Chulin 23

Today's daf is chulin daf kuf gimel and we are seven lines from the bottom of daf kuf gimel amud aleph. So, the topic has been schita, specifically schitas chulin. Stating that the mara digressed and the mara went from discussing schitas chulin to melikas ha'of. Melika was very similar to schita. Anytime a carbon was brought in the form of an of, a chatas of or an olas of, rather than doing schita with the of, what was done was melika. And it was a mishna and gemaras that discussed some of the halachas of melika, specifically comparing and contrasting schitas of chulin versus melikas of kasha. Once the mishna mentioned melika, the mishna digressed and discussed the birds that are kasha to be brought as an of in the beis hamikdash, specifically torim or bnei yonah. And the mishna mentioned kasha b'torim pasul b'bnei yonah, kasha b'bnei yonah pasul b'torim. Then the mara discussed, so what exactly are those shiurim? Meaning when does a bird become kasha to be brought as a a tor? When does a bird become kasha to be brought as a a ben yonah? And then the mishna and the mara discussed an in-between stage, what's called chilas chatzi of. And the mara wasn't sure if that shiur of chilas chatzi of, which seems to be some in-between stage as far as the maturation of the bird goes, is it a shiur that we're just not sure about or is the a barrier b'fnei atzmo? Regardless, along the theme of the digression of the gemara, Rav Zeira is going to ask another shaila which has nothing to do with meseches chulin, but it jives with the digression of the gemara. B'ei Rav Zeira, omer harei olai olas b'heimah. If somebody says he's going to bring a carbon olah as an adavah, it's going to be a b'heimah. And then he got specific. He said min ha'ayil o min ha'keves. He wants it to be either from an ayil or from a keves. Now, a sheep, the first 12 months of of life, a male sheep that is, is called a keves. The first month of the second year of its life, meaning the 13th month of its life, it's what's known as a palgus. After that, it gets known as an ayil. Now, this person said he's going to bring it mincha ayil or even a keves. So, keves would mean that it's 0 to 12 months. Ayil would mean it's 13 months forward. What he didn't mention was palgus, says the Rebbe Zera. What would happen if this person was hevi be palgus? Say he brought a palgus. Was he yoitza or was he not yoitza? He said keves or ayil. He didn't say palgus. So, at first glance, you would think he can't fulfill his neder by bringing a palgus. Says the Gemara like this. Rebbe Zera explained. According to Rebbe Yochanan, I have no shaila. The Amar who holds beryahava, he's of the opinion that a palgus is not a safek. This in-between stage, whether it's a keves or an ayil, but rather it's a it's a separate stage. There's a stage called palgus. How do I know that? It's from the Mishna Krivo. Maybe all of this guy ayil. If somebody brings a palgus as a olas nedava, say he has to bring nesachim together with his behema. How much nesachim does he bring? Say he brings the same nesachim that you would bring if you were bringing an ayil. So, a keves had its share vi sayin. The ayil had its share, which was a shlishis ayin. In the event that he's bringing a palgus, so it's a Mishna Maseches Parah. Say he has to bring nesachim. How much nesachim does he bring? He brings the nesachim of the ayil. The ayil is not misafri. But at the same time, if he said that he was going to bring an ayil, he can't fulfill his neder by bringing this palgus. For our Rebbe Yochanan, regardless. Rebbe Yochanan said that how do you know that the amount of nesachim that he's supposed to bring together with [snorts] a palgus is the same as the amount of nesachim that you bring when you bring an ayil? He learns it from a pasuk. It says ola ayil. And from the word ayil, he said the Rabbis say it's a palgus. Now, if you have a pasuk that's being marubet in nesachim that you're supposed to bring for a palgus. What do you see from there? That a palgus is not a safek. It's not shot. We don't know what a palgus is. Is it really a kevis like an animal is for the first 12 months of its life or is it really an aisle like it's going to be from 13 months forward? Cuz if it's this safek then the Torah doesn't have to talk about safeks. Like Rashi said on the bottom on daf khavez base. Umi ekas safeka kuchi brikh baruch doesn't have a safek. So why does the Torah have to address a safek? Elo why palgus is not a safek. A palgus must be it's a beryeh bifneh atzmeh. It must be this in between stage. There's kevis, there's palgus, and there's an aisle. If that's the case, it's poshit said Rav Zeira. Oy mareh oylas behemas an aisle mena kevis. He can't bring an a palgus because a palgus is not an aisle, it's not a kevis. What was Rav Zeira's shaila? Keep it with Bar Pada. My shaila was according to Bar Pada who explained that mishnah a little bit differently. Again, the mishnah had said that if somebody brings a palgus, he brings the nisakhin of an aisle. Rav Ashi said, how do you know that? You know that from a pasuk. But Bar Pada said something else. He said masni masni. That really what you're supposed to do is you're supposed to bring the nisakhin of a palgus and you're supposed to make a tnai. Posha, what's the tnai? The tnai is I'm not sure if what this palgus is. If the palgus is a kevis, so then the revi'a sahin that I have to bring because I'm bringing a kevis, that should be kodesh and whatever's extra should really be khulin. And if it's an aisle, then everything should be kodesh. But what So what was Rav Zeira's shaila? Let's be poshit about Bar Pada, right? Bar Pada's clearly saying that it's a safek. Otherwise, why are you making a tnai? The shaila Rav Zeira had was what is the nature of the tnai? Rav Zeira wanted to know what the text of the tnai is. Me amrina, do we say the tnai is by aisle of a kevis masna biberyeh loy masna? That when he makes this tnai, there's only two tzodam that he has to take into consideration. I'm not sure if this is a kevis, I'm not sure if it's an aisle. Or either more perhaps there's a third tzod biberyeh amei masna. He has to really say three things. I don't know if this is a kevis. If it is, then I want the revi'a sahin to be kodesh. Anything above that should be coddled. If it's an aisle, I want it all to be coddled. And oh, maybe it's a pal guess and if it's a pal guess, I don't have that oil that I have in head. The turn never addressed the pal guess which means you don't bring any at all. And if you don't bring any at all then the is going to be that all of it should be coddled. But regardless from zero understood in Bar Pado that Bar Pado learned that it's not a a barrier with me at for sure cuz if it's for sure barrier with me at then we would know what supposed to do with the that you wouldn't be making this tonight. But he was clearing whether Bar Pado had a sad that it's a barrier with me at or he didn't even have it sad that it's a barrier with me at. Maybe Bar Pado who holds that if somebody brings a pal guess he has to make tonight cuz you're not really sure what you're supposed to do with the how many are there are we trying to juggle is according to Bar Pado. Is it maybe it's a cave is maybe it's an aisle or is it maybe it's a cave is maybe it's an aisle and even a third side maybe it's a barrier and for that Bar said take either way Bar again in the Indian by saying in all my real life me in the somebody says he wants to bring to you that as a carp and he says that I wanted it to be either or or he seems to have covered all the possibilities, right? No, the heavy sealer and he brought it in the state of sealer. Is he your his obligation of bringing the to you that that he said he was going to bring or can he not fulfill his obligation of to you that. So what is sealer? Sealer is discussed in the matter of talking as you would expect and it's my place with my Buddha A what exactly sealer is and B how you're supposed to treat sealer in so matter is unleavened bread. You take dough and water, put it in an oven, you're going to get matter. If you add yeast or some other agent that causes the dough to rise, then what you're going to end up with is sealer is when dough is in the midst of rising, but this process hasn't been completed. So, it's nisht ein nisht da. It's not matzah because you added yeast, you added something to cause the dough to rise, but at the same time it hasn't fully risen. Thus, lahalacha yesh lacha, how do you look at dough like this? Do you treat it as matzah or do you treat it as chametz? And this machlokes is Reb Meir Reb Yehuda. Reb Meir says that the way you look at se'or you look at it as chametz. However, we are as chametz ordinarily chayev kareis kol ha'ochlim machmetes benichrei'so ad nefesh mi'Yisrael. If somebody eats se'or only going to get malkos. Reb Yehuda agrees that the way you look at se'or as being chametz, but Reb Yehuda says there's no kareis if somebody eats se'or. Additionally, there's no malkos if somebody eats se'or as well. So, se'or is for sure not going to be treated as full fledged chametz. The question is is if somebody eats se'or on Pesach what happens? According to Reb Meir it's a chiyuv lavin, still very very chamur. According to Reb Yehuda it's not even that chamur. It's assur, but there's no kareis and there's not even going to be malkos. So, Reb Meir takes a much more stringent position as far as what the halacha is if somebody eats se'or. But there's another machlokes Reb Meir Reb Yehuda. And that is what exactly is se'or? Reb Meir says that as soon as the dough changes color. So, apparently as dough rises two things happen. Number one, the color of the dough changes. It takes on a pale color as it starts rising. Number two, it starts developing cracks. And that's considered the the process of the dough rising and that's what we have to start viewing this halacha not as matzah anymore, but now as chametz. According to Reb Meir as soon as the dough starts changing colors it's already called se'or. According to Reb Yehuda that would not be se'or. Nor would it be called se'or the cracks have to start developing. Another chumra that Reb Meir has over Reb Yehuda. So, according to Reb Meir as soon as the dough changes colors it's already se'or. That's chumra number one. It's a very early stage when we look at it as se'or. Chumra number two, if you eat se'or you get malkos. According to Reb Yehuda it doesn't become se'or until it starts developing cracks. That's a kula. And number two, the second kula is even if somebody eats se'or he's not going to get Malkus. Okay, they were clear to Shilo. If somebody said a relay Lachmi min and he brought Seor, is he Yoitso or is he not Yoitso? So the Gamara says let's see. Seor the man, who are we going according to? Is Seor the Rav Meir or the Rav Yehuda? Do we mean what Rav Meir calls Seor and we're clearing the Shilo with Rav Yehuda. What did Rav Meir call Seor? As soon as the dough changes colors. What does Rav Yehuda hold about such Seor? It's Matzah. Rav Yehuda holds it doesn't become Seor until it starts developing cracks. It's Matzah now you see, it's regular Matzah. Either Rav Yehuda or Rav Meir, do we mean what Rav Yehuda called Seor and we're clearing the Shilo according to Rav Meir. What's Rav Yehuda's Seor? It started developing cracks. What does Rav Meir hold Seor is? As soon as it changes colors. According to Rav Meir, if it develops cracks, it's regular Chametz. It's Chametz now, then it's regular Chametz. Then the Rav Zeira has no Shilo. Either Rav Meir or Rav Meir, maybe we mean Rav Meir's Seor according to Rav Meir. Rav Meir's Seor is when it changes colors. What's the Halacha according to Rav Meir by such Seor? You get Malkus says the Gamara. But the Halacha is like Chametz now. If you get Malkus for eating it on Pesach, certainly sounds like it's Chametz. So again, what's Rav Zeira's Shilo? Says the Gamara, the Rav Yehuda or Rav Yehuda. The Shilo was Rav Yehuda's Seor, which is when it starts developing according to Rav not according to Rav Meir. According to Rav Yehuda, where you don't get Malkus, certainly there's no Kores, but at the same time you can't eat it on Pesach. Am I the Shilo is how did Rav Yehuda look at this Seor? What are the two sides of Sfeika Hava? Was Rav Yehuda not sure whether Seor is Chametz or Matzah? Thus, Rav Yehuda said you can't eat it. But Rav Yehuda also we're not going to give you Malkus because you can't give Malkus to somebody that doesn't have Eira Misafek. So if it's a Safek, then this person who said a relay Lachmi min or min a Matzah, he could be Yoitso by bringing Seor. Why? Because we're not going to because either it's Chametz or it's Matzah. And his Tnai was either Chametz or Matzah. Either or maybe Rav Yehuda holds it's a it's a barrier. It's like a bird that's it's like a it's it's a barrier. It's not matzah, it's not if it's not matzah and it's not matzah for some reason it's also there's no but the bottom line is if someone says like you wouldn't be able to be you says the I don't understand this whole meaning shilo real life and you and he said I'm going to bring him in the could he bring it from and had this this whole says the this is 101. How in the world could you do something like this? Let's see somebody says so what's the maybe you have to bring a regular carbon thing is just bringing it's not a real carbon. He said if somebody said it he said if somebody says a real life you have to bring a regular carbon now what's a regular carbon you have to bring a carbon it's a has its own you bring a carbon you bring 40 30 of the breads are 10 of the breads are are so the once you have to bring a carbon the and obviously you have to bring breads together with the although you are the call me to the imagine the how is this going to play a role practically? If a person says a real life he has to bring a carbon once you bring a carbon you have to bring 40 breads 30 have to be 10 have to be how could you bring you don't know if it's you don't know if it's on the side it's you might have too much if on the side it's you might have too much you don't know what's going on. At the end of the day you're going to have to bring what you have to bring so how is this going to play a practical role? You know almost sounded like he was saying a person could could make a net there he says I'm going to bring just the breads and I want it to be either or so he could customize his offering and we're going to go along with it? Okay, that's a nice if you said what about this in between there's no such thing. The only way you bring is to you a carbon and once you bring a carbon tied, you have to do what you have to do. The Torah tells you what you have to do. You have to bring 40 breads, 30 mats, and 10 carbons. So says the Gemara, where exactly is this going to play itself out? What's the truth of the matter? Like, hello. It's talking about where a person is not bringing his own carbon tied. Ruvein has a friend, Shimon. And Shimon has to bring a carbon tied. And Ruvein says, "I'm going to do Yeah, I'm going to do Shimon a favor. I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to bring on his behalf, I'm going to bring lachmi todah for him." Okay, so then the Gemara says, "How does that change anything?" So it's like all the other gabri chametz to the lachmi matzah. Matzah by the chametz. At the end of the day, somebody has to bring a carbon tied. And that person can't be yoitza with this here. So the Gemara says, "You're right." Like the other lifter. What he didn't He never said that he want This person never said he's going to use these breads so that his friend shouldn't patter his obligation to bring a carbon tied with it. Rather, he just said that I know my friend is bringing a carbon tied. I'm going to add I'm going to add to his carbon tied in addition to what he has to bring. I'm going to add some breads. And the breads I'm going to add are going to be either min a chametz or min a matzah. Make a gabri they know they join off or they don't know anything. That was the shaila. The shaila is, can you add it on or could you not add it on? But you're right, you can't fulfill an obligation of lachmi todah with this here because at the end of the day, if you have a chiyuv to bring a carbon tied, you have to do what the Torah tells you to do. It's 40 breads, four different minin, three of them are matzah, 10 of them are chametz. There's no way you could be yoitza with anything that is a safek either way. Again, so the the thing here is a digression. We have significant digression between here and the end of the perek. The last mishna said, "Kosher betorah and pasul benayina. Kosher benayina and pasul betorah." Why are we talking about these birds? Because these are the two birds that are kosher to be brought as oifas in the Beis Hamikdash. We're learning chulin, not kashin. But the mishna had digressed and compared the halachas of shchitas oif chulin versus melikas oif kashin. But we had this idea. What's kosher with this is pasul that and what's possible with this is kosher with that. So on that note says the Mishnah, kosher parah, pasul eglah. Kosher eglah, pasul parah. So parah in this Mishnah means parah adumah. And eglah in this Mishnah means eglah arufah. The way that you kill, the way you slaughter the parah adumah, does not work if you're trying to behead the eglah arufah. And the way that the eglah arufah was beheaded, that method would not work for the parah adumah. And the bris six my son rabbonim parah bishchita ksheira barif so the Torah says that the parah adumah required shchita. In fact, not only did the parah adumah require shchita, but the bris says the parah adumah had the shchita had to be done by a kayen. Al lo zeh chukim ani lo shchita lo ba dehi. So shchita ordinarily is kosher bizar, but the parah adumah ironically did the shchita had to be done dafka with a kayen. But either way, parah bishchita ksheira barif so. What if they did an arif? What if they took the cleaver that was used to behead the eglah arufah and that's the way they killed the parah adumah? That's not going to be okay. Eglah barif ksheira, bishchita pasul. And eglah is just the opposite. The eglah the Torah says va'arfu, you have to behead. It doesn't use the word lashon shchita, uses a different word. Thus, eglah barif ksheira bishchita pasul. This is what comes that is kosher beparah pasul beeglah, kosher beeglah pasul beparah. Says the Gemara, if you take parah ksheira barif mikalkel I don't understand. Lo chareish should be able to do arif with the parah adumah mikalkel. Umma eglah shleihu bishchita shleihu barif. Madich eglah we can't do shchita you do arif pasul bishchita. A parah we do shchita in a day and shleihu shleihu barif. So mikalkel from eglah arufah. If you could do shchita for the parah, certainly you should be able to do arif. Umakro the pasuk says vishachat. It says vishachat regarding the parah adumah and it says the word chukah. So chukah is one of the magic words that come up a lot in kodeshim. Bishchita in barif what is chukah teach me? Ma'akev. So vishachat and vachukah, it has to be that way. There is no option to do it in any way other than Shrita. So, even though based on the meter, one of the meters I turn the dress of the path of Calva Chaimer, you would say that if you could do Shrita by the Para Aduma, you could certainly do a Rifa with the Para Aduma. But, at the same time it says the Shahad and it says the Huka, we learn from the Shrita by Rifa like Rifa by Rifa like Rifa Huka like the Shina Calva Chaimer. Is that true? If the word Huka is so strong, meaning Huka always means my acre. But, it means my acre on such a level that it takes away our ability to even Darshan a Calva Chaimer. Meaning, you can't Darshan a Calva Chaimer to add something to to what's before in the possuk. Once it says Huka, but can't be the Gavi Kippur and the Huka by Yom Kippur the way they do Yom Kippur, we know everything is my acre. And the reason is cuz it says Huka. The time you went to the Bracha of So Chatos, Ha Goral L'Ashem Chatos and Ha Sham L'Ashem Chatos. So, when the Cohen Gadol did Yom Kippur, they took the two Sa'irim. One was going to go L'Ashem, it was going to be brought as a a regular Chatos P'nimi. one was going to go L'Azazel. So, the possuk says what determined which Sa'ir went L'Ashem and which Sa'ir went L'Azazel? The Goral. Ha Goral L'Ashem Chatos and Ha Sham L'Ashem Chatos. The Goral, says the Bracha, you would think me Calva Chaimer that if the Cohen Gadol didn't use a Goral to determine the L'Ashem and the L'Azazel, but rather he did it in the conventional method. He said, "This one should be L'Ashem, this one should be L'Azazel." You would think it would work. Why? Calva Chaimer. Who matter what you do with the Goral and the Kodesh Ha Sham. Throughout Seder Kodshim, no such thing as using a Goral to determine Hektish. How do you make something Hektish? You're you say with your mouth that you want this to be Hektish. So, the Kodesh Ha Goral in addition to Kodesh Ha Sham, that's why the Torah had to write extra words. V'Asu Chatos and we learn from there Ha Goral L'Ashem Chatos and Ha Sham L'Ashem Chatos. So, you see that we need a possuk to tell me that if the Cohen Gadol wants to determine L'Ashem L'Azazel not through goral, but rather through hilchos nedarim, by simply stating that this one should be lashem and this one should be lazazel, it's not okay. But you need a pasuk for it. Halav temei hakodesh rachamim basochas, halav ochi. But had I not had the pasuk, darshinan kal vachomer. I would have darshaned kal vachomer. What's the kasha? The kasha is that it says chuka by the avodah of Yom Kippur. And if chuka means that whatever it says in the parsha is not a gave and I can't even darshan a kal vachomer to be marbeh something more than it says in the pasuk because no, if this is what it says, this is the way it's done. I hear it says make a goral, but I have a kal vachomer that I don't have to make a goral. No, it says goral, it says chuka. Chuka means marbeh. So what do I need a pasuk to tell me that I can't make the lashem and the lazazel with hilchos nedarim? It says chuka. Elemai, what do you see from here? That even though it says chuka, but there's still yud gimmel middos she'ataru chazal there. There's still kal vachomer and this hekesh and this binyan av and this zer ish shavim. You still have the yud gimmel middos. Chuka doesn't take away the ability to darshan yud gimmel middos she'ataru chazal there. If that's the case as it relates to the chuka that it says by the avodah of Yom Kippur, the same is going to be true by parah adumah. So again, chazra kashya v'duchta. V'dehei perek she'eir barif umikav vachomer. The mishna says, kasher b'parah, pasul b'eglah. Kasher b'eglah, pasul b'arufah. Meaning that you could only do shchita with the parah adumah, but you can't kill the parah adumah with a rufah. V'chayra, why not? Why don't you make a kal vachomer? If a rufah works for the eglah rufah where shchita doesn't work, then certainly the parah adumah which has shchita should have a rufah. So the Gemara says you have to say another reason. Meit rachmana gabbei eglah. In the parsha of eglah rufah it says ha'arufah with a hei yud aleph. And we learn from this ba'arufah v'lo acheres ba'arufah. So it's a limud not in the parsha of parah adumah, but in the parsha of eglah rufah. Only that there's no other animal where you can ever kill with this process of arifa and it should be and it should work okay. Therefore, even though based on the meat of Kal Va'Chaime, you would think that the Para Aduma should be kosher by arifa, but at the end of the day it's not. Says the Gemara, what about in the reverse? But hey, Eglah Shairah by Kal Va'Chaime, the Mishnah also said Eglah has to be done dafka by arifa, you can't do it with shrita. Kal Va'Chaime not partially by arifa, but shrita. >> [laughter] >> Eglah shairah by arifa and it didn't check kosher by shrita. I mean, you have this normal way of killing the Eglah Arifa. So, you would think [snorts] Kal Va'Chaime, the conventional way should work. You should certainly be able to do shrita with the Eglah Arifa and it should be kosher. On my crow, it says arfuha Eglah and we learn from there by arifa in bishrita law. Being that it says arfuha Eglah, we don't know, it has to be done dafka arifa, but not with shrita. Either way, exhale and two, maybe three hearts. So, the first heart. So, the last Gemara that we just learned was comparing and contrasting the Para Aduma and the Eglah Arifa. And the Mishnah said that the Para Aduma, the Torah says need needed to be killed via the method of shrita. It's actually a big chiddish, it had to be done dafka with the cohen. And whereas ordinarily, even shrita in the Beis Hamikdash, shrita lav avodah, shrita ksheira b'zar. But when it came to the Para Aduma, you needed shrita with the cohen. A law of a chukah k'sivah. [snorts] But regardless, the Para Aduma needed to be killed, slaughtered in the conventional method of shrita. Whereas the Eglah Arifa, that had to be done not with shrita, but rather that had to be done with arifa. The Gemara said that based on the meat of Kal Va'Chaime, you would think that the Para Aduma should be kosher by arifa and the Eglah Arifa should be kosher with shrita. The Gemara said, you're right, but at the end of the day this psukim and the psukim teach me that Para is dafka by shrita and the Eglah Arifa is dafka by arifa. What was the pasuk that the Gemara brought that the Eglah Arifa has to be done dafka by arifa, not by shrita? This was the last line that we learned on my crew arfuha by a reefer in the sheet of line. What do you see in that you [snorts] take a look at Rashi the talk to Rashi Sheena that really it's not that possible that the bringing is the second time it says in the Torah for our food that you're supposed to do a reefer and we know there's a rule in caution Sheena cause of lack of the anytime the terrorist says something twice it's not just a it's now really that's a big Sheena cause of lack of because ordinarily you don't need Sheena cause of a person can't say you know I know it says in the Torah you're not allowed to eat whatever but only says once so what is the it's a very nice thing to do if you show it to me twice then I'll have a Sheena cause of lack of no usually if the terrorist says something it's my unless you have a real reason to assume that it's the terrorist didn't mean that of course you assume that it means it's by caution there's a that if it says something once we assume it's only the caution has a it's on one of the important rules are Sheena cause of lack of it comes up over and over and over and over and over again in all the that it needs to be says the you want to know how I know a reefer is my because it doesn't just say it once it says it twice and the truth is that at first glance it would therefore seem that the was caution if that a reefer is my because it says it not once twice and Rashi Rashi invokes the terminology that's used throughout say the caution of Sheena cause of lack it really sounds like what Rashi is saying is is that this is a caution so good and I have it twice once I have it twice is it's going to be my the truth is if you think about it is that so positive this ego that was brought during the a reefer process was it caution or was it not caution now it first sounds like it right it was brought the part of capital strong that's what the that was the looks like the ear used to say and it was an animal. But but really, after further analysis, it's not so clear. Like what happened? What happened was they found a corpse. Keep what you call them. And they don't know who killed this person. So the Torah describes a very esoteric, ritualistic kind of process. The Ziknei Eir, the elders that live in the city closest to where this dead body was found, have to go out to a Nachal. A Nachal Eitzim. It has to be a place where nothing ever grew, and they have to take a certain type of Eigel. A calf has to be of a certain age. They go, they recite a a text, and they kill this calf. They kill it. How do they kill it? I don't even know. Using this this very very precise process. And they say that by us doing this, somehow there should be a Kaparah al ha'olam for this terrible aveirah of Shfichas Damim that took place. Now, this did not happen in the Beis Hamikdash. There's no mention anywhere of this going down as as as a Katchin D'ga Halacha. So if that's the case, at first glance you could certainly argue that maybe what's going on over here is not really Katchin at all. It's I mean it sounds like Katchin. I mean from a distance, from a 20,000 foot view, it seems like a Katchin D'ga Parsha. But when you start going through the details, what's Katchin over here? It's not going on in the Beis Hamikdash. There's no mention anywhere of being Machtish this animal. What what what Kedusha does it have? It's a Chatas? It's an Eigel? What is it exactly? So L'chora, Rashi says Sheina Kasuv L'akeiv. It seems like it's a little bit of a Chidush. I saw Rav Chaim Kanievsky wrote a Sefer called Nachal Eitzim. So it's a a Sefer on Eglah Arufah. And in Siman Hey in the Sefer Nachal Eitzim, he has a tremendous Arichus. Yeish L'chaker. Eglah Arufah, is it Katchin or is it not Katchin? And K'darko Ba'kodesh, he brings so many Rayos. But just just one Raya that he brings, and that's a very well known Gemara. The Gemara in Maseches Avodah Zarah Daf Chof Tes Amud Beis. It actually came up in the Daf not so long ago. The Gemara over there is discussing Yayen Nesach. And Yayen Nesach of course is Assur B'shtei It's also Assur B'hana'ah. Says the Gemara, Yayen Min Olin. How do you know that Yayen Nesach is also B'hana'ah? Amar Rabbah Bar Rav Amar Kra. It's learned out from the following Asher Cheilev Eglah The possuk compares It's and carbonos that are brought So just like if somebody brings a sacrifice to it's also about a So wine is also going How do you know that it's learned out from a different possuk? How do you know that just like a mays is also about a is like a mays. How do you know How do you know that a mays is also about a says the bottom line How do you know that it's also about a cuz it's to a that's brought to the altar. that's brought is to a mays and a mays is learned out from the altar. Now we know one of the more complicated in this So ordinarily A from B and then B from C and C from D from this from the altar. This from the you could have this long list of works. It's fine as long as everything stems. It's not a big deal. is so simple. There's a rule about the altar. And then about the altar. And then there's a whole with the that's involved. What about a big show? is that or the altar? And on one side of the altar that's not something that works. If that's the case How do you understand this about the altar right here? If you going to tell me that is then how could the altar teach me that just like it's also by now so to amaze us about now then amaze us going to teach my day heck is for me so it's also by now then Zilke may some quote unquote then if you bring a carbon to a way to start it's also by now which is that going to teach me all of a sudden it's also by now they are in essence it's also by now you're going to trip up with that so you know it's not sure makes the husband according to which we shine him it's a problem but the bottom line is this is something that you find in a few places in shots where the Gamora learns how long is from a roof up fish live if it's a whole in the parsha then I understand but if it's a culture in the parsha then at first glance we're going to have a we're going to have a little bit of an issue that's one of the prime series just one horror I was thinking is that you know we there are in parsha akira moise famously discusses the sort of also so the Gamora just mentioned the sort of you give it a serum that was brought sorry al ashem the sort of also and even Ezra says that the sort of was a regular carbon what about the sort of also so says that Ezra I can't tell you what it is now if you're smart you'll realize that it's not a regular carbon because it was a regular carbon it would also be a sham right sorry al ashem and the other sort of al ashem it goes al ashem says that Ezra it gives you a hint and clues 33 when you'll be 33 years old he doesn't want to tell you what it is but the one on he says I need I got to say that I'm going to tell you what it is he says the sort of wasn't a carbon wasn't a carbon al ashem it was a carbon al ashem one was al ashem the other one was not al ashem it was al ashem he says al ashem al ashem it's the same I mean that it's Kippur and even Kippur the same is a trick so that the unit shouldn't get carbon so we do is we give him some right with it always goes with it doesn't matter at the beginning of the parsha by Yaki Mincha my service in the bottom that with it smears with and that's what we're doing we're being under under sorry rebel sorry is getting sorry we're giving him a carbon that's the sort of al ashem it's like this we should get carbon at the very end of this trick or says the with Says with this you could understand the in the the say the what's a is the mixture that the drives us crazy. Why? They come after us the really you keep what what are you doing? You doing that makes sense to you? You bringing a does that make sense? You bring the says the but they want to why do they have a problem with the with the what about a regular carbon? How come they have no issue with a regular carbon? He says no but they a regular carbon they understand. Regular carbon is a carbon they're only coming after us with the why? Because it looks like we look like we're pagans. What are we doing? We're going to a mountain it's not on the base of doesn't even have to be a in the person that threw the down the mountain and and we're bringing the it looks like we're doing what they're doing and as a result that's something that they attack us for. The and the same is true with the with the either way that's the says the Ramban of why this is true why they come after us not for all carbons they understand carbons they get it temple it's a house of worship but the that's the something that makes sense to them and as a result that's what they're mind is so bothered me why didn't the also mention if you're going to sit down now and you're going to write down quote unquote that were brought outside of the so you're going to get the that's true it was brought on you're going to have the that was brought in the mountain in the you You the the The egglah roofah was also you bringing an animal, you're doing a sh'chitah. This is a whole process. How come how come the egglah roofah wasn't brought? Maybe it's a raya that the egglah roofah wasn't kashin. If it was kashin then it's a kashah. I don't understand. You're bringing a korban. See the sorah mish'talle'ach was a korban chatas. The sorah mish'talle'ach was a korban. Yet two se'irim, they were two chatas. They didn't even make a goral to decide which one was going to be la'ashem and which one was going to be la'azazel. But they were certainly both korbanos, right? The parah adumah was also kashin in the gemarah. Kashin in the kapayis, kashin in the be'er, chatas kayo rachmana throughout shas. The parah adumah shelo lishmah is pasul because it's a chatas, right? Chatas kayo [laughter] rachmana. But the egglah roofah wasn't kashin. If it wasn't kashin with gishmak, why the Torah is kayin and doesn't mention it? Could be this Ramban, this biur in Ramban. The Ramban brings this Torah kayin and that says the umas oilam amashivin aleihem. Dafke parah adumah and sorah mish'talle'ach, you would think that the egglah roofah belongs on this list. Why not? Maybe it's because it's not the kashin. What about the Rashi? You have it before you Rashi. Rashi says she not kashin with a laki. Doesn't she not kashin with a laki sound like it's kashin? But the Torah pashut says like going to Kanievsky. He says the Torah is because the gemarah really had a kal vachomer. There was a kal vachomer over here that said that you should learn out that sh'chitah should work with the egglah roofah. You sh'chitah always works. So you would think by the egglah roofah you could do a rifah, certainly sh'chitah. So to answer the kal vachomer, the Torah went ahead and told me a rifah a second time so that you shouldn't learn from kal vachomer. Meaning had you not had a kal vachomer for earth for one time would have been enough to teach me that a rifah is not kashin because it's takke not a kashin the gemarah and if the egglah roofah is not kashin then I don't need a shina kashin with a laki. The only reason we need a shina kashin with a laki is because otherwise you'd have the kal vachomer. We simply needed to address the kal vachomer. That's the first thought. The second The second thought is we said you can't do sh'chitah with the egglah roofah. Egglah roofah had to be done takke by rifah but you were not able to do sh'chitah. Stating that there's a very interesting twist to this. And this twist to this is in Maseches Yoma daf sameach amud aleph. It's also later in Maseches Chulin daf kuf bais amud aleph. Just a a little bit of a background. The context is Yoma sameach gimel amud bais, where the Gemara is discussing that there's a pasuk of mechusar zman when it comes to the sorah hamishtale'ach. Yesterday we spoke about mechusar zman, that a korban has to be at least eight days old. It's miyom hashmini vahala'ah yei'rotzeh. It has to experience one Shabbos. Just like a child has to experience a Shabbos before it has bris milah. That says that's the mekartei the shalom zachar. So too there's an idea that a korban has to greet the matronah before it's able to come lifnei hamelech as a korban. So there's a concept of miyom hashmini vahala'ah yei'rotzeh. And the Gemara says that this halacha of miyom hashmini vahala'ah yei'rotzeh is true even for the sorah hamishtale'ach. The sorah hamishtale'ach was a korban. And being that it was on some level treated like a korban, so there's a concept of mechusar zman. Says the Gemara, not only is there a concept of mechusar zman as it relates to the sorah hamishtale'ach, there's also a concept of oiso u'venoi lo sishchatu beyom echad. So we know there's a halacha that you're not allowed to shecht a mother and its son on the same day. Oiso u'venoi lo sishchatu beyom echad. Rava in Yoma daf sameach amud aleph says that the same is going to be true for a sorah hamishtale'ach as well. So coming in really in the middle of a sugiyah, so it's just one excerpt. Rava omer, "Yei l'chayav beis din sheyishchatu beyom echad Yom Kippur." That what would be if somebody had a chayav beis din sheyishchatu Yom Kippur. So technically this conversation should be moved. But no, there was a chayav beis din sheyishchatu Yom Kippur. The doctors and the rabbis all said, "No, we have no choice. We have to shecht an animal on Yom Kippur for this chayav beis din sheyishchatu Yom Kippur." Now, it turns out that this animal, how this happened, but this animal's son was the sorah hamishtale'ach. The sorah hamishtale'ach. So what do you do now? There's a halacha of oiso u'venoi lo sishchatu beyom echad. Says Robert it's a problem. It's a problem you cannot bring that you cannot have another son. You can't use it. Because it's a law you're not allowed to shack. You just shack to the mother. You can't shack the mother and the son on the same day. Obvious question. They can't got to meet us there. Why is it a problem? The Torah says it's not shack I mean says the Torah you ready? The Torah took Zoe It's true. It's true it's not shack. What you going to do is you're going to push it down the mountain. But pushing the son down the mountain is the equivalent there of of shack. And if it says in the Torah I say that's been a way shack it means whatever you're supposed to do with this animal. And if what you're supposed to do with this animal is the Torah took then the Torah took so we shack and it's going to be included in the law of I say that's been a way shack. What came to mind was the Torah in W the Torah that we got last week. Where the Torah said that according to Akiva there was no shack when you either in the mid bar. It was okay. I it says I shack and who's going to shack all these animals? Great according to Akiva we don't shack anyways. So says the Torah no that before was was shack. Shack doesn't mean shack the way we know it. That's only shack because that's the only way you're allowed to do it. But if there was another method then that would also be okay. Not only would it be okay but it would be inclusive in the term in the technical legal definition of a shack. Says the Torah I say that's so we shack and when it says I say that's been a way shack you're able to do it with shack as well. I say that if that's true as it relates to the Torah I think the same is going to be true with regards to as well. Meaning [snorts] after the Torah went and they beheaded the in the process I think says twice with a re-fossil zoo he as it relates to the you can have a as it relates to the egg roof as well as that's twice I think I have a riot of a riot from the the there says that after the sick near year did the egg roof so even though the egg is is also etc. But it's not to me. There's no to the available and the national is a re-fossil with a Harris that a re-fossil of the egg roof is this egg from why is it from street is from street is from the as an addition for an available also right we know this it's also the model of a master if something is not available the street has an ability to be something from but a re-fossil why should a re-fossil be a Harris in the available says twice you don't have to say this I think the is this is what I've done that the says it took the street a re-fossil a re-fossil street and if street is in the available then the then the a re-fossil is going to be in the available as well and if that's the case says twice who I think you can have an as like this to be a so just two hours the first hour is that we spoke at the time in the beginning of the week where the time said that the reason street is in the available has nothing to do with the street per se but the point is the street is a I mean the street is a so when you does a so the that the after the they all run away they don't want to have anything to do with it so if an animal dies it dies in the so even though the so Tumah, brings the available that's why a person dies, there's tumas meis. It all comes mikayach tumas nevelah. But if you do shritah, being a shritah is a mitzvah. So the mitzvah shritah causes the malach hamoves to run away, and that's why there's no tumas nevelah. If that's the case, I don't think you have a rayah from the Gemara in Zevachim daf 92 amud beis. From the fact that the Gemara says a refah metaharis midinei nevelah, that a refah so zu is shritah also. Maybe a refah so zu is not shritah. Meaning who said a refah is shritah? I Why is there no tumas nevelah? Cuz even if a refah is not shritah, a refah is a mitzvah. The Torah says that's why you're supposed no less a mitzvah than shritas chulin, right? So shritas chulin is metaharis midinei nevelah. Why? Simply because of the kedushah of the act of shritas chulin. He is following Yoreh Yoreh Yadin Right, he's not just going ahead and living his life shleimusly be aleich. No, he understands before you meet a chicken, you have to follow a process. He's being a He's being a heilige Yid. And as a result, as a result, the koach hatumah can't deal with this. He runs away from the malach hamoves. No malach no tumas nevelah. So why should a refah be any different? Toisifis is saying that if there's no tumas nevelah by the eglah arufah of that tzara'ah, that just like the Gemara says with tzara'ah zu is shritah also, then a refah so zu is shritah also. Maybe there's no rayah. Maybe a refah is not shritah. As relates to oiseh v'as benai Yisrael to be a mecha, maybe you're not going to have that halachah with regards to a refah metaharis midinei nevelah. That's because why should a refah be any worse than shritah? Why is shritah metaharis midinei nevelah? If it was a din that shritah is metaharis midinei nevelah, then you could say then you have a rayah from the Gemara in Zevachim that a refah must be shritah. If it's shritah with regards to there being no tumas nevelah, let it be shritah regarding oiseh v'as benai Yisrael to be a mecha. But according to the Torah Chaim, the reason shritah is metaharis midinei nevelah, it's not because of the ritual process of shritah. It's simply because shritah is a mitzvah. If shritah is a mitzvah, then why should a refah be any different? The chura, a refah is not any less a mitzvah. That's the first part. The second part is the Minchas Chinuch's famous kashya. And the Minchas Chinuch is in the end of non-base and it's kasha is based on a on a message from a camel. That my mama from an olive who brought you all the Torah and it's important. The Torah says kasha as it should always be a mess. Feels like a long time ago. So you are a lawyer as sorry or about a short nookie. So kasha is a short killed a person. So immediately so you are a lawyer as sorry. Says the Torah what about the flesh? That could we eat the meat? For lawyer as sorry. You know what to eat the meat drink the tomorrow. The machine in my soccer you soccer any of the Torah in the Torah about my Torah why is the Torah have to say lawyer as sorry? Says the Torah what comes you know it's coming to teach me in the Torah after the Torah you know also coming to teach me unbelievable Torah that we all know from the Torah and that is that a Torah in the school is also about it's also meaning even if you would shock the Torah in the school. Once it's my Torah in the Torah in the school if you shock the Torah with a Torah in the Torah with the Torah in the Torah in the Torah everything do everything perfect as a man still also about Torah for lawyer as sorry does not referring to after the Torah after the Torah it's an available it didn't have Torah what it means is before break the Torah a bomber kasha and he concludes this kasha is the Torah in the Torah so you see Torah in God with Torah in cotton with Torah in the Torah but either way says the Torah I never understood this Torah. You have a a Torah in the Torah that have Torah in the Torah with the Torah in the Torah says the Torah also in the Torah so he also that taking the Torah as also pushing it down the mountain is the equivalent of Torah it doesn't matter but it doesn't matter so it's a Torah it's a master Torah so too much Torah there's if it wasn't Torah maybe Torah maybe there you have that law of Torah the entire Torah applies there was a master Torah done the Torah with the Torah so it's a Torah the same as true says regarding the says the also every father every father have a right from is you see that is my so you see that is as well. What's the between the you doing what the told you to do. What's is the kill it this way. Okay, here the said kill it here the said kill it like And as long as you do what the says you're supposed to do that's the technical definition of what doesn't mean right so much not the point. The point is it's following what the said and if it's following what the said and if that's the case there would have been a real you know the thing that if it says you are maybe you're allowed to eat the meat because why don't you say also what's the difference between the where the says stone this versus where the says the also where the says in all cases you're doing what the told you to do and if you're following the and that's the definition of so that we must have you have any of no any any don't know that it's also what you mean you didn't do I know I didn't do but I did what the told me to do I did and the said and as long as I do what the says I know from and over there and who has a right from can't I know that as long as I do what the tells me to do that is the legal technical definition of so if that's the case that once you do with the it's that it's an and I don't even need a to tell me so much so that the dire issue in the words and teaches me a lot even if you do it with it before the skilah maybe the reason the Torah had to say is you shouldn't think that maybe skilah as well either way fast the cash the way you not we shall learn