Chulin 121

Today's is and we are on the second line of so the Mishna in the beginning of discussed with regards to and the Mishna said the These things are for the sheer oft we're now up to the fourth thing mentioned in the as being and that is the asks the question the obvious question and that is my said the is the Rashi says of the it's the senue that's in the spine and the neck also known as the cervical ligament it's wide rashi says the it's white it's also very hard and in French it's called the ye but either way the is a specific g inside the animal the isar for says had a whole different understanding of what the is. What it is is that when you skin an animal, when you remove the hide, you fle it. So sometimes a little bit of meat will get caught in the knife and get caught in the so that meat can technically be removed from the of the animal and be eaten. That meat is what's known as the ol. So essentially what's the Mishna saying that the is in it of itself not it's only for the meaning these things it sounds like for the not for themselves because if for themselves and the doesn't have to tell me that and not just that then why would it be if it's the is not really for themselves what they are is they're for the way we saw it in using terminology and is for The bottom line is Allah falls into that category. We don't look at it as food technically. What is it? It's either this according to which is it's a specific g inside the animal according to it's but it's that was removed together with the therefore it has a special place in we don't look at it as but at the same time it could be the word is actually mentioned in the it's says was telling that were coming him and and they were wishing him well and they told him you're going to see you're going to have rafu sha everything is going to be okay turns to them and he tells them that you're a bunch of charlatans you're telling me that I'm going to have a raff he said no way it's not possible he says you telling that you I'm going to have a raff is like saying that someone that is suffering from is going to have a rafu you're charlatans it's not possible this is terminal what he was suffering from and there's no way in the world that he's going to have a rafu says that says that what isn't it's then we can understand why it's not because someone that doesn't have a mart is going to die and it would make sense then that roy are doctors that are not telling the truth because an is something that's not shy to repair so if somebody has a broken cervical ligament I guess he was considered to be in trouble says, "But according to that says that it's not a specific gid. It's not part of the spine or the neck, but all it is is the meat that was removed from the animal while it was being flayed. Is it so difficult to take that meat, reattach it to the animal? That's something that technically could be done. So why are we looking at as being something that's not say you have to say must be that as it relates to whenever the uses the word soak there's no argument everybody agrees that it is like when the Mishna uses the word and you find the word incidentally in other as well so where the Mishna uses the word what exactly does mean you're right in the means the question is in the according to in the it means what it means in the it means this gid in the in according to when you find the word in it means the buser that came off the animal while it was being fled something I'll bring you a from our said if you have and it's all together in one place that if you have a in one place you would be that's at the very end the last line of the explain it's only true if the person himself brought it all together but if it just gathered together all the then this is not true but the says like this says that what's the buser of the animal that is removed when the animal is fled. I understand it's so mean that it's bas if you have a kaz of it together. It could be it would be mitzar because at the end of the day even though it was removed while the animal was being flayed so it's not your prototypical piece of meat but it is meat at the end of the day and it makes sense then at least you can entertain but according to that says that what is who cares if you have a you have of nothing right if you have a lot of nothing it's still nothing it's not it's not bosser according to that it's mart it's not boser it's this very wide white hard ligament that's in the spine cervical neck area it's not a piece of meat so together makes sense but how do you understand this so says anotherish and that is you have to say was never inud as it relates for sure understood understood like that it's said that's according to the means what it means according to which is what said always is just said that just like the is to also says only but as it relates to says just like definition of for sure was that's what he was talking about when he said that if the was together it would be even for the itself the when they said that was for the they meant that all was well they meant The says as it relates to never said and never said but says when we talk about the what what exactly is the is the issue meaning at the end of the day it's basa right what is it's a part of the animal that's at it's a part of the animal that people do not eat so I understand is inherently not a piece of meat thus it has a special place in our when you're dealing with the definition of specifically in other it's discussed in in other context where the talks about in terms of being a part of the animal where you can have a piggle again depending on the you're learning but an is a unique part of the animal that's treated as a piece of wood it's because it's not but according to it's key word it's it's really buser it's just that it was removed from the animal while you were flame the animal. Thus, it has a special place in Allah. But the says, if you think about it, really, why should it have a very why should it have this special place in Allah? Really, you just have to ask one question. When this person was playing the animal and that little piece of meat got stuck together with the hide of the animal, what was his maka was to take the meat off the hide and stick it in the pot? Or was his you know, it's part of the hide, he's going to discard it. If he had in mind that he's going to use it, then it's and if he didn't have a mind that he was going to keep it then it's not. So what is this? It's like this. It's not a either it's or it's not an. And really what it depends on is is what is understand the wholeish is both answered this question. They gave different answers but albeit similar answers. once said one said it's talking about where the person was flaying the animal and there was a lot of this there was a lot of and he had in mind some of it he's going to eat and some of it he's not going to eat and the way Rashi explains the is that being that he had in mind that he's not going to eat some of it so you can look at all the as being but being that he had a mind that he's going to eat some of it so it's for that reason you could look at it as a little bit of so what is it is it or is it not? So, you would think the part that he had in mind, he's not going to eat his the part that he had in mind, he is going to eat his but that's not what the is that being that he had in mind, he's not going to eat part of it. So, it's for that reason it's not viewed as by itself. But then again, being that he had in mind, he will eat part of it. Therefore, it could bear. The other terret was similar. It's talking about where the person himself flayed some of it, but there was another little bit of meat that came off that was flayed by a an animal dog came and he tore it up. So the meat that he himself flayed we assume is something he was mat because by flaying it you're usually being matalith and the assumption is the status quo is the is that he doesn't want that but the part of the buser that was removed that was flayed so to speak by the animal being that he didn't do it he never had a to be so it's the same idea what he took off we assume he was what the animal took off we assume was not bottle thus you have some of it that was bottle some some of it that wasn't because some of it is some of it he was never that's why you can't view all the as being but as it relates to the fact that some of it was removed without him being that could be an what do you do if you have some yeah some not it's not an for itself but it could be to share a little already discuss it either way so we had the fourth thing mentioned in the Mishna as being to the not to And that is and really this half of Gumar discussed just the basic raw definition of what exactly an is said is it's just a part of the animal. It's a senue that's hard that's not really royish said it's meat it's flesh it's technically meat that you can put on a grill and enjoy but it's and because it was for that reason it doesn't have a of and it's for that reason it's not for itself but at the same time it's for the however it's not to the additionally the gmorra said that you do find the word in you find it in You find it in for sure means additionally the Gar said that the spoke about he said if you have a kaz of it's it's it's a he was for sure talking about so there's an weren't arguing that's the mentioned in there's the weren't arguing about that's the safe of the mission in the beginning of the bar that's bas The argued was a specific the that's mentioned in the is not being but being according to and that means and according to it only means it doesn't mean so where is this parag so literally the secondishna is that's the beak of an animal. The fingernails of an animal. So they have an ability to be. We know what that means. We know what that means. And it could be for as well. Says the beak of an animal. It's not. It's talking about the lower beak. It's also an really means the upper beak. It's the lower part of the upper beak. Apparently, it's referring to a strip of cartilage in the beat. That's and that's what said it's for the how could fingernails bear. That's not what it means. It's talking about the part of the nail that's embedded. It's imshed inside the part is considered and that part is going to bear. What about the horns? Why would the horns be considered? Same thing. It's the part of the horn that's embedded inside the animal itself. So much so that when you cut it out, you remove it, the animal starts bleeding. Exhale new not a lighter says the Mishna said that there's two that has over what was the first the first was that there's a whole bunch of things that areas most notably as opposed to these are all parts these are all things you'd find in your pot if you if you cooked a piece of meat I mean and you didn't clean it properly before you put it in. You don't want to find hooves in your but right but these are things that are but then the said there's another that you have as it relates to I'm reading from the so you have to up if somebody a non-coosher animal. His intention when he this non-coosher animal is not that a Jew's going to eat it. Jews not allowed to eat non-cosher. He has in mind that in a gentile is going to eat it. Heed it mean the animal was still alive. So there's usually a little bit of a a delay from when the is concluded until when the animal actually dies. So went took a beha heed he did a he made sure he followed all the is going to talk about he even checked the sakin he literally checked the but it was a non-cosure animal and now the animals so the question is this animal right now when it's in a state of is it subject to the laws of the mission said it's subject to the laws of but it's not subject to the laws of when would it be subject to the laws of Thomas when it dies actually add when it's beheaded but the point this is another case where I have a piece of meat where the is yes no now what's in this from a a 20,000 foot view in this is because while an animal is while the animal is is still alive the it can't be subject to to because it's alive so if it's alive. How could it be? So the second part of the mission makes perfect sense. There's no even though it had and being that it's for that reason there's not going to be at the same time there will be because we could look at this animal as being how can you look at it as being the animal still alive true the animal still alive but it had a and being that it had despite the fact that the animal was still alive we could look at it as because the definition of when food becomes roy not when it goes from Abra to a regular is not so much if the animals alive or dead as did it have a or it did not have a that's the whole of and we've already learned 120 blood so we're familiar with this and that is is that when it is not so much killing the animal as much as it is shing the animal. So if you have a live animal that had how's that possible it's says he did a you but at the same time the animal's still alive. So is that is allowed to eat it and even though maybe shouldn't be allowed to eat it but the says immediately so even if allowed to eat it. So the bottom line is is that once even though it's still alive you can eat it. Oh, if you can eat it then if it's going to be subject to the laws of. So essentially what the is saying is that if you an animal and it's says you're going to now be subject to you will not be subject to you're subject to because it's alive because you did and even though it's still alive it's but is is at the same time it's not going to be subject to the laws of neo and the reason it's not subject to the laws of is because as it relates to neo has to dead. The mice is animals alive. That means it's animals alive. So it's not stating that the mission didn't just say that. The mission didn't say if you an animal and it's so the Mishna gave us a very convoluted case. The Mishna said at first glance the question begs itself. Why do we need this case? Why do we need a case? before we even understand what the case is. like what even need we know for sure the case is confusing without without learning the the half of that we're about to learn right that's clear so that doesn't need an introduction that it's a confusing case there's a lot going on so what do you need that for just say very simply for a year this is you're in and you have mashk all over the place and everything's perfect but it's right now it you want to know is it subject to or not The answer is yeah, not to yeah because it had to no cuz the animal's still alive says the that's true and the could have said that but that wouldn't be fun that wouldn't be aes we know that and even though it doesn't sound like the is trying to say sounds like the is just trying to show me cases where I have but I don't have but says wanted to tell me a big wants to say a second what's the second that even though this animal that's that had a and you want to know right now this would be true even if it was a as long as you shed it for a guy. Now at first glance that's a right it doesn't make any sense what does mean by that's precisely the condition of you know what is coming to say that even though you and really is still going to apply because being that the person that was the was and had And it was thus in the state of it would have been so we say that even though still that is going to be true and the reason is because even though this is not a is nothing but at the same time had you done this with it would have been a that's enough to give it a as it relates to this particular particular not to be able to eat it. How could you eat it? It's but as it relates to this particular it's going to have the which particular that it's now going to be subject to the of stating that the Mishna was very very clear and the Mishna said that it's only if you for it but and his was that is going to eat it. So then already it's going to be different because being that he is not let it so that whole is is not is not a valid macho. So if you did it for a to eat being that it was shame a real because a is allowed to eat it and you did a that is technically a good mita even though the context was was awful but the ma the act itself had you applied it to a kosher animal would have been a koshita. So the combination of the fact that your kav was for someone to eat it, someone that's allowed to eat it and you did a that had you done with it would have been a it's those two things. The fact that there's a sad and a for someone who's allowed to eat it to actually eat it that's enough to give it a and so that even though it's it's still going to be okay on today's is going to bring a b is going to discuss a similar case and that was what would be if a go went ahead and did the of a hisab was that aid should eat it and it was and the price is going to say the same exact it's the same is that it's going to be subject to it's not going to be subject to why for the same exact reason because being that even though but has very similar to when we said being that we give of a as it relates to the why it's not a good but there's a sad of it that is good what's the it's good in the case with the there's also a sad that it's good what's it sad that it's good there the behavior the behavior is so again the fact that there's a is enough to for me to say that it's a with regards to as long as it's being done with the someone's so if aid shacks it even if it's a as long as it's that can eat it. If it's avail and it's even though that the animal was a when did it say you're going to have you're not going to have either way on that no says it was taught that's That's the that we just mentioned in the in both cases are that if the animals says the animal will be subject to the only time these are going to be true is if two things number one the has to have a mind that someone's going to eat it. So in our Mishna being that it was a theid had to have a mind that was going to eat it in the B case he has a mind even that is going to eat it additionally and this is the point that the gar is going to really now and that is it requires in order for the meat to now become it has to first become mean it has to become wet you have to be okay with the fact that it's wet afterwards if something falls on it that's where to the laws of so meaning even says while it's only if it's wet first it's still subject to the laws of now at first glance you're going to say why not all we're saying is that it's an it's subject to the laws of but why would you think that you don't have mean in order for a food to become it first has to become what so why would you think this is different I'll tell you why does it have to become isn't this one day going to be subject to And is that anything that will one day be subject to doesn't need. So this is a really and that is as follows. When is there that food needs to be in order for it to become it's when you're talking about this of 101 and that is that in order for food to get it first has to be. So how would food become sher falls on it their has an ability to transmit to. So if you have an apple and now one of the falls on this apple you have a piece of meat and one of the falls on this piece of meat the food will now become was a truma was a kach etc. But the point is is that the the has an ability to transmit to stating that that's only if the food first prepared itself went to the mikvah first it has to be you can't just become prepare yourself you have to be how do you prepare yourself to become you become that's how you become what's the lus the lumbness of is because something doesn't become until it's completed so just like a kay that's incomplete a craftsman's working on a kay and he's 80% done he's 90% done it can't become t it has to be 100% complete in order to become tummy food doesn't become tummy until it's completed until food is washed it's not considered completed and it's for that reason the is that there's no until it first becomes what but this is only true form what about for example that's also food it's also but it's a whole different type of we know that right after Five of them are not the same thing. So is what requires needs to first become wet. There's as we'll see now two bryes. There's that says that any is on its way. It's destined to have a such as it could become without first becoming. Why? I mean it doesn't seem so logical but it's the way it is. So if you have a piece of food that one day will become an law. So that is being that it's going to one day have the and the is not bound by the laws of see even though right now we're not discussing the we're discussing the but right now it's not going to be bound by either this animal that's says that the and the said are subject to the laws of will one day have when when the animal dies it's going to be an when the animal dies it's going to be avail wasn't. So at the end of the day, you can tell me if all the in the world right now, but once the animal's dead, it's going to be subject to if that's the case, it will have to if it has to have said that the only time in our this animal that was it was a non-coosher animal. It was it's subject to but one second only if it's first. Why does it have to be? This is a textbook example of that will very soon within a matter of moments be subject to at that point they'll have the it won't be bound by anymore. But right now what you need to be bound by. So again in just like things that grow in the ground they'll never be subject to right an animal can be subject one day to they'll never be subject to it's only then so to anything that will never be subject to is what requires but anything that will be subject It doesn't require another. Why is it that the needs? So we don't have to focus on that. We need to focus on the second doesn't require when's the going to be subject to. So the of is unique. It's not is usually but the of is not it's so if you swallow it while it's in your any clothing that you're wearing becomes it's a special that's what's unique about the of so it comes out that the no of if it's sitting on the ground it's because it's but at the same time doesn't have to when you swallow it then it'll have already So the is the while it's on the ground becomes without first how is that possible because it's when's the when you eat it when it's in your then it's going to have a special then it'll have a and therefore even when it's not in your it's not subject to the so again what's the you see from twois that there's a concept A very important exception to the rule of the laws of and that is anything that are classic examples of something. So how could say and the name matters in this said I'm going to answer the question. He said the is his eyes? You're assuming for sure that this animal while it's will one day have what do you mean it's going to die and when it die it's going to be an aa and a ne isa is aamura how do you know the only time aa is if you have a kazayas what if this an animal comes and rips this nea into a thousand pieces and you're not going to have a kaz if you're not going to have so then you're not going to have to so that it's possible that you're not going to have so therefore it's It's for that reason that you need so later we're discussing what said and they said to me is it possible that said this can't be why not we learn if somebody checked either both of the of an animal the respectively or the majority of both meaning and the animal is now we're dealing here with a non-cooser animal. Nothing with a kosher animal. So somebody did a non-cooser animal, but he did the equivalent thereof of a kosher says it's not subject to the laws of says it is going to be subject to the animal still alive but it's still alive but it's still alive. And the question is do you have said there's no why not me? Because the animal's dead. that that there is a what's the you see that holds that the is that while it's in a state of there's no if there's no that means he looks at it as an a if he looks at as an a then what do you mean it's not it's it's right now now you're going to tell me so you're going to tell me but what do you mean I mean Mishna already said that while it's subject to and it's not subject to law, right? Didn't the Mishna already say that? We know that. But how could say that could say it? That's fine. is asking me did say how could say that while the animals how could subscribe to the because of the essentially is saying that while the animal is says there's no yet and therefore took it even a step further you'll never have because maybe you'll never have that's fine that that's that's very nice that works very nicely with the problem is should be able to say that because said that there's no while the animals says, "So if there's no doesn't that by definition mean that we look at the animals and says no while the animals says it's somewhere in between. It's neither here nor there. It's right. It's not it's not alive." And that's why there's no but at the same time it's not dead. He doesn't look at it as an he does look at in fact he says it could be or never will be a so therefore was able to say this in between either way just mentioned almost a very important and is now going to drill down on this in great detail somebody did a non-coosher animal he did a and the animal is now so in the we saw a tremendous that even though it wasn't a kosher but while We look at it as if it was a doesn't matter. But being that it's a mind that someone's eat it. So it's enough of that is it's going to be subject to. So now the question is what about do you look at it as a to the degree that there's no and we spoke out in the introduction to the second part of the that when an animal says there's no anymore. Why? Because is not defined on whether the animal's alive or dead. It's defined on whether there was a there was no and even though that's only true for aid not for a guy but the says there's no such thing as aid is more than a guy and that's why if for aid if you pull a limb off an animal says there's no for a guy there's going to be no either we don't need for that everybody knows that that's 101 this discussion over here is where you had a mind so you see it's considered a little bit for sure not a regular because it's a non your animal said it's a regular when the animal dies it's going to be avail it's not but while it's in the state of somehow and that is is that it's subject to which means that on some level even though it's not really we so the question is do we look at also that there should be no or not that's said there's no there isn't said listen very carefully to said why is supported by a price and this price is going to take us almost to the bottom of the it's just a very long price what was this price and he for he did a real this is the case this is literally the now the exports not the Mishna. What happens if an AA was removed from this that was in a state of wild animals still alive? If a piece of meat is removed, we look at it as so you'll have it's going to be to that it's also to aid. It's a non- kosher animal. The is that it's even because of because of the fact that it's one of the and you can't tell me because this is because at the end of the day it's a non-coo animal. Even after the animal dies, it's still going to be a what if you didn't do a what if you did this but you only did one of the one of the not that wouldn't be even if it was a so it's part that it's not going to be what if you just killed it that's obvious at this point while it's there's not going to be any meaning it won't be still alive and there won't be was again it wasn't a you did means when you just puncture the without doing a proper what about another case so that's the first case the first case is where and the says a whole bunch of the B said a whole bunch of the first is that it's subject to wallets in a state of we know that that's the second case which is incidentally what we need so let's interrupt for one moment what's the second case the second case is that you have you Why? Because it's still alive. Who is that? That's in our Mishna's case. That convoluted case said it's clear. It's very very clear. It's very clear in the which is what meant was when he said listen to the is the part of the that that we need but either way so that's the first part of the second part of the was not mafurish yet but we mentioned it in the introduction to the second part of the daf and ravasi who began the second part of the daf inferred this part of the bra What if it's not? Right, that was the other case. What if what if you puncture you didn't do any again this is the same exact this is just the inverse the first case is where you even though it's not a good because it was a but what's gives it it this is a case where this too has what for yet who needs a so in both cases it's therefore you have the subject but only if you did if you would check once if you do that's wouldn't work that's the first two cases of the but it's a longer the price continues what if went ahead and she but he didn't make it a trade what would be example of that he shacked half of the so if you Remember when it comes to the garggeras it's sukasa garggeras makes the animal a trafa you have to sh the majority of the trachea of the ka in order for the animal to be a a tra if only half of the ka is severed it doesn't make it a tra that's in contrast to the vash the esophagus the other one of the whereas even a a nective of a kosh like rashi says in the beginning of pericus would be enough to make it a ta so what if the the in a way it wasn't a trophy yet so for example he shed half the not the majority of it only half. So he did a little bit of he helped you out. It's nice but at the same time he didn't make it into then he had finished the job. It's going to be why is it because he had finished it and you know you go bust the finished it is it's going to be possible. Fourth of somebody wants to eat from an animal before the animal dies. So you want to eat so to speak, right? This is like and she wanted to taste eat the so somebody wants to eat you want to eat from the meat of an animal while the animal still alive. There's a way to do it. You the animal and while the animals says you remove it from the now the truth is you can remove it from anywhere but if you remove it from another part you're going to have to first skin it and then remove it. So if you want just want to you have to you have to move fast because if you want to c it while the animals still alive. So just for practical purposes remove it from the you also have to wash it and salt it better than ordinarily because being that you removed it while the animal was alive there's more dam the dam is a little bit more present and that's why you have to do a better and a better you have to wait until the animal dies. Why do you have to wait until the animal dies? That's based on that we've spoken about quotes it right here. in addition to the that's learned out from which Rashi says is only today. But either way and then you're allowed to eat it. That's the point somebody wants to be healthy. So this is actually good meat. It's therapeutic. Salt it good. Wash it good. Wait until it dies. Either way, why did we bring this very long bryer? We brought this very long as a where you didn't do a for a guy. That's not a worse the animal's still alive. This is like for sure not a but it's it's this is for sure not saying that and they said on some level we're going to look at it as a as it relates to is a special par in the lot of and the point is as it relates to that animal will be subject to why because had that would have been even though it's you're going to have the same the same is true the bryer said this long ber If a guy would for a year and would also not why the guy's not let those were the in the beginning of the ahab is not a is not a right. So of course uh second time very good. So of course a guy's not so is the ter mean it was and had done it would have been. So you see on some level so the question that discussed was what about as it relates to do you say that being that we look at it as a kosher animal that had so we're going to say that there's going to be no either or maybe there will be said there will be there won't be said yes no there will be and a long says that there will And we will stop