Zevachim 96

Today's is and we are about 15 lines from the bottom of so the topic of the 11 are three that are mentioned in par regarding the carbon says if it doesn't matter if it's one of or one of the if it lands on a bag as long as the dam was as we saw in the in the is the requires kibos. If a carbon kus was cooked in a kali says the if the kal was a sh you have to break the if the kali was a clean you don't have to destroy the kali rather what you need to do is caser it and the terra prescribes a very unique casering process a very unique type of haga it's what's referred to as mik of the it's what's going to be discussed in greater detail in tomorrow's daf regardless the of kibos The of that is the topic over here. We saw that the discussed Ramb and the that the idea of could be related to one of the that features very prominently and that's suggest that it could be the reason the Torah said you have to take out the dam of a is because that is and that kadashim's dam cannot leave the can leave the clim if it's going to be and the bag and you're going to take the beggar outside of the it's going to come out that that even though it's will be so it could be says and it's a little bit more that the damas is related to we ask if that's the case why is it only true for the Mishna says only requires kibos but dam of other carbonas even doesn't have a a kibos if it's related to a more general relates to all carbon not only to the regardless that was something that suggested as it relates to the reason why the said that you have to destroy but the reason needed that was cooked in that too is related to it's not but rather it's and that's not something that only the say that's already before it was the last that we saw yesterday and it segus into this morning's stuff. Meaning it's that the reason the Tyra says that if you cook a kali, you need to do something with the kali. It's because we know the whole day is predicated on this premise. And that is that there's something called a and in this context what the ble would mean is is that if you cook a carbon kas inside a kera, even though you washed it and you rinsed it and you put it in your dishwasher, maybe dishwasher is different, but you put in your dishwasher. Right now there's going to be a ble of the carb inside the defanos of the which means that the next time this kera is subjected to heat for example you cook something else in it that ble is going to leave the doen of the and it's now going to enter the food that you're cooking now a carbon becomes nicer after a certain period of time in the case of a carbon katas it's a y valu what which means is that if you're going to cook a carbon katas and you're not going to do miko or in the case of a where you can't you're not going to destroy the it's going to come up there's going to be a little bit of and it's for that reason there's a of for that reason there's of where we left off yesterday was an in the gar the gar wanted to know what would be if somebody cooked a carbon kas inside if somebody cooked a carbon kas inside but we know there's no how do you know that because it never touched the food itself never touched there. So for example, you put the food, the bus or the carbakatas on a kebab. You put it on top of the fire. So it's it's being cooked, it's being roasted from the heat that's coming out of this tur and it's coming out of this pot, but at the same time it never touched the pot. So from a ble standpoint, the assumption is there's no blah. If you assume that the whole time of is related to over here there's no or do you say that once the said that needs it's even if there's no ble meaning it sounds like for sure the real reason why there's a mitzvah is related to the ble of nicer but the question presumably is that once the Tyra said that once in a you need to do something with the maybe even if you found the where there's not physically going to be still the of the are going to apply. That's the that we left off with says the said in the name of I'll bring you the Tanner of the Bikto was made out of said that he heard from Rabava that there's a mirad but they said that they had a tradition that the ovens that were used in the Bameikash were made out of mak. Now, why would they have used the ovens out of presumably says the Gor because there's a that that's cooked inside a you have to destroy the if that's the case if they would cook it in a tanner that was made out of they would have to destroy the tanner. It's not very practical. Every time you make dinner, you have to destroy your oven. So presumably the reason they made it out of mat was because is like all it needs is mashifa. So you have the maintenance crew comes and they they clean it up. That's not such a big deal. But the but if you're going to tell me that not every time you cook in a do you have to destroy the it's only if the food is physically touching the but in the event that it's not touching it but rather you're doing it in the case where it's bishop like the case that the garra is pondering in its let's just make it out of which I guess was considered a little bit more practical not have to make it from M because I every time you cook you're going to have to destroy it. No, you don't. You'll cook it in a way where you're going to make sure that the food never touches the the tanner. So, isn't it a that even if the food doesn't touch the tanner, as long as it's cooked, but the says it's not a you want to know why they couldn't make it out of it had to be made out of it's not because of the maybe for the issue. But is being that one of the things that they used to bake in the tanner were the shim of the min. So part of the ma went on the mak that was the and the rest of it was eaten by the kayan. So the is the leftovers meaning not the part that was eaten by the kayan that was baked where was it baked? In the tan and the way they used to bake bread was they would take the bread and they would line it on the walls of the tan. That's why there's something called sapas. Ria sapas is the process of removing the bread from the walls of the tanner. When you take bread out of an oven today, you're not doing radias because we don't bake bread the way they used to make bread. But it would mean you would literally be peeling it off the the walls of the tanner. But the bottom line is the way they used to make bread such as the would be by attaching it to the tanner. In that case there's bishop and this mat for that reason they made it for mak. So maybe the reason it was made for mak argues the gar is not because of the bas you don't necessarily need the buser to touch the tanner in order to cook the buser but for the way you bake bread for that you need contact. It's for that reason they had to make it out of say there was a tanner that was once shmeared with fat of an animal. So it they took the the grease the fat of an animal and they smeared the side of the tanner. It was a kosher animal. It was kosher fat. So really there should be no issue stating that issued a very controversial a that has ramifications. He said that you're not allowed to bake bread in this town right now. Why not? I'll bake bread. What are you worried about? Because there's some fat of flesh inside of it. So I'll only eat it with I I won't eat it together with with dairy. I don't care. You can't even dip it into salt. Why? Because he's concerned that bread is usually not flesh or milk. Bread is usually par. So if you're going to have bread, there's that you may go ahead and you may eat it with milk. So that's what said that this is going to be a problem. And he said that it's why is it? And what does that have to do with our gumar? Because this tunnel was made out of being that the tan was made out of there's no way to be m and that's one of the themes one of the takeaways of our it's for that reason that if you cook a carb you can't do you can't do there's no you have to destroy it that means there's no option there's no way out of so if there's no way out of that has a you have to destroy it in the case with you don't have to destroy it you want to make meat inside of it that's okay but You can't make lem and the reason you can't make bread is because bread is not something that's ordinarily milk if you're going to have a bread there's a very good chance you're going to end up eating it together with milk but correct ask you're not allowed to knead dough together with meaning you can't make bread with milk in lie of water if you do then the bread becomes meaning you can't just eat it as a as a dairy bread as an ud bread that's not going to Why not? Because again bread is something that is usually not milk or in this case bread. What happens to me? So that's similarly you're not allowed to smear a tanner with that's meat and if you do the bread becomes ra but the end of the price is the problem. But there is a way out. The way out is heat up the tanner. When you heat up the tanner you get a kasha the tanner. You get a kasha the tanner. So now it's going to be okay. So on the one hand you have a riot to law you said from this but then again there's also a to from this you see this concept that you're not allowed to have bread because that bread is usually it's something that can bring to major problems. For that reason, it's a problem. But at the same time, rabbit lawy said it's always going to be cuz he argued there's no way to here that says there is a way to cleare. Now, first glance, you're going to tell me it's coming from I mean this does everybody knows that and this is your day 101. There's no way to the terrorist says that becomes you have to destroy him. We just saw now that was cooked in a you have to destroy because there's no way this if anything is of the onus is on the bryer to explain itself not so is going to come back to that but for now the gammor says he has no right to argue with what said is partially true but it's partially told now the was we have the rabbis said an unrelated this was when was saying so he said that if anybody has that he used to cook or bake in he has to destroy it there's no way to at first glance what Rab was saying was very reasonable there's no way to the problem is ra said the same exact he also said there's no way to and the garra the rabbi from a from a bryer. So why is Rav going like this not like the Bryson now Rav incidentally is led to argue with the Bryer Ravan but like it's throughout that Ravan public is the it's a last resort the last option you're never going to find the Rava and maybe you will but it' be if you do because Rav is allowed to argue with the Bryer but either way again the thought is that Rabba didn't argue Rav did not argue with Bryes so argues Tinus the Gmoro Rav is saying that It's not possible to the same that the Gmorra asked law isn't that as well. So the garra says he told him is going to say that that bry that the gmorra thought was a tuft on ra is really not a tuft of the rabbar I that says you could do on a tanner it was a tanner who said the t was doesn't say the word anywhere being that it doesn't says the assumption is Most tenur were made out of kis. So if it was made out of karis it'd be a good kasha but maybe it wasn't made out of karis maybe it was made out of mkas and if it was made out of mkas not a kasha obviously if rav is not it's uprect from this bryer then ra is also not upke from this bryo so the initial reaction that the garra had was the rabbi but when the gmorra saw that rav said the same then the garra took a step back because I guess it's less less mber that rav should be tuft than rab should be so the you know what maybe that price is disgusting It's not a rabbit. It's not a cash. Maybe the price is discussing. So again, the price you see there's a way to cash. How could there's no way to cash a you can cash a you can't he said a pot there's no way to cash her a tanner itself you can't. What's the difference? Because uh a tanner the heat the fire that's going to capture it is going to be inside the tanner. Heat that's inside the tanner can remove the ble can be magal. It can capture the ble that are inside the of the tanner. Whereas a when you heat up the you're not putting the heat inside the it's going to be outside of the being that it's going to be on the outside of the is not is a hagal was also discussing the tanner. He was discussing the same and rabbi lawyer said that the tanner that you shmear the bosser into you're never allowed to use why can't you use it the says you could casher and ra is discussing the same tanner that the bry is discussing you're going to have so but was discussing even the would agree there's no way to bear or you why can't you heat up and why can't you meaning you're saying doesn't have to be that way you can't be so the says you could but didn't want to rely on that because Rav understood that most people it's a very d it's don't try this at home because if you're going to try to be by putting a fire inside of it there's a good chance it's going to break the average man will not do that. He's going to end up doing it the wrong way. So Rav wasn't comfortable. Rab said based on the raw technical yeah there is a way to because nothing unique about the over the over the other than one is the other. So do the but was afraid that it was something that wasn't going to work. So says this was some implement that people used to use to sometimes bake bread. That's something that was a sac and as a result it's going to be awesome we know it's aim is ordinarily autum says you should know it's a and as a result it's going to be awesome freakash if this is the case and listen to so we just said that we thought all along that it's impossible to do haga on a It sounds like that's very much the case stating that we realize now we were making a mistake all these years because really you could be as long as it says you heat it up from the inside whatever exactly that means but as long as it's aim it's something that's that's possible for sure you could be and even just wasn't comfortable issuing such a plaque for the masses because he said the average man is going to be uncomfortable push comes to sh do it the right he's going to do it the wrong way and it's going to be a terrible taka. But in theory, it's something that's that's very much possible. If that's the case, why is it that why do you have to break it? We started off this morning with a fiveminute introduction saying that the reason why there's a and it's based on the you have to destroy because THERE'S NO WAY ONE SECOND. THERE IS A WAY to how okay so you're going to tell me but the says in the reason maybe it shouldn't be such an issue and in fact the has a patent of how you should do it says why do you have to destroy the base what's the why can't we put them back into the this is the oven or or this kali this piece of equipment that's used to create the in the first place. If you put it back into that ki, the assumption is two things. Number one, it's going to be aim and number two, there isn't such a concern that it's going to be destroyed. So I guess to tell the man on the street to go be mgle your kale in the kan before pes. Rob didn't like that either. So Rob said, "But in the mikdash where we're going to start destroying, it's going to be yont with all thesees that we have to get rid of." Why? Why don't you have to get rid of all thees in theory? There's a way out. The way out is and and the garra says I actually have a practical way out. Let's just make a kan. You don't have to be worried of because this is going to work. So just have a big commercial kan in the and every time you cook a stick it back in the it's going to be and shouldn't that work said it's not practical. It doesn't work because it was actually from the takas Ezra if you seen the B which discusses the made right certain things that you have to observe in and certain things that Ezra implemented as well this is one of them you don't make such a you can't have such a let alone in so as a result this wasn't an option said he said I hear you don't make a line good point but let me ask you something else how about anka how about a garbage dump right all these all these that are being destroyed. You're going to gather them. There's going to be a a pile of it somewhere and that's something that you do make in the so says the good but he forgot of and of fame were once was once in. And he said the following memor he said there was a nest that took place in the base of mikd that all the they'd be swallowed up in the ground. Oh be swallowed up in the ground. You didn't have to have an was a good point. So to put it in you're worried about the swallow. asks going back to what we started the with that theor was made out of why couldn't it be made out of so the Gmorra said because of the of what's the problem why do you have to break it there's a way to be malle it says being that you had which were baked in the but they weren't just baked in the tanner. They had to bead from the tanner. So it comes out then the tanner served the dual purpose. It served the purpose of of a says well there's a rule that you can't make out of and even says that says that you're allowed to make out of eight like that's true as a result there was no way to make the out of exhale so really what came out of this is a very big what came out of the gur is is that we always thought that there's no way to bear it's not True. There's a whole sug where it comes out that really you could do a what you need is that it should be and as long as it's that would constitute a which for a tanner is easy. you just heat up the tanner and it's going to be aim where you're going to end up with this is a little bit more complicated and and the truth is that the average person will be afraid to take a and do why because he's afraid that that it may end up breaking but in theory it's something that could be done and not just that there actually is a practical way to do it to put it back into the kon that originally created this kali and if you do that it's going to be okay what the gammor had an issue with and the reason it's here in specifically in is that the says that that if you cook up in a you have to destroy the the what do you have to destroy it for? It doesn't make any sense. If it's a tanner, you certainly shouldn't have to destroy it. A tan is so easy to be m you can go ahead and do and even if it's a even a regular pot shouldn't be a problem. Why? Because just put it back into the kan. So the garra said as it relates to the tanner going backwards. The reason that's not a terret is because the tanner served multiple purposes. The tanner it served the purpose of just baking whatever needed to be baked or cooking whatever needed to be cooked. But at the same time it also had to be a cliches and a cliches can't be made out of cuz even the biggest make when it comes to cliches is Yehuda and he said it can be made out of eight. But to make it out of for sure not you can't make it out of I mean that you can't make it out of there's no way to make the tanner out of but in theory maybe they could have made the tanner out of and certainly the reason they didn't make the out of is not related to this you have to break it because even if there'd be a way to cash it what about dictators why can't you make a say but anami is saying in theory you could have made it out of and instead of breaking it you could have destroyed The obvious cas is that when the says that isn't there a mitzvah in the why does the say the says to get rid of the ble of course the reason is to get rid of the but at the end of the day the says that once you cook the is a mitzvah and you would think the mitzvah is like any other any other mitzvah in the a mitzvah to put on fillin and and and to say there's a mitzvah to break the it's a mitzvah it's not just a It's not just a way of of getting rid of the meaning the reason the said is because of the but now that the even if you have a a way out so good the incom but before we go back there just two the first is a place in the safer grace of place in this is aa topic asks it's it's a gavasha there's an obvious hole in the kasha but the kasha that it's worth speaking at and just a little bit of a and really an important. So we've been discussing three. We've been discussing the of a we've been discussing the of where the and we've been discussing the of as we saw in the where there's a a mitzvah of the mitzvah the saidurim that the of is only true by that is not true that was additionally the is true holds but it's certainly not exclusive to so according to it's for sure that is only true by and is true by all even by what the mission never discussed is what about this idea that is that only true or is that going to be true as well and Rashi in the and as well says that it's going to be true for it's only going to be true for it's going to be true for carbon as well meaning even carbonis not only a carbus is going to have of meaning just like this. So toon is one is another. And although the Mishna never said before is the makes sense. But the same is going to be true by saying that the Rama the Ram says clearly that the is true only for it's not going to be true for and this Ram is very very if you go through the Gmoras you're going to find obvious on the Ram and discuss this Ram in in great detail but the place in it's asks and again just speaking out the just goes to show that you know sometimes even from you can take out a and this is the gar that we've spoken about here it's a from all places and the gar discusses it in greater detail the context over there is the in the event that it hadn't rained so all familiar with is of the over there tells a story that once upon a time the winter had passed of had already passed and it still hadn't rained and they finally went to the big and they told his that it should rain. told I'm going to go d but before I d prepare for rain. It's not just going to rain. It's going to be he told him take the ovens that you used to use to bake the carbon bring it inside because if it's going to be outside it's going to melt his dinner. What did he do? Everyone knows what he done. He made a circle and he stood inside the circle and he told Hashem that I'm not leaving this circle. It started raining a little bit. It wasn't enough. Then it rained too hard. I want and the rest the rest is history. Why did the to take the tan your ovens and and bring it inside? So Rashi says very simple saying because they were made out of and being that they were made out of they would have melted from all the rain. That's what was telling I mean if they were made out of matas there wouldn't have been an issue because mus is not going to melt from rain but can melt from rain as a result he took it inside says it comes out of this rashi and really that's the tanim that we use to make the carbon pes were made out of I don't understand how could they made it out of when they make the car they roast the carbon pes inside the tanner of the carbon pes are going to now go into the walls of the of the t if they're going to go into the walls of the t you can have of nois one of two times the time mentions the lab of nois by the of course you have no by the garbess so you're now going to have ble inside if you can have leas inside he's not going to be able to use it again and incidentally says I know for sure that they used to reuse the tan room they didn't just destroy the tan room because this happened and everyone had the tan room outside he says why they had the tan room outside you know it's already so close to to PES that everybody had the tanum says presumably they had it from last year. So if they had the ten using the tanner, why aren't you worried about the ble? Why aren't you worried about the ble? It's a riot to the raita that the only time there's a when you cook a carbon is ONLY THE CARBON BUT such as the carbon you don't have to worry about because if it's true like most say that just like mifa is not unique to the carb is true for kachum so is true for kachum as well then shouldn't there have been a right to the ramen there was no d so they used this t for the garb and they had no to to break the garb says said even though this ram is so and there's so many cash on the ram it could be the ram got his from the what's the problem what's the kasha oh I hear so maybe they roasted it kasha maybe they weren't comfortable with that but but but there's even a bigger problem this is all the thought that there's no way to do hagal with a and it's for that reason they made sure that the tanner and the base of mus was laid out of mach because it would have made out of you would have had to destroy the tanner but the It's not true. There's a very easy way to do on a on a is more complicated. But when it comes and even for that but when it comes to a it's not a problem. Why then did they used to make the not because of not because of this issue of it was simply based on the fact that had to serve a dual purpose. It was also a nice but this is all good to be a tora but the truth is is that we learned this you know we took the simplest route in terms of this but the top of the it's really a big discussion exactly how to learn the according to some of definitely stands either way it's it's a fest what's interesting this is the second the second interesting that we took out of this what was the first one first one was that after it finally rained told to bring a par said bring a par what was this par says that a right here says says you know what the was it was a carbon and even though and this is not one of the four but says that people make a mistake people think it's only those four it's not only those four really every person that's from has to bring a carbon so it's posit that the par was a was a carbon we spoke out at the time there says He says that the kala used to bring a carbon to back in the day. Maybe could create but either way the the used to bring a carbon. So two that come out tucked away here and so the story of is a beautiful story and there's a lot of mus that you can take out of it. A lot of uh a lot of nice dres that you can take out of the story of but here you have two fest. What are the halas? Number one maybe to the ramita. It's not usually what you think of when you go through that but not like that's the first thing and the second thing is that when we say are these are just the four examples of that if a person is from such and s but the truth is There is an idea of bringing a carbon that's the first the second is is that the gar mentioned that there was a tremendous miracle that happened. So the yidden would break they would destroy these kaderas they were made out of and what happened to the would get swallowed up in the in the ground he said also known as this right here quotes this and he says as follows I guess this there were so many that were used. So had this not been the case, it would have been impossible. They would had to make like said. So this was a miracle that almost had to happen. Says this is one of the 18 miracles that happen in the Bik. And he goes and he lists exactly what the 18 miracles were. Now we're familiar with the 10 miracles that happened in the Mishna says etc etc. Baka has a new list. He says this is one of the 18 miracles that used to happen in the B. So when he goes through his 18 he says the 10 that are mentioned in the mission office and then he works out exactly what the other eight were. Interesting. So now you know the rest of the story. It wasn't just 10 miracles that happened. It was actually 18 miracles that happened and this is one of the 18 Jewish number. This is one of the 18 that happened. The question is the wise mission mentioned 10. If it was really 18, why does the mission say? So I think the was bothered with this. If you take a look at the this is says the cloud says the at the time of the mission is about to mention 10 miracles that have no rem anywhere in the no rem anywhere in a was bothered with this only 10 miracles but there weren't any other miracles what happened to argamar right here Like says I have another eight. I have says there must be something unique about this group. So I'll tell you what's unique about this group. What's unique about these group this group is that these are all things that are not mumas anywhere in the delay. Not only are they not mafurish in the there's no remsey at all. And I'll tell you something interesting that the wrote a pish on pavvis. And the pish on pav is is very unique. It's unique in the sense that rather than it being a a commentary like the vilgoy wrote a mish for example what it is is he the brings sources from the to the respective Mishna so the Mishna says a and the traces the back to a so it's less like just as an example it's more like the beer so the beer finds from Gmoras to so the is finding from to the said that the is because that's why it's or you have the test. What makes something an ab and something a? So anyone that learned from knows that anything that's in the is called something that's not in the is called to so said this is classic he said that means it's in the so means that it's in the means it's in the so that's why it's called and that's why the took upon this to find sources for said that what's unique about I think it's but the truth is if you look in the grass pierce I had it with me it disappeared somehow maybe it was nic I don't know where it is but uh so I had it before but so the guy says that uh someone took my gun in so no so the guy in but if you look at the gr pishan it's probably right in front of me I just need another coffee no but so anyways So the says it is in his parish on if you go through the doesn't say anything he has nois it's amazing except for two the last the last two that I mentioned in the Mishna are that's miracle number nine and miracle number 10 is so was never mazic in additionally a person was never Right. I hope I got that word right. Last time I said a fancy Yiddish word, Maya called me out on it. So, uh, but either way, so those two things says I have a car. It's a happiest place in the world. I mean that it's such a happy place. Sorry. It can't be that was ever because of a was that's a that's a contradiction to it being it can't be that a person said because again if if if it's such a happy place then it doesn't make sense but those are the only two that the guy brings to we spoke that once we spoke at when we learned the may is related to the bringsi the says the of the mul applies and brings from the said why would you have a that should be only set based on this fellow because the says what's into the Mishna said so maybe don't have to worry about Maybe there should be no right one of the 10 miracles is like and asked if that's the case how do you understand the first mission why they have to prepare a backup ken right you need a backup k I thought never maybe he's going to be never happened soi says two the first says is is the second ter is one is one is but regardless says That's why the said that applies even in I would have thought like but the bottom line is if you go through the G doesn't bring mus the only two he brings is for these last two regardless that's what's unique about these 10 miracles here that are mentioned by the is that these are not I thought the said means things that are a furish that's the whole obvious it's interesting The grot is not these miracles with the exception of the last two. Either way, just some some food for thought. And the next is a classic used to go to one day. He stopped showing up for and instead of going to he went instead to one day metuda and I guess he was a little disappointed at his town for leaving him and instead going to say he told him it's an expression that means that someone that's a vgiva thinks that if he hangs out with important people it somehow makes him important. The nim was told mean I know is very very great but it doesn't mean that you're great because you learn by rough. Interesting. So he said yeah he's galdic but you have to learn in a place that that that's appropriate for you. So don't think that because you're learning by that that reflects on you. He told the reason I went to Raface is not because I want to walk around saying that I'm learning by Raface. I understand that's not what this is about. I went to Raves because I actually enjoy learning by Raves more than I enjoy learning by the Reb said why he says because you if I ask you a question you always have an answer but it's always let's say I find a Bryer that's not like your that's a problem we because you can't as an argue with a Bryce says I go to I ask He always proves it to me from a so if I go then and I find another that's not like says ends up being a bry against a bryer. So that's not a problem. I mean you I never know if it's the right answer because apparently didn't have the same bikes had. So was so tells me I ask you a tell me I walk out feeling great until somebody tells me but it's not like a being that it always comes from a because his learning is more based on oh it's based on even if say he's never up to so I feel like I walk away with more and it's for that reason so really ask me aasha you think I can't answer you from watch ask me and I'll be pleased to you from a he asked him the following question if somebody cooks and that's why this is an hour in a little bit of a ki he didn't use the whole kali he just cooked a little he used a little bit of the ki was a clean do you have to do on the entire kali or not meaning of course you have to do a little bit but the question is that part that was cooked but you have to do mika on the entire ki he told You don't have to just like what happens if goes on a bag. So you have to wash the bag. But if it only went a little part of the bag, you only have to wash that little part said I don't see why it should be any different than you only have to take out the dam. You don't have to wash the entire bag. So when it comes to it's going to be the same thing. But have a not like that meaning I don't know of a like that. I don't know of a price like that. I I hear but again it's a he said it shouldn't be like you only have to be it sounds like you only have to watch that part told him I could argue in not that way if you a little bit of dam goes on a bag the d doesn't spread throughout the bag but if a little bit of a goes into the of the spread within the walls of the so how can You can how could you draw an analogy between Dina beaded and cooking baser in a in a pot? Then here's the punch line. You're not like a find true and it's true precisely. It has to be Roya as opposed to by there's no and there's no and they're both for the same reason because the only time you have is if you cook that's the w so obviously you don't have this even for that was born you're not let you're never let so therefore you in over with regards to the and then continues and says overnight. What was the second you need on the entire even if you only as opposed to by you only have to be you see not like you what's the like we said as opposed to the ble as but the bottom line is so they're having a conversation about sometimes not being cognizant of a and literally in that same conversation was able to show Ramy Bar why he left Ramy B and instead went to learn by so what did Ramy B respond told him I hear if it's a it's a why is it different meaning why by the dam is it only the as opposed to by the so we said there's actually a to support it as well it says we Even mix just to conclude with one. So you see from this gamar that Rafaceius was a big bucky in Bryce's and Mishnas in other words was a Buckyus and so over there discusses whenever there's two of the so and we don't know based on the itself is or is like so who's like I mean we take for granted that today you want to know what is so either you ask your local rabbi you open up or some derivative of that some handbook there's there's 9,000 ways today you can get to the but once upon a time the used to sit together and they had to figure out from the who the is like it wasn't always so simple so that's why there's so many that you find that the and even the discuss And so if and again we don't know who is like who should be so places brings he brings from the that is always going to be like says what's the reason for it so he said based on the says when they used to meet each other would be afraid to talk to Ravishes because he knew Rafes was such a bucky. He never knew what kind of maramin Raves was going to pull out. Rafa was even more afraid. Not only not only did his lips tremble but his entire would tremble from the what emerges from a sam is that was a whereas was a lamb or in garra terms was ai and was raised was afraid of the bikus of whereas was afraid of the karifos of so was a and was say it's literally the what's the or you have two one is a tremendous the other one is a major lambd which one is the gar this is something the yeshiva boys have debated for millennia but it's a gammor really the gammor says the says the respect of the envelope arithmetic wasn't the say that's why whenever there's going to be like now it's interesting Ty doesn't quote our gam but really it's a where you see the the ple of that was the whole here left he went to because in was all about he would always be ped everything from a mishna I'm sorry was the ultimate C9 bottom line is that's why like over there's one big that I saw the ask on this and that is that when the gar discussed which one's who that discussed and the garra said that was a so based on the methodology it should come out whenever this is and that should always be like stating that the says says in many places that whenever there's like so there's only three times like a we had yesterday's today's we've referred to this before where he goes through his pis it's a it's a it's a very very it's a great but either way so says I don't understand according to the that is always going to be like the over the so why isn't always like can I get why is like and only like I saw says could be it could be this is the say that this rule of all three of those they're also using and the found and said I found other that say the same that it's only that this is true outside of that rule doesn't apply why would the have said that it doesn't sound like it right the it's limited to and NO USUALLY THERE'S CERTAIN that are that you're supposed to take throughout why would we say that that is limited to says theor now you know the rest of the story because really rais and rab was And the is and just like the because the is always has to be like must be is different maybe that's so when it comes to baba bastra there it's going to be different but is always going to be like that is going to be like not like just to end with one interesting observation so we have two that are we have and what do and have in They were both blind. They were both sum. It's interesting. So rais and who have in common that they were both sum. They also have in common that they were both sen. What's the maybe thehat is that and were very nizer and number one they were blind. But the truth is is that they were very because if you know the rest of the story the really says that the reason were blind they made themselves blind. They did it to themselves. Raval say had 10 that he used to keep that wrote a pish under. It's not a a brish that we have access to. If you want to look it up, you could find it. I mean the rabb wrote a pish on it. The brings it the brings it. The kaducian in the alludes to it. But the bottom line is that Rav had these the medish after it brings says that when Rav passed away his took upon themselves that they were going to perpetuate the the the the legacy of their rebi and they decided that they're going to keep up these 10. Now there was no one there was there was no one that was able to keep 10 on his own. So decide was to divvy it up amongst the one of the that rabbi was he never looked outside of his dalas took it upon themselves that they would never look outside of that dalas but it was very hard for them to do never look outside of your dollar amus they made themselves blind brings this they made themselves blind and that's why and that's and that's that's the rest of the story that's how they but the bottom line is that they were very are related to maybe that's why they had this tremendous of zikarn.