Chulin 122

Today's daf is and we are eight lines from the bim of so we're at the tail end of a very intense where the garra was discussing the second of the right at the beginning of the per which discussed the so we know that if one is an animal the animal is still alive it's so it's literally hanging on to its last few moments of life. The is that even though it's alive, if somebody would take an a or from this animal and eat it, he would not be he would not be and even though he's removing an a or buser from a live animal, but being that the animal already had a that's enough to remove the and the because the definition of as it relates to is not physically whether whether the animal was alive or dead, but rather it's whether the animal had a or did not have a for that reason. And if the animals says it would be okay to eat. The Mishna discussed a case where someone an animal it was it was not a for a very obvious reason and still on some level will say that being that there was a will somehow in view the asita. What was the case where somebody she did ame a non-cooser animal? This week's para talks about the non-cooser animals. So somebody she did a a gum a shuff and arazer he did a non-coosher animal. He did it with the intention that a should eat it. That's the is not a kosher because it's a non- kosher animal. How could he sh the non-cooser animal? stating [snorts] that if the animals been we're going to look at the as if it's a to the extent that we'll now view the animal as dead so that it'll be subject to because only a dead piece of meat is subject to a live piece of meat is not subject to at first glance this animal is alive but being that it had a and in there's an idea that if you give an animal a even if it's still alive it's says Still the animals considered with regards to the of as it relates to this animal as well. Even though it's was not a why not because it was a but if there was a even if the animals alive we're going to look at this as if it affectuated a realita to the degree that we're going to look at this as being a piece of flesh of a dead animal. thus will be subject to the of the follow from the days brought a very long and one of the things that the ba mentioned was another example another application of the same exact concept and that would be what happens if a non-Jew would the kosher animal with the intention that yid will eat it the animal was there too said this animal will be subject to the of why because being that there was a even though the animal's alive now we look at it as a piece of meat of a dead There's going to be the problem is there was no the is the one that did it and we know that has to and is it was and therefore we deem it at least to the degree that you'll have the either way the discussed in very great detail there was between and whether if somebody would remove an a oraya from this animal that's really didn't have But on some level we view it as if it did have it. Either way, the Gumar concludes this discussion with a few more interesting shas regarding the what happens if the innu or the in the wasn't a good but on some level it was a good what happens if while he was doing the he violated some of the so we know there are five that govern every you can't do sh you can't do etc. So what happens if this person messed up in the do we say that oh now it's not a anymore. So if it's not a it won't be subject to or do we say this was never a I mean this whole thing on some level is really all in our imagination that we're somehow making believe it was a so the fact that doesn't bother me but the fact that is going to bother me the fact that doesn't bother me but the fact that it's going to bother me that was the sh very nice shil that said there was a who answered who says that whatever the says it means chimed in and he said now you have to prepare it literally as if you were say what does that mean even have to check the so that's as it relates to the actual you have to make sure it's a we'll look away in our from the fact that it's a we'll look away in the from the fact that it's an that's doing the but as it relates to the of the it has to be perfect. You [snorts] have to make sure there's no but you even have to check the to make sure that there's no in it to make sure that this was done 100% another familiar with stating that the is that if somebody would swallow something let's say somebody swallows a ring walks into an oil the is that the ring that's belua inside the person that swallowed doesn't become maze and even though technically it's under the same oil as the maze but being that it's inside the person that swallowed it to if somebody swallows something and now enters an oil the person is Tomas but what's belas now this is only true if the person's alive what if the person dies so a dead person or a dead animal doesn't have the ability to be matzo something that it was. So the question is this animal right now that's if it had something belua inside of it would we say that the animal is matzel and what's belua on it in it or is it not matz what's bela in it what's the crux of the question do we look at this animals if it's alive do we look at it as if it's dead if it's alive it's going to be matzel if it's dead it's not going to be matzel and this was the question this animal that is alive but at the same time we look at it as if it's dead with regards to despite the fact that it's it's still says how about with regards to Tomas do we look at it then as being alive or do we look at as being dead oh so the question was asked from told how could you tell me it's going to be if it's that means we look at it as if it's dead if it's dead it can't be ma so told I hear but I spin it the other way. It's not that's what Misha said. The mission said while it's in a state of says if right now it's not then how is it possible that it it shouldn't be says what's it can't be that it's said another as it relates to this animal that's alive it's hanging on to its final moments of life it's stating that we look at as if it's not alive with regards to that if someone would be with this animal would be because with regards to that we would say for sure we look at it as it's mice it's alive and it's not either way you have to start going through each subcategory in do you look at this as a live animal do you look at it as a dead animal so really it's a little and a little bit because to some degree we look at as it's to another degree we look at it as if it's dead either way that concludes the first part of today's the had discussed different parts of food whether they're or not to the Mishna had said this was the first of these things to the needs in order for it to become that bust in order for it to have one of the things mentioned was the then the Mishna concluded with another regarding the we saw this a little bit yesterday's that if the [snorts] was gathered together if you have a in one place meaning even though the said that this is not even Thomas. You can't even use a little bit of this to bear to the Nauda says that it's possible that you could have a whole of and it will be how's it possible to have that if the was if it was gathered together then you're going to be now in yesterday's we had a discussion in the what exactly is right theor began my said that what it means is marta it's referring to the cervical ligament this is a gid a senue that's in the spine it's in the neck said it's white it's white it's very hard it's not edible and as a result it has a a very special place in says that it means it's referring to the meat that is attached to the hide of an animal when the animal is being flayed that little meat even though really it's basar but [snorts] being that it was removed removed from the animal and during the fleing process. So on some level the person was that buser while he was flaying it. That's what emerged from the follow and that's why it has a very special place in and the concluded that even though it's what exactly is the is only said with regards to the meaning when the ra mentions where there's a distinction between whether the versus debated what meant when they used the word but as relates to the last when used the same exact that word when he said there for sure what he was referring to was because as it relates to you can have all the in the world it's not going to bear to he said if you take the says if it was then is if you have a in that case you're going to be either way the garra is now going to discuss a little bit and this next little bit of gumar is not so easy it's really shocking [laughter] it's really um based on a Mishna which is Sunday's digar is going to go into it again on Sunday's d. So we'll start it now and really go into it in in greater detail in a few days. But either way says the so if the was you have a it's going to be even it's much harder to create a as we see but if you have a that's enough even this is only true if the person himself gathered it together. So if you went and you took a of you started piecing it together, then this is going to be true. But let's say it happened by itself or an animal did it, I don't know, it happened in some other way, then this is not going to be true. Meaning if you gave it by bringing it together that's where so again of so one of the of is that it's not only it's also raun came along and he said he said what would it be if somebody was carrying a kazas of no. Yes, a kazayas of noa is masa but it was two pieces of neo each one measured a half a kazayas and the way it was just physically situated was each half of gazas was attached to art. So you had a piece of of skin of an animal, a hide of an animal that had a it's not a big sh had a little bit of and then there was another big slab of that had a little bit of that. is carrying both of them that it's it's not going to be meaning this half of the this half of so if I don't have a half and a half I can't make a whole because each half is a bottle says the if you've learned the you would know that this said is the inside over there brings If somebody had art and two says again if you had on two half it's not but it is says generations later. And what say it's not going to be so says why are you saying this? This is already it's a everybody knows this going it's not true that way. He said it's true but is going then it's not true is it going we don't need for that that's so what's coming to add as it relates to this it's something that already discussed in a no less [snorts] he was coming to say How can you be saying that you don't say the half it is going to be not like what said says that this said that's only if was the one that removed these two half but if a person was flaying the animal and he himself removed a little bit of the buser as he was flinging the animal that buser has no kash I mean that that buser has no kashivas he would be carrying a half of his eyes of that and half of his eyes of that again there wouldn't be meaning holds conceptually it's possible to bear of two half of the that's he said that's only if an animal for example was what removed it but if a person flays the skin of an animal and he by When doing that removes a little bit of there there's a new that the flaying it is the and that will never be able to he was coming to qualify that the two is only true if it just happened by its own or is going to be a difference in our And said this is only true if the person himself brought it together. Now if you're going to tell me that according to even if it's meaning even if you flate it could still bear not like the just said Rafuna was saying in his purish so that it makes sense this other this first that Rafa said what was Rafa's first that if a person flayed an animal he has this all what's That's the buser that came off while he was slaying the animal. He gathered it together according to Yehuda is going to bear. Now who's he going according to was going according to now even though he fllayed it. It would work if you hold that said that said his not only when it was even when it was but if you're going to tell me that even never said then who's going like that never when it comes to that says all the definitely can't be going coin rahuda that definitely can't be going coin must be going coinish who holds two the problem is talking about where he flated and said never said when he flated so he doesn't with obvious he also doesn't withm based on the way just explained so says Ella you have to say um you have to say that really [snorts] even if it's according to it's not going to be meaning even if it was says in the two half is true if it was it's also true if that's the case who's raesdesh said that two half asim are not mitar didn't understand what exactly raesh Is he saying it? It's not true. Raish holds two half is going according to the Gumar was that is what Rabaka said. So the had no choice but to come up with some novel point that was making by saying that he was going to and he was qualifying by saying only not by but now we're falling off of that. So then what exactly is coming to say was coming to say what's the I'll tell you maybe only said it's the same spot in the reverse we're saying it's more that it shouldn't bear when it was cuz by you removing the buser as you're flaying it you're being the buser somehow. So maybe only say maybe didn't say that was gave a reason. The of wasn't the it's the of the reason that he gave for his because that's not something that's in the Gar is going to say that in one second. You're asking good and is about to say that you say look but either way that's was coming to emphasize the reason the reason is the is and has nothing to do with the fact that you were when you flated it's the that's if it's because you were then it would only be true because it's the it means is going to be true even if it's inside therefore and then says really and your question is so again what's so I think for now we'll go and we'll pick this up exhale either way so the first Mishna from here until the end of the is lighter so the first Mishna mentioned as being one of the things that are but not for it's not true for all there are certain of certain animals and creatures with is different those are considered unto themselves [laughter] the following I treat it like so a person of a human corpse is mama even oil. What about the what about a person's skin? Is it or is it not to say the lives in the even the roams in the wild? The of the hump of a young camel. The of the head of a young calf. The of the hooves of an animal. That's the of a female animal. That's underneath the tail of the animal. Those are four of the So all those I treated like B. You have this. You said that the the and the are all considered who are I disagree with is treated like is a weasel and that is notar as it relates to all these if somebody would walk on them or process them at that point wouldn't be considered baser anymore. So in its natural state the is considered but once it goes through the tanning process at that point it's not considered with the exception of the is going to give a reason for it that even after it's processed somebody did that or tanned actually made something from it would not lose its status of it would still be one last not only the that there is considered. So the first said was then the Mishna brought up a second time. What was the second mention? First one was that even though is usually not treated like Baser with regards to that's the first Mishna in the right name of the par. So that was the first very first of the stating that as relates to it's one of the exceptions to the rule. So is unique in that the is treated like baser with regards to it has another unique quality in and that is ordinarily even the ones that are like once you process them once they go through the tanning process at that point they're certainly not treated like anymore really is no different than it's like etc really it should be treated like not like we're concerned that somebody's going to take the of his father and mother and he's going to make a couch out of it. He's going to make a pillow. He's gonna make a chair says we don't want him to do that because if he does that he's gonna be Maz's parents which says is it's very very right even though is only a mitzvah and it's a but at the same time we know it's it's avah so we're worried about a person who may take the oil of his parents and he's going to he's going to make things from a tapestry trees from it. Exactly that. This is who we're worried about. So said I have a way of preventing it. You know how you prevent it? It's now we're ready. He's not good. We'll get back to this. Some say that this reason was said not on the but rather was said on the so we said that is mentioned twice in the Mishna as being unique. Number one, it's one of the that are ksara, not like the mentioned in the first Mishna of the paric. Number two, ordinarily even the treated that's only when they're in their natural state. But once they go through the tanning process at that point, the said so in the second version of the was said not on the but on the as we're going to see there's a very important where the comment was made on the so it was regarding the He said that as relates to the it's over there really if you'd process the of course it would be it's because of this that someone's going to make something out of the of his parents that made this the one that had comment certainly on meaning holds that the whole idea that is treated as only one holds that really holds that the only time said is in the case where it was processed being that it was processed it's only over there between the first of and the second of is fundamentally whether this that we say that is that Or is that a according to the first in the according to the second that is so just to pause for a few moments and that is the says something very interesting the garra says that when the Mishna says that is treated meaning the of a human corpse is only a ra certainly according to the first in the garra why would make such a takana So is not treated like so why would the Raban go ahead and make such? They said because they were worried about a person that may go and take the of his parents make a pillow make a chair out of it and if he does that he's going to be mousal in the cupboard of his parents. We know the Garra says that a person has an obligation to his parents even after they're not alive anymore. And this person is going to violate says so to prevent this from happening. What did say it's oh if it's now ready all bets are wrong. What comes to mind is the over there discusses the history of the that they used to make every morning in the mdash to determine which would do which the says as follows. There was a story. They were two. They were running up the ramp. They both wanted to do the first mitzvah that was done every morning on the mitzvah of and the race is on and and they're within four of each other not sakin the person who realized that he was about to lose took his sackin out right the pan used to carry a saki and he [snorts] stabbed the person that was ahead of him he literally stabbed him so now he was able to win the race he got up on the steps of gave he said give back kick or more accurately listen to watch what happened we know that if you find the corpse and the end the talks about the now we just found and the was found in the so he said I'm going to ask you a question all the he said who's supposed to bring the now Should the bring it maybe and the and he wasn't looking for an answer. He was trying to make a point. He was trying to show the what just happened. I mean the Tyra talks about and and here we had literally on the says that listen to and they all cried as this Josh is going on in this very poant scene where all the everybody's crying listening to give them a how terrible the situation devolved to to the father of this childlan that was just stabbed to death he's on the he comes He saw that his son was he he wasn't literally dead yet he said he said that I my my son's dead let this be a for what just happened then he said he says look my son is still alive the knife IS NOT YET GO THE SO THIS is the father of the child he goes and he tells them go grab the sake because it's not and he said you can grab the saken out because it didn't become he says that you want to see what the state of the union was at that time they went and they to make sure that it would have become you see from here that the laws of took place and that somehow on some level was okay but the fact that the kay was going to be that's a problem so go ahead QUICKLY REMOVE THE SAKIN IT'S LIKE THIS IS going to be to so you see from here used to take more seriously says the tried to prevent people from being of their parents. You know what they said that if you're going to make a chair, you're going to make a couch out of the or of your father and your mother, the couch is going to be that already they're not getting involved in. So the parents keep it. No, no. But as it relates to that they took more seriously. Is it a No, it's not a It's interesting that the context is right. So sometimes a person can violate a certain or certain and become a for that thing. And if you're somebody we don't trust you as it relates to that particular item to which you're and it impacts many areas in could you be a could if somebody is in a ga area. So it impacts the reliability that this person is now going to have in that area says the if someone [snorts] is for one thing he's not forget it says the if someone's for then he's going to be for even though it's true that's only if they're equal but if someone's for right if someone is not miser in then then certainly he's going to be for something that's only about right because one is more than the other. So there's a concept of that that person is stating that says a very important caveat that when is that true that's only he said that's only true that if people actually treat the as being more than the meaning if you have two and one in is more than the other but it's not necessarily that way. So then this is not going to be true. I mean this that we say you know what defines not but people this is about human psychology. If somebody is for this doesn't mean he's going to be for that. It it really depends on exactly what people think and it's so you're going to tell me what do you mean this is is so this is not as I hear but that's not what governs this what governs this try not to give examples [laughter] what governs what next what governs this is it's not what actually and just to just to bring out this point from gives an example and This is many many later it's in also it's there were a bunch of y and sitting together they were eating they were drinking wine and there was a a non-Jewish you drink the wine now why would you think you're not allowed to drink the wine out of a concern that maybe the zena who's a non-Jew touch the wine once she touches it it's you're not let her drink it. This is 101. So is that if she's sitting at the table, it's okay because it's understood that she's not allowed to touch the wine and what if it was in the reverse. What if is sitting with the is not let there the city and touch the wine. So the is not let to drink it. Frank, what's going on over here? You have a bunch of yin sitting together with a z and we have a sh is the y is the really sitting there. She touched the wine. No the wine's m you know why cuz no one's going to let the z touch the wine. Why they're not going to let them touch the because they're very fr because because there's A sitting with a so they're not worried about but they're worried about yeah that's the short answer. And he says take a look. He says take a look at cotton hay that there's a concept sometimes that one thing will be a lot more than the other. So here you have an idea where it was very but they're not going to let it touch the wine but somehow the part that that they don't have an issue with unbelievable but either way this is a test of cutting hay and you know whenever the talks about such an idea he always he always brings out this on this in a lot of places with a lot of beautiful one that I saw in the is he brings a and the cha was written to his son of the who was the son and he wrote a chim and this is a ava that neg is of maybe we'll revisit this in a few weeks when we start learning but it was with taking a non-Jewish partner right it's actually the first but either way he writes this whole does the son about how you're supposed to go about with but yeah clearly ain't coming but either way so says the at the very end of these are the last two paragraphs he says see I wrote this long but let's be honest at the end of the day this is not an area that people take too seriously in this is that's and says that he says unfortunately today there are people that are very in certain big but and their big things that the said so when it comes to things that are extra credit that you don't have to do we find that our people are very very but when it comes to things that the okay you know what they say is it okay so but it's okay I mean that it's okay they are somehow fine with that and then the gave an example of it he says I've heard that many these are people that write they write and at the very make so sometimes they won't write the who's being divor's father's name they don't know how to write it 100% properly the kino of his name you know what he's referred to as his nickname so to speak sometimes they'll omit it completely Also, very often I've heard that there are people that write and they'll write the name of the man and the name of the woman that are getting divorced, but if they have certain nicknames, names that they refer to, so like they'll leave these they'll leave these nuances out. So what do they write? And they do listen to this. He says we have in the mouth of that they have such a It's true. There is a if you write the name that the person is called up to the to it's going to be okay. That's true. But that's only true if it's but if it's not but if the is the fact that they just don't know and they decided we're going to be and we're not going to do our due diligence to find out to the best of our ability what's going on. He says, "You have to go." And then he writes at the end he says he says wo is to me that I hadn't witnessed this in my generation where you have people that somehow when it comes to g something that's so that he writes I'm telling this to you have to know this he uses this He's referring to them as right. But either way, he says they're not going to listen to you. But the punch line, what he was trying to tell him was is he says, you know, unfortunately, I see this a lot and you see the very passionately about give an example [snorts] all over the place. But but he felt very very passionately about this idea. This again, this is an idea that's already brought down. And you have it right here tucked away by people than it was. So a person would maybe be maz's parents to make a couch out of the of it's not his parents corpse but if you tell him he's going to be then already somehow that's going to get him to stop either way said the of so is it's unique in that it is stating that we had is it only the or is also the roams in the wilds up Michael what's the beer is very simple is just more physical the the texture of that if the is considered soft like then we would treat it like boss if it's considered hard then we wouldn't treat it like is it considered soft or was it not considered soft the hump of a young camel is also treated like what does a young mean as long as this camel didn't have any load carried on it. That would be considered young. It's not so much about age. What it really means is is did it physically carry a load. He wasn't so sure. He said, "What if it's old enough that it can start carrying a load, but it didn't physically carry a load?" The reverse question. What if it really wasn't old enough to carry a load, but we put a load on it? One sat down and he asked the same question. What's the age of this young of its hump is heard the name as long as it didn't carry a load was so happy with told him he's so excited he never heard this he said wowy he gave that as the age of the he said have a seat sit right next to me or right across from me he was himar says that there was another story with another godle coming once said and he asked the same question what's the age of the told him I also heard from he said as long as it didn't and says that he repeated to he said it a second time so he told him he gave him his answer and then he repeated the answer so told him what you only have one thing to say that you have to repeat it. He said you don't have to say it a second time. Take a look at the difference between the tith init and the above. Who was the was we'll read inside. Rashi gives examples of where you find was the above. Yet when he heard from [snorts] what said he was so excited that he was he said wow thank you so much for giving me this piece of information I never knew how to define the in the he said have a seat and he gave him who was the counterintuitively right just the that's what the comment is the comment is the irony is that that what did he tell he almost mocked him in a way he said what this the only thing you Oh, that you had to tell it to me twice. Not only wasn't like was but to the contrary. So what do you find that was a and what do you find was so rashi says as follows five lines from the bottom like you find if somebody would see somebody talking with people would trust this but didn't just talk to you. So if was having a conversation with you, it meant you were an so that people would go ahead they would lend money to they would give him an isk right they would invest with him but they wouldn't even need because they would trust this person 100% says that people have to be careful who they associate themselves with specifically people because if you are going to associate if you're a person of and you now associate with people are going assume at that point he is a good guy and they may go ahead and trust him and they may give him something like the gar says about and you know what's going to come out that you being together with this Russa ended up being because you're testifying so to speak by being with this person that this person is a good guy when in reality he's not a good guy. So he said imagine would have spoken to somebody that wasn't somebody would have trusted the next thing you know you would have so here you have to be very careful certainly did who he spoke to says in Russia don't just go ahead and become a Russ because you realize if you're going to be with a RUSSIA YOU'RE SAYING CUZ PEOPLE are going to assume this Russia is not a Russia because otherwise why is this person associating himself with him and at the end of the day a terrible can come about from that but either way this isn't what over here when he heard this he wasn't he said but even though lived in right different places talks about and participated in Because was a product of and a product of Israel. But either way, Rabb Zer who went from Israel. So he first learned and then he fasted 40 that he should forget. So she's just bringing an example of where you see that went from. The way was from used to sit in an oven a tanner every 30 days to see if he would be singed to get an idea of of the of either way was a tremendous and what did do is of embarrassing look at how he treated this one of the rabbins either way. I'm not sure what the punch line is, but the point is the gar is certainly remarking rhetorically that who throughout you think of as being a over here he was so happy with this that he heard he said and whose personality throughout is that of a over here it was just the opposite either way said that of is also what's the definition of a young says up until one year of said according to it's the first year of the eagle's life according to as long as it's nursing from its mother how [snorts] exactly you understand it say two things it has to be less than a year old and nursing say all you need is that it should be nursing gave one qualificate not two he had one criteria it just has to be it doesn't matter only was saying two. So was saying two said one or needed both one of the criteria you need both criteria the word all you need is one. So it has to be within a year and it has to be and on that said as long as it's doesn't matter how old it is. Had been the one that was saying you need both he would have said he would have been adding just the opposite what's about the of the head of a young with regards to what is it or is it not told the obvious question what's the question it's our mentions one of the is the of the of anal. So asked essentially the he said what's the with regards to said no it's it's not told you're the one who told me and one of the things mentioned he told him don't ask me questions from that we've had this already a few times he said I it's true I I taught you that Mishna but that Mishna which Mishna the Mishna that we just learned so usually it's that Mishna now it's our Mishna it's this Mishna the Mishna that we just learned is is the opinion of a where do you see that it's in the Mishna it sounds like it's a Mishna but the tells the rest of the story and in this case the rest of the story is just who the author of the is it's a way to and he had a mind to be maz of the that's underneath the tail. If you had a mind to do basic meaning we look at the being as a result this is a regular that was brought That's what we need and all that were mentioned by the regarding and so usually when bring this it's not really relevant to what we're learning other than a but this is we're learning now right we're learning these areas and that's coming the rabbis even of the everything was mentioned the meaning they treated like said it's true the Mishna says that all these said it in the context of I don't pass like the Mishna how can you not pass like the and we holds but told this is not this is a who's the mentioned it's a now the was said regarding piggle it's a and it's the same the same albeit a different application of it that all these are considered thus if somebody would have avoiding them is it would be it would be we would view it as the punchline as it relates to this is is that who said the that these is a buster regarding pigle it was then in the name of and it was in the name of the point is it's a mean it's for that I mentioned but it's in the sense that it's not I mean that it's not I don't hold like this you have a very nice but is not going to follow that we will conclude food. A very festive week of Dio right