Chulin 29

Today's daf is pulling daf kuf tes. And we are 11 lines from the bottom of daf kuf ches on the base chatzi echad v'oif v'chulo. Before we begin, I just want to wish a heartfelt mazel tov to the Steinberg and Moller families upon the chasunah of Pinny and Malkie. Just want to give you a bracha you should be zocheh to build a bayis ne'eman b'Yisrael and continue to give your parents and your entire families much, much Yiddishe nachas. So, we're moving along in perek hashocheit dealing with halachos related to shchitas chulin. The Mishnah had said that in the event that a shocheit shacht rov of a siman, then the shchita is considered a shchita. So, if it's an oif, rov of one siman is a shchita. If it's a beheima, rov of two simanim is going to be considered a shchita. If, however, the shocheit would go and would shacht the echad b'oif or echad v'chatzi b'beheima, shchitas pasula. And then in since the shchita is going to be pasul. And again, the reason is because in order for the shchita of a siman to be considered a shchita, you need at the very least a rov. And if you get it only halfway, then in of itself is not going to be okay. Sounds pretty straightforward at first glance stating that the first part of today's daf. So, the Gemara itmar Rav Amar, Rav said mechtza al mechtza k'rov. In the event that the shocheit gets it 50% right, so he shacht half of the siman, it's as if he did rov of the siman. Rav Kahana, Rav Kahana said mechtza al mechtza in a k'rov that in the event that he did 50% of it, it's as if he didn't do rov. Meaning, according to Rav, mechtza al mechtza is kosher. According to Rav Kahana, mechtza al mechtza is going to be pasul. So, the Gemara brings Rav Amar mechtza al mechtza k'rov. Rav holds that if he gets 50% of it right, it's going to be okay. Because this is the way you understand what the Eibishter meant when he told Mosha Roy. What he meant was not that you have to Roy, but rather like to Roy. You can't leave over Roy. But if you do half, even though you didn't do Roy, that in itself is going to be okay. You know why? Because he didn't leave over Roy. Rav Kahana holds that Rav Kahana holds that if you only do half of it, it's not considered Roy. Because Rav Kahana says what he told Mosha, "Roy Roy." You actually have to Roy. So my is Rav and Rav Kahana. At first glance, we'll see soon what the difference is at second glance. But at first glance, whether the actually has to Roy or if he does it Roy, that in and of itself is going to be okay. Rav said Roy is okay. Rav Kahana said Roy is not okay. Says the Simin Katinah Gargeras Peginah. This is a Simin for four questions that the Gamorah is now going to ask on this is Rav and Rav Kahana. Question number one. We learned in our mission of the mission that we began with Katinah Peginah Simin. That in the event that the actually did a half of one and a half or even one and a half of the animal, it's not going to be okay. If you're going to tell me that if you get it 50 50, it's considered Roy. Am I possible? Why is it possible? If you literally did Roy, if you literally have to get Roy, so if you only got half, you didn't get Roy. But if you're going to tell me even half is like Roy, so why in the mission is it possible? So the Gamorah says you have to say that really Roy Roy is good. The reason the mission says it's not okay, it's a Roy because we're afraid that [snorts] if we would say that Roy is kosher, then you're living on the edge, you may not even get the Roy. So sometimes, wink wink, we make believe the boundary is a little closer than it really is, so that if you make a mistake, you're still going to be within bounds. So, the Mishnah said that Mechtza al Mechtza is possul, really it's kosher. It's just the rabbinic thing that we're saying it's possul. And the reason rabbinically we're saying it's possul is because if we're going to say it's kosher, so then you're going to think, "Oh, all I need to do it is the Mechtza al Mechtza." And you're going to get it a little less than Mechtza al Mechtza. If I tell you Mechtza al Mechtza is already possul, so then you're not looking out to make sure that it's not less than Mechtza al Mechtza. You're even making sure that it's not Mechtza al Mechtza, which gives you that little bit of a buffer. It's like this, we're more confident that you're going to end up getting it right. Rav Godol, Rav Ketina. Rav Ketina said, "Tushma, I'll ask you another kasha." So, the siman of Chatzi was from the Mishnah, Chatzi Yachad Ba'al Ha'eif. The second word of the siman was Ketina. That's because Rav Ketina is the one that's talking. So, he said, "Cholk Lishnayim." And the Halacha book Ketina was discussing a Kli Cheres. So, we know, because we actually just learned this together in the daf a few days ago, that a Kli Cheres is unique in the world of tumah v'taharah. One of the ways that's unique is that in the event that it becomes tumah, the only way it could become taharah is if you destroy it. So, it's not a Kli Shetef. You can't wash it. You can't be metaharen in a mikvah. It actually needs to be destroyed. Now, the Halacha is that in the event that a person takes a Kli Cheres and he throws it on the ground and he breaks it, but rov of the original Keli is still intact. So, it broke into pieces, but the main piece still has a rov of the original Keli. So, the Halacha is the Keli is still going to be tamei because breaking a Keli means you make it at least less than rov. So, says the Braisso, what would be Cholk Lishnayim? In the event somebody had a Kli Cheres that was tamei and he broke it into two, V'ein Shavin, and it's literally two equal parts. So, this person nailed it, hole in one. He broke it and it's exactly 50/50. So, the fish name to name they're both going to be told me. You know why? The fish is actually something. Because it's impossible that it's exact. And as a result, one is probably a little bit bigger than the other. The one that's a little bit bigger is the right. Oh, right with the cave is still intact. That's going to be a problem. Said Katina, actually something to hire. It sounds like that say you could be with something. Let's say there's a way to get it perfectly in between. It sounds like being that you don't have right, it would be tar. But Frank Katina in light of the case Robin Kahana, I'm not so sure I understand this anymore. I used to understand this. Today I'm not sure. I might why is it tar? So, why do we say that if it's not so not so not so I end up having two rights. If shutting half of the cinnamon is considered right, then breaking a cave into two equal half parts should be the equivalent of having two rights. It should be a problem. I'm not sure what I said. There's no such thing as having two rights in one cave. If all you need is one of the halves, you could say that one half is like the right. But if I have two halves and I have to down both halves, I can't say that both right. It's a disaster. As a result, it's not going to be okay. And you just feel so if that in the case of so the other cave is only in the cave the right that I shut. That's really the only right that we care about. So, this right that I actually slaughtered or the that I slaughtered, we could say a slaughter cave is a sheet of right. I isn't it a disaster because that means the other half is also a right. You can't have two rights. No, because I don't need the other half [laughter] from a status. I'm here about the other half. The only thing I care about is is the half that I shut. Is it a right or is it not a right? Rock out so if you could say it's going to be okay. But when you take the cave you break it into two, it's not had for me to down one half. I have to done both halves. Because since any one of these halves is considered correct, I end up having a right. And there's an idea of trade route monoleco, and therefore this is not going to be okay. The third word in the similar was gargaris, that's because the third touchma relates to a gargaris. In the event that the shochet shach did half of the corner of the shabbah today shrita heras, and then he waited a shishua the gumrah and he completed the shrita shrita texture of a lot is the shrita is going to be kosher. Now, we saw this halacha already in yesterday's daf. Pasha and the halacha is because although shia is one of the five halachas of moshe misina, but shia means that once you start the shrita, you have to make sure that you do it without the shia. In this case, when the shochet shach did half of the gargaris, that was not considered a shrita because the first half of the gargaris, the first half of the corner is nothing. It doesn't make it a treifa, there's no issues. Therefore, what happened in the first half is considered as if the shrita didn't start yet. Thus, if there's a shia, it's not a problem. It's as if the shia took place before the shrita. What's the most kashya we want you to tell me? Mexta mexta karive, that mexta mexta is really like karive. It re fall off. In that case, we should say that when half of the gargaris was shochod, it rendered it a treifa. In other words, the most kashya is that if you're going to tell me that mexta mexta is karive, that means when the shochet went and he shach did half of the gargaris, it's as if he shach did half of the gargaris. Half of the gargaris is a bonafide shrita. If it's a bonafide shrita, that means you shach did the first semen, the semen of the gargaris. If you do a shia now, before you finish the shrita, it's a regular shia. Meaning, beshloima if mexta mexta is not karive, so then you didn't start the shrita when you did mexta. Thus, the shia is not a shia. But if mexta mexta is karive, that means you finished the shrita of the first semen. Well, if that's the case, then the shia afterwards should be a regular shia. But the Gemara says me sabras b'beheima, who said that this halacha is talking about a beheima? Lo ba'ayif, it's really talking about a knife. Who said it's talking about a beheima? Maybe it's talking about a knife. What's the difference? Cuz my mom If it's If there's no wisha in nachson nachs is karive, if you're going to tell me that nachson nachs is karive, however they ruba, then you're done. Meaning if nachson nachs is karive, being that by ayif, all you need to do is shacht one siman, so at that point you got your one siman. If you got your one siman, you have nothing to worry about. What are you worried about? A shia? It's nacht a shchita. Shia nacht a shchita. Ze nach a problem. And if nachson nachs ain't karive, and if nachson nachs is not karive, le avo lo ikum, well then that first nachsa was nothing. So then the shia happened before the shchita. In other words, if we're talking about a beheima, then it's a good kasha. Because on the side that nachson nachs is karive, which is shitas Rav, then you have yourself a situation. You shachted the first siman. Now there was a shia. You can't go ahead and shacht the second siman, right? That was a shia. If anything, the first shchita ha'itzu fallen made it to a trayfa. At that point, you can't finish the shchita. If however we're dealing with a knife, all you need is one siman. If all you need is one siman, so even if nachson nachs is karive, well then you finish the shchita. And the Gemara just says a patar as my mom shacht, because either way this case makes sense. If you hold nachson nachs is karive, then the shia is nacht the shchita. And if nachson nachs is not karive, then the shia is far the shchita. But if you learn it's talking about ayif, then you're not going to have a kasha. >> Zacht the mar tashma. One last tashma. And that's going on the word pigima. Tashma. Gom. In the event that you had this chotzi kanah pagum, the shochet went ahead and was moisef a kasha begamrei, and he completed shchitaso k'shehu da'al achas, is the shchita going to be kosher? Right, this is the halacha that we've seen so many times in masachtas chulin. If I'm a nachson nachs is karive, and if you're going to tell me that nachson nachs is karive, trayfa have you. It should be considered a trayfa. Meaning this whole idea that we take for granted that a chotzi kanah pagum is considered kosher in light of the fact that nachson nachs is karive doesn't make any sense. You should say that every time you have a chotzi of problem, it should be as if it's problem. Shouldn't that be an issue? I mean the is understanding that is a universal law. This is the second time we saw this, right? You saw it from the fact that the tells you the and now you're seeing it again from the fact that we're telling it to the kind of problem. But the saying this whole kind of problem that we know as a universally accepted tenant of only makes sense if it's not right. But it's every is always the equivalent of every kind of problem should really be a and my said you have to say that even though said that you are is correct. But suddenly in when it comes to it's different. They be in and nearly when it comes to it's there it's not enough that it's right. You need a and nearly it has to be a that's very clear. That's a much better right. Where you could see the right. You could look at between the eyes literally. Nearly night. So in the event that you have that kind of right it's going to be okay. Otherwise not. Only said to so basically what you're saying is that even though has a and we believe it should be universally dispersed. But at the same time but at the same time when it comes to not. It's not a better you can't just make something a but it's not enough you have right. You need a that's better than all the of the told if you would ask me I would say just the opposite. But what you called the so in other words saying but what you called right? But shouldn't it be just the opposite of what you called the but what you called the but You find very often that something could become a with a for example an right? A little hole in the already renders it a but in the in the but you're telling me now that when it comes to you need a then I you don't find anywhere a when it comes to and deya always need a rov. Like shchita to be in a rov and early night and suddenly you should need a rov and early night. In other words, rov about you talking. Rov, what you're saying is really hepech hasvara. You're telling me when it comes to shchita macha macha is rov. But when it comes to treifos macha macha is not rov. You need a rov and early night. It's just the opposite. When it comes to treifos you find even a nekav is enough. For example, in the vashit when we're going treifos we see there's other times where a nekav in an organ can render the animal into a treifa. So, if we nekav ba'etzem is enough, then when you need rov, you need rov and early night, then kal vachomer in shchita where you don't find anywhere a nekav being enough, when you need rov, it should have to be a faster rov. It should have to be a rov and early night. Ela bayis aid. Dekuli alma macha macha ein rov. No such thing as macha macha rov. There's no rov that holds that if you go ahead and you shacht half of the siman macha macha is rov. Either the mishna says it's not, that's only midrabbah. No, no, no, no, no. No such thing. Macha macha when it comes to shchita, when it comes to treifos, when it comes to klicheres, when it comes to any sugyan shas, macha macha is not rov. Rov means rov. Macha macha is not going to be considered a rov. Achiei midrabbah d'Rav Kahana. I have a machlokes Rav Rav Kahana. They were arguing about something completely different. Linyan Pesach achit mar. They were discussing Pesach specifically the halachos of someone or a rabbin that are tamei when it came time to bring the korban Pesach. So, we know that if somebody was tamei couldn't bring the korban Pesach. What did they do? It got pushed off to Pesach sheini. What if rov of Klal Yisrael were tamei? So, then the tzibur was able to bring the korban Pesach. They could bring it ba'tumah. The korban tzibur is ba'tumah. Machlokes in the Gemara tamei hutra ba'tzibur, tamei d'chui ba'tzibur. But, the bottom line is you could bring it ba'tumah. So, when you discuss tumah and the korban Pesach, the numbers matter. You have to take a census and you have to figure out, right? Whoever's tamei, please raise his hand. Whoever's tahor, please raise his hand. And right? We have to figure out. We start tallying it up and we see where we're holding. Says Abaye, this machlokes of Rav Kahana was discussing that halacha specifically. What would be if they counted up all the Jews and they were machatzos ha taherim u'machatzos ha temeim? Rava amar, it's here that Rav Sheshes and Rav Nachman arrived. They got pushed off the Pesach Sheini. Rav Kahana amar, I'm sorry, they could bring the korban b'tumah. Rav Kahana amar, Rav Kahana said machatzos ha temeim got pushed off the Pesach Sheini. He said no, Rav Nachman amar. And what's pshat in Rav Nachman over there? If Rav and all the talmidei chachamim hold machatzos ha temeim is not k'ruvim, shechita, treifos, everywhere else, so now how come by Pesach Sheini is it different? The pasuk says ish ish ki yiyeh tamei l'nefesh. And we learn from there ish nitravin tzibbur nidchin. Dafke an ish, the individual gets pushed off the Pesach Sheini, not a tzibbur. And machatzos ha temeim is enough that they shouldn't be considered ish. So, is machatzos ha temeim k'ruvim? No. But is machatzos ha temeim ish? If the Torah says a ish, machatzos ha temeim is enough roiv that it's not considered an ish. And that's why in the world of Pesach Sheini, where it's all about are you ish ish? There, it's going to be different. So, let's take a look at roiv echad ba'oif. So, let's go back to the Mishnah because really this next part of the Gemara is going to mamash tear apart the word after word of the Mishnah. So, again, the Mishnah chov tzayan oif was very straightforward, but it was also very redundant. Hashechait echad ba'oif u'shnayim ba'beheima, shechita pasula. So, you have to shecht once in a ba'oif, two simanim by beheima. V'rubo shel achad k'rubo. Even if you shecht the entire siman, rubo k'rubo. Rav Yehuda omer, achi yishcheit tzaf reden. Rav Chizkiya explained yesterday that Rav Yehuda was referring to shechitas oif. And some people say shechita is because of dam. In fact, you don't even have to shecht achi yum koif, just has to be b'shash shechita when the dam is kayem, when it's chais. But by schita's oifis, it's not enough to shach the siman, you also have to shach the veridin. Chatzi echad b'oif v'echad b'chatzi b'beheima, schita's psula. We sort of knew that already. If rubo shalach k'mayo, that suggests the matzo matzos is not going to be okay. Roiv echad b'oif v'roiv shnayim b'beheima, if you get roiv of one by the oif, and roiv of two by the beheima, schita's k'sheira is going to be kosher. How many times could the Mishnah and five lines say the same thing, right? So, the Mishnah basically told me, if you think about it, three times, twice explicitly, once implicitly, >> [snorts] >> that there's an idea of roiv when it comes to the siman. Rubo shalach k'mayo is one, skipping. Roiv echad b'oif v'roiv shnayim b'beheima schita's k'sheira is two. Those are the two places that it's mentioned explicitly. Implicitly is chatzi echad b'oif v'echad b'chatzi b'beheima schita's psula, implying if it's half, it's not okay. Oh, mashma if it's a little more than half, it's going to be okay. We're going to focus now on the two explicit mentions. The two times that it says m'furash in the Mishnah, rocho b'tza'ar k'tana bok tzeiner [laughter] m'furash, that if you shach the roiv of the siman, it's going to be okay. The Mishnah said it on the second line, v'rubo shalach k'mayo, and then again on the last line, roiv echad b'oif v'roiv shnayim b'beheima schita's k'sheira. The Gemara's kasha is going to be the obvious kasha, that is why does the Mishnah have to tell me this halacha twice? Again, really three times for that already. I am, but the Gemara's focus is on the two times that it says m'furash in the Mishnah. So, again, roiv echad b'oif, tonina chada zimna. Didn't the Mishnah say it already? We are Right, sometimes tonina chada zimna is like a braisa or a Mishnah in Keilim or a Chulin or Machshirin. Here, it's like three lines earlier, rubo shalach k'mayo. How could the Mishnah tell me the same exact thing twice in the same breath, in this matter of tzei chadei dibur? Hakash pashach siman. Again, a lot of simanim, pun intended. Amram Reish Reish said, chada b'chulin You want to know why the mishna said it twice? Because the mishna wanted you to know that we say roiv simanim is considered a shita when it comes to chulin and it's tzuva when it comes to katchin as well. We needed both. If the had only said chulin, I would have thought who decided like Rebbi Yochanan. When it comes to chulin, it's enough if you get roiv. Because when you shecht chulin, you don't need the blood. Why are you shechting chulin? To make the animal kosher. Ah, but katchin, when it comes to katchin, where you need to make the animal kosher, but you also need the dam like to say Rebbi Yochanan. I would think roiv is not enough. Because maybe in order to get all the dam out, maybe you would have to do a better shita. The background to this is a gemara in zvachim daf chof alef amud alef, where the gemara says that when you do shita, you're supposed to get all the dam hanefesh. So, I would have thought that to get all the dam hanefesh, it's not enough to do roiv and you maybe have to do everything like to say Rebbi Yochanan. Ah, but it could go on. Yesh min katchin had it said katchin, I would have thought mishna dula dam mutar. Maybe that's why over there you have to get roiv. chulin but when it comes to shita, so the dam mutar you don't need the dam at all. Eh, but I would say anyway, maybe a half should be enough. Why would you think a half should be enough? I would refer to the first part of today's daf. But I would have thought that maybe a half should be enough. Kamashmalan, that's the chidush. You want to know why it says roiv in the mishna twice? One is chulin, one is katchin. There's a tzirchus of why you need both. Had it only said chulin, I would have thought katchin you need everything. Had it only said katchin, I would have thought chulin you only need roiv. I would have thought machatzam machatzam is going to be okay. Says the gemara, haibichulin haibikatchin. So, you have two mentions. Which mention is referring to chulin and which mention is referring to katchin. Sounds a little bit like this is just an academic exercise, right? I mean, doesn't matter. I don't know. One is chulin, one is katchin. At the end of the day, this is the halacha when it comes to chulin and when it comes to katchin. So, I'm very shy. But this is going to be the way of the next part of the daf. Haibichulin the haibikatchin. Amra Rav Kahana, Rav Kahana said, by the way, we're not going to go through this, but if you want to just keep score on the siman, the hey of Akasha was Hoshia. Amra Rav Hoshia, he was the one who said chada bichulin chada bikatchin and the is of Kahana, who's addressing not the kash of why it says it twice, but "Kha be khul and kha be kash." So, anyway, so if Kahana is saying "It's a berish." "Kha be khul and kha be kash." It's a berish that the rishon, the first mention of it is referring to khul, and the second is referring to kash. Why do I think that? Because the Tanya has shiyukh because what was the name of the perek? The name of the perek is shiyukh. And what did it start with? "Ekhad be eif." These are good kash and be kash. If you can tell me the rishon is talking about kash, "Kha be eif be eif." We should be moving along in the beginning of perek "Kha be eif be eif." Not moving along in the beginning of perek shiyukh. So, in the fact that we started off "Kha be eif be eif." So, obviously we're talking about khul. Because if we're talking about uh eif of kash and kash and eif of eif and eif of eif, then it would have said "Kha be eif." But the word says "Kha be eif be eif be kash." So, you're telling me the sefer is talking about kash, right? Well, if that's the case, shkhita ksheira, melika ksheira be eif. What's the sefer? Reish ekhad be eif. Reish shnayim be beheima. Shkhita ksheira. If that part is talking about kash, then as it relates to the Reish ekhad be eif, I'll complain that it should say melika ksheira. So, the word says "Kha be eif be kash." That's not a kash. I did the solek me beheima. Tanya shkhita ksheira. Because the sefer mentions say Reish ekhad be eif and say Reish shnayim be beheima. And the Reish shnayim be beheima, even if it's kash, it's shkhita. So, therefore it says shkhita ksheira because of the last thing that was mentioned was Reish shnayim be beheima. So, once it says shkhita ksheira, so you know, we're going to again, poetic symmetry versus halakhic accuracy. We're going to just run with shkhita ksheira even though it should have said shkhita ksheira or melika ksheira depending if you're talking about an eif or a beheima respectively. The reason we didn't do that is just to keep it uniform halakha. But as it relates to the rishon, you can't say that, Tyra. You know why? Because eif guy. The first thing mentioned in the rishon is eif, then beheima. And eif and eif be kash, "Kha be eif be eif." It should have said "Kha be eif." So, if Kahana said the rishon must be the khul and the sefer must be the kash. Now, I know that because the rishon starts "Kha be echad oif." And if it's kosher, it would have said, "Amelach echad oif." Okay, so the safest kosher, "Roiv echad oif b'shnayim b'heimah shchitat shnayim is just saying "Amelach shnayim." No, the safer it says, "Shchitat shnayim agav b'heimah." Okay, so maybe in the ratio it says, "Ha shochet echad oif agav b'heimah." Now, here's the difference. In the safer it says, "Oif first, b'heimah second." The last thing it said was b'heimah. B'heimah requires shchita. The shchita is going on madah salek minay, on the thing that you mentioned immediately prior to it. And being that was b'heimah, and the right word grammatically over there is shchita, so therefore we need say the word shchita because the last thing that was mentioned requires a shchita, and then we'll throw in already the oif instead of being super wordy. But in the ratio, where again the oif is mentioned first and the b'heimah second, but you're starting with oif, so there you have to start right. You can't tell me, "I do what I'm going to tell you in a minute. I'm going to start off inaccurately." Right, there's a whole Shulchan Aruch of poetic symmetry. Even poetic symmetry works with certain guidelines. But the bottom line is, "Ha shochet echad oif" makes no sense. You can't start shchita so if you're dealing with kosher. But to say, "Roiv echad oif b'shnayim b'heimah shchitat shnayim" to refer even to oif, being that it's going on b'heimah, which I mentioned right before, that in of itself is going to be okay. Rav Simi bar Ashi amar, he said a different mahalach in terms of how I know that the ratio is chulin and the safest kosher. He said, "Ratio b'chulin like Rav Kahana, I agree. But may hacha I know from somewhere else like Tani." Because what did the Mishnah say? "Echad oif." Right, it started, "Ha shochet echad oif." These are the types of kosher, it's all about kosher. Oif oif oif oif the baishnayim simanim. How could you say just the unequivocally "Ha shochet echad oif"? There's two types of oifes of kosher. There's a chatzi oif, there's an oilo oif. Chatzi oif is echad oif, but an oilo oif is shnayim. So how can you tell me echad oif? So it must be referring to chulin cuz by chulin it's always echad oif. But the Mishnah says, "Elo mai save the kosher." You can't tell me the same thing >> Well, if that's the case, cuz the safer also says rove of and if it's then it means also needs to. Rove The way you means rove of each one. Rove of each one, meaning rove of the one when it's and rove of each one of the two when it's oil life. By it just says because by it's always two. By where sometimes it's one and sometimes it's two, so rove means rove of each individual one. By the where it's always two, so there we just say rove and the truth is the listening rove Now you'll ask me why not say rove by like it said by it could have would have should have but it wouldn't work. Because given the of the side with because being that this that it's enough that one so therefore it's not true that it's going to be two. So the safer is talking about and I it says rove it means rove Okay, so why don't we say the same thing in the I it's it's referring to and I it would also mean echo. One if it's or echo if it's can't even say it straight face it doesn't work. In the safer it works. You could say rove show I echo it just doesn't work. So therefore said the I see me that the ratio is the one that's in the safer is the one that and that's how I know it. I know I know the same thing. You want to know which one's which one's but I know from a different place I know it from the following I know the same thing. I know the same thing. I know the same thing. I know the same thing. I know the same thing. I know the same thing. I know the same thing. I know the same thing. I know the same thing. I know the same thing. I know the same thing. I know the first part of the Mishnah that Yehuda is commenting on is referring to chapter. I understand why Yehuda would say it, but that the would be I mean if you're going to tell me the whole thing about why would the argue? It's possible that the hold that you have to shack the reading when it comes to you know why? Because who the whole purpose of second time we saw this is for the it's also for the but the is something that you need and the whole idea of the reading is to get all the so for sure you should have to shack the reading. There's no way that it comes to shack in the reading and they could only be when it comes to if there's a human that comes is the one that said are must be the reason talking about it. And it's the safer that's referring to it. Rav Ashi said, "Safer because of that." Rav Ashi says, "I agree. Really safer because of that." But let me tell you how I know the safer is referring to it. Because the safer said, "Now this safer is actually a Mishnah on but the safer of our Mishnah obviously connect to the beginning of the Mishnah on and what does it say over there? If somebody goes and he shacks two heads of an animal in one shot, right? So this person is multitasking, time management. He's have all these animals to shack. So he takes a big sword and boom he knocks all of them out in one shot. So if somebody goes and he shacks the whole thing it's fine. Now it's the only thing that works doesn't work. Why doesn't it work? Right? Again this thing that permeates the entire beginning of that why could this not work? So you want to say like this if you're going to tell me that the safer of the Mishnah is talking about it. >> It's based on something that Joseph once said. Joseph had a bracelet that said the following. And from this word tisbachu, the bris learns two halachas. Number one, tisbach. You can't have two shochtim. You can only have one shoichet. You can't have one shoichet shlacht two shlacht. So, you can't have two shochtim on one zevach. You can't have one shoichet and two shlacht. Because tisbachohu shlacht. It's based on where Rashi explains yesh eim l'mikra yesh eim l'masorah. Do halachically derive laws from sukkim based on the pronunciation of the word or based on the way the word is written? This tisbachohu falls into that category. We are there's a yesh eim l'mikra spin and there's a yesh eim l'masorah spin. Why? Because if you read the word, it says tisbachohu. Tisbachohu is very lashon rabbinic. But if you look at the word inside, it's pronounced as if it would have said tisbachohu. Why is that? Because between the ches and the hey in the word, there's no vav. There's a vav at the end of the hey. But there's no vav in between the ches and the hey. What's the difference? Tisbachohu is in the singular. Tisbachohu is in the plural. Rav Kahana said that this bris is of the opinion yesh eim l'masorah. So, therefore, we darshan over here as if it said tisbachohu. Okay, so what emerges from that? Tisbach in the singular. That's the tisbachohu. Tisbach in the singular shnei yuchshnayim shochtim zevach echad. One zevach. Only one shoichet can't have two shochtim. and which is exclusive as opposed to eat and something else. What's the bottom line? The bottom line is this that one ticket >> [snorts] >> two animals is going to be an issue. That's a when it comes to you don't find anything like that. So if the mission of the base says how It must be talking about it must be leveraging this over here that's learned out from the carbon this why because if you tell me that talking about then it's something that would be fine even must be that the mission that talks about issues of winning two behemoths in one shot again it says it's but only that so clearly there's issues that must be talking about them and if that mission or that is talking about that means the safe of our mission is also probably talking about right let's explain this a little better if the ratio of our mission is and then the safe of our mission is and then the mission is so we're all over the place it's more symmetrical if the ratio of our mission is and then the safe of our mission is and then the mission is right there also so we started talking about which is the right pun intended and then we go from there and we pivot into and then another of that instance this is all going to make a little bit more sense the bottom line is we had full from the mission meaning you pay that it's the ratio that's talking about and that it's the safe that's talking about said that it was what was his raya? His raya was because it starts off hashoychet es ha'oyf, it doesn't start off hamolech es ha'oyf. Rav Simi bar Ashi said that it's mistaba that the rish is talking about chulin. Why? Because it says hashoychet echod ba'oyf. And if it's talking about kachin, it's not necessarily echod. If it's a chatas oyf, it would be echod. But what about if it's an oyla oyf? In that instance, it would be shnayim. Rav Papa said the rish I know was talking about chulin because it's only Rav Yehuda that says you have to shacht the veridin, right? Chachamim don't say that. Oh, must be it's because it's talking about chulin because by kachin for sure, yeah. And Rav Ashi said it's because I know the seif is talking about kachin. The seif as in the Mishna l'meila mimenu is, so it's mistaba that what immediately comes before it is also talking about kachin. Because if the rish is kachin and the seif is chulin, then you're going to tell me kachin chulin kachin? That doesn't make so much sense. Bottom line is we just tudat derech the Mishna gishmach. Four rayas from the Mishna from four different amoyrim all symbolized in that siman that the rish is chulin and the seif is kachin. Just one dikduk l'lashon. If you look at Rav Kahana, Rav Kahana said mistaba rish b'chulin. Rav Simi bar Ashi said rish b'chulin me hacha. Rav Papa said rish b'chulin me hacha. What did Rav Ashi say? Seif b'kachin me hacha. The first three amoyrim said I know the rish is chulin. The fourth amora, Rav Ashi said I know the seif is kachin. Right? You can miss this. What's the dikduk? is the first three amoyrim were coming from the rish. Hashoychet, hamolech, echod, shnayim. The chachamim machlikin on the veridin. These are three rayas from the rish that the rish is talking about chulin. Rav Ashi said echod ba'raya as the seif is kachin. Because if the seif is I forget I don't know about the rish. I know the seif is kachin. You know why I know the seif is kachin? Because the Mishna l'meila mimenu And it makes more sense that it's chulin kachin and kosher and not kosher and holy and kosher. That's why the first three said and say for the kosher either way the says we're not done yet. Rachel and also said Rachel and say for the kosher. By the way, doesn't always get the last word? So how come here is getting the last word? It's because look at the signal of the after we saw Rachel and say for the kosher. As if we all sat down and they went through and got the last word. Right, don't say but you should know 150 years ago also said this. This is like a postscript PS on the bottom of the letter. Postscript you should know is like a read by. You should know the is talking about Rachel also said the same [laughter] thing. What did Rachel say? Rachel said the following. He said and said and said and said and said. So why do you have to have and and he said because we have a mission this year the mission of this talking about that that was done by the God on Kippur. So we know all that was done on Yom Kippur was done by the God. And specifically we're talking about when he brought the shot. If you said they brought him the cards so he did and then somebody went and he finished the job. He completed the means to be someone went and he was the Now why did someone else do the of the why didn't he do it himself? It's because he had to do the of the God. He is very much on call right now. So being that he had to do the so he couldn't be the but somebody else was the You see the says that someone had to be You see the says that someone had to be so you could have had to have a in the event that this didn't happen would be possible. That's why we have the second mention. Second mention is talking about also the richest the safest the but the safer is talking about to teach me that even though there's an Indian of mirror but the mirror is not says the it that we need a mission to teach me that mission by the way that you should know that the mirror is not how could you ever have a minute the mirror is not If if the mirror is how could we have it would come out that the should have to do it because if not you violating the principle of an being done in by an by a the time we don't do the call of the by It can't be that you should be a you know walking away from that mission that the mirror is that I should need a mission to tell me not that way because if you're going to tell me it's then it should have to be done by the you see clearly the did not have to be the one that did it So the says come out You have to say what you must say was a false you say possible with the of The mission is coming to address not that it's not possible that it's possible that it's possible If it was if it was you would need a to do it so I know from the mission from the fact that it's a non allowed to do it that's a that it's not something that's going to be stating that stating that I could have thought that maybe it's going to be a a problem The I would have thought it could be something about By the way the whole concept of in is always a little bit of a but But I could it was reasonable but I could have thought that maybe there's something about The [snorts] that's why the mission had to come So what's it all about meaning you're telling me now that you can do it It's not but the ever cuz then the would have to do it even with the it's not a problem that's why the mission told me grave in the mission in Holland. Once to tell me once to tell me cut him. That why you doing it? Why is somebody doing it? And if you learn the here and even more so in Yuma, it's much more is related to this idea that you're supposed to try to get all the blood. And being that you're supposed to try to get all the blood, so therefore right we saw what's the whole idea of I need to know right works by and I need to know right works by cut him. Cuz had I not known that right works by cut him, so there could have been a have a meaner than the nation have a meaner that maybe I need all of it. Why would I need of all of it? Because I have to get all the down to do this again. That is what the is the is there's an idea of going ahead and getting all the either way. The next part of the really is a that's going to go knee deep into tomorrow's if you were like eight lines lower. I would say we stop here, but we're too high up on the so we have to go by the tomorrow. I'm a Shimon Ben Lokish Shimon Ben Lokish said So location location location of those two dots. It's amazing how those two dots control our uh the life. Ben Lokish said in the name of Levi Sabo Levi the elder anal of all of the life. I said no yes no uh with so we sort of knew this was going to appear somewhere in the of it. It's a big so what's the of all of the or yes no with so she says very anal of three lines from the top anal of all of the a is called the when you finish the what happens up until that he can't get it all. Yes no I can't get it all meaning all of it all of it let's say it takes 10 seconds to do so that 10 seconds is the whole 10 seconds or no the 10 seconds when you finishing, it's then that it's going to be considered a shita. This is the Resh Lakish and the name of Levi Saba. In Rabbi Yochanan said yesh but that was Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish on a matter of So the more clarifies what the Lakish is. Not before it gets involved a little bit in what the Lakish is. How [snorts] come everybody agrees? Let's say you go with chapter 1 seminar. The seminar you follow and then you would check the second seminar. Everybody agrees it's possible. I mean you could have a have them, you know. If you hold yesh between so if you go check the first you get check second it's a problem. But if you hold the shita really doesn't happen until it's over. Who cares what happened in the beginning? Right? It's irrelevant. All I care about is the ending. I care about how it finished. So I go do it right to be a problem. But said this is a moot point, you know why? Cuz if the guy's going to check the first seminar it's going to be a treifa. Right? If you check it the check first so then the neck made it a treifa. And even if it was the corner, once you check it the right it's for sure a treifa. So it's for sure even though applicable to the longest of the Lakish of but from a pure halacha perspective it's neither here nor there. Additionally but if not as it relates to the life if the Malik seminar matter if the coin would do the Malik of the first seminar matter Now the Malik of the life was supposed to be done but let's say he would do it in the wrong place. I will and then he would do the next seminar would be possible. Everybody holds it's possible. Meaning what he's trying to say at first glance maybe it's falling in the shaila. Cuz if you hold that in the shita of the life probably you're also going to hold in the Malik of the life, right? It's a little bit of a leap. But you're probably also going to hold in the Malik of the life. So I only care about what happened at the end. As long as I got it right at the end. I did the Malik in the right place. It's back. So who cares what I did in the beginning? But no, it's for sure We're to be possible. Everybody agrees to that. You know why? Because when you did the lamata, even though it's only a but in the world of it's a right? It's in the world of I mean that it's in the world of that gives it a that for sure it should render it possible. So it says even though at first glance, I know what you're thinking. You're going to start jumping all over the place with this and making all these let me take two things off the board immediately. Number one, do not sell this suit to a case where the first you'll say that no because even though you might be right in one this but you made it into a additionally if the of the first of the was done the matter you would think also who cares and no because being that it is a for the it's a of a and a of a for sure it'll make it possible. Okay, so when are we arguing? When I'll give you an example. Somebody in one animal it's where it was and the others he so the the first is considered he's not going to be that's an example. So said you want to know where there's a good example a good of this that's where the social is going to be. It's going to be in the event that the first was the second was it would be very much totally in the house. Rabbi Rabbi said so Rabbi turns to Rabbi and he says you know the Rabbi didn't say this. So who's he talking to? Rabbi. Who is he referring to when he says so we know that Rabbi has two Rabbi is his Rabbi and Rabbi is his Rabbi. He's referring to Rabbi. Right? We have to ask the question when we said who's so who is which one of Rabbi's Rabbi is Rabbi. What did Rabbi say? He said and I'm not making this "In the event that you would shecht one siman b'chutz and one siman b'fnim, the halacha is, even if you hold in a l'shchita el l'basof, it would still be shchita b'chutz. You know why? She'arei ossur b'ma'aseh chatas oif b'chutz. >> [laughter] >> Because if somebody would shecht, let's get this carefully, a chatas oif b'chutz, it would be considered shchitas chutz. Why? Because oifos are included in the parsha of shchitas chutz. Even though if you go through perek zayin in Vayikra, which we went through a little bit yesterday, but if you go through perek zayin in Vayikra, you'll see there's no mention there of the oifos, but based on Rebbeinu Yonah with marbeh oifos. Additionally, even though oif of kodesh requires melika, but if somebody shechts b'chutz, he's going to be chayav. In fact, if someone's molek b'chutz, he's patur. Sugya is in Arachin dafal but it's only if he shechts b'chutz you're going to be chayav. But here's the point, if somebody would shecht the siman echad, in the event that it was a chatas oif b'chutz, it would be considered a shchitas chutz. So too, even if you hold in a l'shchita el l'basof, if you shecht one siman even of a beheima, it's going to be a problem. So that's also not the case of the machlokes. Oin nechlaku, where did they argue? Al gabei ha'shochet mi'ut siman b'chutz. With the shochet shechted a mi'ut of the simanim b'chutz, with just a little bit he did. He didn't even do a full siman. V'gamrei b'fnim, and then he completed it b'fnim. The man d'mei yesh lo shchita b'fnim v'acharei kach d'mei yesh lo shchita b'chutz, yesh lo shchita b'fnim v'acharei kach d'mei yesh lo shchita b'chutz, mechayav is going to be chayav. I only shechted a mi'ut, does the man still going to be chayav? The man d'mei yesh lo shchita el l'basof, if you hold in shchita el l'basof, lo mechayav, you're not going to be chayav. Now, this is a good application, said Rabba bar Simi quoting Rebbe Yosef of the machlokes. And the reason is because over here, that mi'ut that you did b'chutz does not have an equivalent thereof where it would be considered some chashuve einyan. And being that you don't have that equivalent thereof, so it's for that reason this would be a good example of where you have the machlokes again. We have machlokes of Rav and Reish Lakish and yes no schita machila al hatzoyif and no schita al hatzoyif. Is the schita only considered schita when you finish it or once you start it already at that point it's going to be considered a schita? It's a huge machlokes. This is something that comes up in different places in Shas. It's going to take us uh knee deep into tomorrow's daf, but at the same time what we saw today was is that there's a huge qualification to this machlokes cuz it's muvarer that if you do a schita, even if it's not the full schita, and even if you don't anal the schita al hatzoyif, but what you did is a ma'aseh chashuv on some level, then that in and of itself could be considered a schita, and everybody would agree that we view it as a schita. We don't say anal schita al hatzoyif. As a matter of fact, what emerged was three chiddushim where even if you don't anal the schita al hatzoyif, it could be we'd reckon with the chiyuv schita. First is if a [ __ ] shachted, and that's simply because once a [ __ ] shachts the first siman, he made it into a treifah as a [ __ ] into everybody it's going to be pasul, even though in the lomdus of anal schita al hatzoyif I can hear not, but l'ma'aseh he made it pasul. The second was in the event that you went and you shachted or did melikah on the olaf al hatzoyif l'matah. You would think, even though it's the wrong place, but as long as I get the end of it l'ma'alah, that should be okay. But being that it's considered a melikah for a chutz al hatzoyif, that gives it a chashivus even if anal schita al hatzoyif and anal melikah al hatzoyif, but over here it's going to be chashuv. The third, which is machlokes really Rav and Rav Yosef, and that is what would be in the event that you shachted one siman bachutz and then one siman bifnim. There is makom to say that that too would be a situation where you don't have the machlokes because schita siman echad bachutz al hatzoyif based on what the ribuyim in perek acharei mot um is considered a schita chutz, and it could be even in that situation you wouldn't have a case of anal schita al hatzoyif. When then would you have? If you shachted the mirror of it by God that would be an example where you don't find anywhere that a mirror of a semen is considered a kosher and then you finish the fifth name that mirror you would think should be my mirror by God even though it's only a mirror by the way but you would think it would be my mirror by God that's a tensor would be in the gate of Shiloh of yes no or in the other beside exhale so just to end with one Allah it's a Chicago that Naki Weinstein showed me so shout out to Naki and the swarm chatter >> [snorts] >> and that is so there was a a very very important classic dictate and grammar work that was written circa late 15th century early 16th century by a great Godel whose name was Rebel Leo Boker the safer that he wrote is called safer he wrote other safers as well but the safer is his most famous work and it was a a safer that was written on dictate and this is a safer that received tremendous acclaim by the throughout the generations Rebel wrote it's called on safer Tishby we have egress from the Prima Garden where he quotes the safer Tishby many many different times as a matter of fact in one place the Prima Garden talks about the safer Tishby and he says that the safer Tishby when it comes to dictate is he is the authority when it comes to all these things they say that the Vilna Gaon said that the safer Rebel Leo Boker he was the one that was the one that came to all things related to dictate just one interesting anecdote to the safer Tishby written by Rebel Leo Boker by the way the safer is very often referred to as the Tishby and Rebel Leo old is very often referred to as Boker. Wasn't a Boker, he was married, but his name was Rebbe Lyo Boker, but he wrote a book. He actually wrote the first Yiddish novel of all time. Can't make this up. This was a fictional novel, and it was called Bovo Buch. That was the name. And there's a Yesh Oymerim, there is a legend that says that Rebbe Lyo >> [laughter] >> Boker, the Tishbi's Bovo Buch, is the source, it's the the makor to what we know today very fondly as Bovo Meises. But the bottom line is, the very first Yiddish novel ever written was the Bovo Buch. It was written by the Tishbi. He was German, hence Bovo Buch. He lived most of his life in Italy, so he falls under the umbrella of Italian Jews. Either way, in his Sefer HaTishbi, under the eis vov, he has an entry called the veshet. Veshet of kono uveshet thing. Says the Tishbi, veshet kono uveshet, see chulin 20 a day. Or you could just say, see chulin. Ha veshet umasha eitzel ha kono. Said Rebbe Lyo Boker, the veshet is the pipe that's next to the trachea. Shebo ein ichnosson kominay michal umishtah. That's where all michal umishtah go through. The Yesh Oymerim, there are some that say, she ain't called veshet bal fursha hu miluchluch ubazoy. That the reason it's called veshet is because it's miluchluch, it's disgusting. Milashon vayives eisav es habachor. And take a look at the Targum on vayives, it says vishat. So the reason the veshet eisav is called the veshet because let's be honest, right? Nobody wants to look over there. It's disgusting, it's where the food that after you chew is going down. And it's for that reason it's called the veshet milashon vishat. Vizeh Tosfos Gemara. Says the Tishbi, ki vov shel vishat hishimushes. The vov of the word vishat is shimushes. Shrashav, what's the shoyresh of Vayivas? The shoyrish of the shot, it's shot. Min bishat b'nefesh, see Yechezkel 25:15. Over the havov shel veshet, the vav of veshet he shiroshis. That's part of the shoyrish, and if that's the case it's a tois. In fact, and then the Tishbi says, I'm not sure how you say esophagus today in English, or how you say it b'loshon Ashkenaz Gambalaz. Gambalaz, he probably meant Italian. He's in Italy when he's writing this sefer, but the bottom line is, he says, I'm not really sure how to say it in any other language, but this idea that the word veshet is called veshet in the loshon Vayivas. It's the targum of a shot. This is like a tois Gemara, because the vav of the shot is she mushes. The shoyrish of Vayivas is shot. Right, Vayivas is veshet. Right, had the word said boys, bez, so it would have said shot, because it says Vayivas. Vayivas, so that prefix, that vav is she mushes, it's mishamesh, it's assisting, it's a handle to the shoyrish of the word. That's where the vav comes from, but the vav of the word veshet is shiroshis, it's part and parcel of the shoyrish of the word. This shoyrish is shot, this shoyrish is vishat or veshet, are the same word. And that Yaysh Omrim is a tois Gemara. If you take a look at Rav Yaakov Emden Zoga, on this entry of the Tishbi, it says as follows. He says veshet, whoever ha cholish eitz l'akona. So that's the ever chol, that's the tube that's next to the trachea. Kona b'loshon Chazal, gargares, right? We had that in the beginning of today's daf. U'b'loshon Torah, garoin, and b'loshon Ashkenaz, gurgel. Veshet b'loshon Ashkenaz is the sh'lung oder rotzaloymar gid hab'lia. This is what Rav Yaakov Emden says. Then he says as follows, this is not Shach. omer, this study said Yaysh Omrim. Don't let that psat be so rochok. Right? To tell us to say that that's what it is. But to say that the vav of asher is shimushesh, no, it's shorashness. He said the reason the vav became part of the word is because the word veshet always comes together with konah. You don't just say veshet. You say the konah and the veshet. And you always say the konah first, right? When you go to tractate school, it's not the veshet and the konah, it's always the konah and the veshet. That's why the word veshet, the real word was shot maybe. But the word shot needed a vav shimushesh, you know why? Because it always comes after something that it's coming together with. It's always part two of a two-part series. So it's for that reason, being that it always came after the konah, so therefore it always needed that vav shimushesh. Believe a vav. But you say that have vav. Being that the word is always mentioned almost 90 do an an analytic, you're going to see it's always mentioned with the vav, so therefore the vav became part of the shorash. So if you have a word that so often is used together with a vav shimushesh or some other shimushesh, that can become part of the word. He says the dugma said, he says I know you're all rolling your eyes now. Make a taste it. [laughter] He says I'll give you a makarta this." He said, "Take a look at the word va'ed." She he the das Ibn Ezra, which according to the Ibn Ezra, what's that word va'ed? Right, va'ed. What does va'ed mean? Mila ketsara. Ibn Ezra says it's a mila ketsara. Ke'ilu yomar le'olam va'ed. Va'ed Va'ed is really a way of saying le'olam va'ed olam. It's really not the word va'ed. The word of va'ed is ad. That vav always came together with ya. Cuz you say from now until then. So, being that it was always va'ed, so we almost created a new word called va'ed, and it looks, feels, smells, tastes, sounds like the vav is shorash as but really it's not. Cuz if you go back to the etymology of the word, the word was really ad. The vav was shimushesh. But it was used so often that it became part of the shorash. Shavav shimushesh, this shavav is shorash, said Ibn Ezra. The word dibuk be'milah shelo. The ishtan ke'itzba. I have another good one. The milas kruvim. This is great. The word kruvim kidu mashpish al gedaf be'ez, right? Shichol mashir. Ukepir shorashim. What's the word kruvim? Kiravyo. It's like a child. Shakaf shimushesh be'etzem. Really the word is ravyio. It's not kiravyio. I think we even spoke about this a little bit. It's not kiravyio. The word was really ravyio. So, why is it kruvim in the Torah? Why was it kruvim? It's ruvim. Kiravyio. The kruvim were like ravyio. So, why is it always like that? Oh, but being that it was often referred to as kruvim, shavav is nidam es kishorash. That kaf became part of the shorash. Umisha rogev divrei razal ke'yakiv emen. If someone's rogev divrei razal, ba'agodes, lo yehe shimushesh de'kaf be'einav. Ve'im atzli, he's going to find aron bitzuras eden demamon tzuras ela. And then he says, "Ve'ulam perush ze sholeh yesh emunah she'hiski." This is he said the Tishbi didn't want to tell you who it was, but I'm going to tell you where you can find it. It's actually a Zohar. She came mean the shot Isaac from So Dr. Ulam said that the Ulam is really which means you can't just say it's a which is fascinating if you know the relationship between Ulam Zohar. But the bottom line is he's saying it can't be a Ulam and he's and he says in fact and really what is the word? You want to know what the word is? The word was really shot and it's because how did the word become part of the of the word because that's an idea. You find some time something that really at its core was supposed to be ends up becoming and that's how you have this ending. The addition of Tishbi that I have has appears on the side of it that's called Ulam of this Ulam of was written by a 19th century [ __ ] His name was Herstek. Must be because I see he had a from the school of the Ulam and he had a from different Ulam. But he wrote a on the Ulam Tishbi and on this he says as follows. How is it Ashkenaz shpiza and the is called Ulam right? Esophagus is the shpiza that's where the food goes and the is attached to the lungs. That's the that's where you breathe. And then he says as follows. He says that you know I was asked the by a whose name was Ulam. Now this Ulam was the son the Baal HaTurim [ __ ] who was a very famous guy in in the mid-19th century. He was the rav of Makava. This chuva is between him and the Chasam Sofer, specifically on the topic of R' Meir Bal HaNess. It's a famous chuva in the Chasam Sofer. The person he's talking to, Kupas R' Meir Bal HaNess, is the Baal HaTurim [ __ ] It's the Av Beis Din of Makava. But either way, so this year the Ragam of Vashti said that I was asked a question from Rabbeinu Yonah Ullman. He said that when he was younger, he was learning in Pressburg. And he said he had a rebbe, his name was Rav Nosson Wulf, zichrono livracha zichusho yagen aleinu. The Godol Mi'Rabbonon [ __ ] says, "You have no idea how big my rebbe was." Ki haya baki beshas u'poskim. He was a baki beshas u'poskim. And he says, "One time he came over to me bereiv anavah u'tzni'us, zeh haya din kol da'areiku. And he said he came over to me and he asked me mipnei mah nikru haveshes v'hakonah besheim simanim betalmud u'poskim." He said, "Why is it that we refer to the konah and the veshes as simanim?" It's such a siman. What does a siman have to do with anything? V'hu lo yada ha'ta'am, v'sha'al oisi bemidos anavah u'tzni'us, ulai yesh iti imi o shamati v'ra'isi eizeh ot amar zeh. He says, "V'hinei anochi chipasti me'od. I tried so hard to find the reason. Why is it What's up with siman? What's up with siman?" Aval lo matzasi. Ya'avod katzeh v'lo matzasi. I couldn't come up with any reason. So he said that uh he reached out to me. This is the Ragam of Vashti talking. So Rabbeinu Yonah Ullman sends me a letter and he tells me, "You know, my rebbe, Rav Nosson Wulf, zichrono livracha zichusho yagen aleinu, he asked me bereiv anavah u'tzni'us, do I have any pshat of why the konah and the veshes are called simanim? Chipasti v'lo matzasi. Maybe you could help me. I'd love to go back to my rebbe and tell him. It's Do you have any pshat?" V'zeh asher asisi v'isivasi lo. So this year Rav Eliezer Hershtik, he tells me this is what I told him back. He says, "Ner Elohim nishmas Adam beshchita. You find that the inyan of shchita is kedei sheteitzei dam hanefesh. V'if yesh ha kavana There's a reason that's brought down that the reason we do shita by the con and the veshed is because that's where the damanefesh is and you want the damanefesh to come out. In fact, a person or an animal is not considered dead until the damanefesh comes out. So he says it comes out that if you see a a corpse and you want to know if it's alive or dead, if you see that the con and the veshed are severed, that means that the damanefesh left the body, it's a siman that he's dead. And if not, it's a siman that he's alive. So it serves as a siman on the chiyus of the person, whether or not the person is alive or whether or not he's not alive. Then he writes, "Umoyri Agoyna Tsadik Shlita." I don't know who he's referring to, but the Baal Radom of Sason says he asked his rebbe and his rebbe told him a different shot. He told him because the halacha is that if you shecht the con and the veshed, even if the animal is still alive, it's mefaches Right at that point, the halacha is that the shita is going to be considered a shita. So the severing of the con and the veshed is a sign It's a sign that there was a shita and that it's kosher and I guess that's why it's called a siman. Amura me hanal, the oilam was muching. Rabin Yoman Ulman, the son of the Baal Yuria [ __ ] Reb Eliezer Hershtik, Reb Note of Volf, Reb Eliezer of Yiddishe Bekever, the Baal Radom of Sason, Reb Eliezer Hershtik, his rebbe Nobody could figure out why is it called a siman. He passed away without a siman. So even this new Reb Note of Volf, who seems like he was a bakki bechol cheder can not figure out what is the siman. What's the siman? What's the siman after all? You have to It's two evarim, right? That's what it is. It's not siman. What's pashut shat? So I don't know, but it seems like everyone's trying to say episode of roit, episode of hegers. So maybe maybe loy demistafino we can say. We mentioned on that base. We spoke a little bit about the Mahlke of the Rishonim. We actually mentioned this yesterday again. And that is whether or not Shchitas Chuman is a Mitzvah or Shchitas Chuman is not a Mitzvah. There's some Rishonim and Rishonim the Rambam and the Chinnah who hold that Shchitas Chuman is a Mitzvah. There are other Rishonim and Rishonim the Ra'avad and the Ramban that hold that Shchitas Chuman is not a Mitzvah. And the Kash is if you hold that Shchitas Chuman is not a Mitzvah, so then what's Posuk Shat? Why is it then that you make a Bracha Sh'kidesha Mitzvoiseihu V'tzivanu al ha Shchita. If it's a Mitzvah it's a Bracha on Mitzvos. But if it's not a Mitzvah, then why are you going ahead and you're making a Bracha? And we said that the Ramban is Pirush al ha Torah. We spoke so much about this yesterday. He says it's related to Tarbos Chaim D'Oraisa. And L'Shma as Shulchan Aruch Shulchan Aruch in Orach Chaim Siman Nun Daled the very very end of the Tshuva where he says it's K'ilu Noima Sh'kidesha Mitzvoiseihu V'tzivanu al ha Rachamim al ha Briyos. But we said, and then this is the Ikker Vort that we said is really M'furash in Taz in Siman Aleph Yoreh De'ah. But we said based on the Rosh who says in the Sugya of Birchas Eirusin and Birchas Chasanim in the first Perek of Maseches Kesubos, that with regards to the Bracha that's made under the Chuppah, Asher Kideshanu B'Mitzvoiseihu V'tzivanu. And what's the Bracha that we make? V'tzivanu al ha Aroyos v'Osar al ha Nisuos v'Hitir Lanu Es ha Nisuos Lanu al Yedei Chuppah v'Kiddushin. Baruch Atah Hashem M'Kadesh Yisrael al Yedei Chuppah v'Kiddushin. But as relates to that Bracha said the Rosh, even though you ask the man on the street he'll probably tell you it's a Bracha on Mitzvos. But al Yedei Chuppah it's not a Bracha on Mitzvos. So Bracha Shehechiyanu the Rosh asks all these famous Kashes. And the Rosh says you want to know what the Bracha is? Hu Bracha al Nishkin al ha Shevach l'HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Asher Kideshanu B'Mitzvoiseihu V'Hitir Lanu Min ha Amam V'tzivanu L'Kadesh Isha Muteres Lanu v'Lo Yachas Min ha Aroyos. That if a person goes ahead and a person is M'Kadesh al Yedei Chuppah v'Kiddushin, he's showing the Kiddushin of Klal Yisrael. Hakol Yod'im Kallah Nikneses al ha Chuppah. but at the same time it's being done with an incredible sneer and that shows the have dollar between clients and between the and that's why we make a brothel not a brothel but it's a brothel that's what the brothel is so we shall to and again MS it's really a task but this is the beer in the task and that is that the person says in the condition will be told me later The sister shocked to his natural but the hammer over the person says you have to be mouth between the lucky says what does it mean be mouth between the and the into a being part of the show removed all of any him and what being told me later then she will be told me later the camera being told me later and the person says you have a to be mouth between the and the person says what does that mean it means you have to do that you have to learn the next person if you're going to do that the only condition is that you have to be told me later if you're going to be mouth between the and >> [laughter] >> the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later very mysterious and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person says you have to be told me later and the person goes and he and he knows to be when he goes through the learning it doesn't again it's screaming this is the and if that's that not us It's a it's the we said it's a bit of a race It's a bit of a race of But here's the point the Indian of and the Indian of the camera being this Indian is something that shows the dollar Indian Indian Not all were created equally different have a different different have a different person of different purpose Some are we just showing we're doing the Indian Take a like Indian it's an it's a it's a sign that we're Jews it's a sign that we're different the Indian of Indian is to have an insignia in the of the person as Indian the Indian is not just a Indian right you know people very often will ask you know I know I've been asked many times in the secular setting explain to me kosher non kosher I just don't understand it doesn't make any sense right what's this all about for Indian that's the real answer I don't know if you want to say that but that's the real answer it's for Indian because when he Indian keeps kosher that's a sign that he's a Indian that Indian is an Indian Indian and the Indian is you find that when it comes to my then it may seem article minute may seem and like we spoke and that's the beer and it's because when a person eats something he's not supposed to eat it makes the it's right think about this person is which is supposed to circumcise really the heart of the person right it's supposed to that's what happens when you do the person doesn't can't properly understand but that's what who says that if you don't have a father to do the has to he says why cuz the has to teach his grandson and on you can't understand cuz and the is a symbol of an that has from the and when a person goes and a person is a model so now he has a he's able to understand the is operating in that world that's where it's operating it's it's an and you know what happens if you violate that you end up with you end up not being able to understand like the show him says that that comes from the all of a sudden those the static and all of a sudden you know the base people and all of a sudden able to penetrate your heart you're not able to understand too and that's why they can get from the because it's not an this is something that's undermining the whole have you and the whole of the ability to be able to tell you but the bottom line is maybe maybe again this is just a in the world and in the realm of if the of men that means that really at the end of the day, the parsha machlokes assurahs, the difference between uh possul shchita and a possul aveila is going to make the difference on whether or not you see a Yid or whether you see someone that is not able to be masig what a Yid is supposed to be able to mas be masig bigdushas Yisrael, the kon and the veshed asimonim. Because through the kon and the veshed is the asimon as das da Yid. This is a Yid kima Hashem yiten chochma mipiv daas usvuna who's able to be masig the parsha of shchita is the havdala bein Yisrael la'am. Hence the kon and the veshed are signs, they're oisois, of the differentiation and that havdala between Yisrael la'am and and if that's the case then not just two evarim. These are two evarim where the siman of the Yid versus nisht the Yid is talui. These are evarim shechai nefesh [clears throat] Yisrael teluyim bahem. And maybe maybe it's for that reason in the world of drasha nagada we refer to the kon and the veshed asimonim.