Chulin 33

Today's daf is Chullin daf lamed gimmel. >> And we will begin 12 lines from the bottom of daf lamed base aleph base, a very, very important gemara as it relates to the course sugius of maseches Chullin and a really fast daf. Goof. Omar Rab Shimon ben Lakish, Rab Shimon ben Lakish said, "Shachat es ha konah, if the shochet shachted the konah, the trachea, meaning one of the two simanim of a beheima, the arachaic neck for harea, and afterwards the lungs of the animal got a nekiv, a nekiv that should technically render the animal a treifa." So, Rab Shimon ben Lakish said a chiddush, the gemara discussed it on the top of the amud shera, the halacha is that the beheima is going to be kosher. And although technically a nekiv in the reah should make the animal a treifa, being that it happened after the shchita of the konah, the animal's not going to be a treifa. Omar Rabba, Rabba said, "Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish ale b'reah." When Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish said his halacha, he meant dafka d'reah. Meaning he didn't just say nekiv for harea as an example of a treifa, but rather it he meant dafka that example. Hayo v'kayam reah t'luyah b'konah. And the reason is because the trachea is attached to the lungs. And it's for that reason in halacha we look at the konah and the reah as being one aver. Being that we look at them as being one aver, and the shochet already shachted the konah, he technically killed that aver. So, if he killed that aver, the fact that that aver now got a mortal wound doesn't bother me. Meaning that's poshit, said Rabba, that if an animal would become a treifa in between the shchita of the konah and the veshet, then the animal would be a treifa, and you would not be able to shacht the second siman in a kosher way so that the animal wouldn't be an aveilah anymore. The reason that this is not an issue is because the reah is attached to the konah, and the Shita already took place in the corner, which means the corner and the Raya are technically already dead. If that's the case, it doesn't bother me that the Raya has a treifa. The loshon hagomora in the top of the omid was, and this is a very important loshon hagomora, is it's command it's command the mancha b'dikula damya. Once you shach the Raya, we look at the Raya and everything that's attached to it as if it's sitting on a it's sitting on a basket. It's not in the animal. And just like if an aver was in the basket, the [snorts] any neckav that it would get would not render it a treifa. So, for that reason, it wouldn't be a treifa either, says the gomora. Avu b'nei mayain, but let's say the b'nei mayain, the intestines of the animal would get a a neckav or some other part of the animal. Right over there the halacha would be that it's poshul would be a treifa. Maskif for Rav Zeira. Rav Zeira asked on Rav, he says, "I don't understand. May achshav nodah b'simanai treifa heitarta?" If you're telling me that an animal that gets a siman of a treifa in between the shchita and of the and the veshet is not a problem when it happens in the Raya. Mali b'Raya, mali b'bnei mayain, I don't hear the chiluk. In other words, Rav Zeira argued fundamentally with Rav's understanding of Reish Lakish. Whereas Rav said that Reish Lakish's case was when nikfa haRaya between the shchita of the corner and the veshet, dafka the Raya because the Raya is attached to the corner. Once you shach the corner, I don't care what happens to the Raya anymore. The reason is because the corner and the Raya are command the mancha b'dikula damya. It's as if they're not even in the animal anymore. So, it's poshul that it wouldn't render it a treifa. But, Rav Zeira said, "I disagree. I don't think it's a swara dafka the Raya, but I think Reish Lakish said it with regards to any aver, even the b'nei mayain, which are not attached to attached to the corner. The b'nei mayain are attached to the veshet. But, even the b'nei mayain, if it would get a neckav after the shchita of the Raya, it wouldn't be a treifa. And the reason is, like Rashi explains, cuz Rav Zeira said that I think what Reish Lakish is saying is is that an animal, once you shach one of the simanim, can't become a treifa anymore. It's not [laughter] dafka the Raya cuz it's attached to the corner, which is punkt the siman that you attach. But, there's a halacha that an animal could be a treifa if you didn't start the shchita. But, once you start the shchita, even if you shachted once in shimen, nothing to do with yashrus shchita between them. That's why you find in the shchita. The point is that once you started the shchita, there's only a chatzi shchita remaining in the animal, says Rashi. At that point, there's no way for an animal to be a treif. It says the Gemara that even though Rav Zeira was maskiflo, he came very, very self-confidently. He asked very strongly on Rava, but the Gemara says Rava didn't answer him. Later, Rav Zeira was chais. How do you know that by Rav Zeira? Rav Zeira came to Rav Shada Nickvub Bnei Mayaim Ben Siman L'Siman. My wife was after the shochet shachted the kano. And then, after the shchita of the kano, the Bnei Mayaim got a nekav. A nekav that should technically make the animal a treifa. And then, he went and he shachted the vese. Rav Zeira wasn't sure. The Torah of Nickvub Bnei Mayaim Ben Siman L'Siman says that at the end of the day, the shochet shachted both simanim so that [snorts] this animal will not have two machos nevela. Or why? Or do we not say that and we say that the animal will have two machos nevela? Now, it's clear, says Rashi, from Rav Zeira's shaila that Rav Zeira was never proposing that he should be able to eat this animal. The reason is because at the end of the day, it's a treifa. His shaila only was, could you be mitztaref the two shchitas? The shchita of the siman rishon and the shchita of the siman sheini to say that although you can't eat it cuz it's a treifa, but at the very least it shouldn't be a nevela, so it shouldn't be tamei. Well, what's the difference between a treifa and a nevela? You can't eat a treifa, you can't eat a nevela. They're both allowed. Rashi explains why. So, they both involve malchus. What's the difference between a treifa and a nevela? The difference is tuma. A treifa has a kosher shchita. Meaning that it has a kosher shchita, there's no tumas nevela. A nevela never had a kosher shchita. As a result, there's always going to be tumas nevela. So, Rav Zeira's shaila was, in this case, where Nickvub Bnei Mayaim Ben Siman L'Siman, do you say that at the very least there's a shchita to say that it's not a nevela so that there won't be tumas nevela? Or no? You can't eat it and it's not even tamei. Now, what's the shaila? So, Rashi explains the shaila was The shaila was that maybe the only time you can be mitztaref the tzei simanim is if the tzei simanim were doing the same thing. In this case, the tzei simanim were not doing the same thing. The first siman, it shchita that took place before nikfu bnei mayim, which means that that shchita was able to be metayer the animal midei tomos neveila and also be matiret l'achila. The second siman happened after it already obtained this wound. As a result, it didn't have the ability to be matiret l'achila. All it had the ability to do was to be metayer midei neveila. So, being that the shchita of the tzei simanim are not accomplishing the same thing, so Rav Zeira was clearing a lomdis that maybe that means that you can't even be mitztaref the shchita of the tzei simanim. And the Gemara said after Rav Zeira cleared the shaila, Rav Meiron on the oilam told Rav Zeira, "Lo hayinu dibui oilam fo. Isn't this oilam shaila? What if the oilam klahr haitzi oilam as yadaim being similar siman if an oilam >> [laughter] >> So, who was oilam? No, it's like his hand. No, we'll have to wait for the rain. >> [laughter] >> Exactly. Haitzi oilam as yadaim being similar siman. What happens if the oilam would stick his hand out? Then what? One word. Haitzi oilam as yadaim being similar siman. So, oilam shaila really requires a little bit of background. And that is the [snorts] halacha is that if you shacht an animal, a female animal, and the animal had an oilam, um the halacha is the shchita of the mother works for the oilam as well. Stating that it only works if the oilam never left the mechit. So, it's of its mother. But let's say, before the shchita, the oilam stuck its hand out of the mother's gulf. The halacha is that would cause that the shchita wouldn't work. Now, that's only true with regards to the shchita being matir the oilam l'achila. But despite the fact that the shchita does not work to be matir the oilam l'achila, it would work to be matir midei neveila. So, oilam klahr very similar shaila to Rav Zeira's shaila. Shaila was, "What happens if the oilam stuck its hand out being similar to him? Me and me and do we say mid star if Simmon reached the Simmon chain of the time of the navel. Do we say that at the very least the two Simmon him could be mid tire this over mid navel. Oh why or maybe not. And what would be the Sforno? Not the same Sforno like we said before because the Shita is accomplishing something different with regards to the Simmon region that it is with regard to the Simmon chain. The Simmon region happened before the over stuck its hand outside of the mouth of the mouth. As a result that Shita technically was able to be mighty the over mid navel result to be able to not be the second Simmon happened after it was ready to over a seal. At that point all it had the ability to do was to be mid tire mid navel. So the Shilo was could have been mid star. But either way so they told your Shilo is all for Shilo. What's the bottom line? What do we need from here? I can everybody what was the Shilo? If neck for I am being similar to Simmon it's pushing out of the eater. The Shilo was do you have to listen to the navel or not? This one does the Shilo. Could you be mid star if the two Shitas being the the two Shitas are technically not on the same level. I will be whatever reason is going to be the Shilo. The cash is zero said that when we said is a locker of Shocker of neck for even the then in that case it's this is a regular good Shita. The fact that it became a trefor in between the two Simmon him is not a problem because at that point it only had a half of the heels and in trefor the half of the heels as the of Ravina it's not the Ravina was from his understanding of from the fact that he cleared this question because it could be Ravina the Ravina could be Ravina was only clearing the Shilo Ravina but as it relates to himself he never held that way. The bottom line is Ravina said a very very important locker. Ravina is a locker was neck for a between the Shita of the corner and the Shita of the vessel the locker is where the Ravina and Ravina whether when neck for a raya, because the raya is attached to the corner and once you check the corner, the corner and the raya are command the man who could be cooler than me. And as a result, any negative that it attains can't affect the animal anymore. Or did he love that can mean the raya? He just mentioned the raya as an example, but even if it was the name of I am, which is not attached to the corner, it's attached to the vessel. Over there you would have the same look. It would seem to be a look is rather and rubs there, but the continues with a very, very important related to this luck. Very long this I'm talking about. So I could say to my name the you could be my here for a second is a that is you throw up in the name of I am. They openly have the name of I am. That if you want to invite a over to your house, that he should eat a meal with you, you could serve him even the name of I am of the animal. But you can never invite an over to your home to your house, have dinner with you, and serve him the name of I am. My time, what's the reason? You saw the machine tell you a year is allowed to eat an animal as soon as it has a kosher It's given a street in my area. It's still you know, everything in the animals wanted to be eaten. Over the but a guy that who a guy doesn't need in order for him to be able to eat food. A guy has the seven One of which is which means he's not allowed to eat a live animal. He can't even eat an that came off of a live animal even if later the animal died. It doesn't matter. Any that departed from an animal that was alive is a problem. But in order for that not to be in this all you need is a lot. You just need that the animal should be dead. It has nothing to do with If that's the case, over me tell you the guy needs animal to be dead when the of the animal departs from the animal. How do you give them the name of I am? Are always going to be considered What's the reason? The reason is very simple because the definition of is base similar. The similar are the corner and the vessel, the trachea and the esophagus respectively. The Matias that after the checks the two simanim the animal still alive. It's what we know as mefarcheses. It's a very short period of time, it's a few seconds, but for a few seconds after the shchita of the kon and the vashet, the animal is still alive. Listen to the lamdus of the Gemara. If Reish Lakish said that as soon as you shchecht the koner, the re'ah which is attached to the koner is command the mancha b'dikula damya. It's as if it's not part of the animal anymore. So much so that if it gets a nekiv, it wouldn't make the animal pasul. The same should be true with the b'nei me'ayin after you shchecht the vashet. The b'nei me'ayin should be command the mancha b'dikula damya. It should not be part of the animal anymore. That means every single time a shochet shchecht, he shchecht the koner, then he shchecht the vashet. So anything attached to the koner and the vashet is not part of the animal. The animal is still alive. It's still mefarcheses for three seconds, whatever. But the animal is still alive and at that point those eivarim are not part of the animal. You know what a chelek of an animal that leaves the animal while the animal is alive is called? It's called eiver min hachai. Now for a yid, it's not an issue because although it's true technically from a lamdus, from a halachic standpoint, the eiver min eiver min hachai is so shmach, but at the same time you did a shchita. And by a yid, the shchita is ta'am rachmana. But a [ __ ] has nothing to do with shchita. When you look at a [ __ ] could a [ __ ] eat this and not eat this? Very simple. Is the animal alive or is the animal dead? So if you do a kosher shchita, you do shchita b'shei simanim, it's very nice you have a kosher shchita mechuveret mechuveret, but being that the animal is still alive, a [ __ ] is still not allowed to eat from it. If that's the case, the re'ah and the b'nei me'ayin, all these things that are attached to these eivarim, if they breathe. [laughter] This thing left the animal while the animal was was still alive, l'chora said Rav Achai bar Yaakov a chidush noira. Ein mezamnim over the k'chovim over the b'nei me'ayin, but mezamnim yisrael over the b'nei me'ayin. In other words, it's going to come out that a yid is allowed to eat the b'nei me'ayin of an animal that had a kosher shchita, but a [ __ ] is not allowed to eat the b'nei me'ayin of an animal that had a kosher shchita. Amar Rav Papa. Rav Papa said a little bit of drama. Have you seen the committee of Rav Achai bar Yaakov? I was sitting in shul Rava Papa said this. Who bought you the amulet? And I was dying to ask the following question. Said, how's this possible? Me you comedian do you stroll how can it be that the name of the amulet is motal to a Jew? And it's also to a [ __ ] V'lo amalei. He didn't ask the kasha. The mino. And I assume not time of comma. Because Rava Papa has a he said a time of comma. It says the Gemara is stating that time of the life of Rava Papa the Rava Papa should have asked the question because as we're going to see now we have a brice and brice. So if somebody wants to eat from an animal and he wants to eat eat before the animal actually dies. We'll see in a moment that apparently it was considered healthy to eat the meat that departed from an animal while it was alive. Problem is it's but if somebody wants to do it there's a way to do it. You take off a little bit of from the base just practically it's easier to do it from the base. You have to do it you have to wash it obviously. You have to wait for the animal to die. And the brice says the Jew is allowed to do it and the [ __ ] is allowed to do it. Now Jew is allowed to do it we understand because once he has a even if it's still alive it's but the Jew is allowed to do it but why is the [ __ ] allowed to do it? So if it's fully it should not be okay. The reason is is like Rava Papa wanted to ask because me do you stroll at the end of the day if it's motal to a Jew it has to be motal to a [ __ ] The Gemara says somebody wants to be healthy. You should cut off a from an animal while it's alive. Again isn't that 101? The answer is yes. But at the same time there's a rule. Me do you stroll or also so So Gemara comes out with a machlokes Rav Achai bar Yaakov and other Amora'im. The end of the day, the Gemara seems to bring a braisa that resolved this dispute, and that is that even though in Svara the Gemara wanted to argue that it would make sense that and the reason is based on Rish Lakish's oneness that as soon as you shecht the konah and the veshet, anything attached to the konah and the veshet is commanded mancha b'di kula damya, even though the animal was still alive. It chura d'dam by definition means that it's ever min achai. But, being that it's mutar l'Yisrael because for a Yisrael the definition of whether something is ever min achai or not depends on shchita just like a ben pakua. Yisrael is allowed to eat it but [ __ ] is not allowed to. Why? Because ben pakua had to have the shchita of the mother. The point is b'shchita d'Rachmana so that even though technically for the [ __ ] it should not be okay, but based on me it immediately is allowed. Shali b'di kula damya it would be okay. And that seems to be the maskana of the Gemara stating that the acharonim and it's the Pischei Teshuvah brings the acharonim in Hilchos Shchita in Siman Chaf Zayin, the Tvu'os Shor and others say what would be if a shochet was doing shchita and it was a shchita p'sula. So for example, he messed up. There was shiya, there was chalada, there was drusa. He did a shchita p'sula. He shechted the two simanim. That's how he killed the animal, but the shchita was not a kosher shchita. And being that it's not a kosher shchita, it's going to be an aveila. Say the acharonim, it should come out that in that case you would not be allowed to give the b'nei mayim to a [ __ ] Why not? Because [snorts] really the [ __ ] is not allowed to eat the b'nei mayim. The reason is because it's ever min achai. Because as soon as you shecht the konah and the veshet, we look at the b'nei mayim as if they're commanded mancha b'di kula damya. The problem is the animal is still alive for a few seconds. If that's the case, it's as if you removed the ever from the animal while it was alive. So that even if the animal dies later, it's going to be ever min achai. Now the Gamora said that it is okay. Achai bar Yaakov Said it wasn't okay for a purpose. He wanted to ask the question and we had a Bryson. We had a a missile The Gamora came out that it's that a guy is not allowed to eat it. That guy can eat it. Why could the guy eat it? Because we know that the eats allowed to eat it. Because for a year it's totally You can immediately sell sorry. But that say that the two are not others. That's only going to be true if at the end of the day the eats allowed to eat it. But what happens if the eats can't eat it anyways? The reason the eats can't eat it because there was a shita. Because there was a halacha. Because there was something wrong with the shita. If that's the case, it's dina that it's going to be to a And it's based on this shita Not everybody agrees to be But based on this shita the shita of the of the and other based on that the in It's in It's in He told his He said the He told He said I have a big problem. Because what do the houses do? What do those slaughter houses do? When they have and he said he do a guy. He says I don't understand how you let us sell to guy. It's true and it's But you have a different problem over here. The problem is what happens with an animal that was at the time of the You're going to sell the entire animal to the guy. The guy is going to eat the animal. Every part of it. Even the The problem is the is because of I mean that even not allowed to eat it. You don't have the sorry. You don't have the sorry. He says it's a very big problem. So he came up with an idea. Wrote a whole country to the So and he wanted to ask him from his on his country to It's called He basically worked like a He sell it to a a non-Jewish employee. And that way he had some sort of how this was all going to work. The wrote back to his that number one, I disagree with your I think that your eights is more problems that it's actually solving. And then he spoke to him about in general doing things differently than we have in Masada. And he says what he said all the time, the two of England Ireland is there and we can have that community of the cloud has awesome in our Torah walking always said this but I will be using the manner. So I would rather do things the way we've always done it and figure out why it's right rather than come up with something that that no one's ever heard of. So the question is a very good question though. At the end of the day how you going to explain this? Said the that the is follows. He said the he says he spoke he's had conversations with and he says the of and that are found in are really only and . So it's a fact. It's very hard to find a real says usually it's all based on a and we're very because it's the when it comes to and as a result anytime there's a little bit of a we get rid of it. Now you have to go why? So we already had the a few times but there's something that everybody knows. The reason is because of because I meant this. Every animal now they ask the man on the street why is an animal sister? Right if you have a after the was kosher or not it's a I don't know. What do you do with a if you don't know what to do with a you have to go but maybe you do know what to do. Let's sit down and try to figure out maybe there's a way to be the so the first thing you're going to say is sister. Cool. You're going to tell me sister. What's the sister? Even right? When the animal was alive it was also but the truth is it's not so it's a in the end of the and in many places in so the is that it's a that an animal does not have a of and the reason is because when an animal is alive it's not the only time it would have a sister if you have a piece of meat that's sitting on a plate and it's because it's a sister, that would be a hazaka. But a live animal doesn't have a hazaka sister of a killer cuz it's not a matter of a killer. And it's based on a Suganami Sukkah. So it says that this is what the Torah says, that an animal has a hazaka sister, it's a different hazaka. It's the hazaka of in noise of war. That's what it's known as in Yeshiva. It's hazaka of in noise of war. And hazaka of in noise of war is because in order to eat from an animal you need a shita. And an animal is because it said it didn't have a kosher shita. So the reason every time there's a safek shita, the animal is also by killers not because of the hazaka of a killer. It's because it's because that it didn't have a good shita. It's a gufa. It's what's known as hazaka in noise of war. As the sofer, hazaka in noise of war is a is a hazaka when we're dealing with a kid. Cuz a kid has a mitzvah shita that he needs to accomplish before he's able to eat a piece of meat. But a non-Jew doesn't have shita. For a non-Jew all you need is that the animal should not be alive. If all you need is that the animal should not be alive you have a dead animal in front of you, it doesn't have a hazaka sister as a hazaka of a killer. Right, when you when the animal is alive there was no hazaka. When does the hazaka come into effect? It's a very simple on this. When the animal dies. So if it's a kid, so you have to know was the animal a killer or not? It's because that it wasn't a killer. It wasn't a killer when it was born. So when did the killer go into effect? So it's the hazaka of in noise of war. As a result every time you have a safek you have to go to the cooler. But a guy doesn't need shita. All you need to know with a guy is that it's dead. It's dead. It's a piece of flesh right now. So obviously he's not alive. There's no hazaka in noise of war. As a result when it comes to a guy every time you have a safek you're going to be able to go to the cooler. So said the sofer he said most killers are anyways only safek killers. If that's the case it's true for a kid it's safek killer you have to get rid of it. Why do you have to get rid of it cuz you have a hazaka in noise of war. You're not allowed to eat it. But for the non-Jew it's not a problem. And being that it's not a problem for the non-Jew, for the non-Jew it's going to be okay. So he says at the end of the day all it is is a safek. And being that all it is is safek, you're allowed to give it to the guy. The is no you're allowed to give it to the guy because the guy is allowed to eat safek neveilah. As always after some safer, then the safer continues and he says that the emes is I'll tell you another svara. But ordinarily, but ordinarily, it makes a beautiful dik. He says when the gemara said that you're not allowed to give the ben me'aim to a guy, so what was the lashon of gemara? The lashon of gemara was in mezumanim over the chachamim al ben me'aim. In mezumanim is I'm not allowed to invite any yid to your house and serve him the ben me'aim. Why the lashon of gemara of in mezumanim? Why does it say simple? You're not allowed to give him and the gemara says you're not allowed to be mashia dekoisia. In other words, you're not allowed to hand him a nachas to a guy. So why what's this lashon of in mezumanim? So he says that the pshat is as follows. He says that the the Tosafos in meseches Gittin daf sameach lamed vov amud alef and he says Tosafos in meseches Avodah Zarah daf tes vov amud alef say a very very important yesod in the laws of lifnei iver lo tasim michshol. That is the only time there's a problem with lifnei iver lo tasim michshol is if you know for sure that the person is going to do an aveirah. But any svara that you can ever be toleh l'hachlala when it comes to lifnei iver, you're allowed to be toleh. It's a very big chiddush. Let's pick out one of the mekoros and that is there's a mishnah in meseches Gittin daf sameach lamed vov amud alef. The mishnah says mash'elah ishah l'chaveirta hachashudah al shvi'is nof o v'gevirah rechavah tanur. What happens if there's two ladies, they're neighbors and one of them is chashudah al shvi'is. It happens to be shvi'is. She gets a knock on the door. My mother wants to know if she could borrow a pot. Mother wants to borrow a pot. What you going to use it for? For shvi'is payris? So who are you to say? You're not allowed to lend it to her. You're going to be over lifnei iver lo tasim michshol. Says the mishnah it's okay. And the reason it's okay is mipnei darkei shalom. Meaning it's not for darkei shalom, it would really be a problem. But chams had a chiddush mipnei darkei shalom and even though there's a nes shvi'is going on over here, we allow you to do it. Tosafos asks a kasha that there's a mishnah in meseches shvi'is that says Beis Shammai says you're allowed to sell a parah to a person that's kosher on shabbos. My question is why are you not allowed to? Because you're afraid that the person who's kosher on shabbos is going to use the para to do work in the field. Because because of shabbos you're not allowed to do work in the field on shabbos. But it's all good it's okay. Why is it okay? Because we could assume that maybe the person is using the para to shabbos and to eat not to work in the field. So if that's the case if that's the case you see you're allowed to make assumptions when it comes to lift the Eva specifically with regards to kosher on shabbos. So why in our mission do we have to come out to shabbos? Because shabbos is they always allowed to make assumptions. So why can't we make an assumption over here? That's the question. Why are we doing the obvious answer? You know why in our mission we had to come out to shabbos? Because there were no assumptions to make. There's absolutely positively no assumption to make. And as a result the only that says that you're allowed to give these to a woman that's kosher on shabbos I have to make assumptions. It's because of a new mission on shabbos. But if you to the extent that you can make an assumption it doesn't matter what the assumption is that's you're always have a right to make assumptions. And it doesn't matter how far fetched it may seem. And that's the assumption this is an important in the mission. You know it doesn't speak as if it's important in the mission but it is the assumption. What is essentially saying that when it comes to you're allowed to be kosher. And any that you can come up with maybe this person is not going to be doing you have a right to make such an assumption and assume that the person is not going to do it. He has another assumption but the bottom line is it's the extent that there's any to be that my act of is not really kosher you have a right to do that. Based on that I'm going to tell you this is not allowed to do this on the base. The intestines of an animal is not kosher. It's not meat. But and so on that eats it is not kosher. Human beings do not eat. Incidentally you know what the kervayim of an animal is? I think it's the Israeli kishka. But I'm serious. But either way, I'm there's another gemara. Shabbos kuf mem beis amud beis. Tovi bar avza, a person should roast the bar avza, the shuld b'nei Mayim l'shunra. But take the I forgot the phrase. Take the b'nei Mayim and give it to the shunra. Right? The shunra Don't eat it. It's a two gemaras that people possible mentioned did not eat the b'nei Mayim. So says the Chasam Sofer, what are you worried about? You're worried that the [ __ ] is going to eat the b'nei Mayim. I'm not worried. Cuz there's a gemara in Dor Umdorim amud beis that that people don't eat the b'nei Mayim. And it's a gemara that you're supposed to give it to the shunra. If that's the case, it's another svara that you could be toivel the huckle. He says that's the din in the gemara. The gemara said in the zamening, you're allowed to give it to a [ __ ] You know why you're allowed to give it to a [ __ ] The same way you're allowed to sell a parah to someone that's chashud al shvi'is on shmita. Cuz you don't assume he's going to use it for shmita. What do you mean, he's going to No, you don't have to make the assumption. He You don't assume he's going to eat it. Why don't you assume he's going to eat it? Based on the gemara in Dor Umdorim, based on the gemara half of a fella, right? But as it relates to what's it called, either way, that was the Chasam Sofer two mahalchim to answer this kasha. He told the talmid, we don't need the the kontris, but he said two mahalchim why it's okay. Number one, because roid n'veilah is anyway safek. So it's true for us, we have the chezkas ein avoach, it's going to be a problem. But as it relates to as it relates to the b'nei Noach who doesn't have the chezkas ein avoach, what you're left with is a safek. You're left with a safek. For him, it's it's going to be okay. Number two, being that when it comes to n'veilah, you're allowed to be toivel in any kullah, any svara the huckle you have a right to be toivel. Over here, we can be toivel the huckle. And it's based on that, said the Chasam Sofer, it's going to be okay. Incidentally, at the end of this truvah, there's a second part to this truvah. So the Chasam Sofer told his talmid that I'm going to attach to you a shtikel Torah that I wrote on this inyan, that I wrote when I was younger. And in the new Chasam Sofer's, not the ones printed in 1871, but in the new >> [laughter] >> But in the new Chasam Sofer's, so on the bottom, they bring a an extended version of what the Chasam Sofer told his talmid when he attached this. He writes like this, the attic as I said to be may be young again the amazing this is the Sofer is writing it's a lot of cotton or like by the maybe you'll find something that will rate. I will miss my but he says don't rely on because I wrote when I was younger she says I don't want you to rely on this I just thought it was interesting because the belt says over that the match [ __ ] used to say about the Sofer that if you look at the that he wrote when he was younger and you look at the that he wrote when he was older that come out it's impossible to know which one he wrote when he was which is very very real because I'm saying for wrote over a 40-50 year period and he said it's like it's impossible to differentiate usually you would think with time style which like they would be natural things that would impact the right but the Sofer said his were literally the same from the beginning to the end and he said I think metaphorically he said that because the of the Sofer were Islam pun intended Messina and he said it was written and we know that so there was no wear and tear you didn't have the natural causes and effects that would affect the regular person and he said the that when he was young and old it's all the same here the Sofer himself writes to his talmid says I don't want you to rely on this that I'm writing in my because I wrote when I was younger but but either way that concludes the first order let's finish the and then we have some time we'll speak out the second order either way so the now is going to turn its attention really for the next three and it's going to discuss the laws of the just a little bit of background so we're all familiar with the basic concept of today we don't really live with the laws of the to but there's not a lot of that that we live with today on a kind of a mess but but very very very but But upon a time tuma of the Torah, took up a very, very important part of the daily life of a yet. And we know that there are different sources of tuma. A mace is a source of tuma. You have the shmona shratzim. We're learning in Zach's school and which deals a lot about the nevala. The nevala of the behema, the nevala of the noif, different types of tuma. You have the zav, you have the zava, you have the nida, you have the metzora. Most things that are tameh are known in tuma of the Torah terminology as an av tuma. Av in the sense that it's a source of tuma. A mace is an av. A mace of tuma can not be discussed in tumas mace. Most sources of tuma is called an av tuma. If an av tuma is metameh, so it comes into contact with something, that thing that it came into contact with, now becomes tuma, right? You touch someone that's tuma, you become tuma. It's like like it's it's viral. That's tuma spreads. So if someone touches something that's tuma, it too becomes tuma. Stating that it loses a certain level qualitatively of the tuma that it now has. So if something became tuma because it came into contact with something else that's tuma, so from a big picture, both things are tuma. But from an echos perspective, they're not tuma on the same level. There's an echos darga. Although the thing is tuma, but it's on a a lesser extent. It's what's known as a rishon letuma. If a rishon letuma touches something else, that thing will be tuma, but it too is going to be on a lower madregah. It's going to be a sheni letuma. If a sheni letuma touches something, that thing will be tuma, it's a shlishi letuma. If a shlishi letuma touches something, that too will become tuma. It's what's known as a revi'i letuma. Now just a few very important halachas. Number one, chulin can never become a shlishi letuma. That means the highest level of tuma, or the lowest level of tuma, that chulin can ever attain is a sheni letuma. So a rishon touches chulin the given certain parameters chulin could become a sheni letumah. But if a sheni letumah of chulin let's say will now touch another piece of chulin, that thing will not become tamei. It stops there. Chulin can never become a shlishi letumah. Terumah could become a shlishi letumah. Terumah however can't become a revi'i letumah. So you can never have a revi'i letumah that's going to be terumah. Kodshim could become even a revi'i letumah. So you have rishon, sheni, shlishi, revi'i. The highest level of tumah that chulin can have is sheni. You will never have chulin that's a shlishi letumah. A chulin that's a sheni or terumah that's a sheni or kodshim that's a sheni can make terumah or kodshim into a shlishi. It can't make chulin into a shlishi. Terumah is the highest level of of shlishi. A shlishi could not make chulin or terumah into a revi'i. It could however make kodshim into a revi'i. I hope that made sense. Either way, let's look at the mishna. "A shocheit beheima If somebody shocheits a beheima or a chaya or an oif, these things are all important. Filaiyotzei mehemedam." He did a very clean job. No blood came out of the animal. The halacha is kasher. The shechita is kasher. Seems like there would have been a hava mina that if no dam came out of the animal, maybe that should be a reason in and of itself that the shechita should be pasul. Says the mishna, no. It's going to be kasher. Additionally, a very big chiddush. "V'en acholin b'yad tamei masuv." You're going to be allowed to eat the meat of this animal. You could take the meat out and you could eat it even if your hands are tamei. And the reason is officially "huchshar l'kabel tumah." Because we know that in order for food to become tamei, it first has to be "huchshar l'kabel tumah." Which means it has to become wet with some mashke. If it doesn't become wet, you could touch it with hands that are tamei from today till tomorrow, it in and of itself won't be tamei. Even if a sheretz falls on it, it won't be tamei. So we're discussing someone that's a shocheit that's shocheiting and his hands are tamei. The question is could he take a piece of meat out now and could he eat it? So the halacha is that usually no. Because usually the basar is automatically going to become "huchshar l'kabel tumah." Because the the bloody situation the blood that came out of the animal is going to cause the the blood to become so if you had you're not going to be but in the event that you were able to the so not only is it but you have a fringe benefit and that is the reason is the we're going to see in a few days time to him down from the smash mouth that the only reason it's okay to eat this bottle with tummy hands is because I said the bottle never became so that would have come in then you wouldn't be allowed to why not very simple because the dam is not sure the bottle of tomorrow and as a result your hands which are going to be the time of the hands so therefore if you had your if you had hands your hands are going to be the time of the freaking virus 101 your time I said anytime we're discussing hands that are meaning hands in contrast to the rest of the body the hands are by definition a we'll see the going to have a where it's possible to have your that are really but for now the assumes which is for sure the that your always if that's the case the hands that are can anyways not make this tummy you know why because because we said earlier can never become a so we're going to see but can never be a if that's the case we're dealing with over here right so if that's the case what's the issue anyways the with hands that are you worry that he shouldn't be able to eat the meat because his hands that are going to be the time of the of the animal no they're not because the of the animal is we're dealing with so we're dealing with so if with your dying that are shady anyways can't be metameh because shady is not always chulin. Says the Gemara, maybe we're talking about chulin. How do you know we're talking about chulin? Says the Gemara, maybe we're talking about kashin. Even though we're learning in meseches chulin, but no, no, maybe we're dealing with kashin. And the Gemara's going to give four reasons. Oh, gishmak. How do we know that we're learning chulin now and we're not learning kashin? Number one, the chani chaya. The mishna says that a shochet beheima chaya v'eifes is kashin chaya d'kashin yeka. No such thing as chaya d'kashin. Visu, eba kashin kilo yatzu midam d'kashin. Is it possible for the mishna to make a statement and say that you shachted kashin, you're shachting an oif where there was no dam. No worries, it's kosher. What do you mean? Who asked me the dam mutzarich? The whole tachlis of a korban oif or kashin, what's the iker d'srika? Iker is the dam, the kabala, the nida halacha, nida srika. So, obviously it can't be kosher without dam. Visu, a third raya, eba kashin get midam machshir. By kashin, dam kashin is not machshir. It's a special chidush. There's a gezeiras kasuv even though mashkin are machshir oif kol d'kibel tuma, but dam kashin is not. It's learned there from Rav Chila bar Rav Yitzchak. And dam kashin sh'einam machshir sh'einam oif arichus b'chenu kamaim. And we learn from there dam sh'einam nishpach kamaim machshir. Dam that you let us pour on the floor, that has an ability to be machshir l'kibel tuma. Sh'einam nishpach kamaim, but dam that's not nishpach kamaim ainam machshir. Visu, and a fourth kasha, eba kashin if we're dealing with kashin, kilo yatzu midam v'einam kashri. Listen to the mishna d'kodesh. And the fourth question, we're dealing with kashin, you don't even need it to be muchshir l'kibel tuma. D'kainam d'lo because we know this rule, chibas kodesh machshir dam. Kashin wakes up in the morning muchshir l'kibel tuma. Kashin doesn't need anything to be machshir it l'kibel tuma. And if that's the case, like the Gemara, four rayas from the mishna that the mishna is dealing not with shchitas kashin but with shchitas chulin. Number one, the mishna mentions a chaya. There's no shchitas chaya in kashin. Number two, the mishna says that it could be kosher even if there's no dam. Kashin, all you need is the dam. Dam is the one thing that's machshir. Number three, the mishna says that the dam would be machshir. Dam kashin is not machshir. And number four, the mishna says you need dam to be machshir it. Kashin doesn't need anything to be machshir the carbon tomorrow. He was Kodesh is master you have to say that Mishnah is talking about talking about a beheima that was once chulin she bought it with ma'aser sheini money. You with ma'aser sheini money. So somebody had ma'aser sheini he was paid then now he has money goes up to Yerushalayim and he takes his ma'aser sheini money and he buys a beheima. This is the beheima that the person is shechting right now. Call HaTom be as many as anything that requires t'fillah taharah mid'Rabbanan metamei'ah Kodesh it is a sheini l'tumah. And being that it's a sheini l'tumah it's metamei'ah Kodesh. What does that mean? Metamei'ah when you dealing with tumah d'Oraisa it means it makes Kodesh tamei in a way that it could be metamei'ah. That's what metamei'ah means. Because the Kodesh becomes a shlishi and it could make more Kodesh or but it's only paisul tumah because although it could be metamei'ah tumah but it can't make the tumah tamei that it can't metamei'ah muchum. Now the truth is it's misleading because the tumah could be metamei'ah Kodesh. It's paisul as a tumah in the tumah sense. But the bottom line is something that's a sheini l'tumah does not have an ability to be metamei'ah chulin. It doesn't have an ability to metamei'ah ma'aser sheini. Divrei Rabbi Meir. The Chachamim say ma'aser the Chachamim say no that when it comes to ma'aser it's going to be assur. Which the Gemara assumes now means it could be metamei'ah ma'aser sheini. What's the bottom line? What do you see from me? You see my the main the Chachamim where the where the a sheini l'tumah can be metamei'ah ma'aser sheini or not. Says the Gemara my skin on where this beheima was ma'aser sheini. How do you have a beheima that's ma'aser sheini? Beheima doesn't grow from the ground. It's because you bought the beheima with ma'aser sheini money. So all the transfer of kedushah ended up landing on this beheima. So you have a beheima now that's ma'aser sheini and this is the beheima that you're shechting. So according to the Chachamim that say that a sheini l'tumah could make ma'aser sheini a shlishi l'tumah. Chachamim my skin on where it was technically chulin it was a beheima it was a chaya but at the same time it's not ordinary it's my suggestion and we're going according to the that hold that can be would like who said that by definition is is cool and my me my head you know that my mayor we're assuming that this is remain the regarding the last words what were the words what cool and my what what it means is could it be or could it not be but she said I don't think that's possible in the mission that's not what it means rather I think you want to know what different question the question if somebody's told me he's a shame is he allowed to eat or not I've heard the master but as it relates to touching master that or eating cool like and in our mission you see there's an issue with touching it but >> [snorts] >> how do you know it said the question is it doesn't say it says it sounds like could you touch it could you even feed it to somebody else and still you see in our mission it's going to be an issue in other words but she said I don't think that that is remain the cuz our mission is discussing touching the animal with hands that are touching it to eat it for yourself or touching it to feed it to somebody else not can I eat it but can it be eaten was it doing can I feed it to somebody can I give it to somebody else that seems to be the question maybe the is remain the regarding the is not whether or not I can touch it maybe everybody agrees I can touch it maybe the is whether or not I'm allowed to eat it and says the lotion of the mission if you look back at it is very much for that way what the mission to say be a different with the time When you think of Tom of a tire, you're not talking in terms of motor also. You talk about it. If I touched it, it would become Tommy. But I'm not letting it be my time of cooling. And that motor also sounds like can I eat it? Is there a But the question over there is is with regards to being allowed to eat it or not. And there there's a sheet of that says that a shiny little Thomas not allowed to eat my sister shiny. But no one ever said that if a shiny little Thomas touches my sister shiny, that it's necessarily going to become Tommy or my rap. And what am I going to pop up and rap up and say you're right? That's not what I'm talking about. Again, we have a mission of that says that somebody shafting an animal. He shafts it with hands that are Tommy. If Tom came out, then the boss of it becomes motion of Tommy. You can't eat it with hands that are Tommy. If Tom didn't come out, then you can eat it. So obviously there's a concern over that this shafting maybe without. The mission of cash is that we assume we're discussing cooling. And if we're discussing cooling, then a shiny is anyways not also shiny when it comes to cooling. So what's the whole Tommy shiny over here? This person has hands that are Tommy. Tommy shiny is also Tommy. So what's the issue? So the mission of says no one had any more to talk about cooling. What about four eyes? So the first thing I said the mission of gave was that maybe we don't mean regular cooling. Maybe we're talking about is is my sister shiny. But that the mission of knocked that. The mission of said that I'm too lazy to ask you now. You're right. We're dealing with cooling. And we're dealing with a person's hands that are Tommy. And it's true ordinarily a person's hands that are Tommy are a shiny little Tommy. And a shiny is not also shiny when it comes to cooling. But there is a way you can have hands that are Tommy and it's a mission of Tommy. From China to Aussie and it's going to be a mission of Tommy and it's going to be a mission of Tommy. It's never possible to have hands that are going to be a mission of Tommy. China to Aussie and a mission of Tommy and a mission of Tommy. No, it's possible to have hands that are going to be a mission of Tommy for cooling and a shiny little Tommy. And they're going to be a shiny little Tommy. Wait a minute. That doesn't make sense. Three ways for cooling and the Tommy way? How could it be more common for cooling than it is for Tommy? How can I come at three ways after cooling? It's hands could sometimes be viewed as a mission of the tumor even for colon. Schliemann actually in the colon light. But the bottom line is is that we're going according to who said in the bracha that you can have your dying that are originally our mission is talking about how come in my skin and with the hands were originally with that it's originally be also colon. Schliemann says when we are dying where do we have a car for this? What is the case? What's the team so we have your dying that's originally Thomas time went to the price and the other time to go. We know that if somebody walks into a house that's a base of that has a [ __ ] he becomes Tommy. But maybe they rise here only become Tommy if your entire golf enters the house. But if only part of you enters the house it's really a massive beer mixer >> [laughter] >> or beer mixer lotion will be but the lucky is that rice is definitely not Tommy. So this price is discussing where somebody entered base of with his hands. So the lucky is your killer says his hands become originally come the other hands become the other hands. The cool guy says everybody holds me and it's not really considered that he went in. [ __ ] you and it's only because the zero we want your hands to become Tommy if they enter base of the zero what happens if your entire body enters. My other what's the is we are keeping said that now that went and I like and said that the hands should be Tommy. Together of the was let's view the hands as if it's the entire golf and just like if the entire golf would enter the golf would become originally so too if the hands go in the hands are also going to be originally my server and the other guy hold your dying should have wanted the to become Tommy zero if your entire golf goes in. But what kind of Tommy did they get it? They gave it the Tommy that all your dying has and all your dying is so this one also is the bottom line is you want to know where it's possible to have your dying that are going to be Tommy and they're going to be originally Tommy I just found it. It's possible if a person stuck his hands into a base of a nuga, be a bit mixed up says that the gather of the tuma is the tuma de rasa. If a person would go with his entire into the base of a nuga, he would be a reason of tuma. If your hands go in, it's going to be a reason of tuma as well. Bottom line is, we had a cash show in the mishnah, you worried about tuma chulin. The chulin you dying is always a shame tuma sheni is shlishi of chulin. Halacha l'maaseh, where person stuck his hands into a base of a nuga, be a bit mixed up like R' Akiva, what kind of tuma doesn't get like the tuma de rasa gets a reason of tuma. Thus, it could be chulin sheni, that's the teretz. So, who is the tanna of the mishnah? R' Shimon ben Elazar. Says the Gemara, if you're holding cheshbon, why does the tanna of the mishnah have to be R' Shimon ben Elazar? Go and say more pashut, go look at R' Akiva. Why let's just make R' Akiva dami yada [snorts] of chulin sheni. I mean, at the end of the day, R' Shimon ben Elazar had to come on to R' Akiva. There's no R' Shimon ben Elazar without R' Akiva. R' Akiva essentially said the same thing R' Shimon ben Elazar said. He said that there's it's possible to have dam that are a reason of tuma. So, why are we saying the mishnah is R' Shimon ben Elazar and he's going like R' Akiva? Let the mishnah be R' Akiva. No, no. So, what Why is it better if the mishnah is R' Akiva than R' Shimon ben Elazar? Says Rashi, cuz everybody knows R' Akiva in shas is called R' Akiva stimta. And one of the reasons he's called R' Akiva stimta is because stam mishnah is R' Meir and R' Akiva. It all traces stam mishnah, the source to our mishnahs that we have, the the source of Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi, all was mitayrasu of R' Akiva. Stam mishnah is R' Akiva. So, if you have it R' Akiva, makes more much more sense to say that we're going with R' Akiva instead of saying that it's going according to R' Shimon ben Elazar. So, the Gemara says, I'll tell you why we didn't go with R' Akiva. Cuz if R' Akiva, they would have been mocking to say dilma key kama R' Akiva had in mind with truma of a kodesh and the chamiri. True, R' Akiva said there's a concept of dam getting a reason of tuma, but maybe only with regards to truma and kodesh. Aval chulin sheni is haken. Meaning, if chulin [snorts] if hands that entered a base of a nuga would touch truma, it would make the truma a sheni, which would allow that truma to make more truma slushy, which would allow now to make hot truma review. But it's only in the context of truma and hot truma that we look at the hands as a resha. Maybe as it relates to chulin, not. Avu chulin sh'eina avyan. But from Shimon Alazar, you see not that way. He holds that it's possible to have your dying trilos. What was Shimon Alazar's lashon? Reb Shimon Alazar omer Reb Shimon Mayer, your dying trilos l'chulin. He said before that it works for chulin. Reb Shimon Alazar works in our mishna. Rebbi Akiva would not soar. Because duma k'chomer Rebbi Akiva, hani mili b'truma d'kodesh, but as it relates to chulin, maybe not. But the Gemara says, I think the tanna of the mishna could still be Rebbi Akiva. You know why? Because of a whole 'nother Rebbi Akiva. V'lo havin amishniyos. Dos amili Rebbi Akiva amishniyos dos sh'eina b'chulin. The whole question was predicated on a fact that we know that a shamen is not osur sh'eina d'chulin. It just so happens not everybody agrees with that fact. There's one tanna who doesn't hold that way. You know that tanna is? It's none other than Rebbi Akiva. That's how we learned in the mishna. And this is the mishna that's brought down in maseches sotah. Bayom d'rash Rebbi Akiva. Which day? The day that Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya became nasi in the Sanhedrin. Maseches Sotah perek gimmel amud aleph. Brochos daf chof ches daf yud. So bayom d'rash Rebbi Akiva, kli cheres any kli cheres was the pasuk. Asher yipol mayhem el tochay. Kol asher b'socho yitma. V'oisos zich ba'al. So kli cheres has a very special ability to be metama. The What's the halacha? That anything that falls into the circumference, even if it's only in the air of the kli cheres, if there's a sheretz for example in the kli cheres, the sheretz is metama what's inside. Additionally, if you have something sitting in the kli cheres, and now a sheretz falls into the air of the kli cheres, it could be metama as well. The Gemara discussed this pasuk in very great detail in Zevachim daf gimmel. Either way, so says the Gemara Rebbi Akiva darshen in this pasuk, "It's kol kli cheres asher yipol mayhem el tochay, kol asher b'socho yitma." And Rebbi Akiva was bothered grammar. It shouldn't have said kol asher b'socho yitma, it should have said kol asher b'socho tamei. Said Rebbi A tremendous limit, you know, we learn from here that if a piece of bread falls into a with his head that that not only is it but give me a ton. What could it be everything? It could even be cooling. In other words, even though the is a lot of fun. The fell into the with it was a head. So the became from the head. Right? The is the it was the key guy. The key guy is a shiny. And tell me but you know. You see that the key [laughter] guy could be every fighter everything even cooling. So the key guy by the door the key guy but that is a shiny shiny again. So what's what's the whole issue over here? Why don't we just say the time of the mission or is a key guy? It's true. a mission that's shiny shiny shiny. But the key guy shiny shiny could be shiny shiny. Even though it's true the key guy that is a shiny shiny shiny. That's only with regards to the right side. Maybe as it relates to not our mission is discussing your the sewer voice with the hands with Tommy. Stop your dying is only a a shiny with the bottom. Maybe by a shiny with the bottom. You don't have this a lot of fun. So just before we end in the spirit of a hashtag Sunday style bath. Just to conclude today's bath. May ain't the first part of the bath with a catcher from the just the catcher. Punch line is the catcher. The preface is this question with the following outcome. So he's giving [laughter] to the catcher. But usually a catcher is a problem. You don't want a catcher. But this catcher is the punch line. So either way so what's the catcher? It's a llama base. At at the end after he He through the llama with the it's oist base page kuf ayin ches in the numen we had a mishnah in mesecta schulin daf yud tes cheshbon. We had a mishnah mesecta schulin daf yud dalet amud aleph. The mishnah said shechita b'shabbos af al pi she mischayev nafsho she doesn't care. Somebody shechts on shabbos even b'meizid. Even though he's chayav misah the halacha is his shechita is going to be kosher. Toisfos asks a kasha that why is his shechita kosher? Why isn't he a mumcheh l'challel shabbos? And a mumcheh l'challel shabbos has the din of a [ __ ] So Toisfos says that the only time a mumcheh l'challel shabbos has the din of a [ __ ] is if he's mumcheh l'challel shabbos b'feirushia. Maybe it's talking about where he didn't do it b'feirushia. Toisfos says another tes that maybe he only becomes a mumcheh after the first shechita. But for the first shechita itself not. So it still doesn't suit in siman nun beis. We spoke out this raid when we learned the gemara in daf yud dalet amud aleph. But the truth is there's another very very important kasha that we didn't speak out on the time. And that is the Marit kasha. Marit asks a kasha that we know there's machlokes of Abaye and Rava in the beginning of mesectas tmurah. Kol milta d'avida rachmana l'eisavide he ovid mahani or he ovid lo mahani. Abaye says that if a person does something that the Torah said he's not supposed to do, it doesn't have any impact on the halois. The effect goes into effect regardless. Rava says no. Kol milta d'avida rachmana l'eisavide the halacha is he ovid lo mahani. If you do something that the Torah told you not to do, the halacha is that if you do it lo mahani. So afraid of Marit kasha shechita b'shabbos he violated one of the llama test malachis. If you violated one of the llama test malachis b'cheira he was over a milta d'avida rachmana l'eisavide. We pasken like Rava. This is not one of the Yalkut Gans. We pasken kol milta d'avida rachmana l'eisavide he ovid lo mahani. If that's the case why is shechita kosher? Why don't you say kol milta d'avida rachmana l'eisavide he ovid lo mahani. A gvaldig kasha. Said the Marit a very important insight. The only time you say kol milta d'avida rachmana l'eisavide he ovid lo mahani that's only if by saying lo mahani you're going to accomplish something. The purpose of saying lo mahani is is if the issur is contingent on the chalice, so then you'll say, oh, the chalice never went into effect anyways, so it comes out you didn't do the issur. So the fact being the issur, there's a cloud of but if ben the will have been done and you're not accomplishing anything by saying the issur he what's the issur of an animal whether the is kosher or the is also the animal's dead. Regardless you did the issur of an animal, which means that saying the is not going to anything as far as the the issur goes. If that's the case, you don't have the cloud but says the you're going to tell me it's not not possible. Why? Cuz everybody knows that the issur of an animal is possible. The only time you for doing the issur of an animal is if you when you're doing the issur of an animal. But if you're doing the issur of an animal, you're the time of the very if the is kosher so then you were when you did the issur of an animal. But if the is possible you're going to be left with an animal. If you're going to be left with an animal, you're the time of the so let's say the animal, so that you'll have now if you're the animal, you just the animal cuz the animal is possible. But says the it's the time because although it's true that a is only allowed to eat from an animal if it has a kosher but a guy is not allowed to eat from a live animal, but he's allowed to eat from a dead animal a few of them are if he even if didn't have a kosher if that's the case even a of a that's an animal is still a of an animal cuz it's the animal for the cuz the animal previously was not allowed to eat it because it was now it's not an animal so says the half of a fellow that's why there's no you're right technically the animal you should say but the fact of the matter is you say that the only time you say is if you're going to accomplish something by saying it but if the is going to be done regardless, it's not then there's no reason to say here the and whether the was kosher the wasn't kosher you killed the animal. I will tell me no because if the is kosher you are if the is kosher you are it's not true because even if the is kosher you are still you are till now it was now it's not anymore. Either way says the that for some and who vote the words that come upon these are the words of the marriage stating that says the I heard a kosher this law and with one one little bit of leap of faith that you have to take not such a but this is one assumption that you have to make says the that's possible to me that what would be if a person did an and by saying we can't we can't correct the entire but we can correct a little bit of the would that be enough to say says the I believe yes meaning as long as we can a little bit of the I think that would be enough for us to say that because we is said anytime we can accomplish something and even if I can't accomplish saving the entire but if I can save part of the I think that would be enough if that's the case that's based on today's cool I'm going to ask you a bummer question that is [snorts] we know the of is a in the discusses a case where there was a and the doctor said that we need to give this person grapes the problem is there were no grapes there were [snorts] two there was a tree there were two branches this needed two grapes one branch has two grapes the other branch has three grapes so what's the you cut the branch that has two grapes why because here you cutting less grapes now you can to me what's the difference at end of the day, it's one my six zero. It's true, it's only one my six zero, but there's a concept of re distribution of euro that you want to be married in the sheer as much as possible. Meaning, if two people are over the same Shabbos, but one person had a bigger sheer than the other, the one that had a bigger sheer did more of an avera. There was more aichus, speaking qualitatively, Shabbos. That's what we're trying to hold Shabbos but there's a the run sheet is that re distribution of euro is the highest. Let's talk about a case. What would be if there's a case where it's Shabbos and the doctor said we have to for this person. There's no one available. But we have to for this person and there's two animals. There's a big gross animal and then there's a there's a smaller animal. Says the it's possible that the run with the highest you'd be obligated to the smaller animal because it's euro. Why go ahead and the bigger animal where you're being married in the sheer, it's better to go ahead and the smaller animal. If that's the case, in today's time we saw an unbelievable idea. We saw that the is that every single time you an animal, there's a question could a eat from the or could the not eat from the What's the The is because as soon as you sever the and the anything attached to the man as if they're not in the body of the animal anymore. The problem is the animal is still alive. The animal is still In other words, it's technically not alive. It's not an issue as long as it's It could be alive and well your life without a because with that despite the fact that it's because it had a in the mother because there was a but a guy it's not going to be staying in that said it's not the way. He heard he wanted to ask the He didn't ask him but it turned out he was right. Why? Because immediately meaning even though in theory the benayim of an animal was always having still a [ __ ] is allowed to eat the benayim. If a [ __ ] is allowed to eat the benayim, a [ __ ] is allowed to eat the benayim. Stating that the Torah and the Talmud and the pre-Torah as brought down in the same as the whole Torah from the by the way on this day of 7 years where we discuss with the and the and they discuss that that's only going to be true if it's the a shuta cuz then it's mutar to the benayim and has to be mutar to the [ __ ] because of the committee. But what happens if the animal isn't available? Over there you're not going to have this Over there you're not going to have the committee. If that's the case, it's going to be assur. If that's the case, it's going to be assur for the [ __ ] to eat it. That's the case says the A What's the shita of the Why is it say cuz I can't accomplish anything. Why? Because at the end of the day, even if you tell me the not kosher, you still kill the animal and you will still the animal. Why? Because if it's rated, he says one second, I'll tell you where we know. If it's That means a [ __ ] is allowed to eat from it. If a [ __ ] is allowed to eat from it, then a [ __ ] can eat from it from the entire animal even from the benayim. If the is possible, then it's going to come out that it's unavailable. If it's unavailable, it's true you were for the [ __ ] but there's one part of the animal you were not that you were that's the benayim. Cuz the benayim is even The only reason the [ __ ] is allowed to eat it is cuz the [ __ ] is allowed to eat it. But for that you need a shita. If the shita is possible, then it's going to be even then the [ __ ] won't be able to eat it. So it comes out by saying that the shita is possible, what you're needing is you're the the sheer of how much nicer tickle of the you did. If the shita is kosher, you the entire animal. That means in the sheer of the the it's the entire animal. But if you're going to tell me that it's unavailable, so it's true there was the Shama it's true you were second but there's one of the animal you want to be second that came with you on my calco. So let's say you open the Mahani not to save the entire you can't save it but you could save part of the you could save the river and why shouldn't that be enough to say Shketa so this is a kasha that really spans so many of the shots it begins the kasha of the kishka in the flood to heal the barrack he concludes the kasha with the kishka in the flood in any parish in accident anti-climatic so I think we'll leave it at that.