handed down to Moshe Rabbeinu at the Mount Sinai, and as a result, this goes down as one of those halachas that we don't have a makor to anywhere, but at the same time, Chazal very much had been mesayem. But, that's the tiny bit of a setup for the laws of shchitas oif. What about melikas oif? What is melikas oif? When was melikas oif done? So, we know that coming off the heels of zvachim and menachos, when an oif was brought as a korban, the Torah or the bnei Yisrael, the Torah says that rather than shechting the oif, the way the kohen would kill the oif was through melikah. Melikah involved going me mul arpai, as we're going to see in the Mishnah, the nape, the back of the neck of the animal. The kohen would take his fingernail, he would puncture through the neck, through the skin, and he would make his way to where? Dot dot dot. Well, drum roll. He would make his way to the simanim. Melikah very much mirrored shchitah. Now that we're learning maseches chulin, we could appreciate a little bit better exactly how melikah worked. But, whereas shchitas oif in the context of chulin involves a meser with the whole Shulchan Aruch of exactly how you do a shchitas chulin, melikas oif is the same thing, albeit you're not using a knife, you're using the fingernail, it's being done by a kohen, it's an avodah, etc. etc. But, the bottom line is at the end of the day, melikah needs to accomplish exactly what shchitah has to accomplish, [clears throat] and that is it has to sever the simanim. Now, one interesting nuance that ties into the comparing and contrasting between shchitas oif and melikas oif is we said that shchitas oif is unique versus Shchitas Beheima in that it only involves the Shchita of one of the Simanim. When it comes to Melika, so was the Melika done with one Siman or two Simanim? It depends if it was a Chatas Ha'Oif or if it was an Olah Ha'Oif. By the Chatas Ha'Oif, the Torah says you are only supposed to do Melika on one of the Simanim. With the Olah Ha'Oif, you were supposed to do the Melika on two of the Simanim. Either way, you could see where the laws of Melika very much intersect with the laws of Maseches Chulin. Even though one is Kodshim and the other one is Chulin, but very much Me'inyan L'inyan B'eis Ha'inyan. And therefore, the Mishnah that we're about to learn right now, on the one hand is a Chulin Digga Mishnah, on the other hand it's a Zevachim Digga Mishnah. Again, Poshet just following the paper trail of the Sugyas that we're learning, the Mishnayos that we're learning, this Mishnah is picking up where the previous Mishnah left off, and that is more Halachos related to Agravos. Look at the Halacha Mishnah, Hashocheit Min Ha'tzadain. If somebody Shochets Chulin from the side, so again, he's going to get the Kawan and the Veshet, he's going to do everything exactly the way he's supposed to do it. But the angle that he comes at the animal from is Tzadain. Right, Tzadain is Lashon Rabbim. So it doesn't matter if it's Derech Ha'tzad or S'mol Ha'tzad, any one of the Tzadain, says the Mishnah, Shchitaso Kasheira, the Shchita is going to be Kosher. Rashi says that even though the Lashon of the Mishnah Hashocheit sounds like B'di Eved, which by the way, when you learn the first Perek of Maseches Chulin, that is not a frivolous Dig, because how many of the Sugyas, the first few Dafin of the Masechta, very much hinged upon this Dig. So even though it says Hashocheit Min Ha'tzadain, which makes it sound like it's only B'di Eved, S'chateil Digga Rashi, it's really L'chatchila. So L'chatchila, if the Shocheit once and Shochet Min Ha'tzadain, it's going to be okay. Hamoleik Min Ha'tzadain, if the Melika was done Min Ha'tzadain, Melikaso Pesula, then the Melika is going to be Pasul. We'll see more about this in a minute, but Poshet P'shat is, because it says in the Torah regarding Melika, Umalak Es Ro'sho Mimol Arpo. So there the Torah that exactly where the Malika has to take place, Mul Arpa means the nape, it means the back of the neck. And as a result, if you do him in at Sodom, it's not Mul Arpa. I'll show you men of Irish. What would be if somebody did Shita from Mul Arpa? Shita say psula. The Shita is going to be possible. I might like men of Irish. If somebody does Malika from the Irish Malika Malika say Shita. It's not just Malika say Shita, but the average that's what you're supposed to do it. I shake men of Sabah. If somebody does Shita from the throat, so he attacks the animal from the front Shita say Shita. And here too, it's not the average. In fact, Rashi says Roy Shita is happening at Sabah. This is for sure the killer. I might like men of Sabah. If somebody does Malika from the top of Malika say psula Malika is going to be possible. Shakala Irish Kasha Malika says the Mishna that when it comes to Malika, the entire Irish as long as you're Mul Arpa, any part of that area is Kasha Malika. The whole of Sabah and when it comes to the Behima, there you can't come from the Irish. You have to come from the Sabah, but Kasha the Sabah is Kasha with Shita. So, it doesn't matter if you hit from the front or if you hit him in at Sodom, either way it's going to be okay. Bottom line is Nimsa, little wordy, Kasha with Shita possible with Malika. If you do the recap of the Mishna, what you're going to see is that whatever is Kasha with Shita is actually possible with Malika. Kasha with Malika, whatever is Kasha with Malika possible with Shita is going to be possible with Shita. In other words, there's an inverse relationship between what works for Shita and what works for Malika. If it's good for Shita, you know it's not going to be good for Malika. And if it works for Malika, you know it's not going to be good for Shita. The Mishna gives us a little cheat sheet. Obviously, it's to tell us some sort of hidden or see in the Gamara. What exactly that is. So, what's the recap of the Mishna? When it comes to Shita, how you attack the animal. I shake it men of Sodom. Shita say Shita. Rashi says the killer. I shake it men of Irish. You hit it from behind, Shita say psula. I shake men of Sabah. Shita say Shita. So, if you come from the front, you come from the sides, it's good. If you come from the back, it's not going to be okay. When it comes to Malika, it's just the opposite. If somebody shechts from behind, that's what the Torah says, "Umalikus rosho im mimularpa." If somebody hits it from the front or from the sides, he violated the law of mimularpa, and as a result, in that case, it's not going to be okay, which means whatever's good for shchita is not good for Malika, and that's the last line of the Mishnah. "Nimtza kasher bishchita, posul bimalika. Kasher bimalika, posul bishchita." There's one very important Rashi that needs to be spoken out before we say the Gemara, and that is that when [snorts] we say that the Malika had to be done "dafka" from the "oref", but everything else is going to be a problem. That's based on a "pasuk" in the Torah. It says, "Umalikus rosho im mimularpa," which means that it has to be "min ha'oref", and if it's not from the "oref", then it's not going to be okay. The reason if you do it from the "tzavar" or from the "stodem" it's "posul" is because the Torah says what the "makom" of the Malika is, "Umalikus rosho im mimularpa." Right, "makom" features very prominently in the world of "korban". "Shchita" is "korban kodashim" has to be in the "makom" of "tzofayin". "Zrikas" have their places where they had to be "lema'ala "makom" when it comes to the Malika as well. It has to be "mimularpa". And if it's not "mimularpa", it's going to be "posul". When it comes to "shchita", even though the Mishnah says that if somebody is "shocheit" "min ha'oref" it's going to be "posul", "Zok [clears throat] Rashi", that's not a "din" "makom". It doesn't say anywhere in the Torah or even in the "halacha l'Moshe mi'Sinai" that that's the way it has to be. In fact, really, I don't care how you attack the animal. And just like if you do it "min hatzavar", it's okay, and if you do it "min hatstodem", it's okay. Both "lechatchila". "Min hatzavar has "shoycheit", but both "lechatchila". When you do it from behind, "etzem" theoretically it should also be okay. Okay, so then why is it not okay? "Zok Rashi", I'm going to tell you why. The reason is because if somebody shechts from the nape, from the oref, before he gets to the cone and the vashed, he's going to break the neck bone of the animal. And if somebody breaks the neck bone of an animal, that renders the animal a treifa. Once it's treifa, you're not going to be able to eat it simply because it's a treifa. And a treifa in and of itself is an issue. So zokt the Heilige Rashi, there's enough kamina between a moilek min hatzavar min hatzadim that's possul and a shechit min ha'oref that's possul. The moilek min hatzavar min hatzadim is possul because it's not in the right makom of the melika. As opposed to someone that's shechit min ha'oref, that's only possul because you render the animal a treifa. What's the nafka mina? Let's say you can go ahead and you could be shechit min ha'oref in a way where you're not going to make it into a treifa. There's a mitzius you could do this. If the shechit would go and he would take the two simanim, he would take the cone and the vashed, this is a little painful, but he would just somehow dislocate them a little bit, spin them in a way where they're now behind the neck bone. So that when he comes min ha'oref, he doesn't have to break the neck of the animal in order for him to be able to do the shechita. In that instance, it's going to be okay. I you came min ha'oref, I don't care that you came min ha'oref. I just care that you broke the neck of the animal before you actually did the shechita. But enen nami, if you had a way to be machshir the simanim in the vernacular, so that you didn't have to break the neck bone in order to do the shechita even though you came from an oref, it's going to be okay. Either way, on that note, zokt the Gemara, "My oref." So the Mishnah talked about an oref, right? "Ha'shechit min ha'oref shechita se psula. Ha'moilek min ha'oref melika se psula." Says the Gemara, "Eilima oref man ish, does oref mean literally oref?" So what is literally oref? I mean, we keep on saying oref is the nape. It's the back of the neck. Rashi says that's really not the oref is. What the oref really is is the back of the head, not the back of the neck. And if that's the case, says the Gemara, my ear you shake it. I feel my looking at me. If earif means the back of the face, which is what it usually means, so what the Mishnah has shake it with the earif shrita say tzuva. I will I might look at my earif shrita say shira. Malika from the earif literally is also a problem. You know why? Cuz it says in the Torah Malika is roshai. Mean molar by amrachmana for the arpa. It has to be molar earif, not by the earif itself. I will my earif, says the Gemara, you have to say what does earif mean? It means mean molar earif and anachinami. In other words, >> [snorts] >> we're reading the Mishnah that says hashaikhet min the earif amalik min the earif and of course we're associating the earif with the pasuk in the Torah that says amalik is roshai mimolarpa. But I don't know if the Gemara says that's true. >> [laughter and gasps] >> The pasuk doesn't say you do the malika on the earif. It says you do it molarpa. And came in the earif, right? You do it facing the earif. You do it in an area that's adjacent to the earif, but not the actual earif. In fact, from the pasuk it's pretty clear that if somebody would do the malika on the earif would be like doing the malika from the tzavar. Because it has to be not on the earif proper, it has to be mimolarpa. But that's not what the Mishnah says. The Mishnah says literally hashaikhet min the earif amalik min the earif. So the Gemara says you have to say earif in the lashon of the Mishnah is lav dafka. What it means over here is what the Torah refers to as mimolarpa. And anachinami, the mimolarpa of the Torah and the earif of the Mishnah is the same thing. It says the Gemara, if you're not sure that this is the pasuk, it's really mitoyek that way in the Mishnah cuz the Tanna said cuz look at the pasuk. It says kol earif kasher l'malika, right? That was the very very end of the Mishnah. Nimtza kasher that the entire earif is kasher l'malika and the entire tzavar is kasher l'shchita. And the fact that it says kol earif kasher l'malika, that's a raya that the earif of the Mishnah is not the oil of in the literal sense, but rather it's more our point. Now, where do you see that in the world called oil of make be called oil of means called oil of manage. How do you know called oil of means called more our point? So, if you look at Rashi the bra mask of the tiny safer, so Rashi the whole oil of kosher the Malik the evil oil of manage. If it means literally the oil of my call the oil of. What's that lotion called oil of? Very double more to the whole area of the oil of is a very small area. I will show my me no more oil of come out. Must be it's referring to the more oil of show who oil of. That's really a longer area. The lotion of called oil of sounds like some expensive area. If it's referring to what we know as the oil of wouldn't pass the lotion call. It's partial stuck to the more that when the mission says oil of it means what the terror is referring to as more oil of San Hanani. If the coin would go and he would do the Malika on the oil of manage, that would be a problem. I the mission says how many like the oil of Malika Shira, it means really the more oil of. So, what the mission is describing as the oil of is what the terror really describes as the more oil of says the more. We know how many minutes. So, the bottom line is is Malika we know has to be done by the more oil of and we're taking the more oil of as being the nape, right? The back of the nape. Now, this is something that everybody knows, but we take for granted that it is what we know it is. The more now is going to bring a price that is going to tell us the more car. How do you know more oil of is the nape? How do you know it's the back of the nape? Says the more the time of the bottom of the price. It says in the terror Malika Shira me more oil of more means how many years of oil of means the area that sees the oil of. So, the oil of we said literally means the back of the head. So, the area that sees it, that's adjacent to it, right? You can't go higher than the back of the head. So, obviously you're going lower. So, what's the area? It's the back of the nape. For you know what the passage says for who you will shave me more oil of, right? This is in partial ball of clay of souls you will shave me more oil of sees me more oil of means that they're like facing me, they can see me. Additionally we have a moment the passage says is a passage in the mayo period base key funnel a light oil that clients or they turned their towards me, not their face. I mean, they're not looking at me straight. They turned their towards me. He says what's the point of having to Let me explain to you. Because from the fact that it says I know it means next to and would mean next to the but I don't know what the is. Then they that I know what of the is going to be I need the second says you see the is the other side of the So if you're looking at me straight, you're looking at me from the So if you're looking at me straight, you're looking at me from the and if you're turning your head towards me, you're looking at me from the Again, this was very intuitive. We all knew this, but the bottom line is the says that I know that the means the back of the face. How do I know that? Because and I know means adjacent to. It's How do I know that? Thus, means the back of the neck. I'm The said the of the bird The of the bird The kind of bird and he's them, but he dislocates them, he dislodges them a little bit. He puts them to the back of the neck. And and there he does the bird. So the way the does the bird doesn't just go over to the bird and boom do the bird. First, he takes the of the bird and he's them and then he does the bird. Now, who said this to the The says there were two There were two understandings of what the meant. I think that some said that what the was saying was not that [laughter] the has to do this, but if he wants to do it, he could do it. You would have thought maybe this is not okay. >> [laughter] >> They could have There were others that said No, what the was saying was that this is the the way that it has to be. Says the However, I think I have a I think it's like the command of my heart says that didn't mean that this is the way it has to be but only that if you want to do it this way you can do this mean by what's the right because the mission said that if somebody does from the if it's possible it's only if somebody does from the if it's going to be kosher if you can tell me that the way was always done was by being master so what's the mission essentially saying that if somebody takes the and he's master them and he does that's the good if somebody would do the equivalent there of the same exact thing and do a then it would be a problem but that's not true because if the show was master to the by the way we spoke to say it right after we don't dimension this was the critical rash we said we have to speak out my area my leg why is it only my leg is going to be okay after we show you even is going to be okay because again the paid the way the until he doesn't say anything about the what's the reason that if you show it's possible it's obvious because you're going to break the neck bone and as a result you're going to render it into a but if you master the able to do the way we're not breaking the neck bone then there's no question the world it's going to be okay now if you're going to tell me that the only time is kosher is if you master the then you basically just told me that if you the from the it's going to be possible that's for sure not the case and you have to say that what the meant was not you have to be master what they meant was after master you can be master you don't have to you can and the mission that says that if you it's kosher but if you is going to be talking about it's going to be talking about in a case where you were not master and in that situation if you it's okay if you're it's not okay if you it's okay because the says if you it's not okay because you made it into a by the way, if shoycha is a problem cuz you're making it into a treifa, so why is malika not a problem cuz you're making it into a treifa? Cuz the Torah says that's what you're supposed to do. That's not a kosher, right? You do yibum with an aishes ach. That's what it is. Economically, you're doing uh melika in an oifen where first you're breaking the neck bone which makes it [laughter] technically a treifa, but I feel like this way it's going to be. But the bottom line is the only way you could learn this mishna this way is if you hold that you don't have to do melika in a way where you're being maxed at the simanim. Once again, the Bnei Rechiya said that the way melika is done, mitzvas melika is maxed at the simanim from melik. Ikka de'amrei that you have to af maxa. Ikka de'amrei you have to. And the Gemara said mistabeik man d'amar af maxa because if not, I really don't know how to learn the mishna. The mishna seems to say that there's an inyan of melika in an oif being kosher and shoycha in an oif being possul. If the only way melika in an oif is kosher is when you're maxed at the simanim, shoycha would also be kosher. Must be you could do melika al katanim in one of the ways where you're not maxed at the simanim. In that situation, melika is kosher even though you're making it into a treifa cuz mitzvaso beka. As opposed to shoycha is going to be possul because you definitely don't have to shacht that way. The Torah doesn't say do it in that way. So for sure, if you're going to go ahead and do it that way, you're going to make it into a treifa. Therefore, it's going to be a problem. Stating there. Amri Rabiyani. Rabiyani said "Yikablu ha'reuvin es tzum vasa." As she says, reuvin means na'arim, children. Let the children, the Bnei Rechiya, be mikabel their tzuva. Meaning, a veraya not like them. And the raya Rabiyani said it is from our own mishna. The Tanna equals the end of the mishna said "Nimtza kosher be'shoycha, possul be'melika. Kosher be'melika, possul be'shoycha." Right? So that was the very last line of the mishna. That any that's kosher be'shoycha is possul be'melika. Kosher be'melika is possul be'shoycha. Now, that's clearly coming to tell me something because we saw from the mishna that there's an inverse relationship between what's kosher be'shoycha and what's kosher for melika, right? Melika, the oif is kosher and the tzameres is possul. By shoycha, it's the opposite. So why did the ton of the mishna need to tell me this one line? Obviously it's coming to be me mired something. When would they mired? What's it coming to be mired? Love them with the max is one of my higher out of the line. I think what it's coming to be me mired is something that's kosher be shrita or possible be malika. And that is if someone's max at the simon and my higher out of it. That is kosher be shrita. And the mishna is coming to tell me or intuitively that it's only kosher be shrita but it's actually going to be possible be malika. You have to do the malika in the regular way. And if you max at the simon and it's actually not going to be okay. So I'm going to be honest you couple of shivas on the here said that mitsubishi malika max at the simon and my higher out of my life. We had two started. It means max it means max it after it's not max it's not max it after. It doesn't work. You can't be max. You know where I see it in the mishna? Before the mishna? No, but I dig in the mishna that I don't know what to do with because the mishna says nitsa kosher be shrita possible be malika kosher be malika possible be shrita. This whole line is actual. You know what the dish of the line must be? That there's something that's kosher be shrita that's possible be malika. If you max at the simon and my higher out of it for sure it's kosher be shrita. There's no paid of how you do the shrita. Just get it right. I don't care. And don't don't make it into a treif. Okay, if you max at the simon and make it into a treif. But by malika there's a paid of how you supposed to do it. How you supposed to do it? Well, that means you do it in the regular way and it's actually not going to be okay. Now, if the dish of kosher be shrita possible be malika kosher be malika possible be shrita is the mude and max at the simon and my higher out of the line. So that explains what the dish of kosher be shrita possible be malika is. Right? Kosher be shrita if you max at the simon and my higher out of and that's going to be possible be malika. The way you give me a what's the dish of the next line? Kosher be malika possible be shrita right says nothing. But I got working once I tell you a dish in half of the end of the mishna doesn't bother me that I told you the other half of the mission as well. Meaning that ending of the missioner, as long as there's a hidush in half of it then I could tell you the other half is poetic symmetry. I just threw it in with Derek but the bottom line is the Gamorah is saying of Yanni talking I don't see any hidush in that line. Unless unless unless you tell me the like of Ben Arakiya then there's a hidush in kosher the possible Malika and I also told you kosher Malika possible the Gamorah says Rabba heard this he came to the defense of the Ben Arakiya. He says why? You going to frag up the Ben Arakiya who said mitzvah Malika is at the very least off the similar you can't frag it off but don't say that. I don't know what's coming to my something I'll tell you what's coming to my maybe what's coming to my is if someone had and did the with his chain tooth or iron with his finger nail. Come on that it's going to be possible. If that's the case which part of the end of the missioner is the second part. Kosher Malika which is chain not by the way. I'm sorry it's not chain right? Malika was done not with his tooth it was done with his finger nail but that's kosher Malika possible and that's what the of here is going to be. Now one second if it's only that's kosher Malika so where do you see that that and the chain are going to be possible you telling me whatever is kosher possible but you can't do with a finger nail right? We know you could do with a different things you can do. So you could have thought maybe you can use a finger nail okay so you see kosher which is the finger nails possible how do you know also the chain chain what chain is mentioned no so Rashi says possible because what would be the that you can't use a why not? The only could be we learned these already is because it's so if the reason it's mahuber, it makes sense that if you can use the tziporin that's mahuber, you can't use the chain that's mahuber either. So, the kosher b'malika will be chain, but the possul b'shchita will be I'm sorry, the kosher b'malika will be tziporin, but the possul b'malika is going to be the chain and tziporin. Because once I know you can't use the tziporin, then in shchita it makes sense you wouldn't be able to use the chain in the b'dieved way. Rabbi Chanina said, "I don't think it's much that nima kosher b'shchita possul b'malika kosher b'malika possul b'shchita the chiddush is kosher b'malika possul the malika b'dieved maximum left chayra ayra and you told me kosher b'malika possul b'shchita ayra could be just the opposite. The chiddush is kosher b'malika possul b'shchita l'muta chain and tziporin and I told you kosher b'shchita possul b'malika b'dieved ayra ayra, but the Gemara says can't be. You know, like a chain in the b'dieved b'dieved tanya lo. That's a m'furash mishna we had on daf tzadi vov amud bais. That's a m'furash mishna that you can't use the shinayim and the tziporin. So, why would I need a diuk in a mishna here on your tzadi vov amud bais to tell me something that the mishna told me buck tzayna pun intended already on daf tzadi vov amud bais. Oh, am Rabbi Yirmiya. So, Rabbi Yirmiya said, "L'muta maylech u'mayvei." Maybe it's coming to remind something else. It's coming to remind maylech u'mayvei. Okay. The chiddush is in kosher b'shchita possul b'malika and kosher b'malika possul b'shchita is not being told me b'dieved ayra ayra. How is shchita done? So, it's one of the five halachos l'Moshe miSina right? You have to be maylech u'mayvei. K'machshalaan that maylech u'mayvei is the way you do a shchita, but believe it or not possul b'malika. If the coin would do malika in a way where he's maylech u'mayvei, it wouldn't be okay. Maybe that's what the chiddush is. Again, so you could find b'nei Rabbi Hiyya not l'muta chain and tziporin because that's already a m'furash mishna, but it's l'muta maylech u'mayvei. The Gemara says "Eicha madah maylech u'mayvei possul?" That's all good if you hold that when it comes to malika maylech u'mayvei is possul. Ela m'anda amar kosher b'malika m'anda that says that malika is kosher maylech u'mayvei. May echa l'maymar? So, the Gemara says you're just trying to find the b'nei Rabbi Hiyya right? You hold you have a mishna the way of b'nei Rabbi Hiyya. Okay, b'nei Rabbi Hiyya is saying m'anda amar maylech u'mayvei possul. I'll tell you the b'nei Rabbi Hiyya hold that maylech u'mayvei is possul and if that's the case now Dafka it's coming to Mu'uteh. Maxis in bottom rather what's coming to Mu'uteh is Moishe Omeivi be Melika. It's coming to tell me that it's going to be possible. What's the recap of this last part of the Dafka? The Bnei Rav walked into Beis Medrash. Sounds like they were young, and they said Mitzvas Melika Maxis in bottom from Moishe. And there was a whole debate, did they mean Af Maxa or did they mean you have to be Maxa? The Gemara said I think there's a Raya from the Mishna that it's not that you have to be Maxa, but it's only Af Maxa. But then Rebbi Yana'i walked into Beis Medrash, and he said "You Kablu Ha Reuvin." Sounds [clears throat] a little derogatory, but you Kablu Ha Reuvin as Tshuvasam. The Reuvin should realize that from the Mishna it's not like that. Because the Mishna has this extra line. Kasha B'Shchita Pasul Melika Kasha B'Shchita it's coming to something. I think it's coming to my head that Maxis which is Kasha B'Shchita is possible. Melika says it's not that's what it's coming to my head. Could be the Kasha Melika Pasul Melika it's coming to my head same thing to and if you don't like that I could tell you that the Kasha is Kasha B'Shchita Pasul Melika and it's coming to my head. Melika maybe that's going to be possible. I know everybody holds Melika maybe is possible. Not everybody has to hold it. Just Bnei Rephiah has to hold it. And as long as Bnei Rephiah hold that Melika maybe is possible, they could tell you that's what's being has nothing to do with Maxis Maxis is going to be Kasha. Not just that, some hold Maxis that's the only way that you're going to be able to do it. So we just mentioned the concept of being Moishe Omeivi when it comes to Melika. So again, Moishe Omeivi is one of the five Moshe M'Sinai that govern Shchita, right? You can't be you can't press with the knife against it and do the Shchita that way. You have to be Moishe Omeivi. When it comes to Melika, it sounds like it's a Shaila, right? So it's a Shaila. It's a as >> Raph Gahan is mitzvahs malika. The mitzvah of malika is koitseits. He coin takes his fingernail and he cuts through the skin, the flesh of the animal. Viyoyraid. And he goes through the neck bone. The zoo gets all the way to the simonim. He severed one simon or two simonim. The zooey mitzvah this is the way it's supposed to do. So the gamora says this is what Raph Gahan said. So Raph Avin understood from Raph Gahanna. That what he meant to say was koitseits viyoydin. Welcome maybe like that has to be done in this way. And if it's not done in this way it's not going to be okay. Where did he see it? So Rashi says I'll tell you where he saw it. Because if the wording is of Raph Gahanna. Mitzvahs malika koitseits viyoyraid vizu he mitzvah. What does that sound like? She not kosher of lucky. This is the way it has to be. If you do it this way it's going to be okay. But if you don't do it this way it's not going to be okay. So Raph Yirmia told Raph Avin. It could be that if you do it in a way where you malika maybe then it's certainly going to be kosher. I if that's the case of my zooey mitzvah. So what did he mean when he said zooey mitzvah? He didn't mean to say that >> [snorts] >> it has to be in a way where it's koitseits viyoy. But he meant to say that if you want to be koitseits viyoy if it's going to be okay. What's the kashas when it comes to shrita it's not okay. So you would have thought that when it comes to malika it's not also not okay. That it is going to be okay. Next halacha. I'm Raph Yirmia on Mashimo. Raph Yirmia said in the name of Mashimo. Kol akosha bishrita. Anything that's kosher bishrita connect the oirev kosher malika. So anything [snorts] that works by shrita connect the on the oirev side is going to be kosher malika. So the Mishnah made a big deal that Shita had to be min hatzavar, min hatzodaim, dafka. If you do it min ha'oref, it's going to be pasul. Malika is just the opposite. Malika has to be from the oref, or what the Torah refers to as mul arpa. But, if you do it from the front or from the sides, it's going to be kasha. So, we know that shrita is done on the front side of the animal, and Malika is done on the back side of the animal. Says Rabbi Yirmeya in the name of Shmuel, "Kol ha'kasha b'shrita Any area that's kasha for shrita on the front side of the animal, connect the oref kasha Malika is going to be kasha for Malika as long as it's on the back side of the animal." Says the Gemara, "It sounds like Rabbi Yirmeya and Shmuel are coming to say chiddush, right?" So, this is Shmuel's memra. Ha, what's the chiddush? Pasul b'shrita that if there's something that would be pasul b'shrita, pasul Malika. It'd be pasul Malika. That's pretty uh clear. L'mu demai? What exactly is the chiddush? So, what was Shmuel coming to be m'mamei? So, the Gemara says, "E leima l'mu demai? Eka simanim. Maybe what he was coming to be m'mamei was the eka simanim." So, what's the eka simanim? So, this is another one of the five halachot l'Moshe mi'Sinai that govern shrita, and that is that in the event that the simanim, the kon and the veshet, are completely dislodged from where they're supposed to be. They're attached to the jaw, whatever exactly the matzius is. But, to the extent that they're dislodged, at that point, if you do the shrita, even if you get it in the right place, and you make a maybe and there's no sh'hiya, right? You conform with everything else that you're supposed to conform with. But, to the extent that there was an eka simanim, that in and of itself is going to be pasul. So, maybe that's what Shmuel's chiddush was. When Shmuel said, "Kol ha'kasha b'shrita connect the oref kasha Malika," and it sounds like "Ha'pasul b'shrita, pasul Malika." So, there's one pasul in shrita that maybe you wouldn't have thought of as a pasul in Malika, k'masha m'lona it is. And this is something until Shmuel came into the world, you would have no way of knowing. It's not m'forash in the pasuk, it's not m'forash in the Mishna in a brisa. So maybe what Shmuel is coming to be machadesh was that ikra simanim, which we know was a problem by shchita, so he's coming to be megala to us that ikra simanim is also going to be a problem when it comes to melika. Now, let's just go back and speak out for one second. There's some Rashis over here. Come over here, right? Take a look at your amud. But Rashi says that the Gemara understands that it's not possible that Shmuel is simply coming to be machadesh that the makem of melika is what mirrors the makem of shchita. He says, "I'll tell you why. Because we know what the makem of the melika is. The Torah says mol arpa. When it comes to shchita, there we don't know exactly what the makem is. That's governed by hagruma. That's governed by a halacha. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO MELIKA, WE know what the makem is. The makem is mol arpa. And as long as it's mol arpa, then it itself is going to be okay. So I don't need to come on to hilchos shchita to know the makem of where the melika is being done cuz the Torah tells me where the makem of the melika is being done. Al mai, there's some halacha that transcends just the area of mol arpa. That's related to makem of shchita that I need you to know is true also for melika so that if you get it wrong by shchita, it's fine to get it wrong by melika, it's also going to be a problem. So the question is what is it? So Rashi says, "Maybe that's what this is. It's the halacha of ikra simanim." Meaning if the simanim were necha, so the simanim were in the wrong place. And this is not the same as being machsa simanim. When we machsa the simanim in the previous Gemaras, you didn't detach it in a way where it's considered an ikra simanim. Ikra simanim means where you physically completely detach it from where it's supposed to be. That's a problem when it comes to shchita. And maybe come out Shmuel that's a problem when it comes to melika as well. But the Gemara says, "Not true." Cuz we're talking about by Yichus. By Yichus, he said, "And he said this in a a brisa." He farkoyft the brisa ein ikra simanim ba'av. That when it comes to eifas, there's no ikra simanim. And by the way, from the loshon of ein ikra simanim ba'av, it'll be a discussion in the Gemara in a minute. It sounds like even when it comes to shchita saif, there's no halacha of ikra simanim. Certainly melika saif, there's no ikra simanim. So it can't be that's what Shmuel meant. I'm Rava. So Rava said he meant to say was something else. Lemutei Rashi, He meant that if you're going to do it in that area, you're going to do it on the itself, that's going to be a problem. What's the been of because I have to do the that's a little too high. So so too if you did the on that's going to be a problem. That's what we spoke out. Me and one of the side. It says in the third it has to be obviously can't be and we said means not the which would mean but the area that's adjacent to that's where you where you can be which is clearly not right. So the says my I'll tell you what meant when he said he knew the the the spoke out right away. That's what talking about the area where when he said when he meant to say was right. It's the area where the head begins to slant right where it meets the neck and you have that slant over there. Okay, going to knock that me right. It's talking about where the is started the right which is too high. It's not it's the itself. The area the area and then he made his way down and he feared the area in the right place and the reason said this is a problem is because like the food name of yesterday's area area area it's considered and the way if you started too high and you made your way down, that's what he was coming to so didn't need to walk into the and tell you where to do the because it's so clear where you do the you do it and once we define like we did in the beginning of the you know exactly where you're supposed to do the so he was coming to tell me some that's the area of the area not where you do the area but the of the area the other of the area that says that it's not enough that you get rov of the shchit in the right place, maybe, but you also have to make sure could be you get all of it. Or at the very least, if you're going to get rov, you better get the rov right first, and then only afterwards can you draw out of bounds, right? So, it's that smooth, and that's what Shmuel was coming to say. Specifically, the case was when you were higrum shlish v'shachatz shlish, it's going to be pasul. This is for extra credit. Why did Shmuel pick the case, or the Gemara when it's explaining Shmuel, higrum shlish v'shachatz shlish pasul? It's telling R' Nachman bar Rav Chisda the first lishana and the second lishana. The teretz is pasul. Teretz is because, if you remember in the beginning of the sugya in daf Yud Ches amud Alef, this is two days ago's daf, Rav Ashi Shmuel d'Amri travayo, d'halacha is like Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehuda. So, we know Rav Ashi Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehuda. And Rebbi [snorts] Yosi bar Rebbi Yehuda holds that if you get rov of it, that in and of itself is for sure going to be okay. So, if that's the case, then what would be the problem if you were nak at mishifu rosha d'higrum ad mata d'atoya, and then you got rov of it, right? If the halacha is like Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehuda, it should be okay. The teretz is, he's going according to Rav Huna Mar Avasi in the ershta lishana, that the only time that Rebbi Yosi bar Rebbi Yehuda said it's going to be kosher is when you were shachatz shlish and then you were higrum shlish. But even he's moyda that if you higrum shlish v'shachatz shlish, it's going to be pasul. Therefore, in Shmuel's world, that's the only heicha timsa where halacha l'maisa this would actually be a problem. Again, that was extra credit. That's the only way this is going to work. Cheshboning daf Yud Ches and daf Yud Tes coming together a little bit over here in daf Yud Alef. So, amora'im achrei d'Rav Ashi, amora'im achrei d'Rav Ashi, d'Rav Ashi, right? Had d'tani R' Nachman bar Yitzchak. This d'Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said in ikusi manna d'oif, that there's no such thing as ikusi manna d'oif. Amarnan El Amarna d'main shchita l'fi minyan d'atoyra. That's only true according to Amarna that holds that in shchita l'fi minyan d'atoyra. Amarna d'main shchita l'fi minyan d'atoyra. But according to Amarna that holds minyan shchita l'fi minyan There's going to be equal as well. So again, Rummy by your house call said in equal see money by life. Comes again the rubber and he tells Rav Ashi, I hold this is only true according to my number that holds in life minute higher. Mentioned in the introduction to the death, it's a shadow with the life is made a riser. It's only the point of my number that holds in life minute higher. I hear it. But if you hold life minute higher then for sure there's going to be equal. Equal is a law that governs the cheetah. AND WHY WOULDN'T IT GOVERN THE LAWS of life is? Oh, if you hold that cheetah is behind me is the riser. Cheetah is LIFE IS THE RUBBER on them. That would be the killer. I'm going to let you tell them I think it's actually just the opposite. The man on my life minute higher. The point of my number that holds in life minute higher. Equal to my mom. There you could say the agony. The ain't equal. Meaning the tailor says that there's a heel to do cheetah's life but the tailor also says there's no a law of equal. And actually says that from the words the agony you see that the Gamora is assuming in this set that [snorts] the man on my life minute higher that it's a law of my wish to me see that agony is always a law of a law of my wish to me see that right Gamora Gamora. It's a tradition usually from Sinai. But the bottom line is is that if you're going to tell me it's a law of my wish to me see that in cheetah life is really minute higher. So if I care then I can hear any equal because maybe the same a law of my wish to me see that said there's no equal. But it's learned out from the him. It's not a law of my wish to me see that. We learn it from the him. Now how would you learn it from the him? So actually says you would learn it from a hacker cuz the possible says in my equal you don't have those the him of the Well, you could say you need equal the him. It could be there was a Messiah that this hacker is the mechta, [laughter] and I only learn the iker din shchita from the heckish, but I don't learn I don't learn the din iker. Elema inch min hakoint min inch min elema divrei sofrim rather it's midivrei sofrim meichech mirula. What would be the If it's midirabbonan, how would you know shchita zaif? You know mibeheima. Well, if you know mibeheima, then kulam beheimish makes sense that it should be completely like beheimish, and if by beheimish there's a halacha of iker, there should be a halacha of iker here as well. So, Rav Achabrei Rav turned to Rav Ashi, and he told him something very intuitive. He said Rami bar Yechiel said ein iker siman ba'if. I think it makes sense that Rami bar [snorts] Yechiel is going koint to mandam inch shchita life min ha'ateres. So, we may call there's no din iker, but if you hold shchita life is min ha'ateres, whether he holds halacha l'Moshe miSinai, whether he holds this learned out from beheimish, from the heckish, then for sure if it's de'oraisa d'gedein, then there should be a din iker. Told Rav Ashi back to Rav Achabrei Rav Yiva, counter-intuitively, I think it's just the opposite. If you hold it's mid'oraisa, then it could be what it is. If it's halacha l'Moshe miSinai, maybe that halacha l'Moshe miSinai says there's no iker. And even if it's learned out from a heckish, maybe there's a misora this heckish is the mechta. If it's midirabbonan, then for sure it's just rabbinic in nature. We're saying that oh, you shacht a beheimish shacht an oif. Kul detikna rabbonan kein d'oraisa tikun. Where do you ever find that the rabbonan who are mirroring their halacha based on the d'oraisa would make it different than the d'oraisa. And if the d'oraisa definition of shchita is not iker, then I think that the rabbonan definition of shchita would be not iker either. Amaravina, amali Rav bar Keisi. Rav bar Keisi told me detani Rav bar Keisi. This Rav bar Keisi said ein iker siman ba'if. That is no iker siman ba'if. Amaravina, it's only true by melika. Avul bishchita yesh iker. So, this is again another discussion in the Amora'im where we're pounding on this braisa that the Rav bar Keisi had. And that was ein iker siman ba'if. The first discussion was is going koint to mandam that holds yesh shchita life min ha'ateres the Torah dafka or the man yesh life in the Torah dafka discussion between the second one and this is who's talking here Ravina is talking right just notice this the first discussion is the second discussion is Ravina coincidence probably not so Ravina says oh my Robin Bar Kisi I heard from Robin Bar Kisi that when Robin Bar Kisko said in ikusi monin but if he only said it regarding malika but when it comes to shrita yesh ikor faith in akasha how can you say that I'm hearing me on my shmuel call akasha be shrita connect but I have kosher the malika and it sounds like from there how possible but anything that's going to be possible be shrita possible it sounds like is going to be possible be malika as well well if that's the case if you're going to tell me that there's a concept of ikor when it comes to shrita the raya shrita so if has a halacha of ikor well then this halacha of akasha be shrita connect kosher be malika but anything that's possible be shrita connect possible be malika should also be true by malika and the gamara says I hear what you're saying you have you have no choice you're going to have to say that that halacha is is at odds with this halacha that Robin Bar Kisko said [clears throat] either way we're going to pause over here a little bit abruptly what was the last part of the Robin Bar Kisko had this brice of in ikusi monin but if there's no halacha of ikusi monin but if and there were two debates not surprisingly one is the other one is Ravina sounds like I don't know maybe this is the formation of the town and we have to know exactly how to present this brice of this halacha that Robin Bar Kisko had and the first discussion was is this somehow totally in the machlokes whether shchita deraisa or derabanan and if yes, is it dafka in shchita or maybe the other way around dafka in shchita treifa deraisa and the second discussion over here is whether or not this was true only by melika or whether this was true by shchita as well. This is something we'll pick up tomorrow and by the way, this just from learning the gemara you see it seems to really be totally in a bigger discussion and that is the halachos l'Moshe miSina that govern shchita. Do they govern melika do they not govern melika? Right? If you think about it, this is the second time that we saw this in today's daf. We saw this with regards to melika a whole shaila about melika when it comes to melika. There's a man you can't even be melika if you wanted to and here we are regarding ikkusei man'a. Melika and ikkusei man'a are two of the five halachos l'Moshe miSina. So really these two micro discussions really lend themselves to a much broader discussion and that is whether or not the laws that govern shchita govern melika as well. Again, we're in the middle of the sugia and b'ezras Hashem we're going to pick this up tomorrow. But as it relates to ray, I think it's kedai and kashmach to discuss something. It's definitely a digression from what it is that we're learning stating that today as we will see is very much the day to discuss it and that is an epic machkar from the great gaon Rav Reuven Margolies. Now this machkar Rav Reuven Margolies mentions briefly right here in the sefer Tziyur al Hachag Chullin daf chof, but it's much more ba'arichus in the sefer Sheimos v'Kinuyim baTalmud and it's >> [snorts] >> perek yud gimmel pages Nun Gimmel, Nun Daled, Nun Hey, and Nun Vav. And it begins with a Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi's in Maseches Challah. It's Perek Daled, Halacha Daled. The Yerushalmi says, "Omar Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Rabbeinu she ba Goyla the Rabonim, the Gedolei HaDor in Bavel, who were Mafreshin Chumas u Ma'asros, they used to be Mafresh Chumas u Ma'asros in Chutz L'Aretz, meaning in Bavel, Ad she Bo HaRavain u Bitloisam. Until the Ravain came, and they were Mevatel the Inyan. Man Inun HaRavain? Freight the Yerushalmi, "Who were the Ravain that were Mevatel Chumas u Ma'asros in Bavel?" And freight the Yerushalmi a one-word answer, "Targum Anya." You want to know who they were? They were Targum Anya. Tosfos in Maseches Avodah Zarah Daf Nun Tes Amud Aleph quotes this Yerushalmi, that until the Ravain, Man Inun HaRavain, Targum Anya came, the Yidden Mafresh Chumas u Ma'asros in Bavel, they went ahead and they were Mevatel it. And he says, "Targum Anya, v'lo yada Pirushai." By Tosfos did not know what this meant. If you take a look in one of the Meforshim on the side of the Yerushalmi, the Rosh Sirilio, he also says that. He says, "Lo Yadana." Says, "I don't know what this means. Who exactly were the Ravain?" And the Gemara asks, "Who were the Ravain?" And answers, "Targum Anya." But Arba Arba Tzurich, I don't know who the Targum Anya were. So, apparently we were supposed to not know who the Ravain were. And Targum Anya doesn't seem to have clarified this issue. In fact, if you look at the Rosh in that same Sugya over there in the fourth Perek of Maseches Avodah Zarah, the Rosh has a whole Arikhus, and he suggests different Shitot, all a little bit Dachuk, trying to figure out, "Man Inun HaRavain?" And the answer to that is Targum Anya. What exactly is going on in this Yerushalmi? If you take a look at the Pnei Moshe on the side of the Yerushalmi. The Pnei Moshe says as follows, Targum Anya, "Hein ha metargumin ha acharonim." These were the last uh metargumin. Targum Yonasan, Targum Onkelos, and Targum Yonasan, right? These were the last metargumin. "U bnei Rav Chiya nikra'in kein." And you find that the sons of Rav Chiya were referred to as this. Says Rav Reuven Margolies, what does the Pnei Moshe mean? He means the Gemara in Chullin daf chof v'alef alef, the Gemara that we learned together. We learned together that's it, that the bnei Rav Chiya said, "Mitzvas m'leika machsis m'lacha v'omrim alei." "EIKADAMI AF MACHSE." "V'EIKADAMI MACHSE DAF." "Amar Rav Ami, Rav Ami said, 'Yikabluha Reuven es tshuvasa.'" The Reuven should be mekabel their tshuvasa. RASHI SAYS, "WHO ARE THE REUVEN?" They were the bnei Rav Chiya. And the reason they were referred to as Reuven is because they were not arim. So says the Pnei Moshe, without quoting the Gemara Chullin daf chof, he says, "You find that the bnei Rav Chiya were referred to as Reuven." And the Gemara what the Yerushalmi is saying is that Rav Bisena she b'goyim mafreshin trumos u'ma'asros. Until the Reuven, the bnei Rav Chiya came and they were They weren't mevatal it because they made like some bad gzeira. THEY WERE MEVATAL IT BECAUSE they explained from rayus that you don't have to be mafresh trumos u'ma'asros in Bavel AND YOU SHOULDN'T DO IT. "U'man inu ha Reuven?" Want to know who these Reuven were? Targum Anya. They were the people that were the metargumin ha acharonim, which is like a very nice uh toyar to have. And the Reuven of this very cryptic Yerushalmi is really referring to the bnei Rav Chiya. Rav Reuven Margolies says that with this biur in "Man inu ha Reuven? Targum Anya." I think he could be meyashuv something that a lot of people uh were very mystified about. So this is uh just a little bit of an introduction to this. And that is, if you take a look at the Sefer Toldos Tannaim v'Amoraim by the entry Chizkiya Targumana, so he says this, He [snorts] says that the Seder Olam Rabbah and Seder HaDoros, who wrote the bibliographies on all the Seforim and all the Tana d'bei Eliyahu, they omitted, they never mentioned somebody by the name of Hiskia Turgeman. And he brings from all the Chevra, he even quotes the Seder HaDoros Rishonim, they all were Matmiha on the Seder Olam Rabbah and Seder HaDoros, how you talking they didn't mention, how you talking they didn't mention Hiskia Turgeman. By the way, just by way of history, so the Seder Olam Rabbah lived a lot before the Seder HaDoros. Seder Olam Rabbah was the classic work in terms of going and codifying who all the Tana d'bei Eliyahu were. The Seder HaDoros was written as a Pirush on the Seder Olam Rabbah. But one of the things he did was is wherever the Seder Olam Rabbah missed somebody, he went ahead and he included him. So the Seder Olam Rabbah doesn't have Hiskia Turgeman, and the Seder HaDoros, the classic, Ben Nun classic work, right? When he goes ahead and he's Matmiha the Seder Olam Rabbah, he doesn't say you missed Hiskia Turgeman. Okay, so who's Hiskia Turgeman? He's mentioned in Bereishis Rabbah. It's in Perek Samech, Hiskia Turgeman said a Pshat in a Pasuk in Mishlei Perek Chof. Hiskia Turgeman Amar Ki Sheva To'eivohs Believer Atah Motzei To'eivoh [snorts] Achas K'eivod HaTorah K'eivod Aser etc. etc. etc. Zog the Toldos Tanaim d'bei Eliyahu U'vechinam that all the Chevra, he quotes ALL OF THEM, THAT WHEN AFTER THE SEDER Olam Rabbah and when after the Seder HaDoros, they were wrong for doing it. You know why? U'vemechilas K'veidom Kulom Shogu B'rayah They all made a terrible mistake. V'ein Zeh Shem Amar Orah Because the Hiskia Turgeman that's mentioned in that Bereishis Rabbah is not a Hiskia Amar Orah. Ach Koi Al Hiskia HaMelech It's referring to Hiskia HaMelech. What Shayich is when's the last time you saw a Drasha that Hiskia HaMelech said? Right? I mean, come on, if you're going to say that Alacha L'Maaseh Yariv He says, I'll tell you why, cuz it's Yedu'ah that from Perek Chof until the end of Mishlei, that's related or that was written by the Anshei Chizkiyahu. This is what he says. And this pasuk that the Medrash over there is explaining is a pasuk in Mishlei Perek Vav. And being that that was written by the Anshei Chizkiyahu, so it may love the Medrash IS SAYING A PSHAT THAT CHIZKIYAHU HAMELECH because it was him and his chevra that actually sat down and put this all together that they had in the Oimika Kavana in the beginning of one of those psukim. But either way, everybody went after the Yuchsin and the Seder HaDoros but not mentioning Chizkiyahu HaMeturgeman. You know it is like the Tosefta Me'oran is Chizkiyahu HaMelech. So without quoting this whole Tosefta Me'oran that were inserting. So Dr. MYGOLAS SAID EVERYBODY TRIED FIGURING OUT WHO'S Chizkiyahu HaMeturgeman. So I'll tell you exactly who he is. We have a Yerushalmi that says "Acharei Bo'o HaRav u'Vittlo Oison. U'Man Ninun HaRav?" Turgemanya. Who were the Rav? So Dr. Pnei Moshe it was the Bnei Rab Chiyah. See Chulin 28, it's in the Meforshei HaGemorah that they referred to as the Rav. What were the names of the Bnei Rab Chiyah? Yehudah and Chizkiyah. So he SAYS IT'S PSHAT CHIZKIYAHU HATURGEMAN is based on this Yerushalmi. And the Pnei Moshe's pshat which is really based on a Meforshei HaGemorah Chulin Daf Chaf. If that's the case, you want to know why they didn't have Chizkiyahu. IT'S NOT [laughter] CHIZKIYAHU HAMELECH. COME ON, THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS. It's Chizkiyahu the son of the Chiyah, one of the Bnei Rab Chiyah. Why would he be called Turgeman? Um it's a Meforshei Yerushalmi, Maseches Shekalim Perek Daled Halacha Daled. We're just getting started. So Dr. Mygolas that it's interesting throughout Yerushalmi Rab Chiyah the great Rab Chiyah is referred to as Rab Chiyah Rupa. He's known as Rab Chiyah Rupa. So he says if you look at the Meforshei Yerushalmi, so they say, why was it called Rab Hiyya Yeruba? Ruba is milashon rabba. In fact, Shabbos daf lamed ches, Rab Hiyya is referred to as Rab Hiyya rab. The Rambam in the Moreh in a place he talks about Rab Hiyya, he calls him Rab Hiyya hagadol. And it's because the Gemara referred to him as Rab Hiyya rabba. And in Yerushalmi sprach, ruba and rabba is the same. But Ruba goes said, I started thinking a little bit. If the Bnei Rab Hiyya were referred to as Reuven, then could it be that the reason Rab Hiyya daika was referred to as Rab Hiyya Ruba is milashon Reuven? And by the way, it would probably be not Rab Hiyya Ruba, but Rab Hiyya Reuva. The Reuven came from Rab Hiyya the Reuva. So then I thought maybe I'm on to something. But then I noticed, you know who else is referred to as Ruba in Yerushalmi? It's in Maseches Brachos perek beis halacha zayin, Rab Hoshaya. Rab Hoshaya is also referred to as Rab Hoshaya Ruba. So he says, take a look in Bereishis Rabba perek nun alef, where the Midrash tells a story about Rab Hoshaya and refers to him as Rab Hoshaya Turgemana. Says, that can't be a coincidence, that we have a Yerushalmi that says, "Acha bo ha Reuven, u man inun ha Reuven? Turgemanya." And here I have that uh Rab Hoshaya is referred to as Rab Hoshaya Rabba. And he's also referred to as Rab Hoshaya Turgemana. I don't know anyone known as Ruba. I don't know anyone that's known as Turgemana. And I have Rab Hoshaya being referred to as both. In Chabbah Yerushalmi, "Man inun ha Reuven Turgemanya." AND BY THE WAY, THE PLAIN MEFORSHIM SAID, based on what seems to be Meforshim Machon D'fus, that who are the Reuven? It's the Bnei Rab Hiyya. AND RAB HIYYA IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS RUBA. SO IT SOUNDS A LITTLE BIT LIKE RUBA AND Turgemanya it's something inherently to do with each other. But if that's the case, then "Man inun ha Reuven," like Rashi says in Machon D'fus, they were kids. And Turgemanya because they were meturgam. That would be good for the Rabbeinu that in the Targum they happen to be children they're not they also have to be happen to be metargum and but that wouldn't explain who's referred to as and he's and he's referred to as Targum Anya. I wouldn't explain why is being referred to as Targum Anya. Sounds like there's a little bit more going on over here. Then the whole is a pillar. Even the way they play learns every single there's only 15 in this year. But every single shot is a pillar. I'm Rabbeinu my friend so my sister told me that I was man in the Targum Anya. Man in the Targum Anya. Who are the who it's the Rabbeinu that are the metargum in the name? Just the washing man in the and I know it's your you have to be careful when you the of the of the fact man in the Targum Anya it's elder saying it's like this is why I said it's why the said it's why the it's why the started changing your size some switch it by the way from to to and it's referring to the Persians and the Persians made a decree against and we know from the base that is the dive. Right as like a dive and the it it was such a mystery everybody was so not sure what was going on over here but the bottom line is something something is going on. I found in a safer. By the way, this is Margolies pun intended. Not pulling something out of his hat but pulling something out of his library and that is there's a safer that was written in the early 19th century. The safer was called it was written by a great guy his name was Schwartz. Now just to give you an idea of what prominence this safer once played the safer was actually translated into English in the early 19th century by the legendary Isaac Leeser, who was one of the founding fathers of American Jewry. And if you know, you know, he translated what he believed were the very, very important critical works into English so the English-speaking Jews in the early 19th century would be able to understand a little bit the Yiddish guide and have access. Right, he translated the Tanakh. He translated the the Rambam's Anima'amin. This is one of the things he translated. He translated this safer called Tuv Ha'aretz. Now, the takhlis of the safer Tuv Ha'aretz, the purpose of it was it talks about all laws related to Eretz Yisrael. On page 107 in parentheses, this is where Rebbi Margolios is on an island of bizarre. On page [clears throat] 107 in parentheses, the safer Tuv Ha'aretz, this great going Rebbi Yosef Schwartz is bringing this Yerushalmi that talks about Bima Sheva Mitzvos B'Vavel B'Zman Nechemia. And he brings this Inyan of Orevim U'Vatlim Orevim Targum Anya. So he says, "L'fi Da'ati, I think Hakavana of Targum Anya is HaTurgum Anya. V'hi Uma Achzoris V'Kovshu Eretz Bavel V'Gozru Gzeiros Al Yisrael V'Nikhlu K'Mitzvos." That it's referring to a certain Uma. And these people were known as the Turgum Anya. They were a very, very, very horrible group of people and they laid siege on Bavel at the time that Amram was living there. And they were gozeir different gzeiros for like Inikhlu K'Mitzvos. And I believe that's what the Turgum Anya is over there. Rebbi Margolios pulled another safer out of his library. This safer is called Sheva Chochmos. It was written by a Yid whose name was Rebbi Chiel Lichtenstein. Passed away in the year 1912. Now, this is a safer that was written on all the geographical locations that are mentioned in the Torah and Tanakh, in the Chazal, this is what it this is. Under the entry of Targum Anya by tough says this Yid, Rabbi Chaim Lichtenstein. He says that I found many different shotim in this year's shalom that talks about Targum Anya. He said BUT THE PSHAT THAT I LIKE THE best and that's the reason I'm including this in my geography work is that Targum Anya is not referring to metargumin. It's actually a place. WHEN WE COLOR DAY IS Yosif Nachin Ores at Tuvus Ores. That's the Rabbi Yosif Schwartz. She he umas Targum Anya. It's be Turkistan. That's where it is. Al Yama Kaspi. By the Caspian Sea. She comes to Eretz Bavel. They were comes to Eretz Bavel. Ubatla mitzvas and they were amvatla the mitzvas. And he goes on and he says that the heima bitlu yeshivas rabois because they were rabois kidu. The heima mishu bakin beki res oilam. And he says [laughter] if you study world history, you know what you're going to find? That they were very very famous cuz there was a talent that these people had that nobody had. They were able to do something better than everybody else. You know what that was? They were roive keshes. They were archers. Commercial omer soifer Iluvowski Harusi. He quotes some Russian historian who wrote a lot about that. V'lo chain said this Yid Rav Lichtenstein nikru u'roivem. He says that's why they were called roivem. It's miloshan roive keshes. And that that says that says Rav Lichtenstein in his sefer sheva chachmas I believe is what Targum Anya is. Omer Rav Yochanan Rabbi Shimon Shimon Orei my fish and chips and my sauce. Ach she bo hum roivem. The roivem the archers. The chevel with machine guns. The blitzkrieg. When they came u'bitlu oison. U'man in who roivem? Who are these roivem these archers? Targum Anya. These are the people THAT CAME FROM TARGUM ANYA. SAID FROM ALL THE THE BITE TASTE EVEN KNOW WHAT IT MEANT. HE SAID "OH, IT'S WE DON'T KNOW. WE NEVER EVEN SAY IT ON IT." HE SAID "BUT FROM THE ALL THE SHOT THEM THAT I SAW, BASED >> [laughter] >> BASED ON RABBI SCHWARTZ ABOUT IT, and based on this Rusky, this Russian story, and Vlavosky, his first name is like Vladimir or something. But the bottom line is, based on this person, if you put it all together, I believe that this is the shot that's NOT SHOT THEM, AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING on over here." Said Rabbi Margolies. Said Rabbi Margolies, that the way that that Lichtenstein explained Yerushalmi was that it was based on it. Was based on from these that were cashes, and was based on from these people that came from Turkistan by the Caspian Sea. Turkaman you which apparently if you study the history of that Kufa, you're going to become quite acquainted with these people. And they're archers, and that's the reason that they're referred to as but at the same time, this welcome to say I'LL KEEP THAT REALLY WHO ARE THE OVER HERE. THE WERE the of the name of here, right? That's who the are. The are really the of here. And why they called them? So we assume they're called because they're not and the Yerushalmi says they were the why? Because they were the of it was the and the is talking THAT THEY WERE ABOUT BASED ON PRICES, not based on they're coming with force and they're doing it. But here's the point, they themselves came from they themselves came from the place that the came from and they're the MEANING I'LL KEEP THAT THE are a group of people that came from so the could be who came from could be who came from and that's exactly what this is. As a matter of fact, anyone that came from would be known as a and that's why the are because they come from this area. Or R' P' also known as R' P' Hariva, cuz he comes from the same place of Tag Ramanya. And by the way, R' Oshiya is also referred to as R' Oshiya Hariva, because R' Oshiya also comes from this place of Tag Ramanya. You're going to tell me, "Where is this place Rova? I'm not so comfortable with this." He says, "Take a look in the Geras of R' Sherira Gaon." In R' Sherira Gaon's Geras, he talks about, you know, Babylonian Jewry and all the Rish Galusas and the Rish Mesifthas. And he talks about a Yid whose name was Rav Raboy Meirav. Say this 10 times. Rav Raboy Meirav. So, his name was Rav Raboy, right? From Alacham Rav Raboy. And where did he come from? He came from a place called Rova. And it's based on a Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin Daf Mem Gimel Mem Alef. The Gam Rova, the city of Rova was Eira Shel Rav Raboy. AND HE TALKS ABOUT IT IN A BUNCH of places. There was a city that was known as Rova. He said, "Never heard of this city called Rova." He said, "It's in Iraq." That this city of Rova is really Tag Ramanya. And you want to know what's going on over here? When we say Rova, it's the city of Ruba. That's the Rav CHIYA RUBA, NOT RAV CHIYA RABA. That's Rav Oshiya Ruba, not Rav Oshiya Raba. But it's Rav Chiya and Rav Aba that came from the place of Tag Ramanya. And you could learn the Yerushalmi the way And they want to learn the Yerushalmi. And that is the man Inyan Hariva are people, not Gzeiras, but it's Chachamim. But who are the Rova Bnei Rav Chiya? They call the Rova cuz they come FROM RUBA. AND WHAT IS RUBA man Inyan Hariva? Tag Ramanya. This is the place where they come from. And it's for that reason, this is what they will be referred to as. Rav Ruma says, "I found one more Amora that was also referred to as Ruba." You know that is? This is in a Yerushalmi. It's in Maseches Ma'aser Sheni. It's Perek Aleph Halacha Aleph. The Yerushalmi over there says, "Pekuna Shel in the Rav Yitzchak Ruba." They said, "Go ask Rav Yitzchak Ruba. The Bachna Shel Kol Masnisa." Cuz I have heard him on every Braisa. And there's nobody that is Medakdek in brisos as well as Rebbi Yitzchak Ruba. We have three people that were known as Ruba. Reb Chiya Ruba, Rav Hoshaya Ruba, and here you have Rebbi Yitzchak Ruba. Says Rebbi Margolies, what do we know about Rebbi Yitzchak Ruba? It was bachnis like kol masnisah. He knew every brisah perfectly. What do we know about Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Hoshaya? They're the authors of the brisos that we have. And the Gemara says in daf kuf mem gimmel that any brisah that's not from the brisos of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Hoshaya as osur. So he says it's not rachik to say that the Yidden that lived in Ruba, they were very madakdek in brisos. Is it a coincidence? Rebbi Yitzchak Ruba, Rebbi Hoshaya Ruba, and Rebbi Chiya Ruba. AND WHAT'S THEIR GREATNESS? THEY BECAME A BRISOS AND THAT'S THE IKKUR in this Yerushalmi over here. Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai mafsik tumas MAIS OSUR ACHAL BO HAROIV IN THE BITUL OSAM BECAUSE THE CHEVER FROM RUBA THEY WERE MADAKDEK IN BRISOS ON THIS LEVEL and they were mevatal it because this was an area of expertise that they had. Says Rebbi Margolies, with all of this, maybe you can give me the Yashiv what I believe is a puzzle. It's mamash a riddle. There's a Tikunei Zohar Chadash. This is on daf tzadik ches amud alef. The Tikunei Zohar Chadash says as follows, kol Rav mi Bavel, the Rebbi mi Eretz Yisrael, the Rova mi Shaar Aron. Any person that's called Rav it means he came from Bavel. Any person that's called Rebbi means he came from Eretz Yisrael. And any person that's called Rova, he means he comes from Shaar Aron. He came from other lands. Breaks Rebbi Margolies say kashas. First, what does it mean other lands? Other? That's just like other anywhere else on the globe? Right? Also, where do you find anywhere that Rova is a loshon of tayar? Rav is a loshon of tayar. Rebbi is a loshon of tayar. He said I never found one person was known as a Rova. Rova is a name, right? Rova as in Abaye bar Rova. There's a lot of Rebbi Akiva bar Rova, right? There's a lot of Rovas that that we know about. But those are the names of a person, which Pashtush was just short for Reb Abba, right? That's what Rava is. But, you don't find anywhere somebody's known as Rava Akiva, Rava Tarfon, Rava Yochanan. We have Rav, we have Rebba, we don't have Rava. It doesn't even exist. And what would it mean that they came from Shaar Aron? So, he says, I don't know if it's rachik to say that there's a little bit of a tois over here. It's not Rava, it's Rubba. And Rubba is something you do find. Rav Pappa Rubba, Rav Ashi Rubba, Rav Yitzchak Rubba. You find the Reivin. That's a loshon, that's a nusach that you do find. You find already the concept of a Rubba. And who would these Rubba chevra? The Rubba chevra, these were people that came from Tagar Manya. He said, if you study the history of Tagar Manya, when they came and they attacked, so what happened was they attacked Bavel, and they annexed Bavel. They became part and parcel. So, he said, the ancient Bavel didn't include this area of where the Reive kasha was, what's known as Rubba or Reiva. But, the newer area already did. That means that when the Yidden were living in Bavel, really Bavel was made up of two parts. There was the Eira Atika, right? There was the old city, and then there was this new area, this annexed area, which included in it Tagar Manya. THAT WAS THE METZIUS. SO, REALLY THE GEDOLIM WERE BEING HARBORED IN THREE PLACES. THE YIDDEN WERE COMING FROM ERETZ YISRAEL, then they came to Eretz Yisrael from Eretz Yisrael, from Tveria mostly then, right? And then you have a Yid that's coming from Bavel. But, within Bavel itself, are you coming from the Eira Atika, or you coming from this annexed area? That's the Kol Aron. Kol Aron doesn't mean came from Spain. Kol Aron means that he's coming from that area, and it's not Kol Rava. He says, I don't think it's rachik to say there was a tois. But, rather what it was was Kol Rubba. Either way, again, this is classic Rav Rubba Margolios. First of all, like in the same shtikel Torah, you have a Tikunei Zohar Chadash and lahavdil, this Russian historian, which is something only he could do. But, the bottom line is is that we have a Gemara here in Chullin where the Gemara said related to be and he said maybe the maybe you could say that you want to know why the were called Reuven. They're called Reuven for the same reason their father was called for the same reason who comes together with like was also called it's based on this is a line in that mystified the but he says maybe the is based on great said in his classic work so classic it was TRANSLATED BY LISA >> [laughter] >> BUT that classic work called and it was added to by Lichtenstein in his that there was a place called these people came and they became part and parcel of they were that were born on the bubble side they were that were born on the side sounds a little bit like maybe the ones that were born on that side the ones that were born on that side were actually more in braces and that's the and by the way and by the way and by the way and by the way and by the way and by the braces and that's why YOU FIND WHO ALSO IN BRACES CUZ HE KNOWS BRACES BETTER THAN ANYBODY else and by the way that's the in our Gemara over here in that you have the said something and they're I wasn't in the they're not archers but it means they come from the places where the archers come and they're very very in and braces I told them I told them I told them I told them I told them I told them you he says you're a you're supposed to know this. You come from the area where the midactic your father's braces are on a pedestal. Your father's have rooster of ice near his braces are on a pedestal. If you talk with a landsman of yours is on a pedestal and you missed the end of a mission. You come over here and ask you was on. You was referring to him as a rival over here cuz that was the meter that was dark here of the rival. Either way, extremely extremely thought-provoking. Definitely >> [snorts] >> from the more dramatic finish wise pieces of the Reuben Margolis literally recreating a city and a whole culture of the way Tyro was learned over there. But again, this is a a line in the year shall we that the regime himself Spanish and as a result he mentioned my weak door. Either way, this is what we call classic Ben Ben classic Reuben Margolis.