Chulin 30

Today's stuff is Chullin Daf Lamed. And we are 23 lines from the bottom of Daf Chof Tes Amud Bais, Maseches Avodah Zarah. Today's stuff is being learned as a zechus refuah sheleimah for Eliezer Yeshaya ben Bracha, Chava Miriam bas Malkah Freda, and [ __ ] ben Chayala. So, we're in the middle of a Sugya in the second perek of Maseches Chullin, Perek Ashrei Chait. Kemo vein, the Sugya deals with the laws of Shechitah, specifically a machlokes that's omed berumah shel oilam, a machlokes Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish. Yesh no leshchitah metchilah v'atzaif or in leshchitah ela besaif. What do those mean? Yesh no leshchitah metchilah v'atzaif means that as soon as the shochet begins doing the shechitah, it's already considered a maiseh shechitah. Even though he didn't complete it, but the haschalah metchilah, it's already considered a shechitah. V'atzaif, it's considered a shechitah. In leshchitah ela besaif means that the shechitah is not considered a shechitah until it's complete. So, from a very technical sense, whatever is done until the g'mar shechitah, in and of itself would almost not be considered shechitah. Even though it's part of it, but the shem shechitah is not really in effect until the very last part, until the shechitah is complete. Rav Yochanan held yesh no leshchitah metchilah v'atzaif. Reish Lakish held in leshchitah ela besaif. The Gemara, primarily Rav Ashi said that even though at first glance you would think that your mind can run wild and start applying this machlokes to so many different cases, but there's a few situations that you might have thought are a good sushtal to this machlokes that immediately have to be taken off the table. Number one, in the event that a [ __ ] would shacht siman achad of a beheima, and then the Yehud would go and shacht the second siman, even though said Rava, you could have had a half of him, you know? That maybe that's totally the machlokes. Because if you hold in the shchita ela bisoyf, it doesn't bother me that the [ __ ] shchated the first siman, because as much as a [ __ ] is posul l'shchita, it's a mishnah on daf Yud Gimel amud alef, shchitas ovdei kochavim is navela. But at the same time, the shem shchita is only the bisoyf, and as long as the second siman, which is the bisoyf, happened by a day or Yad, that in of itself should be okay. Rava said, "Although in lomdis that's true, but practically speaking from a halachic perspective, that wouldn't be the case." And the reason is because to the extent that the [ __ ] shchated the first siman, and it's not a shchita, well then he made it into a treifa. If it was the veshet, one neck it would make it a treifa. If it was the konah, also known as we saw in yesterday's daf, the gargeres, then it would at the very least have become a treifa once a rib of it was nifsak. But the bottom line is, in lomdis I agree, said Rava, that should be totally in this machlokes, but being that a mum of shchita would be a treifa, so take that off the table. That's not a good tzushtel. Another case, Rava said, that would not be a tzushtel, was in the event that a kohen did the melikah of an olah tzaif l'matah mikhot ha sirkah. So the melikah of the olah tzaif had to be b'rosh ha mizbe'ach, or at the very least l'ma'alah mikhot ha sirkah. In the event that it was done l'matah, it's going to be posul. You could have thought that if the first siman, and only the first siman of the melikas olah tzaif was done l'matah, so maybe in that situation it shouldn't be an issue. Because of in the shchita ela bisoyf, what do I care where the first siman of the melikah took place. The only thing I should care about is where the second siman took place. Says Rava, "Theoretically you're correct, but at the same time, being that the melikah of a chatas tzaif only requires siman echad, and that melikah, by the way, is done l'matah. So when you did a melikah of siman echad olah tzaif l'matah, in halachah, we view it as a chashuv of melikah, not because it's hush of as it relates to because in the but it has a elsewhere and that gives it as well and it's for that reason it's partial ammo that wouldn't be a case. So what then is an all the good that we would have come up with the from being taken off the table immediately. So what then would be an example? So I'll tell you what the example would be. In [snorts] the event that somebody went and he chef did simon of a behema a behema that was kosher and then he went and he chef did the second simon the is was he over the was he not over the in the event that you hold that [snorts] yes was a bonafide if that's the case there's no question but it's going to be a problem. If you hold so then we say that the simon is garnished as a result as long as the second simon happened with him then in and of itself would be okay. The point is this person wouldn't be says that as much as held that that would be a good of where the is but was but said that in that situation similar to cases that would also not be a to this and the reason is because if somebody would be hit simon of a but the would be which means that simon is considered a master it's considered a or be it in one area of once it's considered a master one area of we have to now broadly distributed and say that it's always going to be the same way it's for that reason even if you hold but simon being that it's a in the parish of that would be considered a of Okay, so what then would be the Rabbi Joseph said, "I'll go with you on I'll just tweak it a little bit." And that is in the event that somebody would the of a similar of a similar you don't find anywhere that the of a similar is an issue. should qualify as should they hold And it's based on that in that situation if you hold Yes, [snorts] so the hold of the I had to do something. It's anything is considered if you hold then it's not. The bottom line is two cases where everybody agreed is not the a third case where there's a the bottom line is what is the to that the gave us where it's it's the of are there other of course there are other we'll see now that the will entertain other but the bottom line is up until this point in the I'll go upon him this is the this is the that the gives as relates to this now just to set up the the is going to be made up as we'll see of three components really three the first is a what we're learning right now and that is the whether yes and the second part is going to discuss a that in two or three places instead of doing the in one on the he did it third part of the is going to discuss the laws of the actually not as long and arduous a as it sounds like by far the hardest part of the is the first part of the which is really to everything that we just spoke about right now just to set it up even more what the is going to do in the first part of the is ask two questions in this of yes no and no both cashes are from mission one is a mission the other is a mission in the sector talking they both require background but will do what it is weird so the background to this first cashew which is a mission mission the lucky is that anybody that was engaged in the process of the para doesn't matter what aspect of it the ritual of the para was very intricate and involved different components and different kind of honor >> [snorts] >> every aspect of the para if somebody was involved in he became Tommy now we become Tommy is to my camera it's even his begotten the mission that we're about to learn together is going to discuss what happens if there was a somewhere in the process of bringing the para home are the people that were engaged in the para still going to be Tommy are they not going to be Tommy first glance it would reason to say that in the event that it was brought because she was okay so I was involved in the culture para so now you have the you're going to be Tommy but I think for the para was possible anyways so then why in the world should it be Tommy that is the background to this mission must be so the cashew the mission says any person that's in the para mission from the first of whether to the last of but what happens Tommy now is he Tommy is becoming a Tommy as well additionally if somebody did a with the para during this time that lucky is it would also disqualify a possible what would be if a soul happened to the para during the being called them so it doesn't matter if this person was a sick in the para for the being or he did it afterwards in either situation in the matter of begotten is not going to be begotten of the extent that the was possible, so it was never a kosher it was never a kosher so it doesn't matter if you were before or if you're going to be afterwards that the that this was never a kosher that's also what would be if the became possible at the time of the so then to the extent that somebody was sick in it before the that person's going to be but any person that was after the then it's going to be In other words, if there was a kosher now we can have the and even if happened later, but at the very least the baseline is that this was a kosher as long as you were in it before it became possible you're going to be if the was possible then it doesn't matter before after automatically >> [snorts] >> you're going to not become it. If you're going to tell me yes if you're going to tell me yes no why is it so that if the happened even a person that was in it before the is not going to be why don't we say that in the event that happened in the then that if you were in it before the you should be if you were in it afterwards you shouldn't be meaning if you're going to tell me yes no then so then the way you view in is the is at the end so if it was but it's as if the whole was possible so if the whole was possible if you don't have a then that's the no it doesn't matter if you were before you were afterwards either way or if you were before you were afterwards either way you're not going to be totally. If however you hold yes no to the middle of the life, so that means even if a happens by it doesn't mean there was never a so to the extent that there was a before the soul and the is that once there's a so now any person that's in the is going to become totally. So why is that that unequivocally even the being them being the is them being them. What do you mean? You have that took place before the soul. That took place before the soul. I don't know what you mean you never had a proper at the end. But yes no to the middle of the so this like if you hold in the middle of the so I understand why the is being in the versus in the before the after the there's but in the alone there's no to the the the argument is is that if you started the and the of the the soul happened you should say that any person that was in the sick at the very least before the took place in the should be considered totally because there was a with the mix of yes no with but the is a very so my in the of you asking a say yes no with when the of the became so going to afraid of this a terrorist and a have an understanding the of although it's true there is a so yes no but that only is true once you finish the so if you had a good culture then we say that I'm afraid the started as soon as you started the but if you never make it to the end then the mix of is nothing. Yes no with means a mix of of a is a is a but a mix of nothing is obviously not going to be anything therefore if the soul happened by you can reckon the mixture of fire the soul as being a yeshua so who said this who's casual with the answering so what the amount of signal that you have in Robin fascinating right so turns around after he was and he said casually casually but there's casual is not a casual it's calculate but let me tell you what I think is a question man any of you should have and my casual said from this is actually not according to the that only should be just the opposite it's a casual according to the that holds in the elder according to that number lift like why did the mission not also differentiate and be like with regards to the people that are in the aduma in a situation where the para is casual what's the case can go in the between in a situation where there were two people that checked it the [snorts] guy the first person would not be Tommy the guy and the second person would be Tommy in other words rubber looked at the mission and rubber saw that the objective the mission statement of the mission was to tell me that even though high level any person that's the para aduma is automatically going to be Tommy but it's not always the case in fact there are times that some people yeah some people not what's the if the para aduma became possible so any [snorts] person that was fired up so is going to be Tommy any person that was not the so is not going to be Tommy and the mission is said this is only true if the happened as a but if the happened in the aduma then already not rubber said if the objective of the mission is to give me a with some of the going to be Tommy some of the not Tommy I have a team so where you can give me this enough coming in a it doesn't involve any of so but at the same time it would definitely be an add-on to the mission. What would be the the would be if there were two people that did the so one person started the and the other person finished the if you hold in the and save so the first person didn't really do anything because I don't think that person should be told me the second person should be told me because he did do something. What did he do? He finished the so afraid he actually how come the mission didn't go ahead and tell me the why did the mission to say have another where one one no you do a it was all done by and it didn't matter it's in the one person started the other person finished it said this one if you're going to tell me yes then I understand because they're both considered to have done a they're both but if then then afraid lift like that so Robert told not only is your from the mission of not a on the yes I I rather think there's a from this mission on the that holds either way the I'm Joseph so Joseph heard Robert's and he said so what kind of is this you're asking a that the mission of is part of should tell me a with some yes some not and the we had trade we have two one but I mean that he that's not a good you know why they told me no cuz it's a mission of where is this mission the mission said it says that [snorts] is by and we learn from there should not use mission not a mission of should not use mission at the right you can't have two people chatting one of these What do we learn from there? Should I get you can't have one person chatting two of kind of kind of said we spoke a lot about this yesterday. And the reason is because without the bottom line is when it comes to catch him that is not allowed to have two people that is what you want to tell me two people are chatting the bottom you can't have two people the bottom of my conscience is a should I use the same thing? Now what is that to do with cotton? So we know the answer because when it comes to do my so we know the bottom is always treated as cotton. So if I catch him you can't have two that's not a so went after a buyer who usually goes after apparently for is going after so then my book is my is actually my friend >> [laughter] >> so I'm going to buy a buyer turns to and he says love it you can't ask a question from that price. You know why? Because I'm a buyer buyer I think the name of the great is going to that's the sheet of stem to come and I think we know everybody holds that two are not allowed to so what do you mean? I was dying is still a good you're right I mean I don't know but what about the going to the bottom could have said it's still asking by the way I buy added another to the bottom of my and even the bottom of my life lord I still would have a question because how come the mission didn't say the following going to have God run? A situation where there was one person and he said that with two he was wearing a a sudder right a couple of yarmulke whatever he was wearing something on his head the sudder camel the first sudder is not going to be if you hold the sudder bottom that is going to be in other words rubber is a good even if you hold that two shochtim shacht. You know what? Because I'll give you the same exact nafka minna. We have one shochet, one zevach, that's not an issue, but he wants two kapulaches. There's no brice and no yesh mayim l'mesorah that tells me that you have to wear the same yarmulke, the same streimel from the beginning of the shchita of the parah adumah to the end of the shchita of the parah adumah. If you want to switch in between, that's something that you're very much allowed to do. And I feel a halacha would have a nafka minna because if you want to be mechallel in the oiskim, now this is not in the oiskim, this is in the begadim. But if you're looking to be mechallel, I could tell mechallel. I can have a heketem. So according to the madman that holds in the shchita l'besof between the first seder and the second seder. So I think Rava's kasha would be a kasha anyways. Again, Rava said e kashya l'ha kashya. And it's not on the madman that holds that yesh no shchita m'techila v'ad sof, it's a kasha on the madman that holds english shchita l'besof. What's the kasha? L'chora have a heketem so to be mechallel in the oiskim, what would be the case? The case would be the case would be where there were two people. The first person in his english shchita l'besof he didn't do anything. The second person's going to be tamei. Comes again Rebbe Yosi. Rebbe Yosi says what he means. Chatas Kayin Rachman, you can't have two shochtim when it comes to the parah adumah. Amalei Abaye l'Rebbe Yosi, stay tzu v'zu d'var. Stay tzu v'zu and Rebbe Yosi said two tzu's. Abaye is going to war to defend Rava, to explain Rava's kasha. Number one, you're only being doiche based on what Rava shames him to according to the chachamim, it's not a dichui, you can't just deflect it if according to the chachamim the kasha is a kasha. And besides, I don't think Rava meant that case. There's other cases as well. And the other case would have a nafka minna feel according to what Rava shames him to because I have a case where there's where there's one shochet and two kapulaches. Ela, bottom line is Abaye said Abaye said that as it relates to Rebbe Yosi's kasha, let me answer the kasha anyways. I'll answer a little bit differently but still the parah kamaira b'chashrei l'chumra. The teretz must be that at the end of the day the objective of that mishna in maseches parah was not to tell me heketem says where one oisek is tamei and the other oisek is not tamei. That wasn't the objective. That's not the mission statement. The mission statement was a heketem where the parah adumah became posul. I want to know what's that that's what's going on over there. What we're discussing is and the mission is being if the happened or if the happened if the objective was we have several and some are going to be some are not going to be then we would have brought it on right then these things would have all been applicable but that was never the objective and he used that was never the objective so it's actually a very interesting because what we have over here is when we don't what's the objective of the mission and it's not just in the presentation not just in the but it has what the objective of the mission is to know if you're allowed to ask a how you I mean after the Robert understood the mission statement of the mission one way and he had a on which it is a sheet that has global ramifications about that's not the mission statement of the mission and if that's not the mission statement of the mission then you're not going to have those implications so knowing partially the setup the intro the pre-cap and recap of a mission sometimes it's that are a pair of arguing what is the what is the objective of the time of this mission we have to ask ourselves whenever we learn you sit down to learn a mission what's the objective either way this concludes the first question and this again was from the mission in the mission of the mission of the mission of the with this the second question as we mentioned is from the mission of this also requires an introduction and this introduction is really some heavy coaching and that is there's a saying in the Torah it says we don't free the Torah says you're not allowed to don't free allowed to bring a carbon while you have chametz in your house. K'pshuto, the possuk is talking about the carbon Pesach. And there's a halacha there, if a person has chametz, not only is he over all these issurei chametz, byur by umati tashbisu, but if he brings the carbon Pesach, in that zman, he's over another lav s'aseh, lo sisha al chametz dam zivchei. Staying in that gemara says that this issur of lo sisha al chametz dam zivchei is not only true regarding the carbon Pesach. Dam zivchei means any one of my carbonos. You can't bring a carbon on Pesach to the extent that you're being over the issur chametz. Now, that's poshit. That's poshit that the only time a person would be over the issur lo sisha al chametz dam zivchei is if the carbon that he's bringing is a kosher carbon. This is a little counterintuitive. If the carbon that he's bringing is possul, you're bringing a carbon that you're not supposed to bring, or you're bringing a carbon that you're supposed to bring, but you're bringing it in the wrong way, so then the halacha is, being that the carbon was not a real carbon, the shchita wasn't a kosher shchita, so m'meila you fadin that you're not over the issur lo sisha al chametz dam zivchei. So usually when you bring it in the wrong way, that's when you get the clap. In this sugia it's counterintuitive. If you bring it in the right way, oh, why'd you bring a kosher carbon? Lo sisha al chametz dam zivchei. If you bring it in the wrong way, so okay, in me'uta chamira d'al lo rabbos, so I didn't do an issur, at least I didn't do an issur of lo sisha al chametz dam zivchei. Kashin d'gei issurim, that's something that I would have to worry about. So this is the poshit background. Specifically, this mishna is going to be discussing someone who brought a carbon Pesach on Yom Tov. So he brought the carbon Pesach on Yom Tov. When are you supposed to bring the carbon Pesach? Erev Yom Tov, Erev Pesach bein arbaim. He went ahead and he brought it on Pesach itself. The shailis is he going to be over the issur lo sisha al chametz dam zivchei, or is he not going to be over the issur lo sisha al chametz dam zivchei? Now what's the immediate matter of that comes to mind if somebody brings a carbon Pesach on Yom Tov we know that is a Pesach is a Moiser Pesach bunch of different examples of what a Moiser Pesach is but for sure a Pesach is considered a a carbon so with that in mind the Halacha massive bar of so bar of ask the question and this is going to be the question on the matter of that holds in the sheet of sheet of the Mishnah says in the in the event that on Yom Tov itself somebody went ahead and he brought a carbon Pesach while he had Hametz so the Halacha is like this if he brought the Pesach but he's going to be parted from Malkus for the love of Hametz and the reason is because a Pesach the same Pesach shall be Pesach is a Pesach that's possible being that the Pesach is possible he wasn't over the sheet and if that's the case parted from Malkus for that if however he brought it I know he brought it actually says I mean in that case the Halacha is that he's going to be why because to the extent that he brought it I mean now it is a and a I mean you're allowed to bring on Pesach if that's the case you brought a kosher carbon a kosher carbon when you have that's Hametz I mean if I mean but before we see what this has to do with the matter of that holds in the sheet of the market gives us a lot more background the beneath when they heard this Mishnah and they learned it to they had the following question time of the it sounds like the only time this person is going to be is when he brings it because then it's a husband what would bring if he brought it he didn't bring it Pesach he also didn't bring it I mean he brought it it sounds like it sounds like in that instance he's going to be potter from Marcus. And the Benei Yeshiva asked my my potter wisely potter Pesach Bashaya my if Pesach Bashaya so why isn't it only considered a shlamim if you had in mind with shame shlamim? Even stumah. If you had in mind with shame Pesach then I understand why it shouldn't be a shlamim. But to the extent that it was stumah if Pesach Bashaya this this automatic din that it's a a shlamim. So why do I have to be with shame shlamim for it to be a shlamim to be even if it was stumah it should be the same thing. So the Benei Yeshiva said you know you see from here Pesach Bashaya that as much as it's true that Pesach Bashaya but it's only if you but if you know there's no and let me tell you what came emerged from the and let me tell you what came emerged from the and and the Benei Yeshiva said that no let me I'll tell you that Pesach Bashaya is it doesn't require and if that's the case if somebody would bring a Pesach stumah it would automatically be a shlamim. And if that's the case if somebody would bring a Pesach stumah it should really be a shlamim and if that's the case it's a and if it should be I from the not that way from the but stumah you're going to be potter because the mission has specifically mentioned with the of this Pesach the owner of this Pesach was a the this person just got bumped to Pesach being that this person got bumped to Pesach so this carbon Pesach even though now it's but it's still a Pesach you know because he needs to bring in a couple of weeks he's going to have to bring the Pesach as that's our carbon Pesach this stumah it's considered a carbon Pesach in the midst of the highly and that's they have to do with the only reason over here is because this person has a you dollar year to go ahead and bring a carbon Pesach or be the Pesach so for him it's not considered on the level where you wouldn't even need an you wouldn't need the only reason you need an cuz unless you still see it as a Pesach [laughter] and if you still see it as a Pesach it's a Pesach is my cuz as much as you need the Pesach for your dollar year it's not your dollar year now it's called my Pesach so right now it's a and being that it's possible if it's possible you counter intuitively on the level of my This is the exchange and this is the to again massive based on this and he said yeah I'm going to tell me that the is yes but that's that the if that's the case if that's the case if that's the case if that's the case >> [snorts] >> As soon as this person starts shekting the carbon automatically becomes possible And if that's the case then I understand this l e but if you're going to tell me that in the and any that happens in the I only reckon the side cuz the I don't really care what happened well if that's the case then why isn't it that in the event that a person shekted this carbon Pesach this time during this interim period we're going to view it as if it's a Pesach is my way because you need it for Pesach and therefore you're going to be for the love of why don't we say given shock at portal, as soon as you shocked it a little bit, you started doing the shita. Now, at that point you weren't over yet to shita. Why not? Because the shita you're not over until the beside. So, if that's the case, it at that point we pass off. But at the same time, a kosher carbon pass off it can't be. Why can't it be a a kosher carbon pass off? Okay, given the shock at the portal, once you shocked a little bit, it could be me pass off. At that point you never be able to bring it as a carbon pass off. As soon as you shocked it, you going to be able to bring it as a carbon pass off? What, this animal is going to stay around and it's what's it going to do? It's going to wait for you for 3 and 1/2 weeks till you shock the second and like this you're going to be able to bring it as a pass off shiny. I thought of that, that's not something you're going to be able to do. And if that's the case, it could shock it. So, at that point, as soon as you do that the second it's not a pass off shiny anymore. So, [laughter] if that's the case, when you go ahead and you shock the second it's not a pass off shiny. THEN I STOP IT, IT WILL automatically be a one. The most cash is this whole business that it's him pass off the same a pass off the same I feel on a key rose of slime. The only reason you need a key rose of slime is because after this pass off him is because you had to bring the pass off shiny. So, that means as long as I could bring it as a pass off shiny, I could still say that I need an a key rose of slime. But the minute I can't bring it as a pass off shiny, at that point I do need an a key rose of slime. Well, if that's the case, I think this whole thing is going to be a way. Because the minute I do the shita of the first seven at that point I can't bring it as a pass off shiny anymore. I'm going to bring it as a pass off shiny in 3 weeks. It's not a possibility. So, if that's the case, automatically it should become a situation where it's a slime. And if that's the case, then in a case of stoma it should be kosher. And if that's the case, I should be the whole terrace falls off. Yeah, the more it's trying to figure out why stoma is the that you're going to be potter. Why stoma is the that you're going to be potter? Stoma you should be higher because stoma we should view it as a summer. The Gamora says, "Oh, must be because you need an Akira to make it a summer." The Gamora says, "No, why would you need an Akira to make it into a summer?" The only reason that you're going to be parted is cuz in this situation you need an Akira. In this situation you need an Akira. Why in this situation do you need an Akira? Because otherwise you can bring it as a Pesach Sheini. Gamora says, "No, the minute you shecht the first semen, at that point it's not a Pesach Sheini anymore. It can't be brought." So, that second the switch flips. Before you shecht the first semen, you were right. But, the minute you shecht the first semen, at that point it couldn't have been brought anymore as a Pesach Sheini. And if that's the case, now it has to be a a summer. And if that's the case, m'meila it should be a summer. And if m'meila it's a summer, if that's the case, you should be higher. So, why is Allah here parted? So, Rav Idi bar Avin said like this, "Bish shalom, if you're going to tell me yesh l'shnayim m'tchilas ad tzoif, if that's the halacha, that's not a kasha. You know why? Because the minute you shecht the first semen, you already over the issur. And before you shecht the first semen, it was right to be brought as a Pesach Sheini. So, if that's the case, at that point at that point right now, this is something that needs an Akira in order for it to be brought as a summer. And so, we're reckoning the t'chilas ha'shchita. But, if you're going to tell me ein lo shchita v'ein lo issur, you can't reckon t'chilas ha'shchita. So, at the end of the day, you can end up in the same place. But, the Gamora said I'm only a buyer. A buyer told him, "It's not such a taina. Because your taina, the once you shecht the first semen, at that point it's nitra from being a Pesach, right? Cuz how you going to bring it as a carbon Pesach?" So, m'meila it should automatically be a summer. He did let me pass up in bay Pesach meyatrich. It's true, it's nitra from being brought as a Pesach. Cuz once you shecht the first semen, you can't bring it as a carbon Pesach anymore. But, you could still be parted and use the money to bring a carbon Pesach. So, I still see it as a Pesach. If I still see it as a Pesach, it still needs an Akira in order for it to be treated as a summer. Just explain this a little bit better. Ordinarily, you can't be parted kacha. But, once it has a moment of t'chulas ha'mikdash, it could be parted. The minute you shecht the siman echad, it's all going to be shayin ilo mum d'vei l'mi zu. So, at that point it's t'chulas ha'mikdash and therefore you could be parted. The money is viewed as the may Pesach and therefore you need the Akira inside the may Pesach sh'va. The Gamora just adds one k'neich. V'chitem yotzei miyom ha'moed how can you be supposed to think of a you think the animal you know needs to put on a suit and a tie and has to stand in front of Beth Din and they're going to determine so how could this animal doesn't look like it's in the frame of mind right now to have an it's not a but tonight we're going to the dying if you do a and it's still alive is considered alive and one of the areas that this is true is regarding you see that's not an issue as relates to the bottom line is you have no right to the second was from the Mishnah in Pesachim but at the end of the day the Gamara was and this concludes the first part of today's let's jump right into part two but he would have said in the name of somebody an animal in two or three places she the is going to be kosher is going to be kosher Gamara Gamara made a small said that I said over this so we know by and then by so this was something he was from he then went to he told him what he heard on my leave told me you know you have to have a that's where it's the record and you don't have it in a case where the was in and for that reason it's not going to be okay says after Ben Lockish so in the so we know also said he needed a so we know also said and you know also said the says the says Rashi says the is that we compare to a and just like a when it goes through something it doesn't in one shot doesn't do it in so too has to be in one place it can't be in so too has to be in one either way said the is going to be kosher Shmuel said, "Beina shchita mitzra'as palak it's not okay." Reish Lakish said the same thing. If you take a look at Rashi and Tosfos, and certainly if you go through the Rishonim a little bit, there's a huge machlokes what this halacha means. It's interesting, it's a very basic halacha in hilchos shchita, and nobody seems to know 100%. There's no accepted consensus in terms of what exactly the definition of this is. Rashi, the way the acharonim understand Rashi, seems to say that the case was as follows. The case was where the shochet did a little bit of a shchita, then he went and shachted roiv even one place, and then again he did a little bit of a shchita. The halacha is, according to Rebbi Yehudah bar Rav it's going to be kosher, but according to Shmuel it's not going to be kosher. Now, what's the reason it shouldn't be kosher? I mean, we understand why it shouldn't be kosher. He did a little incision, but then he did a gishmaka incision. He did a little incision. Maybe he did the two little incisions. The middle incision was perfect. So, the acharonim explained that what Rashi understood was is that when you do a shchita, we saw already base hashchita is mirvach rovach, right? It expands. So, we're concerned that the two side incisions are going to expand, and what they're going to do is they're going to expand into the middle incision and take that middle incision and close it up. And what you're going to end up with is no place on the kon and the veshet where you're going to have a shchita mefeires, where it's going to be nikar umagur that you did a proper shchita. Now, you have that's what happened, and the shochet's telling you that's what happened. You could have two aidim telling you that's what happened. But at the end of the day it's not going to be nikar. You know why? Because the mirvach rovach of the side incisions closed the middle, and you're going to end up having an issue. Tosfos brings from the Shiltos that the Shiltos said a little more poshut. The Shiltos said that what happened over here was is the person went and he shachted a little bit, and then a little bit, and then a little bit. Around the of the and the if you add up all the incisions you end up with a it's not all in one spot. And you have the it's not in one spot. So that's the over here. Is it going to be not going to be I don't care. I as long as they add up to it's going to be fine. Essentially what is saying is I need it in one place. In case you had it in one place. What happened was it all got a little messed up. But according to the okay, that case was when you never had it in one shot and that's for the is that going to be is that not going to be okay. Either way the is going to be but the asked the from a two people that were holding on to a the even if one was a little bit higher and the second was a little bit lower meaning one is like closer to the head and the other one's closer down to the chest. The is going to be great the am I for like a in the how do you have in other words the are understands that the case of was talking about where each person was holding on to his own knife and it sounds like one person from the top one person from the bottom. It's very good. You got it all it sounds like two people but the is is but isn't this a classic the and you see before us that it's the of the that you don't need to I'm going to the case is not where the was in two places where it was two knives he did a little he did a little the case was talking about where there was one knife two people were holding on to the knife and they one held it a the other was holding it a little bit lower and they did it in one shot. This is one big that's really one place. Two knives sounds like it's two places. ONE KNIFE, I CARE, it's one incision. It's just two people holding on to it, one a little bit higher and the other one a little bit lower. How do you understand the following price? And this price was a comment on the law of the mission. I knew the tiny law. How do you understand the price is two fuses there that you're allowed to do this and you're not worried that maybe one person is going to make the other person's street into a a street of street. What's the question? This one we're talking about not just two people, but two knives sharper that I understand the treifa. What's the treifa? The treifa is no one person is going to do enough and you may end up making it a treifa, right? Meaning you might end up where they two of them together didn't finish this year. But if you're going to tell me meaning now the time on the explains, you would have [snorts] thought each person is going to be the other one behind the and you're going to end up that you're not going to have the proper share. So that's a good comment on that. They're working together, they're working in tandem. I don't think there's a that I'm relying on you and you're relying on me. For care, it's it's just zero. We're working together. What would the be? I'll tell you a decent I mean yeah, maybe it's going to be done meaning you have to be very careful how you do the motions. If I'm controlling it, if I have 100% on what's going on, then I don't have to be worried. Two people, they can be so from the fact that the price is said the is it true or not it true? So isn't that a right it must be two knives and if it's two knives, what do you see? But I'm going to say that that's true if the gears in the price is the to me a price that you could always do an edit, right? You could be and if that's the case, that's your way of another from a price of that. the vishet, right? Shot of the vishet. When matter in the event that somebody shot the vishet the matter meaning closer to the body, farther from the head. That's a corner of the matter and he shot the corner he shot the trachea closer to the head. You don't have shot of the rest. Now this is interesting. Because you could have thought that the whole issue of shot of the rest is in each individual simon, right? So each simon has to be a shot of the rest. Over here you shot the vishet over here and the corner over there. As long as the vishet is in the rest and the corner is in the rest you would think that would be okay. But you see from rub up in's question that if you hold the new shot of the rest even the two simons to summon have to be in the rest. But either way the matter said the kasha rub up in gave the answer and he said the shot of the corner is the case is talking about not with this tool incision. It's one incision. It's a sewer kikomus. Actually says it's bishipua. It's on a slant. And the point [snorts] is it starts on the top and it slants its way down towards the bottom. So the top of the vishet to the bottom of the corner or vice versa. But the point is it is in the rest as a result you have no rise. Who to rub? There was a sure. The issue of the shush of the comas. He had shot in having the two or three places. Oh rub is by shmul. By Martha. So rub is the son of shmul who was the son of Martha. Past this a woman's name by the way. Shaka mishufri shufri. And he says oh I want the filet mignon. I want the best of the best, right? He went and he took the shufri shufri. I'm only rub zayus rub zayus saw what rub is by shmul by Martha did and he told them the tunnel rub up in them. Why you doing this? I'm learning a master of. Right? I'm learning an unbelievable master from this. What is that? That mission of say no. That our mission that said shnime is in the sack in the shot in them. Where we had a smooth earlier. What's the case? Is it two people holding one knife or is it two people holding two knives? If the two people are holding two knives, that would be a raya that if someone checks the two knives it's going to be okay. The was you have no raya that the you could check with the two knives cuz maybe they're holding on to to one knife. But from the fact that he went and he was shocked so they were told him I just don't shine in a mishna. So he saw God sit down to eat a piece of flesh sure for the and he said oh from there I see from there I see in a mishna. Because if it's kosher despite the fact that the two knives must be from that mishna or that's probably this mishna. For sure you could learn in the mishna like that. So the bottom line is now I have a mishna and that is the two knives and this concludes the second part of the way easier than the almost don't even have to way easier than the first part of the and that is is it okay to check with the two knives or not? And really what does it boil down to? How to learn a mishna it boils down the mishna says is it two people holding one knife two people holding two knives part three and he went and he checked the two knives similar to If somebody did that he borrowed the knife in between the and he and then he went and he checked it the salmon the is it's going to be possible. If he borrowed it not underneath the salmon but he borrowed it underneath the of the animal the is that it's going to be kosher. So one of the five is now it's actually interesting because it's a mishna and it's a mishna coming up in the next few days. Really learn the Sugya of Halada in the next few days. This is almost being brought here Shalem Kaimi. I have a reason why it's even being brought here. But, the bottom line is that what Rebbe Yehudah Marav said was that Halada, which means that you're not allowed to have the sakin covered at the time that you're doing the Shchita. So, if the Shochet takes the sakin and he sticks it into the animal. And now he's going to go and he's going to Shochet the siman. So, if he was Hechlit bein siman l'siman, which means that the sakin is covered by the siman, then the Halacha is if you Shochet in that way, it's going to be pasul. But, if it's not covered by the trachea or the esophagus, it's not covered by one of the organs, you just put it underneath the or, underneath the skin, right? If you're not too squeamish, try to visualize this. So, then the Halacha is shair, it's going to be kosher. And the reason is the siman is considered a kisui. The or is not considered a kisui. The or says, "I come after one." I don't even know what the chiddush is. First things first. The first Halacha, Hechlit has a sakin bein siman l'siman In the event that the Shochet went ahead and he Shocheted the first siman properly. And then, when he creaked into the first siman, he put the knife underneath the other siman. And he went ahead and he Shocheted it. So, the idea that Hechlit has a sakin bein siman l'siman pasul The case in the Mishnah was where he Shocheted the first one. But, how could he get the knife in? So, he Shocheted it properly. And then, he creaked underneath it and he Shocheted the second one. So, the Mishnah says, "I'll tell you why Rebbe Yehudah Marav had to say this." The only time Halada is an issue is if you go in and then when you Shochet the other siman the Halada, you're going upwards. If, however, the way you cover the Shchita, and the reason is cuz that's not considered That is the derech Shchita. And if you Shochet it down, I would have thought it's okay. >> So really that first part that first part of the Yehuda bar Rav's member that I second made similar to semen who the office tool uh it's coming to teach me that not only if you went to my law that's the mission but even if you went to my law to my law that is all. Now what was the second thing Yehuda bar Rav said that it was also that's going to be sure. Now that's not a first mission. So that's something that for sure Yehuda bar Rav has a right to say to one of the S that's Tony no right the Tony no was on the first thing that he said. But the more says that as it relates to the arrows of the bear of Amri in the Shiva of Rav they used to a little bit differently. They used to say in the idea. So Yehuda said the name of Rav right the name of Rav that is going to be in the Shiva of Rav they actually were less sure. They were in the Shiva of Rav they said in the idea. According to the bear of Rav that said I'm not sure. What about mattress smell? What would be if it's underneath some sort of dish a towel or something like that? Would that be a problem or not? Meaning if you hold that is not for sure is not. But if you hold maybe any idea so what about is that also any idea? Right the best it's going to be is any idea but is it also any idea or another what would be if it's underneath the wool of the animal? So you didn't go underneath the wool of the animal? So you didn't go underneath the wool wool of the animal. So you didn't go underneath the R you went underneath the wool. Meaning on the side that is you're in the in the wool but you didn't underneath the skin. Is that the same as like in your mind the any idea of would apply to or no? My is as it relates to that for sure it's not going to be okay. And the more says as it relates to the take all take all it is a take all right as of late September then for sure it's going to be yes okay for sure it won't be an issue either way says the Gamara one last shyla boyra popra popra said heksla in the event it was that was done with the last minute of the semen. So the cohen shek the the shek shek right and now you up to the last minute and you did with the now what's the going to be what's the start of the is a problem but over here you did already being that you did already maybe it's not an issue or not and the Gamara says regarding that takeo it's a takeo. Now we're stopping right here the cover of the but at the same time as relates to that last shyla it's the last line of the Gamara boyra popra me now takeo if you take a look there's a long rashi if you take a look there's a long toices there's so much read over here and really this little tiny Gamara of the now goes into a lot of the longness of understanding and is a shab will be the topic of some of the read in the beginning of next week.