Chulin 37

Today's daf is chulin daf lamed zayin. And we are at the mishnah, three lines from the top of daf lamed zayin amud aleph. Today's daf is being learned as a zechus refuah sheleimah for Chava Miriam bas Malkah Freda and Shloimah ben Chayalah. So, today's daf is a return to the regular program, which is the halachois of shechitas chulin. Specifically, the topic of today's daf and tomorrow's daf is going to be the very unique yet critical law of hashochetes hamisukenus. This is a halacha that's discussed in Yoreh De'ah siman yud zayin and it's something that if you're a shochet is a very very important area of halacha. So, what exactly is a misukenus? An animal that is very very sick. It's so sick, it's literally ot ot. It's holding by dying. Could you shecht an animal like that? Or could you not shecht an animal like that? Now, we know that once that animal dies, it's an aveilah, you can't eat it. We also know that there's a concept of a treifah. A treifah is an animal that has one of 18 wounds where >> [snorts] >> we assume that because of this wound that it has or because of this illness that it has, it will not be able to live beyond a certain period of time. That too, the Torah says very very clearly it's a lo saseh and not allowed to eat. A misukenus is not an aveilah, it's still alive. A misukenus is not a treifah, it doesn't have one of these simanim, but at the same time, it's gravely ill. And whether or not one can shecht a misukenus is a discussion. Now, spoiler alert, the halacha is you're allowed to shecht a misukenus. Not only are you allowed to shackle Mr. Kenneth, you're allowed to shackle Mr. Kenneth with stating that you have to be very, very careful that when you shackle Mr. Kenneth, the animal was alive throughout the entire course of the shrita. Because if it died at some point during the shrita, and you could see why an animal that's a Mr. Kenneth maybe would die, if it died in that situation, not the shrita, or that is not the shrita, then it's going to be a navela, and obviously it's not something that you'd be able to eat. So, again, a shackle Mr. Kenneth at some is not a problem. A navela is a problem at some. A treif is a problem at some. A Mr. Kenneth is not a problem at some. Stating that a Mr. Kenneth is a sugia because of the matias that it's that it's almost dying, and therefore there's a good chance that the shrita is going to expedite the process, and it may not survive through the end shrita. And if it doesn't survive through the end of the shrita, you can have yourself an issue. Hence, there's a sugia regarding a a shackle Mr. Kenneth. Now, we just again gave away the fact that a shackle Mr. Kenneth is okay. In fact, you're even allowed to shackle it with a treif as long as you know for sure that it survived the shrita, or at least it's not supposed to survive the shrita, but it survived until the end of the shrita. But again, it's taking for granted that we know the end of the story. Fact, we're going to have a whole block of mara now, which is going to focus primarily on make a taste of Mr. Kenneth is what the if an avila is also in a treif is also maybe a Mr. Kenneth is also as well. Either way, a gishmaka, little bit of a windy with a nice agada to finish daf tucked away over here in Mr. Kenneth in the world of daf and that have an asterisk, this is definitely one of them. So, Mr. A shackle Mr. Kenneth if somebody shackle Mr. Kenneth and said I should the be out >> If you don't see any movement during the course of the shrita, you have to assume that the animal died. It didn't survive the shrita and as a result it's going to be an available. What is considered movement? So if it jerks its hand and its foot both, then it's going to be a sign that it was alive. Otherwise not. Now, when does this have to happen? The two says by the It has to happen at the end of the shrita. Cuz if it happens in the beginning of the shrita, the middle of the shrita, maybe it died after that before the end of the shrita. So if at the conclusion of the shrita it was the end of the regular, that means it survived the shrita and in that case it's going to be okay. Otherwise it's that it did not survive. says He says that you don't need that it should be but it's enough if it coughs up blood. So if the animal coughs up blood apparently if you're a farmer you would understand exactly what this means or if you're a shochet. But either way, if it's that would be okay. If somebody did a shrita at night meaning he an animal that was a at night and because it was night time he couldn't really see and he wasn't able to tell whether it was whether it did what it was supposed to do. So if he wakes up in the morning and he sees that the walls of the shrita are all bloody it's going to be kosher. Cuz that's a sign that it coughed up blood. It's because that is enough and as long as there's a sign that it was a then it's going to be fine. They say or or regular. As long as it's its hand or its foot and said it doesn't have to be both but rather other other either one is going to be okay or as long as it weighs its tail that itself is going to be fine. So again, what's the first part of the mission is fine as long as you know that it survived up until the end of the how do you know if it survived there are different what's a Simmon? It's a lucky stand up I shouldn't go and say that it's hand and it's foot probably as we saw also had we as die it's enough if it goes up blood the same say or or if it even weighs its tail that's going to be okay says the mission these are the two both for a and for a with one exception and that is the way of the that was the other the matter of the if it didn't bring it back so it wasn't it stuck its hand out but it didn't bring its hand back so that's going to be that's not a sign of life to the country that's actually a sign of death and she says that these right when they're would leave it would somehow have its hand jerk out in one direction so the definition of as it relates to is it has to be that's in contrast to where if it's that in of itself would be you see for you don't need for it to go both ways right you don't have to do but for where it's then you do because the fact that it would be it's actually more of a sign that it was it's muscle than it is that it was still alive says the mission one last when is all this true that what that an animal has to be at according to die and according to or or I should >> This is all true. If however this animal was this was a gazinta ox. Even if it doesn't have any going to be fine. The only time this is true is if you know the animal was a there's no that a has to look out at the time of the and to make sure that it's doing one of these there's no such thing. It's if you with the animal in the words of the mission is it's then and only then that this is going to be true. So from the mission it's clear that you're allowed to right and it's a question. Stating that you just have to make sure that you check off all the boxes and that it survived the what's the definition of surviving the big is known. In the mission places speaks out that [snorts] the mission starts and and if that's the case it would sound a little bit like this whole of a mission is is it but it's not true I feel it's sorry. That really you're allowed to even so why then does it say says this I'll tell you why because in the event that it's not you have in the event it's not etc. etc. Then it's going to be possible so the only reason we're saying because there's a component of a mission and that is if it doesn't show a sign of life then it's not just it's not okay even it's manage to have been in a way that you're not going to be able to eat it but to the extent that you were able to do it right you're allowed to and that's why and that's why this is a mission is a is because even though it says in the the whole is in the event that it didn't play out exactly the way it was supposed to play out. Says the how do you know how do you know that a is like even how do you know that as long as it shows a sign of life you're allowed to says the how do you know it's or you might think that it's zero why would you assume it's I'll tell you why I would assume that it's because the says this is one of the many in the end of talks about the food you're allowed to eat food you're not allowed to eat and the following is the that you're allowed to eat and we learn from there not just like a but also life an animal that's going to live that's not a you're allowed to live which is higher but an animal that doesn't have the ability to live because again it's you're not allowed to eat and being that is not able to live so that's why I would think it's as the begins it's analysis of the a little counter intuitively that is we might might why would you think it's why would you think it's because it because it says in the it says and based on that you would think that an animal that can't live you actually are not allowed to eat I can tomorrow wants to know how is it that you know that a is something that's truth is speaks out that this that we should learn from that maybe is based on the you should know that that is a real it stands it's says that that is motar. So it's a higher to is a real drasha, but it's discussing the unique class of treifa. So this hava mina that I would have thought the missoukenis is also because it says it's not such a wild hava mina because even the mascona is a real drasha. Albeit it's negaya treifa. It's not negaya a missoukenis. It's cashes treifa can't live a missoukenis can't live. So maybe missoukenis is marba even a missoukenis. Not from the mishni it says a missoukenis as long as it showed a sign of life. Meaning as long as it didn't die it's going to be motar. And it says even so the cashe is missoukenis mimai the shaya. And from here until the end of the daf until about 10 lines from the bottom of daf amud bet. The gemara is going to attempt to answer this question. And what we'll see over the course of the daf is the gemara is going to make several attempts, a few failed attempts, but regardless the whole avoyda of the daf is going to be missoukenis mimai the shaya. Zog the gemara. Attempt number one. It says in the Torah it could be from the fact that it says in the Torah thou shall not eat an aveila. The is that in and of itself not a raya that you're allowed to eat a missoukenis. What is a missoukenis because if you're going to tell me that you're not allowed to eat a missoukenis has to be a zero. That means the animal before it becomes an aveila when it was in a state of missoukenis, right? This is a very important conceptualization that we have to get at the onset of the daf. And that is every animal before it dies is a missoukenis. As a matter of fact we're going to see by the end of the daf that even an animal that was killed from behind in one shot when it wasn't looking, it was blindsided, even then there's an assumption that right the moment before it died it was in a state of missoukenis. So every aveila is presumed to have been a misukenes prior to the fact that it became a nevelah. So, time is the gemara, if that's the case, then why does the Torah have to say nevelah lo yis'acha? If every misukenes is anyways assur, that means before the animal became a nevelah, it was already assur because of a misukenes. The yisur of the misukenes are serial. Let's see in the inside cuz if you're going to tell me that a misukenes is assur, hash me serial. If it was assur me like how you used to me buy it, that certainly is going to be assur like how you used to me buy it. Rashi just adds that if a misukenes is assur, there's no way to have even a hava mina that when it dies it should become mutar. You know why? Because a yisur lehechana aslah. B'meipoka b'misas Rashi. Misah can't remove the assur. So, if a misukenes is already assur, then it's for sure going to retain that assur when it's not a misukenes, but already uh crossed over. When it's already not alive. Because there's no way that the misah is going to be matter, right? In Yevamos misas matter in this case. Right? These ideas of misah being matter. The misah can't be matter this issue of misukenes. It has uh absolutely no avonah. And if that's the case from the fact that the Torah said that a nevelah is assur, must be that a misukenes is really mutar. But the gemara says maybe not. The gemara is going to throw out a very wild suggestion. The dilma nevelah misukenes. Maybe a nevelah and a misukenes is really the same thing. Meaning, maybe a misukenes is assur. The kashas of misukenes is assur, so why do you need to tell me that a nevelah is assur? Maybe when I told you a nevelah is assur, I was really talking about a misukenes. They mean a misukenes and a nevelah one and the same. Meaning, we take for granted that a nevelah is a dead animal. If they say maybe a an nevelah is an animal that's a a misukenes. But the gemara says like so good I think he can't suggest that. Why? Because it's because it's a mefurash pasuk. It says b'chiyomus min hab'heimah asher helo chem lo achlah. Hanogeia b'nevelasah. V'chiyomus min hab'heimah asher helo chem lo achlah. Right? Emphasis on the chiyomus. And then it fears ice hanogeia b'nevelasah. on the So, you see what's in a is an animal that dies. See clearly that that's not the way it is. You see that an animal is first considered an after it dies. So, again, if an animal is first considered an after it dies, and it was a So, why does the Torah have to tell me typically, typically, that it was awesome anyways before it became an from the because of the fact that it was a Oh, it must be is right. Here's your right. Maybe an and the same thing. Now, who is to speak out that this does not mean what meant a minute ago because we already knocked that out. When we said a minute ago that was the wild that maybe an is a The master is not true. It's a possible in the Torah almost. So, we know that's not the case. So, what do we mean an an an What we mean over here is that it could be every really has an An an is the same thing. But, an an an looked in an And you're right. Every single is awesome even without the because of the fact that it says that you eat. Okay. Well, if that's the case, then why did the Torah have to tell me an is awesome? That was the original premise of the If it's anyways awesome an So, that this is not going away when it dies. So, it's going to be awesome as well. I'll tell you why. Because maybe when the animal's alive and it's only an it's not an yet, all you're going to have is an What's that you eat? That's a love above I say. And then I mean And then when it dies, you're going to have the love an And then you're going to actually have the actual love. So, the Gamorah says I don't think you learn anything from treif. Okay. The Gamorah wants to know how you know misukenes what it says the Gamorah. Maybe the makor is I'm going to learn it from the velo. Where do you see it by the velo? From the fact that the Torah says that in the velo there's also must be a misukenes what it says if it's a misukenes also then why do I need to tell me that the in the velo is also it was also anyways before it became in the velo. It was also when it was a misukenes. And there's no having me to think that maybe when it's a misukenes it's also when it comes in the velo when it dies then it becomes mutas I need to tell you that in the velo is also. Because if it has the issur when it's alive the misah not changing that. So it's anyways also so what do I need this for? And the Gamorah had the an initial reaction to reject and say that I don't maybe in the velo is really a misukenes maybe it's one in the same. And to the extent that it's one in the same so [ __ ] it. The misukenes is in the velo. So from the fact that the Torah asked in the velo you have no raya that misukenes is what the [ __ ] it. If anything the Torah is telling you that the misukenes is also to say the law. But the Gamorah said it can't be because we know in the velo it's dafka when it died. But the Gamorah says okay I feel like here there's no raya. And the reason is because maybe it's true every in the velo really is a misukenes but at the same time the reason the Torah gave me the issur misah in the velo is to be marbeh lo issur as I say. When it's alive you have lo issur chaya and when it dies you still have lo issur chaya because that's not going away. But when it dies it's more chomer than when it was only alive misukenes which makes a lot of sense. So then already you're going to have the issur love. So could be there's an issur misukenes and that's an issur as I say because it's still bechayim so all you have is the issur as I say. Once it dies you retain the issur as I say like the Gamorah holds in chashman but at the same time you also have a lo issur as I say. The bottom line is you can't learn the misukenes is mutar from the velo. So if you can't learn it from the velo what's the next best thing? Says the Gamorah maybe midama rachmana treif lo issur chaya. Maybe we could learn it from the treif the Torah had to tell me that a treif is also must be a must be a must be a that is not missing anything. Is also treif for me by you then certainly a treif then certainly a treif which is missing should be a problem. The Torah assumes that a treif is a plus. A treif is a plus. Just like a is a is a is a because it's in a state of a treif is the plus but in addition to that a treif is also something. There's a neck if it's missing an as we'll see next week when we start a plus. So the treif has everything the has and some which means that if a is also a treif is also that's the case maybe from the treif I should also because everything in the plus is a treif paper weight yet the treif is the treif but the Torah says one second I think we get the hang of this already I knew treif I knew maybe a treif and a plus are really one and the same. In fact Rashi says could be the word treif is plus plus. Rashi teaches this even into the word could be that's what the word means. Could be it means it's in a a state of okay. Now if that's the case then why does the Torah have to tell me twice that a is also and then the second time the latter all of us once to tell me there's an and the other one to tell me that there's an but the Torah says if that's the case why then did the Torah have to tell me that it's an also I say, if when it's alive already it has a low say I say then certainly after it dies it's going to have a a low say I say. In other words, if you're going to tell me that every single is really a treif or and is also below I say I say because it says and below I say is the treif or But here's the point. Every single is a treif or Every treif is a treif or it's one and the same. I say treif or well that means every single treif or before it became a treif or already had an low say I say because we said every single treif or was a before it became wasn't a treif or in the biggest sense of what a treif or is but it's a and in this treif or is a treif or that means every before it became a treif or was a treif or which means it already had an low say I say. Well, if that's the case why did they have to tell me this in a treif or I say that really appreciate this over the previous treif or because the fear of the had already asked the question that if you're going to tell me is also so why do I need a treif or right we wanted to prove is multiple in the treif or was twice with the same but the second time that the was it right maybe what the was saying was that it could be it's true every treif or anyways also me treif or but I want [laughter] to be a low say I say is the that if you're going to tell me is A TREIF OR IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME I know I know treif or I understand why the would tell me that the is also twice once by say but once below I say but now I don't understand again why they tell me to tell me this because the treif or always is going to be now a missile candace a treif because missile candace and a treif are the same thing and you always have a missile candace before you're on a vailo WHICH MEANS ME CHAIM YOU already have the loisa save a say and again that loisa save a say is off the hill of the rash which he speaks like every single thing we're saying now. That loisa save a say is not going anywhere after the animal DIES WHICH MEANS BAR HAMISA FIGHT TO HAVE THE LOISA save a say. So why do I need this in a vailo? The gomorrah said I have this in a vailo even if missile candace is also to be machadish a loisa save a hamisa. I'm going to have the loisa save a hamisa in fact I would have the loisa SAVE ME CHAIM. WHAT'S THE LOISA SAVE A TREIF BECAUSE in this side of the world we want to say that really missile candace and a treif but the gomorrah is doiche. The gomorrah says fest kasha but the gomorrah says we don't know hino in a vailo hino treif hino missile candace. Now what does this mean? Hino in a vailo hino treif hino missile candace. This means what the gomorrah meant when it said earlier hino in a vailo hino missile candace the second time the way the tais spoke at. Not that it's all the same thing but rather maybe this place for the issur a vailo this place for the issur treif and this place for the issur missile candace. And why would I need all this wordiness for lav a lo which is lav and a say and lav and a say to tell me that there's two lav and an a say. In other words could be a treif and a missile candace are really the same thing. And me chaim you have the a say of loisa chaya shitochlu of missile candace and the loisa say of treif. And after it dies you fight to get out the same loisa say it's not going anywhere but now that it died it's it's worse than just being missile candace and therefore now that it died we want to throw on a second loisa say. And if we're going to throw on the second loisa say that's what the issur a vailo is going to be. But the bottom line is you can't prove from the fact that there's an issur treif that what? That missile candace is muttar even though in svara it makes perfect sense to say that if a missile candace is ossur I don't need the issur treif so if the torah told me an issur treif must be the missile candace is muttar the reason you can't prove it is because maybe a treif is a missile candace. In fact it could be when the torah told you a treif is ossur the torah was telling you not misokaneis is muttar, that was telling misokaneis is also that it's more common than you even realize. It's not just an asiyah of misokaneis you should know, there's there's a lo asiyah as well. So, the Gemara says I'll prove it to you from somewhere else. And really what the Gemara is going to do in this alma is just to set this up. The Gemara is just going to prove from alma that a treif is not a misokaneis. And as long as we prove that a treif is in itself not a misokaneis, well, then that means that from the fact that the Torah told me that a treif must be a misokaneis is muttar. Meaning atzum is a treif is biggest raya in the world of misokaneis is muttar. It's like a checkmate raya. Why have tell me misokaneis treif is also treif of it's always a misokaneis. It must be a misokaneis is muttar me. Stop going and ask one of those. But if you think about this logically, it's all pashut. Somebody stopped you on the street and he says, "What do you think? You're learning in there? You're month and change it. You think a misokaneis is muttar also?" Really you should make a bee line to treif. You should say, "What do you mean if a treif is ALSO THAT A TREIF misokaneis is not a treif?" That's very good. And that's mamesh what the Gemara is doing right now. The Gemara is just countering it with this interesting hava amina and that is maybe a treif really is a misokaneis. Like Rashi said, the treif misokaneis is maybe we got it all wrong. And it's really that that the Gemara is going to disprove. And once the Gemara disproves that, so then it's without question the most obvious and rational approach to this and that is from the fact that there's a parsha of treif, that would be a raya that misokaneis is muttar. The Gemara says alma I could learn it from here. It says in the Torah of avelah, the chelev of treif is also also treif. So, there's a possuk in the Torah that says that the chelev of avelah chelev of treif is also also treif, which means it's not tamei. Additionally, there's an issur Now, we know the chelev of every animal was also We're focusing on the second part. Yet the Torah has the chelev of an avelah and the chelev of a treif is also But so Rashi and they said Why did the Torah tell me that the chelev of a neveilah and the chelev of a treifoh is ossur? Isn't chelev always ossur? Why? Because it's a neveilah treifoh, you would have thought it's different. So Chazal said, I'll tell you why. Yoveh is a neveilah, Yochol is a chelev. Yoveh is a treifoh, Yochol is a chelev. The Torah was coming to tell me that the issur of a neveilah is a treifoh achal even on the issur chelev. You would have thought that it's not. Why? Ein issur chelev issur chametz. One the possuk, this is a makor in the Torah, this is like mama's ground zero of the sugah of issur chelev issur. From the fact that the Torah says the chelev of a neveilah, chelev of a treifoh is ossur, so issur chametz issur chelev issur. Okay, so what does that have to do with ossur? Here's the cheshbon. If you're going to tell me treifoh you're going to tell me treifoh ain't a missukenis. If you're going to tell me that a treifoh is really a missukenis, so if every single treifoh is a missukenis, then the lifted brachman on the chelev of a neveilah you also lo cham lochoh. Then the Torah could have said that the chelev of a neveilah is not tamei, you also lo cham lochoh, and then just say, we're going to focus on the next part, that the chelev treifoh lo yisochlu. That you're not allowed to eat the chelev of a treifoh. In other words, you shouldn't have to tell me the chelev neveilah lo yisochlu. You should just tell me the chelev treifoh lo yisochlu. Or b'milah acheres, tell me that the issur of treifoh is chal on the issur chelev. And I'll know for sure that the issur of a neveilah is also lo chal on the issur chelev. Why? V'anachnu meimina because I'm going to make the following cheshbon. Uma meichayin ossi issur treifoh chayalah issur chelev? Maduch, when the animal is a treifoh, which in this point of the Gemara we're assuming is a missukenis, which means the animal is still alive. It's just in a grave situation. It's in a state of sakanah. We're saying that what? That afilu hachi, the issur of eating a missukenis is so chomer that it's chal on issur. And that's why issur treifoh chal on issur chelev. Well, if that's the case, ach amisa, when it died already, when it's for sure more chomer than the missukenis, meibaya? Does it Does it go without saying? Eilum midichas rachman in neveilah, from the fact that the Torah even though it's said already that it's a treifas and it's a cheilev, still felt that it needed to speak out that the issur of an aveilah is michal the treif so kenes must be that the treif is not a misukenes. The way Rashi learns the Gemara. The Gemara is saying that if you're going to tell me that a treif is a misukenes, that means every nevelah is b'chalal min a treif. Right, we spoke that already. This is one of the themes that goes through the entire daf. Every nevelah is b'chalal min a treif misukenes. If a misukenes and a treif are the same thing, that means that every nevelah is b'chalal min a treif as well. Now, really if a treif and a misukenes are not the same thing, then that's not a true statement that every nevelah is b'chalal min a treif. It's It's different. A treif is something that has some deficiency, has some wound. A nevelah is dead. Now, a treif might be in a better matzev than a nevelah, but at the same time it's not the same thing. A misukenes by definition is that it's ot ot. OT OT IS LESS than you arrived, right? So, if a treif is a misukenes, then liktin yed in a nevelah treif. If a treif is not a misukenes, then you can't say liktin yed in a nevelah treif. Even though there is a b'chalal min a treif element, even if treif is not a misukenes in relation to a nevelah, because at the end of the day the treif as bad as it is, it's far to live as opposed to a nevelah is dead, but at the same time it's not mamish punklich the same thing. And that's the kashya of the Gemara like the way Rashi learns it. And that is the Gemara is saying that if you're going to tell me that every single treif is a misukenes, then b'chalal nevelah like the treif. So, once the Torah told me the cheilev treif that is a listener as it relates to treif min a nevelah, because the Neveilah is more chamur from the fact that the Torah had to speak on Neveilah, that's a rayo that you don't say the chamur say amona treif of the Neveilah. And you know why? Because a treif is not a misukenes. A misukenes is the chamur say amona. But a treif is not a misukenes. And therefore there's already mokem to make a treif so that even THOUGH I KNOW TREIF is chamur, maybe Neveilah not, and vice versa. And that's why the Torah had to tell me the Torah had no choice but but to go ahead and both to tell me both things. But the bottom line is time is the gemara that from the fact that the Torah had to tell me the chamur of Neveilah, even though it's telling me the chamur of treif, that's a rayo that treif is not a misukenes. It's a rayo that treif is not the chamur say amona of the Neveilah. And if that's the case, that a treif is not a misukenes, chud sure the logical approach to the sugah of the din. That's you want to know mechech taysim misukenes of sharia. What do you mean from the fact that the Torah said a treif is also isn't that a rayo that a misukenes must be mutar? Toises by the way brings the sham of Ben Toma hold it from sham of the gemara. And the reason Toises disagrees with Rashi's pshat he has a few reasons, but the main reason I should negate all the cheshbon of the gemara that we just spoke out is because at the end of the day Toises holds that just like a misukenes is the chamur say amona of Neveilah, treif should also be the chamur say amona of treif. That's Toises. One of Toises kashas ain sham. Top Toises over here in lamud zayin amud aleph. But the bottom line is like the gemara maskif from my brother Rashi. My brother Rashi has the kasha on this. Don't blow me away with the chaim of the treif of the misukenes. I don't think this is a good enough rayo. I'll tell you really a treif is a misukenes. Ooh, the chamur. What was your time in Neveilah? Kos rachmana litzlan. If a treif is a misukenes, that means every single treif is really included in a Neveilah. So once I know that treif is chal litzur, certainly Neveilah should be chal litzur. So Neveilah the kos rachmana litzlan. I'll tell you why. L'chach Neveilah they ask him a koach misukenes. What do you tell me? Every single Neveilah is a misukenes? Right. What we spoke out at the onset of at daf that this is always the way it is. Here in this point of the Gemara, the Gemara starts entertaining differently. By the way, Tosafot Aleph makes a chishbonus that if the Gemara is not 100% sure about it, all right, all right, here, I think we have to revisit Amud Aleph because again, we explained Amud Aleph based on this axiomatic premise. But if you tell me that's a poshit da'var Amud Beis, the Gemara is not sure about it, so what? On Amud Aleph, the Gemara was sure, now the Gemara is not sure. It sounds like the Gemara over here didn't firmly establish this as a principle. Let's go revisit Amud Aleph. That's one of the Tosafot in Amud Aleph. But either way, says the Gemara, again, let me I'll tell you a treifah is a misukenes. I what's the kasha? The kasha was that if a treifah is a misukenes, then ba'chlal nevelah looked at treifah. So nevelah because of rachmana litzlan. Again, it's negiah nevelah that wasn't a misukenes. Eicha dami? What's eicha dami? So shas gistera. That's your eicha dami. Your eicha dami is where the thing was chopped into two pieces. It was chopped in half. And the halacha is, that's where it's going to be negiah. But again, Rashi has a very nice kinech. Rashi says, if you remember, we learned the Gemara in daf kuf aleph Amud Aleph, that the halacha is aso gistera nevelah. What was the chidush of that halacha? Even if it's mefageses, even if it's alive, it's still considered dead. Which means then, which means that when it's in the state of misukenes, it's actually considered dead. So it never really has a matzev of misukenes while it's alive. So aso gistera doesn't have a matzev of misukenes michayan because you chopped it, and when YOU CHOPPED IT, EVEN WHEN IT WAS ALIVE, IT WAS considered dead. You see, it was already considered nevelah. So here's my eicha dami, so you don't have a misukenes. But the Gemara says not true, you absolutely have a misukenes part of the capital of the rule. But there's one second before it became a full gistera. Before it was raiv gistera, so to speak, at that point, there was for sure a moment, and it's for that reason, this is where it's going to be negiah. Bottom line is, every single case of nevelah is a misukenes, which then would mean that if a treifah is not every single treifa is Messiah and so if the Torah tells me by treifa there's no need to tell me by from the fact that the Torah told me by must be treifa is not a if treifa is not a that's my that is what because if also why would the Torah have to tell me that treifa is also by the way if this is really bothering you Tosefos asks that one second why don't we say that it's true Tosefos is also the question is why did the Torah have to tell me treifa because treifa and to be say that in the event you're a treifa there's a this is one of the questions over here and this is extra credit for today's either way I have a third this is actually how I know is the how I know treifa there's two going on here the how I know that is also because if not lay more this same limit from where we prove that treifa love is that might actually be a that is also because what the treifa and treifa very wordy the treifa just say the treifa why did the Torah have to the word treifa a second time to teach me that it's regarding the treifa that it's regarding the treifa where we say that the and the are the same the of a treifa the is also and the the is also right the is also because it's treifa the is also because it's is so you have the whole animal is also but the is also because of the and the and the treifa and the treifa is also because of the of the the Rashi says the the extra mention of the word is coming to teach me that there's something similar to a treif, sh'cheil b'chalik mib'sara. We are the possul would be muttar and the cheilev would be assur. The eizoy zum misukenes. And that's the misukenes. So you have a DRASHA IN THIS POSSUK. IRONICALLY, it's coincidentally the same possuk that we were just handling for a whole different reason, from a different angle. We were just handling this possuk to teach me that treif lav heino misukenes. Now we actually, believe it or not, found our makor. What do you think? Lo and behold, from this actual possuk. But the bottom line is this is another source to the ikkur halacha that a misukenes is muttar. So again, how many makors do we have so far that misukenes is muttar? First the Gemara thought to learn from the veil, the Gemara rejected that. Then the Gemara said, learn it from treif, which stands, right? It was a long scenic route until we got there, but at the end of the day, after the fact that the Torah said treif is assur, that's a raya misukenes must be muttar. Or could be it's learnt out from a a possuk tucked away. The cheilev of the veil, of a cheilev of treif, a cheilev of treif is actually tucked away the treif, the cheilev and the possul is assur as opposed to misukenes which is similar to the treif. Over there that's not going to be the same. Eibay eima the Gemara says, finally, I have another makor. Meihacha, could be it's learnt out from the following possuk and this is the d'vara goda. The daf ends really on an exhale note. It's a possuk in Y'chezkel perek dal possuk yud alef. The Israel Shem, maybe in the next daf or two we're going to revisit this possuk. But high level, what's going on over here is Kodesh Boruchu comes to Y'chezkel and he tells him that I want you to eat the things that are disgusting. Tzoah. If you go through the psukim over there, it's it's pretty clear what's going on. And Y'chezkel turns to Kodesh Boruchu and oimer he says, "Aha." Right? That's like a groan. He says, "Hashem Elokim, hinei nafshi lo im'a tum'ah. I never defiled my soul. U'neveilah u'treifah lo achalti me orei'ah v'ad ata. I never ate neveilos and treifos from the time I was a youth up until now. V'lo vav b'fi basar piggul. I never ate piggul. >> [snorts] >> So you're going to ask me now to do something so disgusting and disgraceful, I don't think that's fair. >> [snorts] >> So, the Gamorah goes and the Gamorah teaches, what did Yechezkel mean when he said I didn't do all these things? He didn't have Shulay Metuma. What did he mean Shulay Harti Bayom? I never had a hero of Arayas during the day. Lovingly Tumah Sh'balayla, which would have led me to Tumah Sh'keriya at night. U'N'veila T'reifa Lo Achalti M'Ura. What does that mean? Doesn't mean that I didn't eat N'veilos T'reifos because obviously didn't eat N'veilos T'reifos. Rather, what he meant was Shulay Achalti Basar Kois Kois. I never ate Basar Kois Kois. So, Kois is an Aramaic term for Sh'chita. Rashi says Shachut Shachut. Shulay Achalti M'Beheima Sh'hu M'Sukenes. Meaning, I never ate from the meat that was a M'Sukenes. When an animal is a M'Sukenes, the Shochet is screaming Shach'teh Shach'teh. You know why? Because if it dies as an Aveila, it loses a lot of value. So, Chaper Ayin, do a quick Sh'chita before the animal dies. I never ate from an animal where the Shochet was screaming Kois Kois. V'Lo Achalti Basar Pig. What does that mean? Shulay Achalti M'Beheima Sh'hu M'Chukak. I never ate from an animal that needed Chaylas Chocham. If a Chocham made a Paskin on it, I never ate from Shmuel Bar Nachman. Shulay Achalti M'Beheima Sh'hu M'Nachnas. I never ate from a Beheima that didn't have the Nachnas Kuna from. What's that have to do with you? You have to give Nachnas Kuna. So, Rashi says because he was a Kohen. So, because he was a Kohen, so he could have averted it. I feel like he was Machnis. So, the Gamorah says like this. As it relates to what Yechezkel meant when he said U'N'veila T'reifa Lo Achalti. And the Gamorah teaches that what he meant to say was that I never ate from a an animal that the Shochet was screaming Kois Kois. What was Yechezkel being M'Shaveya himself with? Bishlama, if you're going to tell me that it's Mutar to eat from such an animal, meaning M'Sukenes is Mutar, I don't have a say to Yechezkel. That's the Chidush of Yechezkel. But if you're going to tell me it's Assur, my R'vusa to Yechezkel. Meaning, all these things that Yechezkel is saying he didn't do must be on some level Davar Chidush. And if that's the case, the Gamorah wants to know what's the hidush that you didn't eat from a beheima mesukenes. Oh, must be cuz a beheima mesukenes is mutar. Oh, by the way, must be it's even mutar l'chatchila, which is why it's a hidush that you Chaskol, right, didn't want to go to it. But the bottom line is must be that basar mesukenes is mutar and if that's the case, here's your eibes eimus and dritemo. Here's your raya to the fact that mesukenes is real. Let's do a seacom. The topic of the daf was a mesukenes. A mesukenes is an animal that's very very sick. Not a treifa, but it's an animal that's very very sick. The mishna says "A sheches das a mesukenes, as long as it shows a sign of life." What does it mean to show the sign of life? It three shitos of tanam in the mishna, but the point is it was mefarches either yad v'regel or yad or regel, wagged its tail, it coughed up blood, whatever it is. But the bottom line is if it showed a sign of life, that means it survived the shechita or at least until when the shechita is supposed to kill it. So then the halacha is you're going to be allowed to eat it. In fact, Rashi says even though the mishna says "A sheches", you should know that this is something that you're even allowed to go ahead and do l'chatchila. And the Gemara says "Mesukenes, me mai deshai?" How do you know it's asur? The Gemara says "Me mai deshai?" Why would you think it's asur? I'll tell you why. Cuz it says "Zeh chaya asher tochelu", which we know the fiha emes is referring to treifa. We learn from there that only an animal that can live you're allowed to eat. But I don't know, maybe uh really it includes in a mesukenes. Meaning the reason we know it's talking about a treifa cuz we know the MISHNA SAYS "MESUKENES SHARYA". BUT THE GEMARA ASKS "ME MAI?" I just want to know I mean I'm not debating it. I got it. It's a mishna, it's a stam we we have all the tanam in Shas Kamara mentioned in this mishna that are all in agreement with this halacha. There's no issue with that. But "Me mai deshai?" What is the source? Maybe "Zeh chaya asher tochelu" should teach me that it's really asur. And the Gemara went through several attempts. The first one, which was the failed attempt, and that is the Gemara said "Maybe I'll learn from the parsha of neveila." If you're going to tell me that a mesukenes is also well isn't every nevela a mesukenes before it becomes a nevela? So why does he have to tell me it isn't a nevela? But the Gemara after a few twists and turns says that's that's a kasha because maybe a nevela is worse than a mesukenes, which it is, and if that's the case, the Torah wants to tell you that in addition to the assei of zeh shechayasha treifa which the animal has when it's alive, which is not going anywhere after it dies, but now this is going to be a lo saaseh as well. So the Gemara says you're right, you can't learn it from the parsha of nevela. But the Gemara says you know where I could maybe learn it from? From the parsha of treifa. If you're going to tell me that a nevela is that a mesukenes is also, I need a parsha of treifa before. Typically, bichlal treifa litzayer the mesukenes because every treifa is a mesukenes plus. So if you're telling me that a mesukenes is also, why do I need a a parsha of treifa? And the Gemara after a whole analysis came out and said, "You know something? You're right. You're 100% right. I think we got it. I think we nailed it." And in fact, that is the first of the three tirutzim of the Gemara that ends up playing out. The long chashma of the Gemara was the Gemara had a very strong hava amina that maybe a treifa is a mesukenes. Again, that's so similar, it's not so rough to think that they'd be one and the same. In fact, Rashi says treifa lo she mesukenes say. So if that's the case, it would have been a very strong makom for that to be the case, but the Gemara proved that's not the case. And if that's not the case, you're right. And I mean, this is the right The third approach, which was the second one that stands in the sugia, was we learn it from the parsha of becheil of nevela, becheil of treifa, "Lo achal loisa chlu." It's dafka cheil of treifa with the cheil of the basar are the same. But there's something similar to a treifa. Mahi? The eizo eizu mesukenes, where it's not going to be that way. And then finally, the Gemara said, "Could we learn it from the pasuk of Yichazkel?" Because Yichazkel tells Hakadosh Baruch Hu, "You're asking me to eat dvarim tmei'im. Don't you know I never ate basar mesukenes?" Now, if he's bimshabeach himself, so to speak, that I never ate possum as a chemist. So it's not matters. It must be that there's no question in the world that possum is so careless is mother. You see from here Missoukenis is Shaya. So at the end of the day, we have three to roots in that stand. Either from the fact that treif is also that's right Missoukenis is mother, or it's going to have from treif of treif, or it's going to have from the possuk in Yachezkal ad confit today. So just the end with one aura related to a shoichet Missoukenis, which is going to tie into some rate that we've spoken about recently. I saw in the heart sphere of Shas right here in Missachus Chulin daft lamed ches. It's really on tomorrow's daft. And the source of this heart sphere is really from the Shala Shichu of heart sphere. It's in Yoreh De'ah siman tes vov. He brings a maiseh shihoya kachoya in the city of Brisk at the time that a [ __ ] in Reb Chaim Halevi Soloveitchik was the rov of Brisk. So there was a maiseh shihoya kachoya. There was a shoichet who shechted an animal. He shechted right over the animal perfect. And then he continued and he shechted the meat basar of the animal and he did it bish'hiya. While he shechted the meat basar, the animal was not mefareches. It didn't show any sign of life. So Reb Chaim Halevi said that even though we know that if someone is shor b'meat basar the Shulchan Aruch says we're supposed to be machmir like the take of the Gemara b'fi shitas Rashi that shor b'meat tzimmonim is referring even to the meat basar. But in this case, when the animal showed no sign of life at the meat basar, it's going to be fine. You know why? Said Reb Chaim, because that's poshit. Once you shechted right over the animal, at that point the animal is already a misukenis. What's the halacha of a misukenis? If it's mefarches and it shows a sign of life, well then the halacha is we assume the animal's alive. If however it's not mefarches and it doesn't show a sign of life, we assume the animal is dead. SO CHAIM, THAT'S POSHIT THAT EVEN RASHI'S shita of shabbos basar is a teiku is going to be a problem. That's only if YOU ASSUME THE ANIMAL'S ALIVE. BUT IF YOU ASSUME THE ANIMAL is dead, THEN THE SHABBOS BASAR IS NOTHING. ONCE THE ANIMAL'S DEAD, IT'S DEAD. THEN FOR SURE YOU GOT THE RUBA kula al YEDEI DEROY. SO CHAIM SAID THIS CHIDDUSH AND THE WHOLE CITY OF BRISK was tomling about this chiddush. He said that even though this halacha of shabbos basar, but at the same time if he was shabbos basar and the animal wasn't mefarches, then we're going to look at it as if it's as if it died already. If it died already, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT WAS shabbos basar. The Admor so Reb Pesach Frank and his heart ceases that as much as this chiddush is such a chiddush with the great Chaim. He said but I have two problems with this chiddush. His first problem was as follows. Reb Chaim is assuming that when we say that an animal that's a misukenis and then it doesn't show a sign of life, it's not mefarches during the shchita, the halacha is you're not allowed to eat it. So Reb Chaim is assuming that the reason is because we assume that it's not alive. We assume that it's not alive. And being that you assume that it's not alive, to tell me that it's an avail I'm not allowed to eat it. Well, if that's the case, I would assume that it's not alive to as well. And therefore if you were shabbos basar and now you actually want the animal to have been dead at the shchita of the animal, I'm going to assume that it was dead already. SO THE SHABBOS BASAR IS NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM. So Reb Pesach is going to go maybe the fact that is not a that it died but maybe a that it died BUT MAYBE A YOU HAVE TO BE WORRIED that maybe it died. So to go ahead and eat it it's a so maybe so we're not going to let you eat it. BUT TO GO TO BE ACCORDING TO RASHI LATER that the BRINGS IS ALSO MAYBE HE SAID THAT IS GOING TO BE A LOT. AND this is the So this is what I know what I'm going to do with the course that I'm going to also I think in the future if the says and it's a quote from the has a lot of people so I assume that all of you get what I'M SAYING IT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M COMING FROM THAT STATE MEANS IT'S AMAZING. SO IT'S amazing that the way it is is itself in a way cooler because you can't just give a person there's a lot of people so I assume that if it's the animal for sure died even to give a lot of people that's the case for sure that not a lot of people so we're going to assume it's dead and if that's the case it's not going to be a problem. I think it says it's not so again. The for sure from the bottom this is the bottom but at the same time he says if you take a look at the bottom which is very much with why the said and it's based on the way it is you're so positive that the animal DIED MAYBE IT WASN'T A CUZ IT WASN'T A HOW COULD THE FACT THAT THE WAY IT IS DIDN'T DO SOMETHING THAT'S a lot of people for sure dead but you do something that could be A POSITIVE NOT DOING something is usually not considered a lot of people right but the bottom line is the Prima Gadda much is very much with this kasha and the Prima Gadda says that the only reason that the Rambam paskins and the Shulchan Aruch paskins that like him a lot is because really every single beheima we know is becheskas issur kayma achi v'oda l'cha until you know for sure that it's muttar. And what's the chazaka? That's machlokes Rashi and Tosfos. Rashi learns it's the cheskas eiv min hachai. Tosfos learns it's the cheskas eiv min ha'eivor. But says the Prima Gadda it's dafka because b'tzeruf to the fact that it wasn't a vadai this is also a cheskas issur. That's why it's going to be like him a lot. Says Rabbeinu Pesach like the Prima Gadda, where it's only b'vadai because of the cheskas eiv min ha'eivor. You don't have the cheskas eiv min ha'eivor to be meikel. So over there b'chada d'ina that it's not really a vadai. If it's not REALLY A VADAI, IT COULD be Rab Chaim Soloveitchik. Again, Rabbeinu Pesach is not being the party pooper. He's having a gishmak in the hora just like we're all having a gishmak in the hora. He just said as A POSEK HALACHA L'MAISEH it's not so POSHUT BECAUSE HALACHA L'MAISEH is not like the Prima Gadda. And the Prima Gadda says that the only reason we assume a bitul is vadai is because it's supported by the cheskas eiv min ha'eivor. But that's only true l'achra. That's not going to be true l'halacha. But then Rabbeinu Pesach says another hora which I thought was very interesting. And that is, he says if you take a look at the Taz. The Taz says why is it that if someone's shechita is okay as l'fi pirchus a klal ha'reason available l'like him a lot, right? Such a sharp lashon, says the Taz. Ha'reason available d'kim lo l'rabbanan d'zuna d'tulin nishmasa kodem g'mar sh'chita. Because there's a a num d'ina that before the animal died, for sure or before the g'mar sh'chita it already died. D'kim lo l'rabbanan d'zuna d'tulin nishmasa kodem g'mar sh'chita. So says the lashon of the Levush. The vadainess al >> [laughter] >> it chalished k'she hergisha soon as it it started experiencing the sh'chita the yotzan nishmasa kodem g'mar sh'chita already. And for sure its nishama left before it the conclusion of the schita the crazy place it. The task and the crazy place all three said the same thing. That the is that before the completion of the schita it's going to die. Right that's the question. The question is before the completion of the schita it's going to die. If that's the case what's the prime say? The prime saying as soon as you do there's no question in the world at that point it's already going to be a there's no at that point that it's already going to be a okay so if that's the case if it's you're going to have a problem. SO I CAN'T EVEN GO THE SAYS IT'S A IT'S SO YOU SEE IT EVEN GOES SO IF YOU IT DOESN'T MATTER cuz you ARE ON THE WAY. SO THAT WOULD BE TRUE IF THE TASK and the and the crazy place it would have said THAT THE MOMENT YOU START THE IT'S GOING TO BUT THEY ALL WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO be mad IT'S BEFORE THE IF THAT'S THE case so maybe when the started the when he started was still alive then he was sure. At that point it wasn't an available yet. You're right by the time YOU FINISH THE FOR SURE IT DIED BUT MAYBE IT WAS SURE BEFORE IT DIED AND IF THAT'S THE CASE EVEN IF IT'S TRUE THE WORKS AS LONG AS YOU DO WITH THE but it only is A BY THE BUT BEING THAT HE WAS SURE MAYBE HE WAS SURE BEFORE THE AND IF HE WAS SURE BEFORE THE YOU END UP HAVING a problem. And now says this is YOU HAVE TO THE NOW WE'RE REALLY GETTING INTO IT. RIGHT SO TILL NOW WE TALK about the roiven the mid basra, you have to take the mid basra gufa with a sakina charifa and point and ended and you have to go ahead and you have to shpalt it and you have to ask yourself, it could be the shav in mid basra was in the early part of the mid basra and he didn't die until it was already roiv ki ilu of the mid basra, right? [laughter] Until you have the end of the mid basra and if that's the case, even if you make the hanacha like the chaims making which is the spimus lashon haramba the loik avrim magaden, but at the same time it's still not so pashut that this is the way it's going to play itself out. Either way, this is the tshuvan atzei that we just read out. Tcheil v'atzoif, it's short tshuvan. It's in your yideiya, siman tes vov. The shoil, by the way, was Rabi Shroil Velts. He was uh the shoil and um he was the one who told Rabi Tzvi Pesach about this maiseh shoyeh kachoyeh with Rabi Chaim Brisker and inasmuch as it's a very very gishmak shoyeh lo, but in halacha l'maiseh, Rabi Tzvi Pesach was mefaktik very much. It's interesting cuz Rabi Tzvi Pesach he would do ahead an incredible koiyach to tell, but when it came to this, he felt it wasn't so pashut the kula of Rabi Chaim Brisker, but I just want to end with one ha'ara that I saw in the sefer Mishnas Masaches Chulin and this is from Ha'goiyin Reb Itamar Garbuz. And in siman chof alef, he brings this shmu'a from Rabi Chaim. He brings it from the Ha'Tzvi, by the way. So it seems like the source of this Rabi Chaim is the Ha'Tzvi. That's where he brings it from. So he brings Iyin b' Shailos u'Tshuvos Ha'Tzvi, Rabi Shroil Velts, this maiseh shoyeh kachoyeh with Rabi Chaim Brisker and he asks one ha'ara. Again, it's beyond the scope of what we usually do, but we just end the hard week with his ha'ara. But it's really pashut and I think subconsciously everybody's thinking this. And that is said Rabi Itamar Garbuz, I don't understand the whole Rabi Chaim. I namish don't understand it. Sounds so gishmak the divrei picho chaim v'ruiy adrom l'shomrom. Yeah, but there's seemingly a big hole in the cheshbon. You know why? Cuz it was M'vor and Or'gin Maro that every single animal, right before it dies, it's always in a state of Misukenes. Now, ordinarily, when is an animal deemed to have been considered dead? When Roy the Siman Mashachot. Right? Rubik Akulai. The extra meat basra is extra credit then it's maybe called a Moishe of Geria. But as soon as you go ahead and you shach the Roy, that's usually when the animal is considered to have been dead. If the Gemara said that every single animal before it dies, it's a Misukenes, it's poshit that it's shufishit as well. And suddenly the Gemara said it only regarding a vailo, but there's no reason in the world to assume that it would be different between a vailo and a shrita. As a matter of fact, if you would think in svara, it's different between an a vailo and a shrita, meaning maybe by the maise shrita you're not a Misukenes before it dies, well then you would have a heicha timsa where you could have an a vailo that wasn't a Misukenes, which in the Gemara the Gemara can't be. You know what the heicha timsa would be? The heicha timsa would be if someone went ahead and did a shrita they drosa where the animal is going to be an a vailo cuz it's not a proper shrita. And you're telling me when it's done with a maise shrita over there. So if you tripped up on one of the halachas of Moishe MiSina, then you have to go back and chaza the Gemara. So it's poshit cuz the Gemara said there is no heicha timsa where you have an a vailo that wasn't a Misukenes prior. That means that just like the metzius of being a Misukenes before it becomes an a vailo is true, it's also a Misukenes before it's a shrita, right? It's one in the same. So here's the point. The point is usually the animal becomes dead when you do Roy of the Shrita. The Gemara says you're always a Misukenes one second before it died. WHICH MEANS THAT RIGHT BEFORE YOU DID THE ROY, the animal IS A MISUKENES. IF FROM CHAIM'S GERACH, EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU DO THE SHRITA, YOU SHOULD HAVE TO SEE THE ANIMAL BE M'FARCHIS WHEN YOU DO THE ROY. CUZ IF IT WASN'T M'FARCHIS, WELL THAT WOULD MEAN that it DIED ALREADY WHEN IT WAS in a state of Misukenes and you never had a PROPER SHRITA. SO CHAIM made this maydig chashma. Chaim said that you shup a meat basra, so I don't have to worry about it. You know why? Cuz it was a Misukenes. It means that it wasn't a fire house, it means it was dead already. One second. In a regular SHITA, WHEN YOU CHECK the right of the semen, at that point, it's already considered a mesa cuz right makes it into a shita. Well, if that's the case, it means it was a missile cannon before the right. If it's dead before the right, you don't have a kosher shita. You need it to be a life that one extra second in order to tip the scale to make it into a right. The only way for it to be determined that it's alive is if it's mefarkhes. So, why isn't that a law that every single time you check at the time that you check the right, but you have to be mefarkhes? What's the parrots? So, could be Tamar Garbuz shita. The parrots is pasha because THE HALAKHA MEFARKHES MEANS FURTHER SHITA. THAT IF BEFORE THE SHITA THE ANIMAL was a missile cannon, that's when you RUN INTO PROBLEMS. BUT IF THE ANIMAL BECOMES MISSILE cannon makhmash the shita, so of course it's NOT AN ISSUE. FORGET, THAT IS WHAT SHITA IS. SHITA MEANS check the animal that's not missile cannon, do right, and it's going to be dead. I could be every single time you do it, it's missile cannon ONE SECOND BEFORE. GOOD, THAT'S all nikhla on what the Torah is telling you when it says v'zavakh takasher t'vizikha. I you'll tell me missile cannon usually doesn't work. That's when it's missile cannon right after MAKHMASH THE SHITA. BUT OBVIOUSLY IT'S SO PASHA THAT WHEN THE Torah is being m'tzaveh the mitzvah of shita and the Torah set up the system where it could be it becomes a missile cannon before the right. Torah set up the system of yibbum with a nation OF ISRAEL. I DON'T KNOW THE BOTTOM LINE, THAT'S NOT A KASHA. THIS IS THE WAY SHITA WORKS. SO, THIS IS THE WAY SHITA WORKS, this is the way shita works. Well, if that's the case, then this makham to say that clapping to be A BASRA ALSO. BECAUSE WHAT'S THE LAW OF THIS SHITA OF MEAT BASRA? THE LAW OF THIS shita of meat basra is is that really shita to tzakhaf in the GANZ SEMEN. WE SPOKE ABOUT FROM THE Beit Yosef already a few times. It's just that ruba is kakula, but when you check the meat basra, really what you're doing is you're doing this YOU'RE DOING THE SHITA. OTHERWISE, YOU COULDN'T BE SHAV MEAT BASRA. It wouldn't work. The Torah says because it's all the shita. So, if it's all the shita, who said there's a kapeida for me to have to worry and make sure there wasn't a fire house by the meat basra. JUST LIKE I DON'T CARE THAT it wasn't a fire house when I went ahead and I shut it the right. I don't care for a second before the right. It might have died out miss you can it's irrelevant as long as it was a nice to shoot it and knocked out the right even if it one second earlier or later it doesn't it doesn't deserve this CUZ IT ALL HAPPENED AS THE SHOOTER. SO IF IT HAPPENED TO ME WHEN THE TORAH SAID WAS A LOT OF TORAH SAID ALL SEVEN. LOOK AT HIM HE WAS SUPPOSED to shut all seven. So you came up with a THAT ONCE YOU SHUT IT RIGHT WITH THE SEVEN AT THAT POINT THAT'S A MISS you can it's I need to be my fire by the mirror every street you have that before you shut it the right and I feel LIKE IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME CUZ it happened I got the street up. SO WHEN I GOT THE STREET IT doesn't bother me if it happened by the mirror it shouldn't bother me either. It's more hot said the market held fundamentally between shutting right of the seven versus the mirror and as much as this is so partial that this is the mirror in the street up but the mirror is like it's own thing so to speak and to the extent that we can that animals dead before the mirror being that it's kosher already and I really have a kosher I don't care what happens anymore in the mirror as it relates to the right which is the mirror that's my so over there the fact that it might have been a miss you can it's before I got the right that's going to not be an issue cuz that is all included in what the Torah is telling you to do when you do a street and knowing THAT IT MIGHT DIE a second before you shut the right I would say it up but as it relates to the mirror once I go ahead and I have a an animal that already had a street up it could be then you could sit tail the mirror and the right again this is just thought provoking long this little bit of a on what we spoke about earlier in the week and we are going to stop here a good night of service.