Chulin 14

Today's stuff is cool enough you dollar. And we are at the Mishnah, seven lines from the bottom of Duff Yud Gimmel Amud Beis. Today's Duff is being learned as a Refuah Sheleimah for Eliezer Yeshaya ben Bracha. Today's Duff is also being learned le'ilui nishmas Chaya bas Jamila. So, we're moving along in the first perek in Maseches Chullin discussing me v'mi hashocheit. The Maseches This Mishnah is me'uta chamos but roiva achos. There's so much there. Hakol shocheitin. Even a tomay, even a cutie, even a mumcha, The Mishnah says mefurash that even though there's a concern shamma yakal but b'di'eved if a roiya shocheit it's kosher. The second Mishnah we saw that when it comes to an shocheit This next Mishnah here in Maseches Chullin is going to discuss amongst other things, it's a one line Mishnah, whether or not a suma is allowed to shocheit. So, the Mishnah says somebody shocheits at night or a suma should shocheit. Or a suma that shocheits sh'chitaso kosher, his sh'chita is going to be kosher. So, what does the Mishnah say? Sh'chita b'laila and the sh'chita of a suma is kosher. Why would you think it's a problem? Because if you can't see, how you going to get the sh'chita right? You have to make sure that you get roiva d'tzu simanim and you have to conform with the five halachos of Moshe Rabbeinu. You have to be poidek the sac and there's a lot of things that you have to do. So, you would think that maybe b'laila or a suma should not be okay. Kamash Balan it's going to be kosher. Now we're already trained in the first two weeks of Masochist schooling to be madayak the lashoinas of the Mishnah. Is the Mishnah talking in Alacha Khila dig away or in a Biday Avada dig away? The Mishnah said Hashoicheth [clears throat] Balayla V'chain Hasuma Sheshochat Shichitosai K'sheiras says the Gemara And essentially the word Hashoicheth the whole short Mishnah seems to suggest that Shichita Balayla and the Shichita of a Suma is only kosher Biday Avada very many. I'll ask you a kasha as it relates to Shichita Balayla being only kosher Biday Avada from a Braisa Lo Olam Shocheten you're always allowed to shochet Bain Bayom U'bain Balayla Bain B'rosh Hagag Bain B'rosh Hasfina But what do you see from here? It sounds like you're allowed to shochet Balayla L'chatchila. So we have a stira. Hashoicheth Balayla is mashma only Biday Avada Lo Olam Shocheten U'bain Balayla is mashma that you can do it even L'chatchila that when the Braisa says that you're allowed to shochet L'chatchila Balayla She'avuka K'negda It's talking about when he had light. So even though it was night time, but at the same time there was a proverbial light bulb. And as a result being that he had light that's when it's going to be kosher L'chatchila. When the Mishnah says Hashoicheth Balayla which implies it's only kosher Biday Avada is talking about when there was no Avuka K'negda being that it's takifinst choshech so it's for the reason that the Avada is going to be kosher but L'chatchila it's not going to be okay. said Deekonami. It's actually maduyak very much from the Mishnah and the Braisa respectively like Rav Papa's distinction. Because the Braisa that said Lo Olam Shocheten Bain Bayom U'bain Balayla so it put Layla together with what? It put Layla together with Yom Dumyo D'yom By day you can see thus Layla is where although it's night, but proverbially, it's somewhat day. Why? Cuz there's an avuka d'nehora. The hakha in the mishna, it put layla together with what? It put it together with a suma. The hakha d'mya d'suma, a suma can't see, so it's yet hakha that the layla is also a zaza layla where you can't see, where it's dark outside, and there's no avuka d'nehora. Ishma minna. Said Rav Ashi, final word in the sugya, k'darko bakodesh, that it's actually maduyak. I like this piece of gemara. I think it should be part and parcel of the formation of the Talmud, >> [snorts] >> because it actually makes a lot of sense. The mishna is talking about a suma d'mya d'layla. The braisa is talking about a suma that's d'mya d'iyya. Either way, going to get back to this sugya of shchita suma b'ezras Hashem in the raid, but for now, we turn our attention to the next sugya here in maseches chullin, a sugya that is going to be malava us knee-deep into tomorrow's daf. Begins with another very short mishna, but a mishna that reverberates very much in the world of raid. There's so much related to this mishna. Unfortunately, we're not even going to get to the raid on this mishna today. But, a classic nonetheless. Zoch the mishna, ashcheches b'shabbos uv'yom hakipurim, if [snorts] somebody shcheches on shabbos or on yom kippur, af for what it is he did. Somebody shcheches on shabbos, he's chayav misa b'ezdin. If somebody shcheches on yom kippur, he's a kares, he's chayav kares. But, despite the fact that this person is mischayev nafsha, shchitaso k'sheira, the shchita is going to be kasher. So, what's the topic of this mishna? If somebody shcheches on shabbos, if somebody shcheches on yom kippur, he's chayav misa, okay. But, then again, there's always a silver lining, shchitaso k'sheira. At least you could have a dinner. But, the bottom line is that shchita b'shabbos and shchita on yom kippur is kasher. Now, here too, ashcheches b'shabbos b'di'eved, there's not going to be any steer to this, right? A shochet b'Shabbos is b'dieved, and a shochet b'Yom Kippur is b'dieved. Obviously, you're not allowed to do it l'chatchila, but b'dieved, the halacha is schita k'sheira. Zocher Amar Rav Huna, said Darshiya bar Rav b'shmei d'Rav. Rav's son, Chiya, said over in the name of his great father. What did he say? That even though the Mishna says a shochet b'Shabbos b'Yom Kippurim, schita k'sheira, but assur b'achila l'yoma. But at the same time, on the day itself, on Shabbos and on Yom Kippur, you're not going to be able to eat it. Now, the fact that you can't eat it on Yom Kippur is pretty intuitive. The chiddush is that you won't be able to eat it on Shabbos either. So, inasmuch as schita k'sheira, but there's a din that if you want to eat it on Shabbos, that's not going to be okay. Truth is, the Gemara b'Maseches Shabbos Rashi quotes it, we'll see it in tomorrow's daf, it's on daf 106, is going to say that the makor to this is from the fact that the Mishna juxtaposes Shabbos and Yom Kippur, and Yom Kippur is for sure assur b'achila l'yoma, simply because it's Yom HaKodesh. So, as it relates to Shabbos, it's going to be the same way. But the bottom line is, this is what Rav Huna said over, that Chiya bar Rav darshiya in the name of Rav. So, this is attributed to Rav, as we'll see later in the daf, the names matter. But Rav said that as much as a shochet b'Shabbos schita k'sheira, but at the same time, assur b'achila l'yoma. Says the Gemara, the nafka chabraya l'olam. So, the chabraya, the olam, they got together in the bais medrash and they said Rav Yehuda here, that when Rav said that it's assur b'achila l'yoma, they had a deyak in the Mishna. But when Rav said this, it has to be because he understood that the Mishna is Rav Yehuda, and in the world of Rav Yehuda, it makes sense that it should be assur b'achila l'yoma. Says the Gemara, "Hi Rav Yehuda, what did the think was or is the to why it would be that means there is some out there in the world that seems to say that even if you want to argue that the same time Gamorah we're going to sheet he didn't say this first it's a and the Gamorah wants to know how this question of is going to be the topic of the balance of today's talk and the first two-thirds of tomorrow's as well the Gamorah is going to try to figure out how which is there in that would be the to say that even though but now in today's just to set this up we're going to go through four attempts they're all going to be failed attempts and then in tomorrow's we'll see the ending to this story so says the Gamorah took the first crack at it and he said I think what the meant to say was they wanted to rub you hood in the tiny bit of background through and really it's a tiny bit of background to the entire off and that is we know when you learn shabbos massekhet shabbos there's a rub you hood and rub shimon in fact there are three rub you hood and rub shimon that underpin and permeate the entirety of massekhet shabbos in all three cases rub you hood is the and rub shimon with his is the rub you hood is the he looks at you who does the of you who does the of you who does the of in contrast rub shimon who's making all three cases by the way we've spoken so much about this over the years that in all three of these machlokesin, the halacha is like Reb Shimon. So, as much as we usually don't pasken like Reb Shimon, certainly when he argues with his greats about muktza, Rebbi Yehuda, but on Shabbos, there it's different, and there the halacha really is like Reb Shimon. So, okay. What we need to know is that when it comes to muktza, Rebbi Yehuda is the machmir, and Reb Shimon is the meikel. Now, the sugia of muktza is a very complicated sugia, and you could learn it be in 6 months in yeshiva, and it's still going to be a complicated sugia. And although the Gemara is going to delve in a little bit into the sugia of muktza now, we're going to keep it high level. So, again, the super-duper high level is Rebbi Yehuda is the machmir on muktza, Reb Shimon is meikel as it relates to applications of where Reb Yehuda is machmir, so that will manifest itself during the course of the daf, but either way, Rav Adda, who is taking the first attempt to explain what the chaveirim meant when they said that when Rav learned up in the Mishna that asura b'chila d'yoma, he was going like Reb Yehuda, it's Reb Yehuda v'chano d'tnan, we learned in a Mishna, mechatzchin es ha'diluin lifnei ha'beheima. A person is allowed to take gourd and chop it up on Shabbos and feed it to a beheima. V'asan ha'neveila lifnei ha'klavim, additionally, in the event that somebody has a neveila, and he wants to feed his dogs on Shabbos, you're allowed to chop up the neveila, and you're allowed to feed it to the dogs. Reb Yehuda aimar, Reb Yehuda says, in the case of a neveila me'eres Shabbos, in the event that this neveila was not a neveila before Shabbos, meaning, in the event that the animal died on Shabbos, asur, it's going to be asur, lifisha in aman muchan, because when Shabbos came, it wasn't a neveila, which means it was not muchan to be fed to klavim. As a result, it's muktza. Therefore, Reb Yehuda, who is a machmir on muktza, says that it's not going to be okay. So, according to the Tanna Kamma, a neveila is a neveila is a neveila, and you're always allowed to take a neveila, cut it up, and feed it to the dogs. I don't care if it was a neveila before Shabbos or if it available on Shabbos. According to R' Yehuda, it matters. If it became an available on Shabbos, being that it wasn't muchan fire Shabbos for the clothing, right? It was a good animal. What were you going to do with it? I don't know. Let it work in the field or at some point shechted and eat it. But achilas clothing is always the last option when you can't eat it. So like tashlich So in a situation like that, being that it wasn't muchan the clothing, therefore it's going to be assur. What do you see from him? Being that it wasn't prepared from before Shabbos for the clothing, it's in a minute muchan, it's going to be assur. So said R' It makes sense that if somebody would shecht on Shabbos, it would be assur to eat on Shabbos because being that the shechita happened not before Shabbos, it happened on Shabbos, assur it's going to be assur. And you want to know why it's assur? So said R' that you know why And you know which R' Yehuda this is based on? It's based on R' Yehuda who's muchan He holds that in order to be eat something, it has to be muchan. There's no way this possible is muchan because when Erev Shabbos came, when the laws of muchan go into effect, at that point it was a live animal. So clearly it wasn't prepared to be on your Shabbos dinner menu. So based on that, in the event that the shechita happened, even though shechita is that's a sugya in But you want to know as it relates to Shabbos, it's going to be muchan. This is what R' said. So I told R' He said, "Me dummy? It's not a tzushta. Hasam as it relates to the halacha of nevela l'clothing, where R' Yehuda says the nevela Shabbos assur, >> [snorts] >> there the reason it's considered in a minute muchan is because because before Shabbos this animal was muchan And now it became muchan It was not muchan It was muchan As a result, it's in a minute muchan, it's muchan. but as we listed this animal may come it was always Muqallad. You want to know if it was shocked already it was marinating and pickling no but at the same time it was definitely and now you're using it so it was Muqallad and it's Muqallad so if that's the case I don't think it's a meaning high level of conception I know what you're trying to say that it has to be but I think in this case it is that it's not because it was now you want to use but over here it was you might be using Adam says the so responded he told him when animals are alive it's Muqallad no animal is alive it's Muqallad it's meant to be used in the field right an animal is more valuable than it is dead because when it's alive there's more options there's more things you can do with it and being that it's considered Muqallad not so it actually is like the where it was Muqallad or and now all of a sudden it's been Muqallad the bottom line is it's in the Muqallad in this case as well so said I believe for sure that according to you would have that is going to be a problem well based on that it would be but the said I don't know but I responded if you're going to tell me that every animal that is alive is considered Muqallad and it's not considered Muqallad and that's why the even though it's still a Muqallad problem well if that's the case so why are you ever allowed to an animal on on Yom Tov, you're allowed to shacht. It's not considered chill Yom Tov because ain't being shacht on Yom Tov hello oichel nefesh for that. The problem is the laws of muktza just like they apply on Shabbos apply on Yom Tov. And if that's the case you should never be allowed to shacht on Yom Tov because you should always say in Rebbi Yehuda's world it was aina min hamucha. This is bishlam if you're going to tell me that animal is considered muchan l'adam. So it always is muchan. There's not going to be a problem. But if you're telling me that it's not muchan l'adam but rather what it is it's muchan l'gadel. If it's muchan l'gadel just like that's a problem on Shabbos in the obscure case of a shacht b'Shabbos, well in the more common case where l'chatchila you're allowed to go ahead and shacht on Yom Tov, this should end up being an issue. So Rebbi Babba told him, "No, let me explain to you how this works. An animal that's alive is a medas l'achila and by medas l'gadel. It's actually a medas for both. It's a medas to be eaten and it's a medas l'gadel. On Yom Tov you're allowed to shacht, right? So nishchita when you go ahead and you shacht it huvera d'l'achila medas. You're being mevarer right now that what was it really muchan for? It was muchan l'achila. L'oi nishchita if you didn't shacht it then huvera d'l'gadel medas. Then it's going to be nisbar there was a gadel medas. And that's why you're allowed to shacht on Yom Tov. On Shabbos however, once bein hashmashos comes at that point it's for sure only muchan l'gadel. The reason it's only muchan l'gadel because you don't have the option to be able to go ahead and shacht on Shabbos because that's going to be ossur. In other words, Rebbi Babba said, "Well I'll tell you that the Rebbi Yehuda that the Chavraya meant when they said a shacht b'Shabbos even though shchitaso is k'sheira was the Rebbi Yehuda of muchan. And the reason is because there's a muktza problem. It's aina min hamucha. Why is it aina min hamucha? Because a beheima b'chaya is a medas l' as opposed to now where it's a matter of slaughter. So, being that it was never moved it was moved to Lagado. It's for that reason there's going to be an issue. What's your question? Your question is if that's the case you have to take it out. So, why you have to take it fine. So, you have to tweak a little bit what I'm saying. What I meant to say was is that an animal that's alive is always moved for both. And as long as I have both options, I see it as being moved for both. And when I do one or the other it going to move based on the sugar as we'll see in one second a prayer that determines which was which. But on Shabbos leading up to Shabbos is moved for both but the minute made a special comes the minute I'm no longer allowed to shock. Well, at that point you lose the option and you have to kill now all it is is moved to Lagado if all is moved to Lagado. So, I can't tell you it was an animal that was moved and that's the Rabbi Yehuda. So, Abaya is going to fire back now. The basis of what Abaya is going to say back now is a Rabbi essentially in order for you to make this Rabbi Yehuda work, you need to suggest Rabbi Yehuda holds the age prayer, right? Because essentially what you're saying is that an animal is not moved it's moved and Lagado, right? Because if it's moved then there's no problem of a shock of the Shabbos eating it on that day. It was always moved the carrots is it's always moved and Lagado. On Shabbos you lose the option of a killer. On Yom Tov you have both options and with prayer it's going to work. So, really in order for you to make this work you have to hold the age prayer, right? Let's say this a little better because if you hold a prayer, if you hold a prayer, well, then there's no such thing as saying that the animal was moved it was moved and on Yom Tov we figured out which one it's going to be. You would have to say from the fact that you allowed to shock on Yom Tov it was always considered moved and if that's the case on Shabbos it would also always be considered moved Le'Adam. It's Behemsah Mucheh Le'Adam. [laughter] And if it's Behemsah Mucheh Le'Adam, then there's no reason that there should be a Tzusah D'Rabi Yehudah and Arsuha. And it can't be that the Chazai Kedusha, when they said Rabi Yehudah, they were referring to this Rabi Yehudah. So, the only way, if you're holding Chashman, that Rab Abba's Teredos can work is if you say that an animal is not inherently Mucheh Le'Adam. It's Mucheh Le'Gadol U'Le'Adam. On Shabbos, you lose the option of Adam. That's why there's a problem, right? That's what you're suggesting. As opposed to on Yom Tov, where both options are available with the Inyan of Breirah. But, it's only true if you hold Breirah, says the Gemara. Says the Gemara. Abaye turned to Rabba, and he told him, "About last night, regarding Rabi Yehudah Breirah, I know for a fact Rabi Yehudah doesn't hold Breirah. And if he doesn't hold Breirah, the whole Dinyan falls me la lines." The Gemara says, "How do you know that Rabi Yehudah doesn't hold Breirah?" So, again, this is a fun Daf, as we can already tell from the beginning. The Gemara here is going to shtel tzu two of the greatest Sugyas in Breirah, both of which relate to Rabi Yehudah. That's why these are the two we're picking. Right? Whenever you learn Breirah, so there's always a handful of Sugyas that get thrown around. In this Sugya, the reason we're picking these two cases is because these are the Rabi Yehudah cases, She'al Zeh O'Lo Doneh. And we want to know Shitas Rabi Yehudah. But anyway, says the Gemara, "We know Rabi Yehudah doesn't hold Breirah. We know How do you know that?" Ee Leima Me'De Tanyah. So, every time you see this Halacha brought down, there's always a Shaylah in the Gersa. Is it Tanyah or is it Tinah? And the reason is cuz really it's a Mishnah and a Braisa. So, the Mishnah says it in one way, the Braisa says it in another way. So, that's why there's always a little bit of a Sugya. It's What we're about to learn now, a Tanyah or is it a Tinah? But anyway, in the Gemara says the Tanyah. So, we'll go with the Tanyah, okay? Anyhow, if somebody buys wine from a Kuti, we know who the Kutis are by Chulin Daf Yud Daled. All we need to know for our Sugya now is that the Kutim were Chashud when it came to Tum'as Ma'asros. Okay. So, if somebody buys wine from a Kuti, and he has to be Mafresh Tum'as Ma'asros, cuz he knows that they're chashash. Okay. So, just be mafsu trumah and ma'aser. So, Rashi has two mahalachim here in terms of what the issue was. One issue was he had no keili to put the trumah and ma'aser on. That's problem. Can't be mafsu trumah and ma'aser if you don't have where to put the trumah and ma'aser. Additionally, the issue wasn't the keili, but the issue was that it was almost Shabbos. And because it was almost Shabbos, on Shabbos you can't be mafsu trumah and ma'aser. So, you didn't have chance to go ahead and get the keili and put everything in order. You just had to act very, very quickly. The sun is literally setting as this is all going down. But anyway, al dikduk b'nakudim, and you're not in a situation right now where you can properly be mafsu trumah and ma'aser. So, there's a plan B. Oy may he could say, "Shnei luggin shani osah l'hafrish, hareini trumah." The two luggin that I'm going to be mafsu trumah are going to be trumah. Why two luggin? So, Rashi says cuz it's talking about where there was a hundred lug, and two out of a hundred is one out of fifty. And the Mishnah says the midas beinonis when it comes to hafrashas trumah, even though chitas has p'tiras acharei, but the midas beinonis says to do one fifty. The way Rashi does it is he says, "I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. I'm going to be mafsu trumah. Right? And as a result it's not going going to be an issue. Says R' Meir, that's fine. You could do that. You can work with this retroactively cuz R' Meir holds that it's okay. By the way, why do you have to be okay with this? You're relying on the true ma. You're relying on the ma'aser rishon. There's no problem over there. Ma'aser sheni be okay with this. It's because R' Meir holds that as much as you can rely on it, it's a problem. If there's another way to do this, then I'd rather you work the other way. You're not allowed to do ma'aser sheni outside of Jerusalem. So if there's an option to be okay with ma'aser sheni, then be okay with ma'aser sheni. So R' Meir allows you to do it, but there's an insight. He only allows you to do it if you have no choice. It's a new point from the right? Even the whole case sets itself up that way. Where it's you don't have uh or it's or it's not much, but the point is is that you can use it you can use it, but that's only R' Meir. R' Yehuda, that's what we need. R' Yosi, R' Shimon, these three held that it's also. So why they hold it's also presumably cuz they held R' Meir, but what's the bottom line? You see clearly that R' Yehuda is R' Meir. So I told R' Meir, you're predicated on the fact R' Meir. R' Yehuda doesn't hold R' Meir. You know I know that from the most famous case of R' Meir. From R' Meir, from R' Yehuda, R' Yosi, R' Shimon, you see clearly R' Yehuda is not of the opinion of R' Meir, but the says tiny time, but that's nothing to do with R' Meir. As a matter of fact, it's over there in the discussion that R' Yosi, R' Yehuda, R' Shimon had with R' Meir [laughter] that the reason they argued with R' Meir was not related to R' Meir. Rather, it's based on the reason that they themselves expressed R' Meir. They told R' Meir, yeah, aren't you worried that maybe the this jug that has all this wine or whatever is inside of it is going to break? And if that happens, then it's going to come out of the if you don't end up being I'm afraid this is much of a problem, then for sure it's going to come out of my afraid it's going to be a problem. I'm going to let him know that I told him I hear what you say you yeah when it happens it happens. And by the way this is a very broadly applied my where a mayor is is not highest but it makes highest not highest as opposed to but it over here are highest but anyway this has nothing to do with it's true holds the highest prayer but it could be also hold the highest prayer and the only reason they were ALSO BECAUSE OF YOU BUT I KNOW THE BOTTOM LINE IS THERE'S no way from here that doesn't hold the so the says I said I hear take two the tiny you know I know doesn't hold the prayer I know it from something that I said and I is mentioned in the A ribbon that's one of the and that's where the world of intersects with the laws of A ribbon specifically A ribbon the so the background is as follows the mission of here says that must not a person can make an A ribbon tonight what does that mean and the mission goes on and expresses two cases one case is where a person heard that there's a that's coming to town but he doesn't know if he's coming to the east of the town to the west of the town now he's outside the town so in order for him to go whether it's east or west he's going to have to make an A ribbon promise you can't make an A ribbon on both sides you can only make an A ribbon on one side right cuz once you make an A ribbon so now your center of the universe becomes where the A ribbon is and you lose out on your ability to walk in the opposite direction of where the A ribbon is but the bottom line is he doesn't know which direction the is coming so he could be he could put an A ribbon to the east he could put an A ribbon to the west and he could say if the goes to the east I want my A ribbon to the east to be there and if he goes to the west I want it to be to the west mission continues the mission says I'll tell you a similar halakha. This is very much me Indian Indian by Indian. What would be if there were two coming that were coming to town? There's a coming to the east and there's a coming that's coming to the west and he's not sure yet in the beginning of Shabbos which drasha he wants to hear. Right? He wants to hear the east coast halakha or the west coast halakha. So, he says, you know what? I'm leaving my options open over the course of Shabbos and I'm going to decide as it gets a little bit later. You could do that. So, you can MAKE TWO WAY DECIDE ON SHABBOS WHICH ONE YOU WANT it should work and it's going to be okay. On this Mishnah the Gemara a brisa Tony I was the name of a and he sold the following brisa. A person cannot be two things at once. Now, the way Rashi explains this is I would say that agreed with the first of the two halakhas. He just disagreed with the second of the two halakhas. The first halakha where he said that if the goes to the east, I want my to be to the east. If he goes to the west, I want it to be to the west. That I'm okay with. It's not okay. And the end up being in the direction that the end up going. If there's two and you're deciding on Shabbos where I'm going to go, in that case it's not going to be okay. What I would say they didn't understand. Why did I say that was to the first second Why would he not agree with the second halakha? It's obviously because of What do you mean because there's two that are coming. You're not sure which one of the two you want to hear. When you decide which one you want to hear, it's going to have to retroactively say that that was there. And the eruv into effect as hashmahshes, goes into effect as Shabbos is being ushered in. You're deciding which of the two eruvin should be ushered in bein hashmahshes on Shabbos, which means you're doing which is breira 101. But, obviously Rebbe Yehudah is less lebreira, and that must mean why Rebbe Yehudah was in the second case. Well, if that's true, Mizrach Eiruv nami the first case is also a problem of breira. Why? So, this is a little nuance. It's because the Machsheva, the Benei Yeshiva were of the opinion that the case was where the himself on Shabbos was going to make up his mind want to go to the east, or do I want to go to the west? So, if that's the case, really on Shabbos again even in the first case it's being which one of these two eruvin were going to be the the right eruv, which again is totally a breira. So, if Rebbe Yehudah holds ein breira, and that's why he disagrees with the second case, he ein breira should disagree with the first case as well. For Rebbe Yochanan Rebbe Yochanan answered the Benei Yeshiva's kasha, he told him, "No, you didn't understand the first case. The first case is not where the is coming on Shabbos. He came already before Shabbos. It's just that the guy who's making the eruv, the masmer doesn't know where he came. I don't know if he came this way or he came that way. But, here's the point. Whichever direction he came in, that's the eruv that's been now, not on Shabbos now. NOW, NOW, NOW, NOT NOW. AND BEING THAT IT'S happening right now, it's nothing to do with the Sugya of Breira. But, the bottom line is, what do you see from here? This is the end of this conversation. You see from here, we just need one nuance. What we need is that Rebbe Yehudah is less lebreira. And now you know it. May the tonya Zev Avya told Rebbe Abba that the only way your shot in what Rav meant when he said hashaycha bishabbos shichitas sheir bidasur liyoma. And the nusfin Chavraya Rebbe Yehudah here >> And is which Rabbi Yehuda? Rabbi Yehuda holds that you can't be in that the animal And the reason is because uh wasn't and if that's the case said oh, I think we have a very good over here. The animal wasn't but Shabbat is not allowed to eat it. And if that's the case, this is no different than the animal that died on Shabbat that you can't give to the dogs. Over here the animal was killed and but the same thing you can't feed the people cuz the reason is it was uh It can't be that that's true. Because the only way you can make that work is if Rabbi Yehuda holds it is prior. What does that have to do with prior? Because if you're going to tell me that an animal while it's alive is not allowed to eat it 100% full stop, well then you're going to have a problem every single day. Every single day you're allowed to eat it. Every single day you're allowed to And if it's not allowed to eat it, you shouldn't be able to What was the answer? The answer was no. An animal is allowed to eat it. It's also allowed to eat it. On when you eat it, on Shabbat WHERE YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO EAT IT, so obviously it's always going to end up being an issue. That would work if Rabbi Yehuda held it is prior. The problem is we know from Rabbi Yehuda it is prior. If he holds it is prior, the way it works has cuz it's 100% 100% allowed So if it's 100% allowed to eat uh you don't necessarily want to eat it. Whatever, we can figure out why THAT'S THE WAY THAT it's considered allowed to eat it. Yeah, you know from the fact you're allowed to eat it despite the fact it is So it must be allowed to eat it. Well, then that's the case it shouldn't be any different on Shabbat. Right, why would Shabbat be different? Because Shabbat you don't have the option to eat it. You don't have So, on Yom Tov, you don't have to share. THE TERRORISTS BECAUSE IT'S DARK right there to ultimately share. THAT'S WHAT YOU DO WITH ANIMALS. WITH ANIMALS, at some point, you share it. And you don't necessarily share it. Up in Hilchos Muktzah, it's considered Muktzah Machshavah and if that's true on Yom Tov, it'll have to be true on Shabbos. It's have to consider Muktzah Machshavah. That's the case this Rabbi Yehudah is not a Tzushtel. We're back to the drawing board. The Nos from Chaverai the Memra of Yehudah he The big question is Hi Rabbi Yehudah element of Yosi. Rabbi Yosi took the second crack at it. He said Rabbi Yehudah the Keilim he You want to know which Rabbi Yehudah is? It's Rabbi Yehudah of Keilim. And this is a Sugya. Mishnah Maseches Shabbos Daf Kuf Kaf Daled. And this also deals with the laws of Muktzah again. Being mindful of the fact that without getting into the Sugyas of Muktzah Rabbi Yehudah is a Machmir Muktzah. We're going to find another case where Rabbi Yehudah's Is Lay Muktzah Muktzah and we're going to try to Shteil a Tzushtel to our Mishnah. Kol HaKeilim Nitolin Shabbos says the Mishnah. Any Keili that you're allowed to carry on Shabbos, Shivreihem Nitolin. In the event that the Keili breaks on Shabbos, you're allowed to carry those shards, the broken parts of the Keili as well. So, just because a Keili breaks doesn't make it Muktzah. U'vav Ain you have to read the not such fine print. This is only true you Oisin Me'ein Melacha. It's only if these Shivrei Keilim are able to do Melacha. If you can't do anything with it, if there's no Hishtamshus that you can have with it, then obviously you have to not touch it, right? It's Muktzah. I was going to say get rid of it. No, you don't touch it. But, if you can't do Melacha with it, then not. So, for example, Shivrei Areivah. If somebody has some sort of basket and now it broke, Lechas Ben Pi Chaves. As long as you can do something with it. As long as you can cover a Chaves. Even though that's not what that Areivah was used for, right? That Areivah literally is a mixing bowl. And now you're using it to cover a Chaves, but you can use it. As long as you use it, it's going to be okay. Shivrei Zchuchis. If you had a a glass crystal Keili that broke, Lechas Ben Pi Pach. If you can cover the top of a Pach or jug, that's going to be fine. Rabbi Yehudah Rabbi Yehudah says, "I'm a Machmir." U'vav Ain you Oisin Me'ein Melacha. This is a nuance. Me'ein Melacha. >> I'm a machama. Who will watch you? Or tsunami in Malacca. This is a nuance in Malacca ton. You have to be able to continue to do this specific Malacca. So, for example, shivray areva lots of political mikvah. And areva is used to put something in it. So, as long as it's big enough and it's shaped in a way where you can pour a mikvah, you can pour some oil into it. So, then it's going to be okay. Or shivray shukis which was used to contain liquids inside of it. Lots of political shamin. You'd have to be able to pour shamin inside of it. But, here's the point. Rebbe Yehuda's machama. What's Rebbe Yehuda's point? That it's not enough that you can do may in Malacca, but it has to be may in Malacca ton. That says may in Malacca ton in may in Malacca acharis light. The only time shivray kalim you're allowed to use is if you can do it may in Malacca ton. Okay, what's the point? Al ma, what do you see from here? You know you see from here? You see from here that Rebbe Yehuda holds if you have a kaylie that was much may have shabbos to be used on shabbos, but it was much and for this is shamshes. If you want to use it for a different is shamshes, it would require some sort of tikun. You would have to do something. You'd have to break it in this case. But, there's some tikun that would have to happen. That makes it be ain't no man of a hooker. Again, even though high level this is much and this kaylie is much and it's much and it's it's on my dining room table. I'm using it in my image this trina inside of it. I'm using it. Yeah, that's fine. But, if you want to now use it for something else, if you needed a tikun to be able to use it for that, well, that in and of itself won't be okay. Says Rebbe Yosef, if that's the case, here's the shush. As it relates to an animal, even if an animal is much and all them like we proved already from the olive, even though an animal is much >> [snorts] >> and all them, but at the same time, being that if you're going to want it eat from the animal, you're still going to have to do a shrita. So, it requires a tikun. So, it can't be the ticken? It required a shveera. So here too it requires a shrita. Well, if that's the case, kim il asma being that it wasn't prepared mamesh for this thing yesterday asura, it's going to be also either way. So Rav Yosef said, you want to know which Rav Yehuda I think the kadisha were referring to when they said according to Rav Yehuda it's going to be also liyoma it's going to be muktza. Where do you see Rav Yehuda holds it's going to be muktza? You see Rav Yehuda holds that when comes to muktza it has to be muchan mamesh for this thing and if it's chaser any ticken that in of itself is going to be an issue. Well, if that's the case over here it's chaser ticken and based on that this would be a problem. So who said this teretz? Rav Yosef said this teretz. So Abaya told him, now by the way, Abaya was the one who said what he said to Rav Abba on as well. But when Abaya says something to Rav Abba doesn't have the same meaning in our anyways as when Abaya says something to Rav Yosef. But either way I'm going to say Abaya he told him me dami, it's it's not a tzusta. I think you're misreading this whole Rav Yehuda. The side of this Rav Yehuda of why when a kayli breaks it has to be made in melachtan otherwise it's not going to be okay. It's not because of Rav Yehuda's definition of muktza that it has to be muchan for this thing and not be chaser even a ticken culture. That's not the nakuda. You want to know muchan not muchan and if high level it's considered that in of itself is going to be okay. Doesn't have to be muchan on such a granular level. Okay, so what's shatan Rav Yehuda? Why does he hold that it has to be made in melachtan? It's a whole different nakuda. He says chaser in that case may car kayli. When you started off on shabbos with a kayli then the kayli broke on shabbos. So betchila shabbos that's made car with a kayli. The hashta and now that it broke shiver kayli. Now it's already a broken chart. The havalin noilat. It's noilat. Now noilat is a sif cotton in the worlds of muktza. But that's the same thing, right? No way that is the first thing you massage this bayah, but the bottom line is it's no way that this is like a dover hadash over here. For us when it's that, for that reason it's going to be awesome. If, however, you can use me in melachtan, right? So, with here Rabbi Yehudah doesn't hold it's no way that. And being that it's not no way that in that case it's going to be fine. But here's the point, that Rabbi Yehudah is being mechadesh no way that. Okay, so maybe in our sugiyah there should be a no way that problem, right? We had a bayah answering it. You just shifted the nusach a little bit, but a shechitah b' Shabbos, you started off with an animal, now you have a piece of meat. So, said Abaya, here's the punchline. But as relates to food may come Before you shechted the animal was considered oichel. It was oichel. And now that you shechted it, it's right there oichel. In fact, oichel difference. When you shechted it, you know what you did? YOU JUST CHOPPED A PIECE OF MEAT. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY what you did. Rashi says "Ifris means nishbar b'nifrach." You know, it's basically you chopped off a piece of meat. And being that all it is that you chopped off a piece of meat, it's not no way that. It's not going to be a problem. And Abaya continued, he says, "Maybe mechesi. How do you know if you chop off a piece of meat that it's not considered no way that? That sounds like no way that to me. You started off with a bull and now all of a sudden you have a piece of meat, right?" Now, a minute later Rabbi Yehudah said, "I have information. I know for a fact that Rabbi Yehudah holds of this svara of oichel difference and it's not considered no way that. How do I know that? It's from the Mishnah in Shabbos. In you know that a squeezed fruit made schita on Shabbos. If you want to remove mashkin from it, if they came out by themselves, assumed it's going to be awesome. Rabbi Yehudah said, "I'm there." Rabbi Yehudah said, "In [snorts] oichel, in the event that these peros were meant for oichel, then whatever comes from it is going to be mutar. But in mashkin, and if you're using it in mashkin, then I assume it is assur. Then it's going to be assur." The side of schita of Rabbi Yehudah is Rabbi Yehudah holds that if you're using it like achila, so then there's no schita. that you're going to go ahead and if however it's set aside for then there's a chance you're going to do so again you know that's obvious the question is what if it was say it's going to be I think you're being says that if it was that was set aside for me what was the objective of these to do a so if the objective was to do a then I'm concerned that if we're going to allow you to use a and you may go ahead and use a so therefore I'm I'm shutting it down I'm saying that if it's if however it was something that was set aside then I'm not concerned and as a result it's going to be okay but one thing you see from here says that if the pairs happen on it's only if it was a whatever not learning the nuances of the we're learning now so we need to know is just one thing who does that impress with the fact that may has to what should be the issue no you have to say cuz I the bottom line is the second attempt to try to in the of that you see that who holds that in the world of has to be what's the I can break something could be used IN THE BUT IT'S EVEN THOUGH THE WAS YEAH BUT IT WAS it wasn't that's that's going to be a problem so that's a good that you see from here that whatever it's a big one EVEN THOUGH IT'S BUT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT going to be okay but after further review I buy that it was a nice an amazing by the way if you want to see that that's a little bit of a hard I want to see the a little bit better I don't know what the says sort of what we said but the bottom line is I should say we're saying sort of what the says garage man says. But the bottom line is that the point is that that Yehuda is related to something else related to Nila. And if it's related to Nila, there's no shakers to our Sugya because we're dealing with and even though the took on a completely different form to something called the difference is a present of Yehuda the bottom line is we're over two right now. We still have two two Rebbe Yehuda's both in the Sugya of Muktza both Mishnayos in Maseches Shabbos and so far we've been unsuccessful says the Gemara love it Marala. Now the words love it Marala is a little tricky right cuz it doesn't look like this is a third terrace. It looks like love it Marala is all part of the original hedgeman. Right you would expect to see an Ella right? That's not that's not what the Gemara is doing. And the reason is is because this third terrace really is is no lot pun intended from the previous and the aftermentioned discussion. As a matter of fact it sounds like Rebbe Yosef is probably the one that's saying it cuz Ella Marala Rebbe Yosef and Rebbe Yosef and Abaya are going back and forth over here. But once we still suit this Sugya I think in the Sugya of Skita there is a source. There is a Makor another Rebbe Yehuda that would be able to still suit. What is that? Omar Rebbe Yehuda a Mashmoel Rebbe Yehuda is in the name of Shmuel Rebbe Yehuda Rebbe Yehuda was Moider to the B'Salis Zaysem and Anovim if somebody has baskets of Zaysem and Anovim that what? In that case the Halacha is that even though even though the the Zaysem and Anovim are technically what? Are technically Muchan La'Achila but any Mashkin that comes out of it in that case Rebbe Yehuda is Moider to the it's going to be okay. It's going to be a problem. What do you see from here? Alma you see from here Kivan D'Leschita Kaimi being that Zaysem and Anovim are very valuable things the the Mashkin that comes out of the Zayis the oil is more valuable than the Zayis. The Mashkin that comes out of the grapes the wine is more valuable than the grapes. When you have something like that, you have da'as Torah. There's always a halacha that says that in that situation, it could be it could be the person will ultimately want the mashkin as well because of the the chashuve nature of it. And based on that, even though you had it set aside for oichel, BUT IN THAT CASE, WHY DID REBBE YEHUDA say it's going to be ossur? Again, where it's mashkin, gezeiras Shammai Yisrael. Where it's oichel, there's no gezeiras Shammai Yisrael. So, when it comes to anavim and zeisim, even where it's oichel, gezeiras Shammai Yisrael. Right? Okay. But what's the point? The point is, you see, when something is le schita kayama, you have da'as Torah. Cuz ultimately, you're going to be schochet this. Or there's a good chance you're going to be schochet this because of its chashivus. Well, hachanami over here, you have to say as it relates to a beheima, given the le schita kayama, being that at some point you're going to want to schecht the animal because of the fact right now you maybe don't want to schecht it. But at some point you're going to schecht it, you have da'as Torah. At that point, you're going to Therefore, we look at you right now as if it being something that there's a concern that you might schecht. And here's the punchline. It's for that reason it's going to be ossur le yom tov. In other words, the reason it's going to be ossur le yom tov, says the Gemara in the third attempt, is takke not because of muktzeh le eido muktzeh. It's not muktzeh, it's not noileh. It's simply because you see that there's a gezeiras Shammai Yisrael. Where do you see it? You see it in Rebbe Yehuda's world. What did Rebbe Yehuda say? Rebbe Yehuda says usually something that's muchan le oichel, I'm not worried about. But when it comes to zeisim and anavim, on some level you always view it as muchan le mashkin. And therefore, there's always a gezeiras Shammai Yisrael. Well, if that's true for zeisim and anavim, it has to be true for beheima also. The relationship between schita and zeisim and anavim is the same as the relationship between schita and alive animal. And if there's a chashash that if we're going to allow you to take the mashkin that yoitze me'eilav of zeisim and anavim, that may cause you the chashash to go go and do a schita, then there has to be a chashash that if you're going to allow you to go ahead and eat the meat of an animal, this should be gezera shema yishrach. And that's the reason it's going to be gezera shema yishrach. That's the third shash. Not because of muktza, not because of nevelah, but simply because of a gezera shema yishrach. But the gemara says it doesn't work. You know why this doesn't work? Says the Marcus Media who timer al Rav. Because who is the one that said that our mishna is going to be with Rav Yehuda? It was the Nasvin Chavraya who were coming to explain Rav. Rav was the one that said assur b'achilah l'yom tov. This is all in the world, this is in Rav's bais medrash. Rav, who's the Chavraya? It's Rav's bais medrash. That's who is discussing this halacha. And Omar Rav, Rav said chaluk al Rav Yehuda b'basar l'yom tov min ha'am ha'aretz. It's Rav Yehuda Omar Shmuel that said this halacha. Wasn't Rav, right? Rav Yehuda himself never said he's moideh b'basar l'yom tov min ha'am ha'aretz. Shmuel said that Rav Yehuda was moideh b'basar l'yom tov min ha'am ha'aretz. What about what about Rav? Fakert. Chaluk [snorts] al Rav Yehuda afilu b'basar l'yom tov min ha'am ha'aretz. So you see in Rav's world there's no gezera shema yishrach. Yishrach. And if that's the case, there should be no gezera shema yishrach. And if that's the case, this can't be the tzushat Rav Shmuel bar Rav Shishas b'Rav Yidi. Rav Shishas b'Rav Yidi said, I'll take the fourth and final attempt of today's nafra Rav Yehuda the Narris. You want to know which Rav Yehuda? It's Rav Yehuda the Narris. And this is going to now circle back to the braysa min ha'am ha'aretz min ha'aretz chodesh. A person is allowed to be metalel min ha'aretz chodesh. Now this ner that we're talking about over here, Rashi says it's a ner that was made up of earthenware. What's unique about a ner shel cheres, a ner that's made of earthenware, is that it gets very uh dirty and greasy, right? It's it's something that's very very moist. So the braysa says, you're allowed to be metalel a brand new ner chodesh, aval yashan, not one that was used already. Divrei Rav Yehuda. Azai held Rav Yehuda. What's the yesod of Rav Yehuda? Rav Yehuda holds that it's muktza machmas mi'us. Something that's disgusting is considered to be muktza. So what do you see from here? Rebbe Yehudah holds muktzah machmas mius. What's the tzushta? The Gemara's going to speak it out, but you can't even go by there. What's the tzushta? If Rebbe Yehudah holds of muktzah machmas mius, kind of the Gemara Rebbe Yehudah should also hold of muktzah machmas issur. A live animal is not mius, right? Maybe if you grew up in Brooklyn, it is, but uh it was not considered mius. Uh ner, cheres, yashan is mius. Okay, so what chai is? It's because although a beheima is not mius, but a beheima is assur. Why is it assur? What do you do with a beheima? Eat it? Save it in a machal? Shecht it? It's one of the lam teslochos. So, it's assur. Work with it in the field? Lab the machanaim? Right, you can't do anything with it. Shvitzos beheima. And being that you can't do anything with it, it's muktzah muktzah machmas issur. So, the tzushta of Rebbe Rebbe Yehudah was, you want to know which Rebbe Yehudah again? We know Rebbe Yehudah is a machmir muktzah. I know he also holds muktzah machmas mius. If he holds muktzah MACHMAS MIUS, IT'S MISTABER WE DON'T HOLD MUKTZAH machmas issur also. And what's what's the tzushta? Right, I'm not touching this because it's disgusting. I'm not touching this because it's spiritually disgusting to touch it. Because it's something that's assur, right? Metamtem mesalei. It's mius. I I I have to shacht it or something, you say. I can't touch it. But the Gemara says you see there's an idea with Rebbe Yehudah's machmir muktzah. Muktzah machmas mius it makes sense. Muktzah machmas issur would be the same thing. But the Gemara says meichadei even the shabbos Rebbe Yehudah holds muktzah machmas mius. Muktzah machmas issur mishaneh way. Maybe dafka muktzah machmas mius, not muktzah machmas issur. The Gemara says ain no, that is an incorrect dikhoy. The ten year cuz we learned in the braysa Rebbe Yehudah says, "Kol nerous she matres All nerous that are made of matres." So, here you have a ner that's made of matres. By the way, in the loshon of chazal, a ner is not the actual candle. The ner is the lamp, right? Where the candle is. So, you have the ner of cheres and the ner of matres. I thought a ner was made of wax, right? No. So, the ner over here that's made of matres. And what's the significance that it's made of matres? It doesn't get disgusting. So, all nerous of matres metaltelin chutz min haner shehadli with the exception of a near that you live in the beginning of Shabbos. Now, who's saying this Rabbi Yehuda says, you know, I have a shita that a near shall Harris you not allowed to touch. Near shall mattress, that's fine. That's meows. That's not meows. But, if you lit the near between us and Shabbos, so when Shabbos came, it was the near is or one of the near is that you had lit, then it's going to be an issue. Why? It's the same not meows. All the parrots is cuz you weren't allowed to touch it then cuz if you would move a candle on Shabbos, there's a concern that it may be extinguished. So, because of a kiboy is a krashi, therefore, you're not allowed to touch it. That's muktza machmas is also it's meforash Rabbi Yehuda holds muktza machmas is the right to tzushtal of meows to is a mega tzei. But, I have a meforash Rabbi Yehuda that said muktza machmas is that for sure this must be a the Rabbi Yehuda. You want to know why I Shabbos because of shero, but it's giving a surly it's because Rabbi Yehuda holds muktza machmas is and the animal was it was muktza is that no you allowed me to address all those points. But, at the same time, at the same time, it was muktza muktza machmas is and the I don't think it's a tzushtal cuz it's a shiny awesome. Maybe over there although you have a muktza Rabbi Yehuda holds muktza machmas is, maybe dafka there the who dafka maybe you die. When he was dafka maybe you die. When you light the candle before Shabbos, you did a ma'aser to be dafka to say that I'm not going near this as opposed to as opposed to a behema where you didn't do anything be a dying. So, being that you didn't do anything be a dying, maybe over there there's no alacha of muktza machmas is. Either way, the gamora enacts out this fourth attempt and we're going to stop here again. What's the sikum of the daf? The first part of the daf dealt with suma. We're going to get to that now in literally 1 second. The second part of the daf dealt with hashoycheis b'Shabbos ub'Yom Kippur. The mishna said, "Af al pi she a sky but not sure she tossed it [ __ ] standing there. The full of the set that three in the name of the great rab that even though she tossed it [ __ ] a suit by why would it be also during the day the [ __ ] is kosher if there's no what would be the problem? Oh, how many rab you who do the question was which rab you who do we went through a full rab you who does the first rab you do we went through was that rab you who do holds that if you and the dog is on Shabbos you're not allowed to feed it to the dogs. Why cuz it wasn't club him but it was a Shabbos here too. If you on Shabbos you should be able to feed it to people cuz it wasn't all the man Shabbos. Tomorrow is like that because it's clear that rab you who do she do is that a live animal is considered what's the right to that? The right is from the fact that you allowed to we know she does rab you who do is in greater which was a big part of today's the second attempt of the tomorrow was that rab you who do has a street that if a key breaks on Shabbos the only time you allowed to continue to use it is if you can use it in that's the contrast that I say as long as you use it that's going to be okay. What do you see from here that the only time something is considered is if it didn't require any tick but if you were able to use this it was to be used but it required a tick on for this particular that is going to be awesome. An animal could be but you can't argue with the fact that it required a street or which is a tick on. So if that's the case or you see rab you who do holds that that would be a problem in the world of was like this the more I said that's a poor understanding of that she does rab you who do the reason rab you who do holds that a key that breaks has to be able to be used cuz otherwise it's going to be it's never considered to be an issue. The more had a a third rab you who do and that is rab you who do who has a she do in the world of mashkin and pirus. Whether you allowed to use it or not allowed to use it. But Rebbi Yehuda Rebbi Yehuda agrees that if someone has an oven and mashkin comes out, not allowed to drink it because we're concerned you may go do shita from the zaysim and the oven. Tiny is the gemara. Seems like a good analogy. If you have animal that on its own or by mistake ended up shachut, I shouldn't be allowed to eat it because of the concern I might do shita. I can't drink the mashkin from the zaysim and the oven because of the shach I might do shita. I can't eat the basar from this beheima because of the shach I may go ahead and do shita. So it must be a wonderful tushia. This is an amazing Rebbi Yehuda tushia. The problem is Rav is the one whose bais medrash is handling this whole shaila and Rav doesn't agree with that statement. Shmuel was the one that said it in the world of Rebbi Yehuda, not Rav. And therefore, for a technical reason, that can't be the pshat. The fourth malacha the gemara said was that Rebbi Yehuda holds of muktza machmas issur. So I think an animal is muktza machmas issur because now you can do it in an animal really on Shabbos. So based on that, it should be considered muktza. The gemara says the whole makor that Rebbi Yehuda holds of muktza machmas issur is when you would be your dying. Being that over here you aren't your dying, maybe over here it's going to be different. Either way, that is the kol of today's daf, which again we're leaving in the middle of the daf b'ezras Hashem, part two, which is the lighter part of the sugya, we're going to learn tomorrow. But as it relates to rate, just to speak out two parts. So the first part of the daf, the way way way easier part of the daf, discussed whether or not a suma is allowed to shachut. And the truth is it's in the first mishnah. Hashechut balaila v'chein hasuma sheshachat shchitasah kasheira. The mishnah is m'vuer that a suma is kasher l'shchita, albeit b'di'ev. Not surprisingly, this stam that has no one that argues with it in the Gamara is brought down in Shulchan Aruch. The Machaber in Yoreh De'ah Siman Aleph Sif Tes says Suma Lo Yishkot Lechat'chila. Elem Kein Acherim Royin Oisa. Ve'im Shochet Shechitaso Ksheira. So this Halacha Pesuka of the Mishna in Chulin Daf Mem Beis Mem Beis is also Halacha Pesuka in Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh De'ah Hilchos Shechita Siman Aleph Sif Tes. Rebbi Akiva Eiger in his Agoyis on this Halacha asks a question with four answers. Akiva Eiger says we know there's a Shita in Shas, it's the Shita of Rebbi Yehuda ironically, who holds that a Suma is Poter Min Hamitzvos. Great Rebbi Akiva Eiger, the Beis Yosef in the name of the Rosh says that we're Chayish Leshitas Rebbi Yehuda Vehalacha. It's based on the Rebbi Yeruchem who says that the Halacha is like Rebbi Yehuda and the Beis Yosef says that even though we don't Pasken like Rebbi Yeruchem and of course a Suma is Chayiv in Mitzvos, but at the same time we're Chayish Me'iyavoi and it's for that reason in areas of Halacha we're always Chayish for the Shita of Rebbi Yehuda that holds that a Suma is Poter Min Hamitzvos. If that's the case, great Rebbi Akiva Eiger, how could the Machaber Pasken? How could the Beis Yosef say that a Suma will be at the DF or be at if Acherim Royin Oisa is a Ladas Shach? To the extent that we have to BE CHAYISH TO THE Shita of Rebbi Yehuda that a Suma is Poter Min Hamitzvos, if he's Poter Min Hamitzvos it means he's not a Bar Mitzva. And if he's not a Bar Mitzva, then Hadar Dina he's like an Oved Kochavim. And an Oved Kochavim, that was the Mishna in yesterday's Daf, Shechitas Oved Kochavim is Navela. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, HOW could the Shulchan Aruch say that a Suma is a Ladas Shach? Vecha'eira, Leshitas Rebbi Yehuda that a Suma is Poter Min Hamitzvos, a Suma doesn't need Shechita. If he doesn't shrita, he's mamish like an eved kena'ani. If he's like an eved kena'ani, that means he's not about z'chut. If he's not about z'chut, so that means he's not allowed to shecht. And his shrita should be shrita as a neveila. As a kushya atzum, says Rav Akiva Eiger, it's muchrach from here. Oh, you saw that the acharonim talk about in different places, and that is that even Rebbi Yehuda that holds that a suma is patur min hamitzvos, it's only from mitzvos assei, it's not from mitzvos lo sa'asei. And if you hold that a suma is really chayav in mitzvos lo sa'asei, so comes out he has the lav of neveila. He might not have the assei of shrita, and we can clarify he has the lav of assei of shrita, but the lo sa'asei of neveila that he certainly has. And being that he has the lav of neveila, says Rav Akiva Eiger, he's a bar achrayus z'chut. If he's a bar achrayus z'chut, for that reason it's And Rav Akiva Eiger this is a raya she'eina of tzuva al nias da'ati to the shitos that hold that even Rebbi Yehuda that holds that a suma is patur min hamitzvos, it just means that a suma is patur from mitzvos assei, but avada, he's going to be chayav in mitzvos lo sa'asei. This Rav Akiva Eiger is a maforsam Rav Akiva Eiger. Last machsom, we had two great bites on this Rav Akiva Eiger. I was thinking about Rav Akiva Eiger yesterday. It mamish bothered me. I mamish don't understand Rav Akiva Eiger. I mamish don't understand it. Hashem yoreina. Rav Akiva Eiger had a halacha in Shulchan Aruch that says a suma is allowed to shecht. Rav Akiva Eiger, according to Rebbi Yehuda, a suma is not a bar achrayus z'chut. And if a suma is not a bar achrayus z'chut, so why is a a suma allowed to shecht? Why is a cherish shoteh or katan allowed to shecht? A cherish shoteh or katan are also patur min hamitzvos cuz they're not bnei z'chut. Rebbi Yehuda, a suma patur min hamitzvos is more than A CHERISH SHOTEH OR KATAN THAN AN AV PATUR min hamitzvos. And a filu achi, a cherish shoteh or katan are allowed to shecht. NOW, WHY? THAT'S THE TZUVA OF REBBI YEHUDA. That's the shach in siman alef. Come come in the shul to be meyashev. Why a cherish shoteh or katan are allowed to shecht? And why don't we say that I consider it to be so if that's THE CASE WHAT IS GOING TO BE SO WHY IS THIS IS NOT THAT'S THE DISCUSSION IN THE FIRST THAT'S THE THIS IS WHAT THE DISCUSSES IN HIS physical and he is all the time I am discussing THIS FAMOUS FAMOUS FAMOUS SO WHAT'S did find in the of that all of a sudden the signature the safest way to do it was written written by Rabbi [snorts] summer garbous schliter great going to be and on this Mishnah that's like this is what he says Rabbi Eiger cost of like me that the after this is part of the business we come walking in the sun the love hockey a nice classic Shira a lot of Shira who the SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA THE SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA Shira Shira the Shira Shira Shira SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA AND THEN IF YOU Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira BUT SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA SHIRA Shira Shira Shira but I thought about it I think the Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira this is Rabbi Eiger that's Shira Shira I think it's Shira Shira Shira Rabbi Eiger means and that is why is it that I consider to be a a Shira I Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira so we spoke yesterday from the Shira Shira that the Shira Shira said that the reason is because in as much as the Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira and that's why you find the Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira Shira in the world of stam or chaim simon lam a test. But at the same time, there's a love of lo sachilum. And because there's a love of lo sachilum, so it's for that reason he's considered to be in the parisha of zvikha because even though he himself, the cheresh and the shaitan the cotton are not muzar kishal atzman to not be able to go ahead and eat in the veil, but at the same time gedoilim are muzar to make sure that the katanim are going to eat. And by the way, we didn't speak this yesterday, but that's poshit it's mevorar from the noideh bihudah that this halacha lo sachilum is not only true for a cotton, right? Even though it's always la hazik gedolim al katanim. He sees true for a cheresh and it's true for a shaitan as well. And the reason is because if it's only true for a cotton then the noideh bihudah only answered a third of the kasha, right? The kasha is all cheresh, shaitans, and cottons are kosher to shrecht, albeit if you check off all the right boxes. What do you mean? They're not going to eat zvikha. The teres is lo sachilum. One second, that's all good la hazik gedolim al katanim. But what's going to be with a cheresh and a shaitan? It's muchakh meforash in in the noideh bihudah this way it is. And emes is we spoke out years ago an epic chuvah from the hilchos shabbos and this is in the noideh chaim simon pegimmel. It's one of the chuvahs I'm for summers where there was a shaitan there was an eitzah maybe for this shaitan to have a refuah by sending him to some rehab facility. The problem was they were going to serve him non-kosher meat. And the shabbos shaitan wrote a whole chuvah whether it's okay, it's not okay, it's a nifla digga chuvah. And toich divarav he says one thing. It's a meforash shabbos shaitan. And emes is I looked around a little bit I found that the bes shaiyis of the end of yud daled simon kuf nun zayin brings it meforash bishaim rabbeinu yerucham. It comes from the rishonim but IT'S MUCHAKH IT JUMPED OFF THE NOIDEH BIHUDAH YESTERDAY. But the bottom line is so that's poshit that there's a love of lo sachilum when it comes to a cheresh, shaitan, and a cotton. And the noideh bihudah said that's the beer why we view a cheresh, shaitan, and a cotton as being as being Bar Zviha? And we mentioned yesterday that really this lady be who does a shach. And even though the shach is a little bit awesome, but in Siman Aleph of Katan Chazan, the shach seems to be saying what the lady would be saying. If you take a look at the Pri Megadim, who was a contemporary of the lady, the Pri Megadim says before was the shach of the Megadim is what the lady would be saying. I mean, he doesn't call him a lady. But he says THIS FAR, IT'S BECAUSE of Yevamot Kuf Yud Daled. It's based on the love of Lo Yisa'eh. So the yesod of why a cheresh of a katan are considered Bar Zviha, it's because of the fact that there's a love of Lo Yisa'eh. Here's the shaila. Does a shochet have Lo Yisa'eh? Does a ashuma of the lady who does have Lo Yisa'eh? So my Muslim Rishon Shai Shli Shi was of course, why wouldn't he have Lo Yisa'eh? But I think it's a tois gado. I think it's a tois awesome. You know why? What's the whole yesod of Lo Yisa'eh? The yesod of Lo Yisa'eh is there's a cheresh of a katan. We would love for a cheresh of a katan to be chayev mitzvot. Not of us, we're pattering him. Why are we pattering him? He doesn't have das. A cheresh is considered what? They don't have the das to be nizer entire mitzvot. And because they don't have the das to be nizer entire mitzvot, it's for that reason the Torah exempted them from entire mitzvot. Stating that there's a mussar of Lo Yisa'eh. AND LO YISA'EH SAYS WITH A KATAN AND THE LADY WHO DOES SOME sort of say the cheresh and shochet as well, but they don't have das to be nizer by themselves, so we have a responsibility and we have an obligation to go ahead and be responsible FOR THEM. WE WISH THEY WOULD KEEP ENTIRE MITZVOT. Not of us, THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO. SO THERE'S AN INDIAN OF LO YISA'EH. NOW WHY IS IT ONLY TRUE FOR LO YISA'EH and not Assei? You know, we settle for Katan and he SAYS SORRY HIM. I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THE CHILIK IS. BY THE WAY, WHAT WE DID MENTION yesterday is the Gadol says a very simple pshat. He says that when a person does a Lo Yisa'eh, there's a chashash that when you get older you'll continue to do the Lo Yisa'eh. By an Assei, there's no pshat of Lo Yisa'eh. By Lo Yisa'eh, there's a chashash of Lo Yisa'eh. By an Assei, there's a We spoke about maybe it's related the the here's the bottom line. The bottom line is the whole year of we have a we want them very much to be able to keep nervous nervous that then I they don't have the ability to do so. So therefore assume I feel I leave it to has thus. HE COULD TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF I don't want to take care of him. He could TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF AND I FEEL THAT HAS A THAT IS A SO THAT IS A SO THAT IS A DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE COULD TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF. What does that mean? IT MEANS HE'S IN A SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME THERE'S A DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE YOU CAN'T EVEN SAY IT. WHY WOULD THERE BE A SOMEONE THAT WE ASK HIM ONE should keep this NOT THAT HE CAN'T be in a so there's a so there's A SO COULD TAKE CARE OF himself with this BUT THE SAID I FEEL YOU WHAT SO I'M IF THE AVAILABLE BUT YOU can't feed me in a makes no sense there's no if [laughter] the doesn't care about me eating the so why would the have a problem WITH SOMEBODY ELSE FEEDING ME in a the whole point is by the THE THE WAY WE IS NOT THAT THE DOESN'T CARE IF HE EATS THE HE JUST can't be cuz he's not about so good so good that's the rate but the but the bottom LINE IS WE CARE about him as a result where he can't be comes to game it says he should BE A BUT IT'S A AND I SAID I LOVE BY A SO I LEAVE IT TO IS built in motion. WHY WOULD THAT BE THE CASE? THE DOESN'T have a problem with him eating the available but the has a problem WITH YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE ISSUES OF LOVE AND THEN YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE ISSUES OF LOVE. WHY ARE YOU NOT WORRIED? WHY? THAT'S JUST whatever that is WHATEVER THAT IS >> [laughter] >> SOME PEOPLE THAT TREAT THIS THIS IS OKAY IF THERE'S NO IT'S POSSIBLE to make a BIG DIFFERENCE. YOU KNOW HOW TO WRITE THE COTTON. YOU KNOW HOW TO WRITE THE SMART of the it's possible you know it's a shot with the people that have the shot. These are the biggest always can you all know all this rate of the biggest new that you do the cotton is considered why? BECAUSE OF BUT ALSO THE BIGGEST WAS THAT I DON'T THINK SIMILAR HAS I WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IT'S NOT ONLY true for cotton. It's also true for the shot can we go into the night to be going to say that it's really YEAH BUT THAT'S THE SHOT THAT THE REASON THEY'RE PUTTING THEM IN IS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DOES AND BEING THAT IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT WHEN THEY DON'T have the love when they don't have a bit of shot it's not what they don't know how to be in the zone I think they don't KNOW HOW TO BE IN THE ZONE. You just the whole concept of telling a person be careful don't feed this person himself right? It's a day to DAY EVEN WHEN YOU ARE MICHAEL HIM IN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE CASE. The whole concept of telling him is a little built in moving when it comes to a person and it could be the whole concept of telling a person the whole concept was coming not the whole concept not the whole concept not all this rate and that's what the concept said I understand the concept What I don't understand what I don't understand is why would what I don't understand is why would a person be different. I was discussing this yesterday with you and he said maybe you can bring a from the whole concept that the whole concept is a very famous he said that even according to the whole concept that the whole concept is but he said the whole concept right? That's what the whole concept said and the whole concept is washing is like this the whole concept the whole concept the whole concept the whole concept the whole >> If you're not going to tell him that he's highly Mr. Rabona, and he's mom IS A [ __ ] IF THERE'S A WHEN IT COMES TO A SUMA, DOES IT pass to say that he's a free and he either way it's just a but I think as it relates to and portion of the held that the Harris site of a cotton are considered by because of the fact that there's a lot of Rab is being to us in this area. is that there's no when it comes to a Suma, what would be the I need to push it. By the Harris site of a cotton with the reason that part of this cuz they don't have that. So they don't make sense to my partner. But the Suma DOES. THE SUMA COULD TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF AND I FEEL so what BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE a God that has does and he knows to be careful for you. Then I don't have to BE CAREFUL FOR MYSELF. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL for me? It's something that's a lot of elements state to in Suma a different reason. It's Suma there's another creature over here. I have to say a Suma is considered by for something a little more fundamental to the sheet that hold that a Suma is highly if a Suma is highly and again just just to throw out a little bit of raid. We are going to stop here.