Chulin 66

Today's d is and we are 14 lines from the bottom of so the last that we learned was with regards to the laws of grasshoppers. So a grasshopper can be kosher. In fact the singles out four grasshoppers that are specifically kosher. the the and the Mishna on said that it's not only those four that are kosher but really from those four we can learn that there are certain that make a grassroot said what are the if it has four legs four wings those are the legs on top of the legs that allow it to jump wasn't sure what that meant its wings cover the majority of it. Doesn't mean the majority of its torso going along the length of the grasshopper. Doesn't mean the majority of the circumference of the grasshopper. Regardless, although the Tyra mentions four specific grasshoppers that are kosher, but really these four teach us of what makes up the kosher grasshopper. How do you know others from these four? Maybe it's only those four. So the gumar in the bottom of and really it went all the way through to the middle of brought a from said that if you look at the that mentions the four types of grasshoppers it says and the way understood it was that what's going on in this is very dramatic, a very elaborate clatu cl. These four grasshoppers are similar by way of analogy to just like are the four that are mentioned and that's how we know what exactly constitutes the kosher grasshopper regardless the bryo went through and dared every single word of the p and the garra is concluding its detailed analysis of that is one of the four grasshoppers mentioned in the p was the and the price said that I would have thought that once the Torah mentions that it could be that it's okay for a grasshopper to be kosher as long as it's called even if it doesn't have any of the other kosher. That's what the Tory had to say that even if it's called it still requires to have the other what kind of mean is that after the Torah mentions the so the Torah is very clear that there are criteria that need to be met in order for a grasshopper to be goer the has the dimension dimensions the does and the cargo does now that the Torah mentions is that it doesn't need the how's that possible? Shouldn't teach me that you definitely have to have those even if it's in other words says no except had the not mentioned the word then I would agreed with you the but once the mentioned and as we saw in yesterday's d the word was extra and came to be marba something that technically should not be included based on the clatal because when the clatu cl of Arbus, Solomon, and Cargo. You would think that only a grasshopper that doesn't have a long neck cuz all three of those grasshoppers don't have long necks. A grasshopper that's it has the other four, but it's you would think technically should not be included. The Gumar said that it is included. And the reason is because the word is extra because I could have learned from of again this was all yesterday's d. But the point is that Soom is something that technically should not be included. So once is being something that's really on the outside looking in as far as the cloud goes I would add then maybe it could be even more how so it should be as long as it's despite the fact that it doesn't have any the other meaning from I would never have the right to even entertain the possibility that if a grasshopper is called even if it doesn't have the other should be go but once I have the song that tells me Let it be marba something that's not included in the cloud about the cloud and I have the word so maybe is that when the said it means kosher even if it doesn't have the other says the kamash that's why the wrote to teach me that no the only time is kosher is if it also has other and in fact according to the is really the fifth criteria so you have the four of the kosher grass grasshopper. And by the way, it also has to be referred to as now had brought two bryes that discuss the more exact definition of the four grasshoppers mentioned in the Torah. But if you look back at those two bryes, they weren't the same. And the Gomorra asks the question the first brought said is the grasshopper is the Solom and in the day that we have at the opposite says in the astray in the town in the where the Tana of the first lived they referred to the Solom as the Russian Whereas where yeshiva was there, they used to refer to it in the reverse. It's not something that we have to worry about. There are no implications. Now before we go v there's a very interesting rashi right here at the very end of the suga that discusses the grasshoppers and that is so we know that grasshoppers within are kosher stating that the taz says in the beginning of sim that is not to eat grasshoppers because we don't have a which one's and and what exactly does of the grasshopper but you're definitely allowed to eat a grasshopper says rashi if you're allowed to eat a grasshopper are there is in terms of how you prepare a grasshopper. You have to shuck the grasshopper. Could you eat a grasshopper while it's alive? Says Rash. You don't have to shake the grasshopper. Why? Because if you look at the seder of how the mentions the grasshopper in the mentions after fish and then afterwards it says the point is the grasshopper is mentioned after the fish says rashi just like the fish doesn't eat. So to the grasshopper it wouldn't eat either. So Rashi says that you're allowed to eat grasshoppers. How do you prepare the grasshopper? You don't need any major preparations. You don't have to you don't have all the there's no with a grasshopper. The point is it's like the fish. How do I know it's like the fish? Because the mentioned it after the fish. So simply based on the that's how I know that you don't have to sh the grasshopper. All you need to do is just whatever you want to do. Either way, Rashi says, and how do I know this? He quotes the Bah. Tyus brings Rashi who quotes the Bah. And Ty says that, you know, even though Rashi brought from the Bah ais in the Pik, but really Rashi didn't even need a rem. He says it's there's so many gumaras where I can prove to you that a grasshopper doesn't require either way. at the very end says so if you don't eat so maybe you should be able to eat it alive as well can you eat a live grasshopper that the truth is this says and you don't have to be worried says from there it sounds like you're allowed to eat a live grasshopper but says it can't be and the reason is because there's a different voice I say in the Tyra and that's called baltaku The Torah mentions in the context of all the with regards to eating. And over there the Torah says it says that based on the not going to be a problem that says you're allowed to eat it alive. He just meant there's no ordinarily there's would apply if there was a mitzvah that there's no so there's no and that's all means when it says you're allowed to eat it alive but are you allowed to eat a live grasshopper the answer is no and the reason it's no is because stating that in the beginning says the even though fish and grasshoppers are kosher they don't require and the brings him a car either way he says the for that reason if a fish or a grasshopper dies on itself eat And by the way, you're allowed to eat it alive as well. And the it sounds like means that it's not a problem. If you look at that, then says, "I don't think the Rama really meant that you're allowed to eat it." Why? Like says in our right here, what then did the Rama mean when he says that you're allowed to eat it? What the Ram probably meant was that there's no like said it's a little bit in the of course there even the who seems to say never meant it literally that you're eat meant what the meantis explains and that is that there's no but at the same time there is going to be an of now it's interesting this is of Is this an or is it going to say of course it's an isid of the says but that although clearly says and is talking about something very specific it's referring to the that you are not allowed to And the Torah is just piling on right all the different that somebody's if he eats a so this is one of the question is we're there's an element of somebody's going to do something that disgusts him but it's not that he's eating a sher that's also in the could you apply and look at this as a general say that teaches me that anything disgusting is going to be or not. Now the truth is is that there are where the talks about things that are not and the applies the principle of there's somebody has to go to the bathroom and he doesn't go to the bathroom. But the question is is that an isa or is that not an brings in the end of so this is the very end of said to eat foods and drinks that most people are disgusted by. You go You got the gist. Eat from utensils that are going can't eat from a to eat with dirty hands. says the punch line if somebody does the luck is he's going to get mus in the ra it seems like the ra that there is a that relates to things other than but as the says in but at the same time it's not going to be rice it sounds like it's Number one, the Ram prefaces his remarks by saying and he concludes his remarks by saying it wouldn't be mad. The truth is if you look at the Melik says he has a long discussion about the beautiful discussion and he says one line everybody knows that this but we don't have to get so excited with the because this is axiomatic. This is universally accepted. Everybody knows this. stating that wrote on the said as follows that this is a door is not sure about and he says take a look at the and the it's so what's this taz the taz brings the The ram says that you get muscles. Malcus says because a lot of that are included in that whole but says that he doesn't understand the rama the says probably the rama is the help because as many lavin that are included in this of and just like you don't get malus for you don't get malus for you don't get malus for there's a whole bunch of different rules and regulations that govern one of the rules are the says and as a result you don't get straight up if the hell is only in so what's the cash and what's the taz the reason you get not because it's held that it's and that's why he was bothered why is it only and his ter was it's a big to me that the said that it's so posh everybody knows the t didn't know the clear either way. interesting about which you often hear quoted. So what's as it relates to the question is what about someone who needs to go to the bathroom and eat whatever or someone drinks from a a kay that's used in the all the other applications that you'll find for the somebody eats from the adult egg that we had the other day in the are those The Melik said that or wasn't sure how the was able to say that seems to say that it's actually an either way. So we turn our attention now from grasshoppers to fish. So what's the fish? So this was the last lines of this fest Mishna. So it seemed like a a very small innocent Mishna at the time that we learned it. But the amount of sugas that come from this Mishna but either way like this as it relates to fishnapper I'm reading from a fish that has a snapper and a cascuses is a kosher fish. It has to have two casim and only one snapper. literally those that are affixed to the fish, also known as the scales. What are the those with which it glides through the water? Also known as the fins. What if a fish doesn't have right now a snapper and a snapper according to Rab Yehuda, but it's going to have it when it matures. It will have it. What's okay? What if what if while it's in the it has the co fish, but eventually when it emerges from the sea, it won't have it anymore. That's an octopus. The price says that any fish that has a gases also has a snapper. Meaning if it has a scale, it means that it also has a finer. But a fish that has a fin does not necessarily have a scale. So if it has a snapper, you don't even have to check. If it has a snapper, it doesn't necessarily means that it has a snapper. that has both obviously it's going to be Tommy because the sim of a coach of fish means it has to have a snapper and a casque the obvious question at the end of the day it boils down to cases because if it has a cases it's going to have a snapper you don't even have to check for the snapper if it has a snapper you still have to check for the cases so really it boils down to the cases so it's just about the scale why did I have to write snapper in the first place to tell you not about me. I would have thought my cases snapper. I would have thought that maybe the cases is really the snapper. Maybe it's not a scale. Maybe it really is a fin. If that's the case, I would have been marba the wrong fish. I would have thought to snapperes. So the reason the had to write both is just to clarify what exactly and snapper is. Meaning because the Tyro cascases and the Tyro snapper that I know scales and fins. But had the Toro written one, had I known objectively that that one is the scale, that would have been fine because any fish that has scales has fins. But being that there'd be no way for me to know that the T is referring to the scale, maybe the T is referring to the fin. And I would then be mara any fish that has fins even if it doesn't have scales. We know is a doctor. So had to clarify mention and snapper like this. I know scales, fins, fins, scales. I have it all worked out. But the asks a nice call says, "Okay, so at the end of the day, the terases and snapper, scales and fins. It's like this. We don't have to worry that somebody's going to make a mistake." But at the end of the day, we seem to be tighting that the cases are the scales and the snapper are the fins, says the Gomorra. Now that the wrote snapper and cases, my cases lush. How do I know that cases are the scales? Maybe the other way around. So the says because there's a that says the casim who love us. It's referring to golas and he was wearing a coat of casin. So you see that kasim is is the coat of the fish. It's referring to the scales. It's not referring to the fins. If that's the case, why is he telling me that you have a af that tells me what cases means? So I know kasus means scales. And if once a fish has scales, you know it has fins. So really the only sim of the dog are the scales. So if that's the case, then again, have to write fins. It sounds like what the Gmorra is saying is you're right. It's a good and really the did not have to write snapper because once the fish has a I know it's going to have a snapper stating that the did it anyways. If you look at says it's not clear what is saying but regardless for to know what's kosher and not kosher it sounds like there would have been no need for the to mention the snapper the did it now the truth is this idea you find very often in in but a that the is going to go and the is going to say something that it didn't have to say. I mean, think about how many kaz made from s and from an extra word. And here we have a a a great kasha that the gumar is asking and we seem to be dismissing it with a real dialect by saying the on this right here says first he brings the whole and what exactly the meant over here when it says but at the end of the day he says that even though it's a beautiful but as it relates to the he says as follows He says as follows when the gave sim to the kosher fish snapper and cascades are the simra of the kosher fish a sa for the tahra of the fish or is it only a sim that the fish is it a siba meaning is the reason the fish is kosher because it has fins and scales or the fact that it has fins and scales I have not reason that the fish is kosher but rather it's just a sim it's our way of knowing that it's a kosher fish sounds familiar the sha was between and some of the ra that we spoke at at the beginning of the week says the he says if the are then the kasha is a great kasha if all you need is a sim a way of knowing the cheat sheet so to speak of how I know what's kosher and what's not kosher then all the had to do was mention cases because once it has a cascade that has a snapper, there's no such thing as a fish that has a cascus that doesn't have a snapper. So, I'm done. I don't have to worry about anything else anymore. But, you know what the gumar terrace is? When the gummor means to say is is to tell me a lus, the terra means to say that the sim of the doctor and not a sim but rather a siba. The reason the fish is to is da because it has a snap and a cascus. If that's the case, although it's true that any fish that has a cascus also has a snapper, that happens to be a fact. But that doesn't matter. At the end of the day, Terry is still mentioning snapper because it's relevant. You know why it's relevant? Because it is a it's part and parcel of what gives the fish it's so mean that it's part of what gives the fish it t that's why the Torah mentioned it. You're right. If the whole purpose of this were just my way of knowing what's kosher and non-coosher, then there would have been no point in mentioning the snap. I know that it's kosher because it has kas. And if it doesn't have gases, it's not kosher. So from a sim perspective, why add the snapper is very bothered by that. But if it's a sbo, then it's galdic because the cases isn't any more of a mutin than the snapper is. The the cases gives it the hyra and the snapper gives it the hyra. They're both equally relevant in terms of what gives it a hyra. So the terra is not just mentioning the fact that a fish that has a a kasquez and a snapper are are kosher fish. The Torah is explaining why the fish are kosher. That's the we're getting here. We're getting here. We're getting the over here that you should know a fish that has snapper and cascus for some reason above our pay grade. That's what gives it to incidentally talks about this a little bit. What the kesher is between why a fish that has snapper and kases will be kosher. But either way z if it's aish why the terra mentioned the snapper despite the fact that we would have known anyways just by virtue of the fact that there's a cases that this is a a kosher fish either way. So if you look at the that talk about the kosher fish and the not kosher fish. So the theuk are very wordy and the garra here is going to discuss now really into shabas more cloud cloud the gumar is going to go through the different words that the uses in this para but the clearly talks about kosher fish and mentions you're allowed to eat them and then the talks about the non-coosher fish and mentions that you're not allowed to eat them in the fact say you're not let the ones that don't have the I know that you're allowed to eat the ones. So why do we need an essay and a essay and for the very obvious answer that is if you have an essay and essay you need for the essay you need is more is so the garra just as a heading for its now very lengthy discussion mentions that the first thing you'll notice when you go through the para is that there's an essay And why the write it that way? The Torah wanted that this para of kosher fish versus non- kosher fish should have the not just of a para of like the para of of and the para of not just like an which you have some parishes as well but this should be from the few paras in the of where does it play out in a classic example will be if you had a case of I don't know you have such a case but for example the point is you see this is a Exit.