Chulin 75

Today's daff is a and we will begin from the top line of dy mantana. So we're middle of the suga of ben. So really the backdrop of perma makasha is a that says that if you sh an animal a female animal and you find an uber inside the womb of the animal that you shed the is that the of the mother works so that you are now allowed to eat the that was in the mother's as well stating that there was a very important is in the ram says is that the only time the Uber becomes of the mother is if the Uber was not a fully developed live Uber. If however the uber was already 9 months old and it was alive the is you cannot eat the uber per the of the mother but rather you would have to the in of itself in order for it to be the argued and they said that's not the way it is but rather the of the mother works for the uber even if the uber is fully developed even if it's a a live animal 9 months old it doesn't matter the of the mother always works for the Uber. Either way, today's DA is going to discuss that is the that fully developed uber that's alive that was found inside the of the mother after the mother is what's known as the Ben. There's a lot of lum very interesting. Either way, the Gar had discussed on the bottom of what's with regards to according to the where it's alive but at the same time it does not require it own do we say that right now being that it's alive it can become or do we say that being that it's alive it cannot become meaning we know that a behemoth can become but only after it dies a live behemoth can't become tom a human being can become tommy even when he's alive. All of predicated on people becoming tame. You touch a sher, you touch an a you're in an etc. A human being can become while he's alive. An animal can only become when it's no longer alive. A live animal can't become when it dies. We view it as and now it's subject to the laws of the question is according to the old that doesn't require. So to a certain degree we look at it as if it's not alive anymore. If we can look at it as if it's not alive anymore. It had a had it have a because when she did the mother it worked for the uber. So maybe that Ben Pakua should be able to become tom brought a bryo that says that a Ben pua can in fact become and today's d is going to pick up with that says that if a benu which is obviously alive it passed through it became wet now that it's wet it's if a later goes into a it comes in contact with a maze it could become meaning who's the tana that holds that according to the not only is without but we look at it as if it's right now so that it's subject to the laws of so meaning not everybody agrees not everybody would agree to this idea that according to the is viewed as if it's dead so that it's now subject to the laws of it's the opinion of a who's the time to the said that could become but like all foods it needs to be first first has to become wet in order for it to be able to become at the end of the day it's true that Benua had in it and it's for that reason if you want to eat it now it doesn't need a new the mother worked for the Benaka, but at the same time it's alive and being that it's alive an animal that's alive even in from a perspective on some level maybe we could look at it as if it's dead but that's not enough for the laws of either way it's so if you have a says it must be that although it was mentioned anonymously it must be the opinion of a it's the opinion of says this who said that that price is going once said something very similar. He said both said the same that it's possible for a live animal to be subject to the laws of a live animal can never become we're talking about a which has the den of a dead animal so that even though it's alive it could still be that's and this is a so a lot of Fish like animals can only become tame once they're dead. Or at least that's what you would think before this Mishna. If they're alive, it's a regular live that can not become tummy. Stating that a three-way when in fact a fish is deemed dead to the point where now it could become says as soon as the fisherman has the fish inside his net, even if the fish is still in the water, even if the fish is still alive, at that point he knows that the end is very very near. And as a result, he's considered dead enough that it could become tommy. Still, no, you need that the fish should actually be dead. It should not have a pulse in order for you to say that the fish can now become says it's not when it's in the net. It's not when it's dead. But it's from the time when it can't live anymore. Sounds very similar to says from when it's dead. Says from when it can't live anymore. is when the fish is outside of the water. It's flapping. It's about to die, but it's still alive. According to it can't become tummy at that second because says it actually has to be dead. Rabaka however argues says at that point it's not in the net in the water. It's much further down the road. It's already flapping outside of the water. At that point is you'd be able to be Tommy either way says the B who said that a fish could become while it's alive as long as it's in the net of the fisherman even if it's inside the water that's essentially said because ordinarily alive cannot be stating that you find exceptions to the rule said it with regards to it's considered dead because of the fact that there was That's enough to say that as long as it's become said a similar thing was talking about fish and said that as soon as the fish is inside the net of the fisherman it's considered dead enough that it can now become on the topic of these fish. What would be if a fish had in it? So it's not in the fisherman's net necessarily. It's not outside the water. It's certainly not dead, but it has simony tra. And Rashi lists one of the tra that we discussed in great detail when we learned. So now you have a fish that has now usually don't think of tra and fish together. Why not? Because in the laws of fish doesn't require you could eat a fish if it's dead as long as it's not alive anymore. There's no of there's no of either stating that wanted to know with regards to the of a fish but coming what if it has a and he said I hear if you hear even according to the says maybe that's only for who's much easier to kill a fish than it to kill an animal. light. Maybe even the mama that says would agree that and as a result once the fish has at that point it could become or perhaps maybe you find the concept of but by fish even though it's easier to kill the fish but at the end of the day the laws of I think we know that and as a result they were said by it's you don't find such with regards to fish. So maybe even if you ta in a kayak ta cannot impact fish says the gimmoro tu now rash the gimaro that sh ofenu was going according to rabaka raaka that says that you don't need the animal the fish to be dead in order for it to be royabon what you need is that it should be outside of the water meth Farfer it's it's about to die that's enough wanted to know what if it's not outside the water about to die in seconds but it has we know there's an idea that allow us to look at something alive as if it's not no longer alive and is that at least enough in's world to say that is going to be like the fish being but according to Billow who holds that you need that the fish should physically be dead in order for it to is not enough to render the fish dead. So according to it doesn't have to be dead. It just has to be how do you look at when it comes to these fish that it physically has to be dead over there says it's that the never in other words these seven lines that we just read says Rashi is all going according to but according to B there was never such a we'll see soon when we speak out some raid that not all the agree with that and there a very nice raid related to this rash. But either way, for now, another garl what's the if had a it miscarried a child and the gummor wants to know what's the as it relates to the of the nl. So this is a a female behemoth. It has an uber in its womb. This uber just miscarried. So it was born but but it's not alive. And the question is the of a which is always it's very it's one of the that's how aer it is. So what about the of this? Is it gonna be or is it gonna be a says the we look at the as the of is going to be we look at as of and is just another way of saying that it's not going to be it's going to be because he holds that the status of this way explains the gor is completed as soon as the baby is born. So as soon as this is then it should be if it's a it's of the says the of he doesn't look at the because he holds it's not the fact that the was that completes the status of thus renders it of but rather it has to be The behemoth, the uber is not considered behemoth quote unquote until it's fully developed. I think that this was a nafl. It was never fully developed. It was 8 months old, let's say. So, as a result, it's not going to be considered a behemoth. So, in other words, what you see from this gar is an interesting kadesh. Usually, you think a behemoth that's pregnant. It's a behem. I mean, it could be a 3 months, 4 months, 8 months, 9 months developed, nal, not developed, but it's a behemoth. What else is it? You see, we're not that way. That be is a status that you have to earn. It's a you have to earn the tire of you don't just get it so simply when does it become according to it's established when it comes so if it was a it's going to be according to it has to be and until it's not yet a what is it but a it's not going to be says somehow had a different version of this. Everybody agrees that if this Uber this fetus was not fully developed, it's not considered a and as a result is treated like the it's going to be was it was a different it was more related to the learning right now where there was a behema that had in it this uber it was 9 months old and it was alive and now somebody stuck his and into the womb of the mother cow took out the of the question is is this says it's going to be us because even though it was never it doesn't matter at the end of the day it's fully developed and that's enough to treat it as a bead you have to have and you have to have and being that you don't have both it's not going to be meaning if it was like it's for sure going to The question was where it was because otherwise there's no starting point until the Uber is 9 months old. It's definitely not. The question is if it was how's that possible? Very simple. where the the person stuck his hand into the and took out the So do you say that it was being that it was that's a reason that it should be which is or do you say that as long as it had months that's going to be oh no we know that of a was put on them. So anytime the a carbon was brought so part of the carbon was eaten meaning part of the meat of the carbon was eaten by the sometimes by the bum and part of the meat was put on the what was put on the same those same if it was that was that's what was given to now the repeats the of the goes on the by the and The is bothered that why the have to repeat it says the when the talks about the of an it doesn't include the of its fetus you know why an is always a so if it's always it doesn't have a fetus and as a result clearly when the talks about going on the it means of the animal it doesn't mean the the so is if you had a female botch says like for example which could be either is not going to be included says the asking according to me it's understood why we need a to because being that I hold that a fully developed even if it was it's considered a th it's considered with regards to you would have that it's also should go because if it's part of a larger animal. It's in its mother. That's a so maybe of going. It doesn't matter if it's the of the mother. It's the of the but that holds that until the baby is born. It's not considered a quote unquote with regards to and is not. Why would you need a a to teach me that that doesn't go into said I hear but at the same time you're right from the of the from the fact that we need a carbon as a that there would have been that the of the should be considered a behem even though so the of this whole discussion is but why are we going to prove anything from the let's look at the mas what's the bottom line of this the bottom line is is that you don't put the on the why not I think the reason you don't put it on the is because what the is coming to tell me is that IT'S NOT I'M WORKING BACKWARDS you're right you see clearly that there would have been I'm not saying that is not good I'm not saying it's not a but what I am saying is at the end of the day from this price I think it's a riot to me because what we see in this price is that you don't take the of the baby and put on them as why not it's part of aim you're taking the of the mother why not take the of the child that the B is coming to teach me that the is not considered if it's not considered with regards to I don't think it should be considered and with regards to the as well in fact the now brings another version of this exchange between andish was the one bringing from this price up because really if you think about it this price seems a little bit more likelish was the one who asked he was on the offensive. He said according to me it's understood. It makes sense why the of the baby don't go on the because I hold it's not yet. It's not with regards to it's not with regards to but according to you why aren't you putting it on the if you tell me this is why it doesn't go on the okay you want to ask me it's not there's a lot of there's a lot of animals or parts of animals that technically meet the criteria of but still they don't have to go an animal doesn't go until it's 8 days old so what are you going to tell me because it's not a there's no of course there's But there's a nal. So I hold that this is and as a result the is not going to go on the but the fact that you don't put on the is not that it's not considered either way another animal and you found this is an animal that's going to be right it's a healthy animal so the question is and now it goes out. You want to eat it. Do I have to sh it? Do I not have to sh it? Says you have to sh it. I wasn't it inside the womb of the animal. It was in the mas of the mother didn't stick its hand out, not its head out. So what's the problem? Why should the of the mother work? Says Rome because even though there is a of but with the exception of a fully developed animal at that point it's not going to become with the mother. The kam argued the kim said not that way said raami what would be in the following case if somebody sheed an animal a female animal they found out afterwards that it was a trafa right they inspected the lungs there was circus it was a trafa not just that it was also a mueris and the baby came out and it was a fully developed child it was it was 9 months old and it's going to be able to live the question is what's the now with regards to this said rai mcc according to a mayor that says the mother does not work for the so the fact that the was a tra quote unquote is going to have no impact on the child why because the child anyways was never shy to the mother never worked for it anyways as a result it's m you treat it like any other bakua it's a bakua you want to eat it you have to sh it of That's and it's going to be fine. However, that holds that you don't have to this animal is going to be off limits. You're not going to be able to eat it. Why not? And this is very loveish because you can't eat it based on the of the mother because the mother was a straa and you can't do another later because it already had a mean that it already had a at this point there's no way to go ahead and do a second. So the bottom line is is because of the ka of in this case it's going to come out. So said very nice that's in this case it's going to be what does Mita said with the mother in this case it's going to be because you can't become the mother and once he did a bad you can't do another because it was already says no that becomes the mother in this case it's going to be as well why because the way we look at is is the T gave you two choices. The T gave it four sim. Usually an animal has two sim, the con of respectively. This animal has four sim. If you want you could check the mother. If you want you can check the child. But you don't say that if you shed the mother sim and there was an issue with it. So now you don't have the option. NO YOU YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS. This see right usually the mother is enough. So you don't have to worry beyond that. Over here the mother is not enough. Why? because it was so you're going to be able to work with the of the child said so this is our case somebody an animal it was a mother it was a and they found that it had a this is true point everybody there's no way the of the mother is going to work you have to give the you have to give every time every time you And you have to give the and the to the in this case you're going to have to do the same thing. Additionally, if the Benua dies, this is a if the Benua dies, it's not going to be Thomas. It's not going to be Tommy Thomas. Why not? because it had a ready because when you did the mother even though the didn't work to be the ben to be maka not to be it did work to be on some level and as a result it's going to be or it's going to be so again >> right and the reason is like this because not but is the mother. So being that it was Mat the mother, it could be Mat the as well. So again this was the case you did a mother that was a tra and you found that it had a benu says as it relates to the benita it's you need to do a regular as it relates to eating it you're going to givea you're going to have to do aita you're going to have to be worried about the laws of grow this you need a regular there's no question I what do you mean didn't the mother already have a yeah it's true the mother had a but it was but at the same time this animal when it dies despite the fact that it needs a tra will never be a what do you mean if it if it needs now it dies so it's an avail so doesn't ana have a yeah because the of the to work at least to the degree that it's not going to be and the reason is because the worked for the mother for the tra itself that it shouldn't have to so if it works for the mother to not have to it's going to work for the child to not have to oh my so Doesn't make any sense. If you're telling me that inita, who must you be going according to it sounds to me like you're going like you're going like that holds that a benu doesn't become the mother. But then you tell him to then you tell him it doesn't become command that's going to that holds that of the mother does work for the ben. So why asking me what I'm saying you should know is already said this same exact case when said in the that is going according to a mayor right they amazed at the time of who's it going according to meaning he's saying there was a that was retired from It's obvious. So, why you asking a cash on me? Isn't it a cash on? So, said no. Holy cash. And the Bryce I'm not asking aasha cuz the you could always be you could add a letter sometimes. Right knew when a bryer was properly edited when it wasn't properly edited and they knew what kind of they were allowed to manipulate when it came to understanding bry. So said the bryer is not bothering me because I could always say that that the last thing said the way you read it is not but rather the way you're supposed to read it is if you found it dead meaning it wasn't agrees like this everybody agrees that of the mother is going to work but you're being pretty clear you're not saying you're telling telling me. So what you're telling me is a because it's not a like but at the same time even the agree that if you is you would be able to do another with the child and it's going to be why would you be able to do another didn't already have a it's true it already had a but at the same time when you do now a a new it's okay because that's the is either with the mother or with the of the child so either one of the work so of course I'm going according to said not like we're going according to we passing like we pass so he's going according to that is and it's for that reason if this animal dies it's not going to be Tommy Tomas Na because of the mother at the very least for it to be met from Tomas Na but at the same time but at the same time I also hold that despite the fact that it had a that worked to be from Na you could do another to be does that make sense it makes sense because that's the way the terror designed the either way essentially holds like what said on the bottom of either way. One last point on this famously went from came to says that it was who heard talking and learning and he said over the he said over this with regards to if somebody and there was a baku that even according to you could do another. So he said told he's saying very good and he said by the way said the same thing that you said. So that's the ultimate ask from he said what you said but the says when he said were we supposed to imply didn't say that. So the says no either says that it's to see the rashy inside would say something and didn't agree with it. He wouldn't say anything right away but rather he would wait a little bit of time to make sure. He thought maybe would change his mind. So he would wait to think through the question. Rashi says no. He was waiting to see if was going to stand his ground and he was going to maintain his position. Either way, that's exactly what happened. Walked out. He had no idea whether so when he said, he didn't mean he he knew wasn't sure about it. And he knew was was going to wait around and to see what he held. But he said, "I never heard anything one way or another from I can't tell you for sure definitively about some say was drinking water." Rashi says it. So didn't comment and wasn't sure if the reason didn't comment is simply because he was drinking water or he didn't comment because he was mo he held that was right. In other words, we have a sh over here somebody and he found a ben. So how does it impact? Could you go now do a proper obviously the of the is not going to work for the can you do you could the mother never impacted the child so just like if it wasn't a tra the mother wouldn't work for the if it was a tra with the tra doesn't affect the questions according to the matter do you say do you not say either way that is this ex so before we go and conclude the suga of Ben paka just one heart and that is that we mentioned on a sh with regards to fish. brought a Mishna in the third per often that discusses fish that are when do they become and an animal any with the exception of a human being while it's alive cannot become once an animal dies it becomes even if it's comes in contact with a become to but a live animal can't become once it's dead now it's subject to the laws of and the Mishna discusses what if what about fish and with regards to fish it's not so straightforward says as soon as they're in the fisherman's net they're going to die and that's enough to say that right now they can become says no even by fish they physically have to be dead said that which is some in between stage that they don't physically have to be dead but once they're out of the water for example that being that's enough for them to be at the point where they can now become declared he wanted to know what if it was what would be the if a fish had and explained to who says that they don't have to be dead in order for them to be so what if you have a fish that's alive but it has that enough that we can look at it as so that according to it would now be or do we say no at the end of the day it's not out of the water maybe but that's not enough to say that it shouldn't be able to and the concludes and the says but either way this is all and this held that according to the who says that you need for it to physically die it's no one's going to say that if it has money that's going to be enough for us to look at as if it's dead stating that clearly clearly implied held that the is meant to be learned differently. The rabb brings this and the says from the time it dies who does that. Then the Ram continues and the Ram says what happens if the fish had a tra and now they became says the says it's a what's the never resolved the ra has no way of resolving the says the ram that when do fish become stating had if it had I'm not sure what is now the Ramb and still the Rama brings if all of doesn't have to be dead then what's the Rama bringing the Rama like has to be dead anyways so is going to make it as if it's dead you see the Rama not like the Rama that was a sh it wasn't a shaka thus despite the that the rail still he brought to what would be the stating that says that it's I don't understand the he says why that was according to what's criteria for a fish to be able to become it has to be at a point where it's in light of three and a half weeks enough to make it. Maybe no. We have to wait for to resolve the sh such a good child. But the ra but according to Bah who holds that fish becomes when they're dead. It could have a traer. It could have 10 traers. At the end of the day, it's alive right now. What does traer mean? Trafer means that it's going to die, but it's not dead. So if said that you need the fish to be dead in order for it to be what is very bothered by it says I think it's even here is I thought about it and you know what doesn't bother me so much the ram is even according to even though the ram that fish only become when they die The Rama must have held that when an animal is a tra it's as if it's dead and says even though at first glance it sounds like a big but somebody kills but so you see there's a new that when someone has money he's treated like a mace Either way says that it's true he is all coin and it's true says in order for it to be but what's going to be enough to say that right now we may be looking at it as that and a fish that's dead is maybe there as well and this we did not see this in parake when we discussed of it was always that once an animal's a tra we know it's going to die but who ever said that you look at a tra as if it's dead right now. This is a that we had to wait for talked away here the way the with the you see over here that a not only is it made to die but with regards to certain we can look at as if it's dead where do you have these? So we have two we have our right here that even though holds that fish can only become that had a suffik that maybe once it has a trophy we look at as if it's dead and has his if somebody kills a tra and the beer is with this cuz t is looked at as if he's dead not with regards to all I mean if we looked at it as if it's dead you have to so obviously it's only with regards to certain but at least two applications of this thing so this is the third with regards to the of trade is that we the the first one was last Sunday where we spoke at the the once an animal has a tra does that mean it's going to be a tra forever like you have in once a a woman can't fall a yum even if the circumstances change she's going to be a forever discuss we spoke out many times we had that if a kosher animal gives birth to an animal that doesn't have the simra says it's awesome we spoke out from the ruggage of who said that it's because of sa versus sim that was that we saw here sa this is the third one that there's an idea that sometimes not only do we look at it as if it's going to die but with regards to certain we look at it as if it's dead as well but it's interesting that that says why did like it seems a little bit more stabber that the basil who says that you need the fish to be dead why be considered as if it's dead. Okay, I figured it out. But at the same time, it still seems a little bit more. So why did the Ram learn the like and not like he says because we know that is always like now is always like so now we have a real what do you do on the one hand on the other hand says the that when is when the says What's so it's true the rule is always possible but that rule is limited to arguing with so if you have like is going to be like but when it's when he's going up against a rab there's going to be difference you want to know why the raam pas like basil not is because doesn't say that the merch says but it's that we have to be it made more sense like now the truth is that this idea of a little bit of a discussion and it's worth a little bit of a digression the in his name is and he brings this he says it's posh that even though the garra says we always pass that's only if he's arguing with a if he's arguing with it's not going to be that way says the being that I'm talking about this club I have to share with you says that I found The mugging David. Who's the mugging David? Also known as the taz. So the he made a mistake not once but twice. Twice not once. Twice the says that you can look it up. It's in the task. says it's because he said it in context and it's not true because he made a mistake with something that's anyone that knows learning knows that it's true but it's only says is the reason that the like not like is a rabb and either way bring But I'll tell you something interesting. We always speak out. He devoted his and he speaks about this amongst many many many many that he discusses and that is he says I found the first that he holds that not only and then he says even a little bit mash But either way says not that way. Meaning he brings it as if the says but he says I have my is in the end of the first who says that so we have the in two places and now we have the but I think there's a third and that's from right here the asks rashi learned was going the rama learned it was going according to basil Rashi learned why would be asking it would seem to imply that Rashi would hold that is like thus discussion of the is usually discussed the WE DON'T like here because although it's true Listen to the guy that's arguing with his. It's not true because I found a freight. Why implying that is not like where do you find that? It's a rush. Now, who's right? So it's not so over there sounds like a very big but it's but regardless whether both mentioned in the I don't know WHY like let me ask you a question if there's a that's everybody knows that why the terrorist he says I found a RUSH that's not that's a nice IT'S A MAJOR SO WHY DID HE ASK from this rush why did he ask more he should have said this keeps taking on all the everybody he's arguing with over here so why did he fly to the rush Why do you say I think it's from this but I think it's in this that he held like the in two places like the end of the first that's not so simple he doesn't hold THAT WASN'T EVEN HIS FROM the say he had his incidentally we don't just have three we have three of the earliest the I mean who needs no introduction the who needs no introduction and the terrorist for those who don't know I mean the his name was he was the bells believe it or not so he was the bells he was nif in 1632 so he's from the early early his father was a of his brother was the so the and the either way we have three I think we just go right into the next part of raid and we'll figure out how we handle the rest of the d but regardless for now just one more and that is we're talking about the pakua we've been learning the sugai the sugis of so I thought it's kadai to speak out one and that is everybody knows rashi in the beginning of para so begins and unfortunately and unfortunately and the brothers and the everything happened and the say was 17 years old and he spoke lion about his brothers. What was the lion? He says he said three things. Number one, he said that my brothers, they eat. Number two, they called them three. And then he said, "By the way, also says because of the three lion horrors that spoke, he was punished for all three because he said, the prophet says, etc., etc. Either way speaks lash and horror about his brothers. What was the lash and horror they were mousled with and they were and this was a problem the fact that spoke and he was punished for it and the punishment was etc etc. At first glance this is what happened. Was it true? Let's speak about because we're learning now. Was it true? Did the brothers really eat? If that's the case, how could they possibly eat? What's going on? And if it's not true that they then then was lying. He went to his he went to his father and he lied about the so before the brush is the in his brings a from the he says like this the says that he found this not the I'm sorry this says I found I heard you didn't see it inside so this is the quoting who says that he heard about that says that what went on over here was as follow says we know that the were able to create things with the talks about they used to create an in his famous truth talks about if somebody creates a person but regardless there's an idea that had the ability to have the ability to create to create people and animals with the says that what happened over here was the they had this of how to use from their father and they were creating animals with the says the if you create an animal with the you're allowed to eat the animal without it's not a regular animal that has a mother and a father to me they sat down AND THEY ATE IT HAD NO IDEA THAT IT WAS created with the as a result sees that meaning he thinks they're eating. THE REALITY IS IS that these were created as a result it did not require a and that's how you reconcile the brothers of course never wasn't lying he thought they he was unaware what's amazing is that the said that he found that this safer that they explained all three things this is not just the explanation for the first quote unquote they used to talk about the brothers but it was true for the other two as well one of the things he said was that they were says the that they were using the she to create as well and as they were spending time with them and thought that these were regular and as a result he thought it was but being that they weren't real as a result there really was no what was the zul in the in the wanted in they also wanted to be able to participate in what was going on but at the same time says the it's that in order to you have to be from the so it's not enough that you're also have to be the they weren't because their mothers were and as a result THEY SAID NO YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE YOU CAN'T HAVE FROM this why not because you're you're not you don't have the to be able to be in something like this says he says he heard that that was the passion the was is that this wasn't real animals they weren't real in the cavis And the couldn't be because it was all through the but that is the says he says you know and what he says about spoke a lot about he talks about what he saw by his we've spoken about these things many times in the d but the one thing he says That's that's the only comment that I have. But as it relates to everything else, he says that he's bes that he's willing to accept. But either way, so we have a mahal. The mahal is that what happened over here was they were all created with shame. created with shame is not a regular not doesn't require didn't know that thought they were eating but in reality they were not eating but it's that the and this is in has a different he has a different to explain what exactly was going on and the and that is we know that they kept even before it was given the the and they kept the they now have a or did they still have a dinner of says that's partial they had a dinner of makes sense but the question is what about what if the of isra and of do you say because they kept the dinner well they only had but at the same time they they maintain their so in the context of that conversation says with regards and really two. The first thing is we spoke about many times in very very great detail and that is without going into the whole of that but the gist of it as it relates to is is that has and has but by something becomes not as soon as for a depends on where the animals are alive animals are dead and the say in what would be if you shed an animal and animal was and while that animal was says you took off a piece of meat that piece of meat is it going to be or is it going to be as for a year it's going to be why because for a year as long as it's a it's not it's not even anymore but for doesn't have it's not it doesn't have what does it matter is it alive it's alive says doesn't have long to live but it's alive right now and being that it's alive so is it's going to be considered theor says now everybody agrees with that it's But at the same time said it can't be because right there's no saying if it's for for a guy then for it has to be for a guy. So papa argued by the way the rabb says that if somebody would take a piece of meat from an animal after while it's still alive it's for it be also for good doesn't pass uses that in his tru about abortion because that abortions comes from didn't seem to hold of but the bottom line is it's possible to just like flesh that according to if you're according to it will be if you're going to be says in theory there's another and that is we learn we pass like a is it going to be for or will it not be for a it's going to be because of the mother what about says that it's going to be also for why because what's the reason right now without is it alive or is it dead? It's dead or I'm sorry it's alive. So if it's alive it should be awesome. So you have two cases where something could be deemed according to who does not hold for but it won't be considered for number one if you removed a little bit of while the animal was number two says you want to know what was going on over here what was going on is theim were eating aim that were removed from the animal while it was says or alternatively They were eating a saw and he said you know why they not let it be like the rabbis of you're not allowed to eat it. What did the shift call? The shift they call held that they had a it's for that reason they were allowed. So was it was it not? It was for it was not for Israel and the Shiloh between Ysef and the brothers was whether they had a dinner or whether they had a dinner. But the Malik asks one question. I'm going to leave with this one fundamental question. Are we supposed to walk away from this thinking that if you have a Ben paka, you can take the ben without it and just take a bite out of it and everything is going to be fine. Maybe. Right. Wait a minute. The mother you see when it dies there's no so I think so maybe it's and when we say that according to the Ben is without it just means it doesn't eat but it cannot be alive. If it's going to be alive it's going to be a problem. Like why should that be the case? So he says I have it here somewhere that it's a Rama and the Rama is in perf over there is discussing if somebody removes baser oh it's right here if somebody's discussing as follows exactly you're not allowed to eat from an animal that's as long as it's still alive why it's still right wasn't said. It's not we're talking to to Jews, right? We're talking to says if someone eats from it before it dies, it's included in the but you're not going to get now. What's the mart is the over there is discussing the concept of that's one say where many are learned on from there says the I'll give you an example of it's a before it dies the says another thing we learned from and that is and eat the buster of Kim before you do this. Another thing you learn from cycle is with regards to the another thing you learn from the of is that the before they pass they're not allowed to eat. There's a whole bunch of that's a quintessential says you don't get if somebody eats from a you're not going to be you're not going to get this for now just to be clear this is not the right if somebody asks you what's the learn so what's the one that's very nice but where is it a where is it where is it in the to us forget about Where is it to us? So it's a it's tucked away. It's a it's in the says that's the says and that's what they say. So it's based that's not this that is bringing us this is once you an animal even if it's says this is off the table not going to be this anymore but there's a new the is and that the ram understands what's that coming to say that even if there was a but if the animals alive eat FROM THE ANIMALS NOT this is not at that point it's still going to be now by the way rashi says that that's only it's not even a real iss but The seems to hold that it's a real so you have the and then even if it had a prop you're still going to have so says that if the ram said that if you an animal and while the animal is still alive you eat the then if you crack a piece of and you eat it even though you're not over the canes you're not because it had a the mother. But it's not it's not any worse than the case of eating the meat while the animal is you're still going to be. So says the it's a great to say that maybe what went on with the was that they were eating a ben but it can't be because even is going to be it's going to be because of a positive. So it's going to be awesome. It would have been dead once it's dead. It's also says great and he brings it from but you can't say it was what could you say? You can say that it was or an aa that was removed from the animal while it was if it was removed while it was now the animal is dead for a it's going to be even though it was removed while it was alive because that was going to be for even though it was removed while it was alive but even though it was but being that was while was alive it is going to be and that's what they were eating. So the that could be the explanation that could be the explanation for what exactly was going on. But as it relates to the hey today's not going to work and the reason it's not going to work as cuz that's pion even though there's a head of you still have to kill the animal. Hey doesn't matter how you kill it but as long as it's alive it's going to be a problem. Why? because of this new we have two one is the says that brings in who says that what happened was they created this animal that's what they were eating didn't realize they had created the second is they were eating that was removed believe it or not I will end with this thea brings the and he asks on the said that what happened They were eating this egg that was created to say and there was no problem with why was there no problem because it was created to says the I found the process who wanted to say a different mahal and his mahal wasn't maybe they were eating but then he said it can't be because there's a ra that says you never allow to eat from an animal while it's alive says the says the it's to me that that is of would be true even if the animal was created you want to tell me there's no that I can accept but that you shouldn't have then I can't accept and if that's the case this wouldn't work either because what are you going to tell me it was Allah who was created but you still going to have the