A reversal, let alone

I think this is exactly what the TOS will justify. It is not clear why they raised the difficulty here more than any other case that was refuted in the Shas. Rabbi Yosef’s bones are here, who touched on this and wrote that from this we learn for all places: And it seems to me that there is no need for an explanation of their words, and their origin is explained, and the fact that the Toss, the Toss, is difficult for him to understand is that the Bahai 16 David in the Gemara and the Avid Minya Yochich from Yevama, and finally he concludes that the Toss is a paraka from the issue of money, and the Amma is not avad 16 from places, and does not belong to any paraka or any Yochich, and Nima is a ki and what a biah that is not in her mother sleeps in a woman of money, etc., and it is implied that here the word Yavma is a tikhich etc., and the Toss is explained that the Yochich is changed to what, and from this we learn from all the places that the Yochich is changed to what, and Z”S 26 etc. that it is an Arish Dinah, and it is implied that here the word Ika is a tikhich what a lioness etc. and here the word Sher Yochich. And finally the issue of money is a tikhich in its place. And even if Tima is a bill that is issued, it will be said in money, etc., meaning that the Paraka is similar to the Amma that is issued in money, and the Toss’ intention is to say that it is not We have escaped all the absurdities of the model, but Dhamma has become a proof and a proof of what, this is their entire intention in this, and there is no perception of the words of the text, and the doubts of Rav Mohar”i n. Lev Zelhah have been eliminated, so it seems to me.