Chulin 100

Today's DA is and we will begin from the last line of so we're deep in middle of the of which began with the Mishna on we're learning which discusses the which the Torah says way back in that is not allowed to eat from the physically was or is in the thigh of the animal and the discussed what happens if someone takes the thigh of an animal which is kosher doesn't remove the gan which is not kosher and cooks it together said that if the gid proportionately to the is such that it's able to emit into the it's all going to be if not it's going to be okay then the continued and said what would be if Somebody cooks the ganosha together with other gidden of the animal which are kosher. If you can recognize the so you know which one is the and which are the ones that are so then you remove the that's easy and the is as it relates to the other if the was able to again emit into the other then all the are going to be if not it's if not it's it's going to be continued the same would be true not with regards to so this is the first digression meaning we're learning which discusses the but the says that this principle this of really is true for all of if you would have a baser to non-cooser meat or of dtom non-coosher fish and you would cook it together with kosher meat or kosher fish respectively would be that if you know which is the kosher which is the non-coosher remove the non-cosher and then determine whether there's a shear of no time so that the other will be also there's no share of either ways the gan is bash that's if the is to cooked together with the gen then the is then you have to remove the gdan and if you can't recognize the gdan then all the gdam are going to be awesome what's the all the gdam are going to be a because you don't know which of the which is the gdanosha meaning if the gdanosha was removed That's when you start asking yourself was it or was it not? But if you can't remove the gd simply because you don't know which is the gdan or you can't remove the of because you don't know which is which then it's all going to be why is it because it's a riser now and is going to be do it nice and time you just don't know which is the you might be taking a bite into the which is something you can't do but the asks why is that so why don't we say meaning just like as it relates to we know there's also as it relates to so the cash is that even if you can't identify the why don't you say that the is to the other and is that it should be okay now of course if you would know which one is the no but the says if you don't know which is the if you don't know which is which then you have it's like the case we've spoken about a few times we have three hamburgers two are kosher one is not kosher you eat all three. So you have a few gon one is not kosher the other ones are kosher. So is you should be able to eat all of them. So why is it's not going to be okay. And theor says an important that has a whole sim dedicated to it and that is it's true. There's a but there are exceptions to the rule. Not every says one of the exceptions meaning one of the times that the mood and would not be bottle is if the mood is a barrier. What does that mean? It means usually it's a a live creature or a creature. So for example a null an ant is very very small. It doesn't meet any of the shim as it relates to at the same time if somebody eats an amola even if your old is is not awesome in you're going to get malus for eating the null. The reason is because it has a by virtue of the fact that it's a barrier. The point is that anytime something is a barrier, it's a a living creature loosely translated is you say that it's considered and as it relates to it's not going to be ganosha is considered a barrier even though it's only a g. But the reason it has a kash of a barrier is because the tora is said that the ganosha is thus the entire gid is looked at as an entity onto itself. We treat it as a a barrier. We had this already a few times earlier in parad said that the say that if somebody eats even of the he's going to get malus even though ordinarily requires gaz but the like the ant it's considered a barrier. So here too you have that barrier. So barrier applies to the malus. It also applies to the is a barrier. You don't say and gave another case instead of that is if you don't know which is which they're all going to be afraid to come over to and here you can't tell me because we're dealing with a piece of meat. A piece of meat is not a a entire animal would be a barrier, but a piece of meat is not considered a barrier. Throughout we know that another exception to the rule of when you don't say is if you have something that's or more specifically as relates to this if you have a something that people count. So things that are sold bulk means that each individual item is not so mean that each individual item is is not so. So there you have but where things are to the point that people count them individually. So then the is that it's considered a minion is not possible but this is throughout what exactly the definition of is some say is something that's always counted that if every single in the world is getting accounted right they don't say just take all the diamonds sitting here and you know give me x amount of dollars a diamond is something that's av minion always as opposed to something that only sometimes people count others will know that the definition of million is as long as people sometimes counted that would be enough the pieces of meat. Sometimes people count, sometime people do not count [snorts] that says that anything that people sometimes count that's enough for it to be is not. So it's very good why in the accord says the only time something is considered is if it's something that people always count and we're talking about a piece of meat. A piece of meat is not because of you're right. It's not a barrier. So that doesn't give it a but at the same time being that if you had a guest you would be with a piece of meat that gives the piece of meat. It's what's known throughout as something that's used a lot in slang. But this is where it comes from. There's a concept of a piece of meat being that people on the with it. It gives it a and it's for that reason it's not going to be bottled says the essentially the taught me as it relates to ordinarily if you have a stating that you saw in the gan is not bottle and of meat whether it's buser or fish are also not bottle when it comes to ganosha is not bottle why because it's a barrier a kik is not bottle says you need both because each is different. We only had I mean they're two different because it's a barrier because it's I would never know one from the other. Maybe I don't know maybe so the Mishna made it very clear. The mish said both cases teach me this. The bottom line is the take away from this. We'll come back to this soon with the rain. But the takeaway for right now is that even though there's a concept called you don't always say and really what we saw in this is three times that you don't say that. Number one, if you have a barrier. Number two, what's a minion? That's throughout something that people always count or something that people sometimes count. And again, all examples of when you don't say and this next is a classic. In fact, this is one of the more important gim in the sugana seem to be saying something very straightforward. He says that if a of falls into a pot that has kosher meat inside or of tummy non- kosher fish falls into a pot that has kosher fish inside. So what's the noise? How do you know? So we know there's different ways to do it. You give it to a jutaste a nonjutaste. But in the worst case scenario for sure there's something called shisha. So if you have 60 times kga is this doesn't count. You need 60 of on one side the one is on the other side then is it's going to be okay. Now what's included in what counts as hater? So we saw already the meat the ro that's the soup the keepa that's the little bit of meat and spices that fall to the bottom of the pot. The itself maybe you can count there's a way to figure out because just like the bleet it's also so that's a little bit confusing but at first glance all said was things that we already know. So if it's nice and time in the meaning when you add up all the ratio is more than 160th it's going to be awesome. If it's going to be less than 160th, it's going to be stating that Ra heard what Rabbi said and he told his mur his speaker of the house. He said, "Get up and I want you to give a I want you to be against what said cuz I disagree with Rabbi." What did he said? So he got up and he said as follows in the name of that now becomes unto itself and it has the ability to answer all the other that are in the pot because it's meat and meat and is lov heard what Rabbana said to us. It seemed very straightforward but Ra didn't like it and was and he said two things the first thing Rab said was that of the becomes unto itself. The second thing that Rav said was let's analyze each one individually and then figure out why Rav had to say both is gonna help us either way said number if any that's into so if there isn't the becomes if it becomes if that would now fall into a with other naturally would have the ability to or all the other. Here's the question. Here's the 101. When this newly found [clears throat] falls into a kad with other, meaning you have a piece of kosher meat that is not kosher by virtue of the fact that it was cooked with a non-coosher piece of meat and it didn't have shisha to be. So essentially has a ble of inside of it. Now that piece of kosher meat that has a non-coosher meat thus it's not kosher was with other pieces of kosher meat. So it's a you need shishim to be do you need shishim the of iser that's inside the kosher piece of meat or maybe you need of the entire piece of meat said was that given when we look at the because it is in it as is of and you need to be the entire we said you always have to because you don't know how much is coming out. So to this although you know there's a tiny bit of Isra in it there's nothing in it really it doesn't matter also known as so now you need to be the entire piece because it becomes an unto itself that's the first said the second said was that as it relates to the is what does that mean that's we don't like and We pass the not only is but like we spoke out is much more than au. But the bottom line is Rav obviously held he held that. So because of these two because of these two Rav was arguing with Rabban. Now the truth is if you think about it each point that Rav made was a good connected Rabban unto itself. Number one, what's telling Rabbak? You're saying that if you have a sir that falls into a so just make sure that everything is going to be God says Rob, well not so fast. Why? Because what you need to do is you actually have to analyze this this individually. You have to do a segregation within the the kadra. Why? Because what happens if the of first came in contact with one of let's say it came in contact with one of and then afterwards the and the hat both came in contact with the rest of the so [snorts] just to visualize it you had a that's in a pot and sticking out from the top of the pot and then there's of that's also sticking out. So those two come in contact before you miss that piece of meat or those piece of meats together with the rest of the pot. Being that Rob holds no as soon as the kiko comes in contact with the out they're both katikas of so now it's not enough to have the original now you have to have both katas now if you don't hold so it's not a because at the end of the day all you need to do is be so it's not going to change anything as long as you have shishim in the pot when you're mission together say you're going to be okay but being that holds so as soon as the came in contact with the katikas the katikas now became a katik is so now when you do the shish you don't add just one piece of katikas is on the right side of the balance sheet you need two cuz the katikas had now also became a katik is if it's only the ble inside of it that's that's a problem so the ble is the ble it doesn't matter if it came to contact first or later the end of the day all you need to do is have shishim connect with all the ble that can possibly come out of the one of you have shished it it's not an issue It doesn't matter the history and the the route that this took as it made its way to the bottom of your chicken soup. Nobody cares. But if your No, they have to sit down. You have to literally analyze every rest stop that it stopped off at because as soon as it came in contact with one piece of meat before there was egg it now the whole new there's a whole new non-coosh piece of meat in this pot. That's the first order. The second aura that Rav said again raises Rav's. The second aura that Rav seems to be saying is we hold like we're dealing with meat. So this this is a mood point. What are we talking about? It's not nice and the right side to the left side. It doesn't matter at the end of the day says the heard this exchange. He heard Rabbana's and then he heard Rav's rebuttal said why did Raf need two comments? I mean is a major and at some point in the taris it's important for to share it with us but if rab's whole was to argue with all ra had to say was we pass like then so if you have a that falls into you don't do any math there's there's nothing to do there's no experiments that need to be made because it's clear from where on the end of what Rav said. So then the whole thing is is a moot point meaning Rab is saying two things to the extent that Ra held then then we don't have to have a conversation about so really what Rab should have told was very simple we hold and as a result I don't understand your mean Rab is saying two things each of which is a but really the latter point is the checkmate because the first point Rab is saying is it's not so simple that you have shishim yet you can't just be mash or ka the one katika sister you need to take kanan into equation and as a result maybe the katika sister came in contact with one katika before it came in contact with the rest of the as a result you need to do the math assuming that there's not one piece of this or maybe two or maybe three okay that's a hypothetical thing that's something that you can verify maybe but as it relates to the second time that this is checkmate if why Did Rav have to come on toan? Why did R just say why did R just say that? So the original piece of meat that falls into the for sure was able to make everything too simple to root him. Not simple at all, but seemingly simple to root number one. We're talking about where the piece the Iser came in contact with the sat and then afterwards you remove the was taken away and being that the was taken away before the other of were put into the so it comes out the original never came in contact with the other of it only came in contact with one of being that that's the case you don't have The of you have to come on to the fact that the [laughter] of was in the and that thus the only way you're going to have is if there's going to be this newly found. We'll explain that soon. But the point is the point is is the reason that we're looking at the relationship between the original and the waso and not merely saying that the original just made everything in the poter because the original never came in contact with everything in the pot. Why didn't it come in contact with everything in the pot? Because it was removed. You don't have to say that. And actually the way he seems to explain the gamorra is that every time you have a pot where you have is and bosser and buster there's always going to be anoi in the pot as well. I mean the classic example of a tarub is mino is you cook kosher meat with non- kosher meat but really in the pot of kosher meat which is minoi with the non-coosher meat there's also going to be because you're going to have the spices which is and you're going to have the rov the soup the water which is also going to be the point is the way you look at the is as if you have and what's if you have so is that you look at That's the rule. You may believe it's not here. It does nothing. And the is going to go ahead and it's going to have the ability to be to the extent that this shish and this is true even according to that holds but that's only if it's only but if it's so on the side you have and the is side you have so there the is that the really don't do anything to each other but rather what happens is is over there you just look at the you ask Could the be then it's going to be if it can't be it won't be being that this over here was a so it's for that reason you couldn't simply invoke you had to now start making so what said was is that being that over here it's even according to know how much is you have in the pot because to the extent that we So when you do the of even though we're going according to that holds but still the is going to be take it into consideration you're going to have to do the math. Thus what Rabb was saying was you're going to have two that you have to take into account not just one that you have to take into account either way. So we have the reason said this was was to argue with said falls into a pot of kosher. So what's you do the math you take the isra on one side you take all the on the other side and you ask yourself do you have a or not ra said no it's not so simple said because you have to look at exactly how the came into the and if it first came in contact with one then that also becomes that also becomes now that you have two of so now when you do the shishim you have to make sure there's not connected one now you have to make sure that there's going And asked that and then continued he said question was hold then anyways what do you need is available for said the reason you need it is so there's really two just understand there's two things that need to be clarified the first thing that needs to be clarified is what do you need for garum said you need what does mean that if you remove the first katikaser before all the other katikas that had their came into the pot then what would where would you have them what would give the kikas is originally an ability to make all the other they never came in contact with each other it's only because that that's going to be the case but the truth is if you think about it it doesn't make any sense because once the original is makes Even if you don't say right now what you're left with is so right now what you're left with is albeit because it hasn't and maybe you don't say but at the end of the day it's with the other and if you like so let go ahead and ask it that you called the silk guy. So it's for that reason you have to come out. What do you have to come out toan for? As long as the first made the second even without the of you should have the that came in contact with the other saying. So we're trying to explain why R needed and wait we still don't understand why he needed the first what did he needan for? to make this into a it's a very big it's a very important lumbus in of what's it necessary why did he need this major lumbus of even if it would have been it's still and it's with the other so if it's with the other let it go ahead and you see from here you see from here that the only time is is if the doer is but if you have something that hasn't of so let's say you have a a vegetable that hasn't of and now it would come in contact with with so when you say because it's a of iser which is with so there's no way to you see from that that wouldn't be the case you see from that of wouldn't be enough to say oh I have a I know it's from that minus you need come on to the fact that the entire is now in order for you to be able to say the so it's only because of that you can now use meaning if the all the meat was in the pot together then you don't have to come out like the because then the original piece of is anyways going knock out all the all the Ber because the original piece of meat never came in contact with all the other piece of meat in the so now what's the sh what about the one piece of meat that it did come in contact with that it was nice and could that now it so if you hold bottle it should be a point no it's not true because even if bottle but a doesn't have a kayak in the world is if But if it just has a you don't say once has a becomes unto itself [laughter] is to itself. So now you have but there's another and the second is and has two truths into this. The second is that what did say once the first piece of meat is the second piece of meat then you say oh once you have now you can have let's just think in the terms of the gumar's first if hold did he need that the first piece of meat should be nice and t in the second what was his What do you need it to be nice and if you even if it's not nice and time means is less than what do you need that it should be nice and time for even if it wasn't nice in time if you bottle the first piece of meat comes in contact with the second piece of meat both pieces of meat are now and if if that's the case even if you cut the first piece of meat the second piece of meat's going to answer and it's because It sounds like Rav's saying that in order to get this going to get the train moving, you need to establish first that the first piece of meat was nice and common to the second piece of meat. Now you can say why did we're going who holds that it's true that holds you see from this very that even though holds and rav but if you have a bottle that's not enough to create aan in order to have you have to have a real tom of the it's true but it doesn't mean that the is not you have a thousand times head to connect it's not he learns it from but of course it's not so that it's not so it's still different. When does it manifest itself? You don't have the only time you say is if it's physically. If it's now you could say so that's why even though he still had brings the second we're not going to go into it now we'll save this for the from here that even though really does not hold in this how do you learn the that's why it's a little tus but uh one of the reasons but the point is is that the only time you say is So, but when it comes to regular such as an argu and that's why answer is but the point is what the point is is that it relates to the first but the saying is that holds but you see number one you see the only time you see that's only if the was and even though it's possible possible sometimes to have a where the is such as which is according to it doesn't matter but that's not going to be enough to say another thing that emerged from this is that according to the you would need that the entire in order to establish that now the criteria to have a min of which is the alf of of had if you had of that has a that wouldn't be enough to establish that's why had come on afterwards come exile either way again this is not such an easy gimmar a few very important but there's some other important that we have to speak out before we start the next Mishna number one so we started the daff with a very straightforward question the mission said that if somebody cooks the gan together with other gida Now he doesn't know which one is which. So if you can't identify the you have to get rid of all them. The same is true if you cook together with other tell me with other if you don't know which one is which you have to get rid of all them as cash. Why do you have to get rid of all of them? Why don't you say right? What happened to the said the barrier is because it's a it sounds like from the very important you say this now that what's the of course it's no there is because we're learning the sug now and in the sug is when it comes to food we know there's a concept of shishim that unless you have shishim of negative is that you don't have in the it sounds like from this very clearly that the only time that's true is if you have a but if you have au of then the is all you need is so of where the things got mixed up with each other then there's of but when it comes to over there there's no of where do you see that in the garra because the gar's question was if there's Then the Gumar's cash is not the Gumar's maybe or you could very easily answer the Mish talking about we don't have but it sounds like the in your classic case when you your is cooking with other you probably don't have still the has to come on to but it sounds like that ordinarily when it comes to a you need stating that it's not So posh says like this somebody has it got mixed up with other if the same and the says the what does mean they're not mixed together the is identifiable It's just mixed up and you can't What's as long as you have two times says that's not even as long as it's bottle and you're allowed to eat it. Then the says not just that one person could eat it but he has to eat it one at a time. He shouldn't eat all three at the same time. Then says that says that you shouldn't eat all of them. One person shouldn't eat all of them. Even says and then he says even another they get rid of one of them throw it away and give it to a guy and then eat the the rest. But this is only the bottom line is it says the as long as it's not it's going to be says this is only if it's what if the is even if it's the is so positive. Yeah, I know that from throughout chess, right? No, it's not so simple. Not so simple. Sometimes it's true, but sometimes is you're going to have to have what does it depend on? If it's then the is all you need is right. If it's then what's the difference? Why does it matter if it's or if it's say the it's very very straightforward. The reason this is false because what's the shish the shish is although it's true ordinarily which means you go a and of extends itself extends itself to bit as well but at the same time there's something called and as long as the is being nice and time in the voice there's something called and is going to be a problem stating that stating that the only time you have to is when you have a tar voice of but if you have a voice of there is no time. So if there's no time it's then there shouldn't be of so why then is there of according to the which is the reason is it's so if you have a I tell you you can eat this certainly sounds like I can also cook it. Oh, once you cook it, it's not so simple because if the is then you're going to run into problems of Tomker. Now you ask me once it's buckle it should all be. So even if you cooked it so that's this is a whole different but the point is is that it's for that reason went ahead and made they said that even though there's no when it comes to but you might cook it and that you might cook it. So we're going to go ahead and we're going to make it a problem. For that reason is which is by and they said but which is only like we've spoken out so many times that is the but it's only so being that over there the is that it's only Oh, it's only so we're not going to go ahead and clear. So, so there we made but only because so there we're not going to be. So if you think about it, it what comes out just to in summation the only time you need is if you have a so over there you have the of there were two times that went ahead and they were they And they were this is 101 base is not ra this is they haveite whenever come up. So what's the smart is very simple because it's so although it's so it doesn't meet both criteria but it's it has one common denominator that's enough for it to be if I mean it's the same exact It's also it's not in terms of the nature of the is only but it's both. So as long as it's rice that was enough for the rabbon to go ahead and make now IT'S NOT AT ALL NUMBER ONE it's rice is only when it's number two it's rice is only so it's not anyway it's not anyway there it's going to be there's not going to be of so when you have a in your case with a with a hamburger get mixed up so what's do you need it's Everyone it's it's not always true. It's true if it's a voice of that has no is going to be that all you're going to need is but if it's a that's the equivalent thereof to a what was one to do with the other? No, they're both at the top. One is the other is the bottom line is is that where it's over there is going to be another important. So the mentioned that even though ordinarily is but at the same time there are times that it's not and we had a few examples barrier The truth is if you look in so is barrier is another exception to the rule. So even though ordinarily it's not always the case. There are times where it's not going to be bottled. The taz in the beginning of again this no in the beginning of says something very important. He says this idea that you find throughout being that you find Barry has a level where do you find that even if it's going to get you're going to get malus Because you find this idea that a rice level applied it on their level as well. All these cases, all these the first half of easier half is that this that we find that's only it's going to be it's only that it's not going to be but just one which is and now we'll go and that is that even though the T says for it doesn't make any that this idea that burial bottle is only it's in So the doesn't have it there's and over there it's in the tucked away is the context over there is the talks about so we know that one of the carbon that come up a lot in it's also one of the maestro was so a person had to take one tenth of his animal and he had to be m he was allowed to eat it himself mice was unique that the bum himself got to eat it. You didn't have to give any of it to the kite, but at the same time it had a certain kadusha. It was a carbon and and and it was it's one of the carbonas that are are listed. It's something called now one of the is is that you can't count an animal twice. Once an animal goes underneath the it can't go a second time. discussed the case where was like this is the backdrop of so if an animal was counted already it was number seven and then he jumped back in. So now you have one animal that technically can't count as one of the 10. So it throws everything off. Says the it's aishn they're all going to be because once you have one animal here that's ple it can't go under the sh again. It can't be the 10th. It can't even be the fourth. So you're at you're out of business. There's no way for you to go ahead now and establish twice the obvious why learn the why don't you say let it be. SO everyone knows the Russia's terrors. What's the Russia's terrors? Even when you say doesn't have an ability to be suffic but it can't create that's the punch line can't create and when it comes to and when it comes to there's a vari and if you only know that this is the because of it's still called is not enough to establish v does that mean is not fake whatever. But the point is the point is that's the terrorist. So everybody focuses on the is like the is part of the what are you going to tell me it's very simple. This is for sure. I mean you literally is the mitzvah counted right but says no the is only so goes back and forth and then says oh you know what I think you're going to tell me maybe you're going to tell me that the reason this is not a problem is because it's a barrier oh it's a barrier barrier says it's a mistake and there's a long in the beginning of the over here in that didn't talk about and when talks about why this wouldn't be a barrier he says that he found in the that said that why did more that why did asked the let this one that jumped back into the herd be so says I have a few reasons why maybe that's only right it's still Then what about bar says here you have to come on to the fact that I am what I said in I told you why it's not going to be was bothered he says doesn't understand once said is not a reason because it's only why did he say bury is also not a reason because burri is also only that's the taz the beginning of where the says that burri All these things are only so it's not a terror. What about barrier? Oh, take a look. I'm reading from the barrier that is different. You see between this is not just some random. This is a brought down by But either way, so even though it's usually universally accepted that all these things are buried is only on the level stating that there's a tucked away prime real estate and the in addition to all the that you have in that you have another over there that is not but rather it's actually something that's true. We return to the of is true for kosher animals, but it's not for non-cooser animals says even for non kosher animals said, "How could you tell me that there's no by non-coosher animals? What's the origin of? It goes back to kosher and non-cooser in those days." So they told him back no really the wasn't said in it was said in real time it was just written because the is that was said in was related to what happened in but that was not said in real time it was said in it was just written in either way we or if it's not. At first glance, if you ask the man on the street, should there be by a non non-cultural animal? The first thing that has to come to mind is there's a you can't something can't be for two reasons or differently. One something can't become. So how could you have on a known culture animal? Don't you have a problem of so says that it sounds like I would think that of has an ability to be the person that eats it like what's in addition to being it's also right it's adding insult to injury so you ate Na you got mocks oh by the way you also tummy right so that's that's somebody eats or of an it also becomes it's different type of very unique to it's what's known as if you swallow it the clothing that you're wearing becomes so says as follows you would think that this is true for kosher birds and non- kosher birds it says thou shalt not eat and then it says if you eat it you're going to become we learned from if there's a a bird or an animal that has Then there's also the but [snorts] non-osher bird there's no th all there is is the is of the fact that it's non-cooser thus you're not going to have to so what do you see from here that if somebody eats the of a non-cooser bird he doesn't become you know why because novel the only time you have to have is available why should a non- kosher bird not have a say in the what's this to say only for kosher birds not non- kosher birds must be so once a bird is not kosher when it later dies because how could that if somebody eats the he is it's the is going to apply even if it's of a non-coosher animal if it's a non-cos animal don't you have an says I'll give you a suggestion How do you know from that if somebody eats the he's for eating a non-coosher animal? Maybe you get but you don't have the is of eating a non-culture. What say? What ganosha is also even for a beha maybe only ganosha but when you eat a beha there is no isser for eating a non-cos why not maybe because he holds so in general are the so if you hold of course but as relates to the regular the fact they ate non-coosher food maybe that you're not going to haveud also holds that is How do you reconcile those two things? Very only holds this. There's no for eating. But the says can't be clear. Even though in the Mishna all you see is there have you the holes that you get in Malcus for eating the but in the B he said it's it's one for and one for again the question is from how could you get how could it be by says the I'll tell you a different you know that from the rebud holds you know that from the so how is it possible that both holds that when does come about when as soon as the animal is already a fetus when it's a in the state of fetus at that point is it's already considered uh g to the point that you're going to be so what how did that help anything oh that's the case when does the isma When does the of this animal go into effect? When it's a fetus. When is the when it's a fetus? If that's the case, see the two at the same time. If the two at the same time, then you could say means the can't be on the other. But if both happen at the same time, then it's not going to be a problem. The says we have way too much information about [laughter] to be able to get away with these answers. We know holds that there is no holds even on a fetus. It's not right. So again, how could you have both? And he holds and he holds that. So what are we going to do? Says the only time that there's no on a fetus that's the fetus of a kosher animal. What's the of that? We don't have to go through it again. We've been talking about this since why don't we have to go what is what was holds like the Ben is so the way Rabuda looks at a fetus is he looks at it as being part of the mother. So if it's part of the mother there's no if it's part of the mother there's no it doesn't need it's an animal for itself what's the you don't have to the fetus it says in the title that's only by a kosher animal where it's true non-coosher animal right you don't have such a so it's only is a major we have over is going to be there won't be wow so comes out this point in according to says doesn't work anyways you can't tell me that at the same time as time we learn to the again this is we've seen this already comes in contact with Tommo he has to start his ner all over again. He has to be and start from scratch. He comes in contact with or he comes in contact with everybody was bothered. If you come in contact WITH A FULL CORPSE OR WITH a once you say you don't have to say the no where you had a where weren't fully developed yet. So really you don't have a kazay and over there is that if somebody comes in contact with it he is going to be as far as a goes what do you see from here it's a you see that there's a stage in the fetus's life where there's no yet but at the same time it's considered a burial that comes in contact with it which means that the is what does that mean because the as soon as it's a even then at that point you physically can't have the so what's the point how could you tell me who says that the given by is because he holds that although but the two when it's a fetus And it's that before because the at that point you already have the so again you have to say that we had this as well is is that it's true ordinarily but is different. What was he trying to say? This is what he was trying to say. This is the whole punch line of saying you know why this are you gonna ask me because it goes back to it was already and any that goes back to even though you say the point is we had said that this even for a non-coser animal the question was what happened to so first tried saying maybe is and the said that that doesn't Maybe never said that there's two isur. Maybe he only met. We know from said that you do have both. Maybe holds that they're both that's not going to work for a kosher animal there's no by a fetus anyways. And even for a non-cooser animal we know that there's a period where the says you have to say is that although it's true ordinarily but any that's also being that's why it is going to be even for behemoth mayor.