Chulin 73

Today's daff is giml and we have 13 lines from the bottom of so the ones went back to the first mission of the paric and that is a behema masha a behema that was in labor masha is kasha was going through a very difficult labor and the fetus that this behema had inside its ram stuck its hand out. The Mishna in the beginning of the peric had discussed the implications of whether you're allowed to eat the uber, you're not allowed to eat the uber, meaning does the of the mother work for the uber or not in light of the fact that the uber was what about the yad itself? What about if it then took its yad and stuck it back into the of the mother? Either way, that was the first discussion that the Gmorra had as it relates to the discussion in this Mishna right here in B is with regards to implications and Mishna mentioned an important between which is going to be the backdrop of the entire says. So what happens if you had a Y and then the checked the mother and after the checked the mother he cut off severed that one hand that the uber had stuck out. The question is is the uber that was inside the mother's ra to or is it not to the reason that you would think that maybe it should be to is because being that the was never m that one. So maybe we have to look at it as or maybe we have to look at it as a but the point is being that the wasn't m that maybe it's if it's the remaining of the ubra that was inside its mother the remaining of the that did become mut with the of the mother being that it's now touching it's making contact with the y that did not become mut maybe we have to look at the kasher part the part that became mut at the very least says being in contact maga with the part that is to and as a result if something touches a it too becomes or do we say no it's true that the was never m that one but at the same time it doesn't mean that we look at that that was as being it doesn't mean we look at it as being it's true that wasn't but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's if it's not the rest of the That's will be it also won't be to I isn't it touching that a yes it's touching the but the a itself is not to and if the itself is not the is not going to be in other words the said holds that the that's inside the mother that becomes with the of the mother although it's but at the same time it's why because it's in contact with the a that was outside that the didn't impact thus It's a we don't look at as if it's in contact with an aa rather we look at as the contact infa in the sense that even though it's but a tra which is still not so too this a it's true it's but despite the fact that it's not it is and it's for that reason the according to the it's not going to be so bottom line the of the that did become with the mother the part that never left the of the mother it's nothing to talk about the question is it or what would be the be because it's touching the that was outside of the mother at the time of the which did not become with the mother usually if you have that didn't become it's if it's also so the question is do we look at the that's inside as touching thus it will be or not says Yeah, we look at it as mag say we look at it as it's true it's touching something that's but it's not where do you find something that didn't make yet it's not and that's why they use the analogy of just like aa is but it's still not it's so too in this case the remaining will not be Tommy a little confusing but this is just the beginning and really just the backdrop of a very challenging mouth either way I don't understand says that the part of the uber that was inside the mother being that it's making contact with the that was outside of the at the time of it becomes why is it touching isn't this we saw this in the previous there's an idea that even though something touches it becomes but it's only if the contact was done in an external way But if the contact was done internally, for example, if somebody would swallow something and now the data is inside his g. So even though the data is touching the internal organs of this person's g, but it's basic, it's internal. It's hidden. And bas and kasha is is that where the was inside the rah of the mother meets the that was outside the mother, that point of contact is basic. And if that point of contact is holds that being that is we also look at it as being but at the same time you need a proper in order for the to transfer and there wasn't a proper where's the part of the animal that's inside is touching the part of the animal that's outside when to make contact presupposes that's and if it's then this whole should be dead on arrival should be a problem says the word. Oh, you know what the answer must be? Who's the one that said in theorish is that has a special ability to it's what's known as so let's just pick as an example. If he sits or lies or rides on something is the thing that he sat on or lied on or rode on now gets the same status of toma that he himself is. So usually if someone is a source of toma known as anatma if he makes contact with something that's the spreads but it gets diluted a little bit. So the thing that he's mama now becomes a becomes a sheni shi becomes a shishi could become and there's a whole we saw a lot of it earlier in the of what exactly could be a what could be a shady etc a special in of that who sits lies or rides on something when he is that thing that does not get diluted but rather it takes on the same status of that he himself has it's what's known as Tomas majest the point is that if a z would sit on something a cheer that cheer would now be not it would be another could be a cannot be one of the of maj is that the only time a can create a maj is the thing that he sat lied or wrote on was at least has to be that chair if it's smaller than that there's no maj for example, a cloth. It was now and and it had the proper [ __ ] It was three by three. Somebody cut it in half. It's not anymore because that it doesn't have the appropriate anymore. It has to retain a in order for it to be once you cut it in half, it's not going to be anymore. But the mishna says that if you cut the beggar in half, although it can't have a tomas majus anymore because it doesn't have the requisite chair, but at the same time it's still going to be to as if it came in contact with a mattress. And the reason is because when this begged was to med it was a mattress, but also we looked at each part of the bead as touching the other part of the bag. So really it's wearing two hats. It's in it of itself a mattress but also it's in contact with a mattress because every fiber is part of a larger bag. Thus it's in contact with a bag that's also to mattress. But here's the the is that medas has to be a shear of but in order for something to be to not mus any other tom such as magress I'm not because I'm a med I'm not big enough for that but keep in contact with a mattress for that you don't have to be it's a little tricky for you have to be so they're both three by three one is by the other but one is a much bigger says so says that when you cut this begging being that it's not anymore assuming it was two equal parts so one is one and a half by one and a half the other is one and half so it's not going to be the same she but at the same time it's a big enough she from Magas madress and it's that reason you're going to have magamed over there argued he said I don't understand how in the world could you have magamed over there there's no magis that you look at each part of the beggot as touching the other part of the begg didn't hear that said the only way after cutting this bag you can argue that each part of the bag is still going to be zed it then it's going to be from but you can't look at each part of the bag as being a magress by virtue of the fact that it's attached to the other part but what's the bottom line you see from here an interesting is that if you have a baget that's and now you cut the bag in half and now it doesn't have the [ __ ] to anymore do you look at each half of the baget as anyways being Because while it was attached to the other part, it was also touching it. When two things are attached, do we look at it as being in a state of maka or not? Ra said we look at it as being in a state of said now at first glance what's the is arguing the makus is probably tomas that if you oh that basis is to so when two things are attached even though that ma is a quote unquote basum type of ma we look at the fibers touching in a basum way holds so what was the in our we see that mayor hold that over that's inside the mother at the time of is considered to be touching the yad of the mother that was the yat of the uber that was outside of the rama of the mother at the time of the and being a mayor holds that that the mad it has a bit of an it could also be but the was at the end of the day where's the mag you need in order for the is and if it's not considered a says oh it's the same mayor that said that when a begged a complete begged we look at each part of The complete begg is touching each other even though technically it's based on stom this is the same who holds that the is even though it's part of the it's all one but the yad and the remaining part of the are considered touching says the it's not you don't have to say that already explained that price over there that the only time he argued is if the original bag was and you cut it now into two parts me. But let's say you had a very large baguette, a very very large bag and you cut off a small part that was so the part that you cut was a small fraction of the larger baguette. Over here we say even is going to agree that the little part that you cut off is going to be the only time said you don't say maga madress when you cut a baget into half that's if you cut into two relatively equal parts as to be mish equal but they're relatively equal but let's say you have a very large bag and you cut off a small piece that small piece is considered tommy rashi says it's a practical thing because the reason raisi holds it's not tommy magas madress is because The contact is deemed to have been only when they were attached which is based on star. So if you take a big bag and you cut it into two when you as you're cutting it there isn't necessarily going to be contact. But if you cut a small piece of something larger then we assume that little piece is for sure going to touch the bigger piece as you're cutting it. Thus there's going to be a maga that's not necessarily bas. In that case is going to agree. The point is anytime you cut something small from something big, we assume that there's a real maga going to take place not just a mag. If that's the case, you don't have to say our mission is going down from doesn't have to be going even hold that when you cut a beggar into two there was also never. Noah didn't say never said if you cut a small piece from a large piece. In our case, that's exactly what we're doing. We're cutting the hand of this Uber from the larger Uber. Thus, it's a small from a large. In that case, everybody is going to agree different. If you have a beggar, most people don't cut. So being that you're not necessarily going to cut the begot, we look at the beggot as being attached. Thus, even though there's an there's mag and the two parts of the begg are attached to each other, we look at it as mag storm. An uber, however, eventually is going to be cut. And the reason is cuz what do you do with a baby animal eventually kosher one? You sh it and you eat it. So at some point you were going to cut the that was the other day from the rest of the being that you were going to cut it anyways. Here's the punch line. something that is we look at. So we look at what does it mean? So we don't look at the point of contact as you only look at B. You can't see it. Where's the point of contact or where they're touching each other? You can't see it. It's all one piece. But if you can look at it as if it's so then even though practically I see one butically my vision sees something else. I see that's what I'm looking at. And as a result, that's an exposed area. I see two pieces. Oh, that's not based on storm. It's not based on storm. That's what this is going to be. It says more one second. This is also like so if you have a ki that you want to and this kali had a very long handle. It was so long that no one in the world would keep such a long handle. What does it mean? You're going to eventually cut it. Now you want to title this kay. So you put the kay into the mikvah but you were still holding on let's say to the edge of the handle you didn't the entire handle but it's also the son said that's fine it's a good what do you mean the whole ki didn't have no which part of the ki didn't have the part of the handle that you're going to cut anyways the part of the hand that you're going to cut anyways no worries we're not worry about that we look at if it's doesn't matter that it's you still have to to the entire thing so who holds that you say when it comes to that's so again if you're telling me that reason it's not sounds very similar to which is which is fine because we're coming to explain but again does this mean that only works says no it could be it's going there's a difference between regarding the handle of a kali and regarding one of the legs of an animal food. Everybody chops up a handle. Even though this person feels that the handle is too big, but you can't. It's much more challenging to say than to say of food because food is command. It's just that we always see food as if it's already chit sitting on the plate. So if that's the case that it could be even the Raban that argued with regards to the kali they can agree as it relates to the food over here either way. So we had two of the again reaed a mother a pregnant mother at the time the had been it was outside of the of the mother at the time of it's the first we know this in our sleep now and that is that that of the tricky the of the is not says if it's or that's already a chabases But let's to keep it simple. It's and if it's meaning it never became with the it's if it's then the rest of the even though it was inside the mother and it became but at the same time it's going to be because it's making contact with it's making contact with a maga is a you touch you become I don't understand it's very nice the lumbus but at the end of the day that contact happened when you see because it's part of the the a is part of the uber and it's making contact with the rest of itself That's magarum and magus basarum is not a madness. So essentially the gave two one term said which was and that is that any time you cut a do kon from a do god do we assume that there's going to be a real maga as you're cutting it. So we don't look at it as magaz says it's true in theory it's magaz but if you look at this with your glasses then what you're supposed to see is two exposed areas thus even though practically speaking the contact happened but I actually see no I see a cut up because that's just the way it is thus it's not considered magazina the would be what happens if you never cut Does it become tom or does it not become tommy? According to if you never cut the a then there's not going to be because the was always according to even if you didn't cut the from the it's still going to be a problem because says the let's take a look at the you know the says when the brought I'm reading from the was very clear said two things happened first did the mother and then did the thing I understand why the said because if you didn't cut the it's always but according to that holds that even if you don't cut the it's command so why did the Mishna need to set up with two. Number one, you shed the mother. Number two, you cut the you don't have to cut the even if you don't cut the it's still not going to be because without cutting it, it's already once we mention we mention in the as well. Either way, this is all the said that even though the was outside of the mother at the time of the and as a result did not become with the mother. But we still don't look at it as a and as a result the remaining part of the that's inside the mother that does become not only is the it's also it's also not what do you mean it's touching the so what was the lion of the it's like it's like touching a said it's like touching an it's the said it's like touching a now what do mean to say they mean to say it's like touching a tra which is not to a traer but it's not has implications. You're not let al you become so many it's all over the tire. So that's something that you're not allowed to do as it relates to tra has implications. You're not let to eat something if it's but at the same time there is no tom of implications. But the felt that the lushian it's as if you touched the traa sounds like maybe there is some tom of implications of a tra because otherwise what the should have said was is if you touch the regular why they use the word. So the garra sees in there that there may be some implications even in a which sounds like news says should I make such a subtle dick says yes even though we understand ordinarily that is not coming there's a very important that sometimes could be and that is in it's a ra only when it comes But the point is if this exact animal that was discussed in was achan by virtue of the fact that touches even a point it's not a regular that has no issues with it we're the uber that's touching it is 100% it's not at the same time it was in contact with a like but if this was a culture either way the Mishna then went on to describe in a bridge version of the exchange between and so says that one if it's means there's no there's no it's you find that something could be and it doesn't necessarily have to be where do you find that you might have had a little bit of an exchange, a back and forth between is going to elaborate on this exchange. take us to the bottom of the arm. I mean according to this is somehow not how would it not be a it's oh because there was a mother. So if you can look at the the mother as impacting even this that was outside of the at the time of why isn't as well you're being inconsistent. You find that can work better for something that's not part of the mother than for something that is part of the mother. If somebody cuts part of the oper was the safe of the first mission of the paric somebody cuts part of the oper and he leaves that body part inside the mother and then you sh the mother but if you would cut a part of the mother part that doesn't make it a tra necessarily but but an important part nonetheless such as the spleen or the kidneys and the mother and you will leave it inside the mother of the so you see can sometimes impact something that's not part of the mother better than it can part of the mother either way if this seems a little These last few lines it which in short means what did we just say we have to insert some language and we can make sense of ti was like this again was taking this from scratch now you tell me that that one is not why because they have to be consistent if the works for the should work for the it should So they told him you find sometimes that could be something from and not be where do you find that by you find that if you an animal that's a animal is not going to be anymore but at the same time it's not going to be it's true you find sometimes this idea this spout out but at the same time you only find it if the thing that you did is in it of itself the thing that you want to be. So did an animal. So you can bifurcate the status of this animal as it relates to the work with regards to or did it work with regards to but where do you find that with regards to one thing and it impacting something else? But over here the mother you want the of the which is they told him just the opposite it's you actually find that can impact something that's not part of itself more favorably than something that's part of itself. Where do you find that? That's the safe. If you cut a part of the and you leave that body part inside the mother, it's however you cut a part of the mother itself and you leave it inside it would be either way that was the exchange. The exchange wasn't shorted that you want to know why the a that was outside the mother at the time of the is going to be no cuz the didn't work for the a and if the didn't work for the a it didn't work for the a if it wasn't ma it can't be as well the in short said one has nothing to do with the other you find in laws of that the two it's two separate there's the question did the work for and then there's a question did the work for where do you find that traus and The whole paragraph screams that. So you find this idea. So once you find this idea, you can apply the idea here as well. What mayor say? Yeah, you find it in when you're discussing the animal itself. You should find that for the Uber as well. Just the opposite. When it comes to the Uber, it's more because you see it's easier to be matter of the believe it or not, than it is to be ma of the mother that you it seems counterintuitive. Where do you find such an idea? the s of our you find it in the says the same exact thing. How could they ever not be if it's not then it should be I understand that the works to bear that's because it's itself what does that mean that's going to be the next part of the do shimo will know what that means that's part of the but I don't know if you can relate that to the which is not part of the told him no you actually find that the works better for something that's not than it does an exact repetition of everything that we just said. So either way the again it's been discussing the with regards to the mother. So at the time that the mother the was partially out of its mother. The part that's inside is the part that's outside assuming it's only a hand and not the head for example is going to be the question is the part that's is it or is it not says it's because if the a that's outside is not means the never impacted it. If the never had an effect on that a what you're left with is a if it's an aa the uber that's inside is making contact with that which is it's a good old fashion is it's going to be it's a good old fashion it's too much we explain but that's true that the did not impact that a to be mate but it did impact it was on that aver with regards to really could be for this and al that just the opposite. It actually makes more sense being that we're dealing with a than it would to say such a if we weren't dealing with a either way when was making his argument to the and he said I understand how you could be between the being a to take away the tum but not being a he said it makes more sense if we're discussing the ga that did versus an or a of that's inside the mother what was his so in the in the second that the brought in I understand it in a classic case of where we're discussing objecting this so you'll tell me the works for the to be but not to be and I understand it also if there's is an which again is where I don't agree with you is when you're dealing with not the animal that did but the fetus of the animal that was Rome's argument but he threw in so what's an aham this is an a that's hanging off the animal so you're dealing with an animal doesn't have to be a pregnant animal regular animal and one of its aarim is hanging it's not a tra but at the same time it's it's it's eventually this a is going to fall off and there's that the really discuss at the end of the but we're going to have a lot of it right now that discusses the status of the most important of is is that when you shed an animal that has an this hanging that does not become that's the question is if it's not is also as if it would have been or maybe I mean how do you look at maybe the way you look at it is is if it felt off before I actually it that's why it doesn't become if I look at it as if it fell off before I actually it then I would treat it as a right now is or maybe I look at it as a I don't say that it fell off before I but at the same time there's just a doesn't work for it now the animal's dead it fell off after it already died so that a is going to be looked at as it's very similar to the that we're learning now we're discussing an a of an uber that wasn't inside the base at the time And that a does not become motor. What about as it relates to of this is a very very similar what's of an not of an of a regular animal different case. A regular animal has an Ara that a does not become. What about with regards to do we say it's or do we say it's not Tommy? It seemed clear that held that it would be cuz when Rome was saying that I'll tell you where I hear I hear the inita with regards to being with regards to a regular transfer or I hear it even by an Abraham. What did mean when he said I hear it by an Abraham? He meant that over there even though the does not matter I can hear that the will be why because it's the shing but you want to say it even for the of the which is there I DON'T HEAR IT SAID NO I HEAR IT MORE by the than I hear it by the but either way it would seem for a mayor the mayor who holds that the a of the is going to be would agree that the aud Although the wasn't matter it's not going to be stating that is regarding the with regards to and it's not just any the same exact remain regarding the of the that was not inside the at the time of which we know is it is not but mayor said it's the whole becomes saying no it's not it's and as a result unless it's where it be it's not going to be at all that same exact you have by the meaning according to mayor according to mayor that is going to be that it's going to Tommy according to it's not going to be Tommy said no is only as it relates to the everybody agrees. What does that mean? Rashi says two words meaning everybody is going to agree that the is going to be even that said that the of the that was not inside the does not become to but the is and there everybody agrees that it's going to be in the sense that when you sh the animal it just completed what we see had already happened pri prior to the and as a result we look at it as if the fell off prior to the in which case it's going to be by the way which will it be if it fell off prior to the not which is very similar to but if you want to be accurate it's not it's rather meaning it's coming out of that are going to be between the of and the is going to according to the says it's very posh says this is in the beginning of the parel that when the uber came out of the mother if it put its hand back in it's going to be okay so meaning when the's was outside of the and the mother at that point even though there was a problem the had no way of impacting the a but it was a problem, right? The Uber could have taken its hand, brought it back inside, and in that case, it would not have been an issue. However, if the is it seems like there's no way to fix that, and if there's no way to fix that, it's a problem that has no and over there it's more over there, we look at it as if it already fell off. Thus it's going to be so it comes out that holds that the same we had in our Mishna regarding the of the you have regarding the what's the commonality between the two cases you have two cases where there's a part of the animal that's not and the question is does that mean that it's also or not so in this case says the same exact said no when it comes to everybody agrees is that it's going to be Tommy. What's the cash from the price that we just saw? What did Rome say? Remember component of the and the component of the when you're dealing with the gof itself that you and he said but I understand a regular even though it's or if there's an Abraham which is animal's not a tra but it has an Arab I understand that it could be tar. How do you read this? Who says that mayor that said that by the of the being that it's also going to be hold that by the also being that it's going to be coming. So when a mayor told the I hear by the he didn't mean it because he holds the is like the of the what he meant was the holds that the who in our hold that the although it didn't work to be m the of the it did work to be mat also holds it the so mayor is telling the I hear you I know you hold your not only in this I know you hold it in the end that talk about the and I'd rather hear it by the you want to know what I hold I happen to disagree with you but at least I hear it I hear where you're coming from right but over here meaning but but at least it's understood what was saying what's the problem but that was actually more than the so there's no one in the world that holds that the Abraham which is going to be to everybody agrees it's going to be to what's saying I hear it by the Abraham really that's interesting even the didn't say it by the Abraham nobody hears it by the Abraham so according to do you understand what Ra was telling the soar says we're forced to say that we must have had an incorrect version of the so now we're going to have the But the same we have in our mission regarding which is it is not by also after it's whether it's going to be or is it not going to be whe only by the but as relates to the not I call just the opposite. Everybody holds the is more kadig than the of the meaning not only the hold that the is going to work to be even is going to hold that it's going to be avail between the and the what is the I love the is very simple himself in the is the part of the animal as opposed to the uber is only part of the Uber. It's easier for the to be mat the animal itself than it is for it to be mat the a of the but as it relates to going back to the according to the second you can read the both according to and according to according to the same and the by the by the so when tells the I hear I hear as it relates to the he didn't mean that he agrees with it it's rau He just said I hear it. What you're saying to the mission don't hear that's where saying according to according to it's according agrees by the Abraham everybody agrees by the Abraham. So what mayor is telling the is listen I even agree with you as it relates to Abraham but as it relates to the over here I do not hear it. finished also in the name. This is important because we just had two versions of what holds when it comes to the tum component of the according to the first version that everybody agrees it's even the according to the second version which the gar suggested is the we'll see now in the of the is the everybody agrees meaning even raor agrees that is going to be so says the name everybody agrees is that if you have an animal that had an aham and that it died, it wasn't rather what happened was it died. The is everybody agrees that that aul is deemed to have fallen off before the animal died and as a result that a will have not. So even though are very similar to each other but they're not the same is much more than and as a result the will be viewed to have fallen off before the death of the animal. So we look at as if it was not it has it doesn't have and everybody agrees with that. Nobody argues with that who's the nobody may everybody agrees but at the same time everybody agrees that is not going to be that if you the animal then we don't look at the as if it fell off meaning it's not going to be that is the second version of what said in the previous is corroborating he said in the name the second that we had in understanding but he added something meaning the second thing he said was but his first he said was also very bigish the mis is that for some reason when the the animal that has the is now dead so you look at the if it fell off previously and the mis just completed it was the like said if not so till nowishness maybe it's now the is being that it could be there's another factor that we need to take into consideration and that is how did the animal die? Did it die naturally? Was it mis or did it die says the mis is meaning if it dies then we look at the as if it had fallen off previously it's going to be says the what are we talking about said was he referring to the we explain the garra we explained that he was referring to that's based on the mascara is going to say right now but here the is just walking through it in real time We talking about the you can't say there's a remain of the what he means is the behavior of the and we're discussing the and that's saying that even though but as it relates to the it's going to be different everyone's going to agree asks another and that is both of these seem to be have It's a later the buser needs action in order for it to be we're discussing over here animal that died that had an Abraham and is that the buser is not to the only way the buser of the Abraham is to is if there comes But it's not in and of itself. That's another way of saying it's not an because if it was an it wouldn't have to have means if you you're getting your from somewhere else. If you're a source of you don't need to be right. So if the says that needs to be means it's not the next part of is is literally nobody argues with says. So if that's the case of everybody holds that if you had an animal that had an that had an animal died you look at that a now is being that's why it's not that's why the boss so you don't have to worry about says that is also the fact that is which seemed to be a whole discussion now is saying oh by the way it's it's a mafurishna where is it says is that they become they referring to the we'll see the gay the word they the should be it what's the lion could be now what do you mean it should be why don't we say that the is that it's It's Tom. It should be Tomas. Now here there's no discussion of really being assumes because he but the question is at the very least it should be Tomas. You see there's no Tomas. And who said it? Oh said it. So you see foolish that even who holds anishno when it comes to the that is going to be over here. He seems to say as it relates to the butar is asking this as a caution because if a have to say it didn't repeat the were commentary on the explain the asked questions tus raas things but but they didn't repeat for so if that's the case what's this bigish says this is it's so the answers the second kasha as it relates to the second that isn't later the says no because what did the say now we're assuming what does mean that the only way the to become is if it's first of why Why isn't it? So you see that says maybe that's not what the Mishna means. Maybe it's referring to the has to be what's the because even though there's there's no one of the differences between and is by every when it comes to it's only the you need a once a then the BA which is attached to the A is but you need to have an A. So maybe is referring to the being that there was a propita although the maybe was and the itself will be but the bus is not going to be and the reason the bus is not going to be is because there's no if all you have is without any a and being that there was a so that work even for the in the sense that it's bus is not going to be but you don't see says that there's no which means that even the would require the Mish doesn't say that says they it's it what is they referring to we're assuming it's referring to maybe it doesn't mean maybe it means but the says doesn't of doesn't isn't that in of itself a that this pronoun of they what's it referring to oh must be it's referring to the buser and the but the point is it includes in the M says no maybe it's the they is all referring to the why do you need a lush to refer to one thing should be in the singular two types of one is the reverse order there's two types of there's the pish from the directly and then there's the baser that was pish from the what's the difference I would have thought you would have thought is that the bus that was part of the being that when it's part of the it takes on of even though it's not an a but when it's attached to an a it has a a special place in the of because it can take on the status of a because it's part of the a And special laws of Toma. So the buser that's attached to have special laws of Toma. So you would have thought a new a new random you would have thought that anytime you have buser that falls off an maybe even if the animal had good maybe that bus could become without first becoming without why would you think that usually food cannot become unless it's first. There's a different type of food. This is flesh that's attached to an a which sometimes has the of an. So you find onera maybe you would think another kamashan.