Chulin 77

Today's daf is Chulin daf 101. >> And we will begin two lines from the bottom of daf 101 amud bet, the Mishnah on daf 101 amud aleph, went back to the sugias of eilu treifos and discussed different treifos in a beheima. So we've mentioned that there are some yesoidos related to eilu treifos that are tucked away in perek beheima mekasha. In fact, there's a whole Mishnah, a whole sugia that really the Rishonim say could have would have should have belonged in perek eilu treifos that are mentioned here in the end of perek beheima mekasha. The halacha that we need for today's daf is the Mishnah saying "Nishbar ha'etzem if the bone of the regel, the foot, the leg of the animal broke, so the halacha is im rov habasar kayam shviraso mitachasav. If the majority of the flesh in the area where the wound is, where that sever is, where the fracture is, is still intact, then the halacha is it's not considered a treifa. If in love and if you don't have rov habasar in shviraso mitachasav. So the Gemara in daf 101 amud bet clarified exactly what rov basar means. Does it mean rov avyoi? Does it mean rov hakayfoi? The Gemara came out that it means both. It means rov avyoi and rov hakayfoi. Regardless, the Gemara is going to talk about different halachos as it relates to rov basar in the area of a fracture in the leg of an animal where the halacha is that if you have rov habasar, the animal is not a treifa. If you don't have rov habasar, the animal is going to be considered a treifa. So the Gemara brings Hanan Gidin Rachin D'asur L'kamei D'Rav Nachman Rav Rava. There was a story where somebody brought an animal to Rava. Nishbar ha'etzem. There was basar that was covering the area. However, the basar in and of itself did not constitute a rov so that we would say that it falls into the ratio of the Mishnah where if there's rov basar, it's not considered a treifa. Stating that if you would take the sinews, those are the tendons and the ligaments of the animal. And you would add them to the basar. Then you would have right And the question was, these gidin, which were rach, they were soft at the time, are they considered basar so that we can now add them to the basar so that you would have roiv basar animal would not be considered a treifah? Or maybe you have to be mach. Maybe it's not considered basar. And the basar itself does not make up a quote-unquote roiv. As a result, the animal isn't going to be a treifah. Am I roiv or is it roiv or is it neichesh or is it Is it easy question? He said the number one gidin are the gidin nimum alayim b'Pesach. We know the halacha is that in order to eat from a korban Pesach, you have to RSVP. So you couldn't just show up to a seder, do dinner, and I want to eat from the korban Pesach. No, you had to be nimna. You had to be counted. You had to be an RSVP on a list in order to be able to eat from the korban Pesach. Additionally, you had to make sure that every single person on the list had a k'zayis basar that he was going to be able to eat from. So if you have a small animal, you invite a thousand people, you know, you could be listed from today till tomorrow. That's not considered nimnin. So in order to be able to eat from a korban Pesach, you had to be on a guest list, and we had to have known that there was a k'zayis basar dedicated for each individual. What happens if there wasn't a k'zayis for Ploni, but there were gidin? Gidin rakkin she soifin l'hakshe. Soft gidin that eventually are going to become hard. Are they considered basar with regards to korban Pesach or are they not? Rabbi Yochanan said, "Gidin she soifin l'hakshe nimnin al layl Pesach." Ashi said, "If it's considered basar, Rabbi Yochanan said that with regards to korban Pesach, then it should be considered basar with regards to aelu treifos. And if you have basar together with gidin that make up a roiv, that should be enough that the animal shouldn't be a treifah. And Rav Ashi continued that Torah lo yishana Yisrael. Sounds familiar? He said, "Not just that, we're dealing over here with yiddishe gelt. And as a result, it certainly is reasonable to be meikel and to look at the gidin as being basar. And as a result, we should have a I'm going to wrap up on the river of a total river. Two things. Number one, it's very nice to have a beautiful given to but if you learn that Rashi says it's in page over there it's not the way. So just because said that the given that it's a but there's also a that said it's not. And besides, this idea that it's a it's a we're dealing with these things that my goodness rubber heard what rubber papa said rubber was quiet drinking rubber why was he quiet? The first time is a reason for him to be quiet. I mean the second time in and of itself I hear but the first time is a reason for him to be quiet. What was the time? Rubber said you can said that the given that it's a considered possible with regards to the so why should they not be considered possible with regards to rubber papa said it's very nice said that but said not that way as if to say make it tasty asking like rubber you can maybe you should pass like fake the rubber was masking he was quiet but on my rubber rubber himself is the one who said a member that's often quoted in chance he that like three times that he argued with what do you imply from there every other time there's rubber that not like that is like rubber if that's the case this regarding given that it's a not one of the three times that I mentioned in the beginning of another place is that rubber so that rubber you can so if the rubber rubber got it right why was rubber quiet the shiny rubber you know the rest of the story rubber was actually in this case how do you know he was because rubber you told with regards to one of the questions rubber asked rubber you can I'll take me to any don't ask me a question from that but that the truth is the doesn't really speak out. Where you see from there that Rab Yochanan was Choyzer from Reish Lakish, I and Rashi who tells us the rest of the story, but regardless it's clear in the Sugya of Mesaches Pesachim that Rab Yochanan came around. So, Rabba was Ishtik not because Reish Lakish holds like like Rab Yochanan, that in and of itself didn't impress him. The reason that Rabba was Choyzer is because he recalled when he heard Shittas Reish Lakish that Rab Yochanan had been Choyzer to Shittas Reish Lakish. Point Rab Yochanan himself was Choyzer. And being that Rab Yochanan himself was Choyzer, it's for that reason that he came around. So, the Gemara says, "Who Nishbaro Etzem?" The Yotzei L'Chutzto was a story where an animal had a broken bone and the bone was protruding outside of the skin. De Ishtakel Kurtisa Minay. And a little chip of the bone fell off. Aslo Kamay D'Abaye. The question was brought before Abaye. Now, the Shaila was that Nishbaro Etzem the Mishna says, "If there's Rov Habasar, it's okay. If you don't have Rov Habasar, then it's not okay." The reason that Abaye looked at this Shaila and a little bit differently is because over here there was a little bit of bone that actually fell off. And because of that Kurtisa, that little bit of bone that fell off, the thought was that maybe the Halacha is going to be different. So, it was presented to Abaye. Abaye didn't know the Halacha. She Acher Riglay. He waited around Shalosh Rigalim. Rashi said, "Lishol Halacha L'Chachamim Hanitzofim L'Regel." The Chachamim used to come and they would get together on Yom Tov. And Abaye knew this would be an opportunity to speak it over with the Gedolim. Three Rigalim passed and Abaye still didn't know the Halacha. Amri L'Rav Adda bar Masna, "Say to Rav Adda bar Masna." Said, he told this Yid who had brought the Shaila to Abaye, "Zil Kamay D'Rabba bar Rav Yochanan bar Chama. Go bring this Shaila to Rabba the son of Rav Yochanan who is the son of Chama." Says Rashi, also known as Rabba. Who Rabba bar Plukta D'Abaye. In other words, bring it to Rabba the Charifus Aginay because he's very sharp. He's a Charif [snorts] and he'll be able to answer. He doesn't have to wait three rigalim. Rava will be able to tell you the answer. I don't know what Rava said. The mishnah says that the mishnah talks about a broken bone. It doesn't say anything about a bone chip. It doesn't say anything about that. And as a result, there's no reason to make up svara. Thus, if there's reva basar, it's going to be okay. If there's not reva basar, it's not going to be okay. So, this kid told the shaila, Rav Ada bar Ahava told the shaila, bring it to Rava cuz he's a At the end of the day, Rava didn't say such a hora'ah. Rava actually said pashut shat. He said the mishnah doesn't say anything about a bone chip. As a result, there's no reason to make any assumptions. Thus, the halacha is going to be okay. Ravina told Rava, mislakit mau. What if you have reva basar, but the reva basar isn't in one area? So, it's not one big chunk of flesh that's covering the bone, but rather there's packets of flesh that are missing. But if you add up all the flesh that is there, you're going to end up with a reva. Is that okay? If it's going to be gathered, so to speak. Mislakit. But at the end of the day, you're going to have a reva. Misrois mau. What if the skin started or the flesh started to erode? Rashi says it's very shvach. Mismasis mau. That's even more than that. It's starting to really go bad. Nirkav, says the gemara. He mismasis me. Give me an example of mismasis. Amora brought a shaila to Rashi. Case with a veterinarian. The doctor is going to cut it away, and he's going to get rid of the flesh. It's It's that bad. The question is, in all these cases, if you have reva basar, but there's some reisa, Rashi says, in the basar. It's not perfect. Is that enough to say that there is reva basar? Does the animal not going to be a treifa? Or is it not enough? He brought another question. Nikav mau. What if there's a hole in the basar? So, this basar that's koifer has in it a nikav. What's a nikav? Rashi says, nekav katan. As Rashi said right in the beginning of perek aleph of treifus. It's what Rashi said throughout perek aleph of treifus. So, nekav always means a little bit of a hole. So you have a hole in the basar that's covering the fracture. Niklaf maru, what if the basar that's covering the bone is not attached to the bone? So it was detached from the bone. So the basar's there, but it's not firmly attached to the bone. Do you say the basar's there or it actually has to be affixed to the bone in order for it to be considered basar ha'choyif. Nistak maru, what if there's a crack in the basar? Rashi says a nek is where it's a little hole. A nistak is always when it's like a a line. Either way, it's a crack going through the basar. Nitlal shlish atachtoy maru, a fourth shaila. What happens if the basar was detached from the bone and the lower layer of the basar was removed? So this is really intem tzaloy mar of niklaf. The second shaila was niklaf maru, where the basar was detached from the bone. So we have a shaila. Do you say the basar's there or do you say that it's detached, it's going to be a problem. Intem tzaloy mar that being that it's there, even though it's detached, it's enough for it to not be a treifos. So now we can ante it up. Ask another question. What would be if you have the basar, it's there, it's detached, and you're even missing a layer. Is that also okay? Or maybe only niklaf is okay, where at the very least all the basar's there. Either way says the Gemara Tashma. Amar Amar Rabbi Yochanan Or harei uka basar. The or is like the basar. Now the assumption is that the or is not attached to the bone. It just would do what the basar would do in that it would cover the bone. If you're going to tell me that the basar has to be attached to the bone, then how could the or be like the basar? The or is not attached to the bone. Thus from the fact that or is treated like basar, you see that basar itself, that's inside into basar. You see the basar doesn't have to be attached. And that would be poshit therefore two of the four questions. It would be poshit the shaila of niklaf and it would be poshit the shaila of nitlal shlish atachtoy. You see, even though you don't have the covering attached to the bone and you're missing all the muscle, certainly if you're missing all the third of the muscle. You're missing all the muscle, that's enough for it to be considered muscle. So says the from what Ulla said this in the name of that covering the fracture is like flesh covering the fracture. That should be a to two of the last four questions and but the says it's not true because maybe when Ulla said the name of that was talking about a place where there is no muscle. So if you have an area where there is no muscle, it's bone and skin in that area the would work to cover the fracture but if there is supposed to be muscle, it could be the fact that the muscle is not there or the fact that at the very least the is not attached to the bone, that would be an issue. What if there's a fracture? The fracture is covered by muscle. However, the muscle that's covering the fracture is not attached to the rest of the muscle on the animal because there's a hole. Think of like a little ditch that was carved out around the muscle that's the fracture and as a result it's like living on an island that piece of muscle. It's not attached to the muscle around it. So if you cut out can mean to us. Now what's the he asked this question to the but they told him it's going to be okay and the reason it's going to be okay is because from the that it's possible to get that flesh that was carved out to regenerate and the operation the procedure that was done is the veterinarian would take a bone of another animal, he would scratch the edges of this bossor that's covering the wound, and that would cause the flesh in the area that was carved out to regenerate. The Gemara says you have to do it but if you do it with iron for example, that's just going to harm the animal, that's not going to be okay. But the kind of guy the only time you could do this is if you see signs of regeneration, otherwise it's not going to be fine. But regardless, the point is that being that it is possible for that bossor that was carved out to regenerate, so therefore it's not considered detached. The bossor that is if it's attached to the rest of the bossor in the animal, it's for that reason it's going to be okay. So before we go by there, just two short the first daughter is yesterday we spoke at length about the clearly has shots. So we were talking about the way says that it's posture that it's going to be a dual. The way that you make your head the way incidentally you find that by as well. What about but regardless the way we found the way himself quotes a task in two places with the task is the way and we spoke at the in his sermon and the way he said where he wrote his he says that he found the place jump in the first place. Who also said the way that I feel the way and we had a deal yesterday the way the in the 17th century who also seemed to say that the way that I feel the way either way in the spirit of the way mentioned over here that the way the way the way that Now, say that the way was always like the great Yochana was the Godol Hador in Eretz Yisrael, the first generation of Amora'im. Yochana was a talmid of Yehuda Hanasi, who is typically considered to have been the last of the Tana'im. So, Yehuda Hanasi was the author of the Mishna, he was the of the Tana'im. Started with Shimon HaTzaddik, who was from the Shiori Anshei Knesses HaGedolah, as the Mishna says in the beginning of Pirkei Avos, and it lasted a hundreds and hundreds of years through bias shaini, through the churban, a few generations after the churban, until finally Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi was the author of the Mishna. When Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi passed away, the generation of the Tana'im ended. That began the generation of Amora'im. And Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi's talmidim were the first Amora'im. Rav was a talmid of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, Rabbi Yochanan was a talmid of Hanasi, Rabbi Chiya, etc. Regardless, Rabbi Yochanan was lived in Eretz Yisrael, and he was the Godol Hador in Eretz Yisrael. At the same time, Rav and Shmuel lived in Bavel, they were the Gedolei Hador in Bavel. So, not all the Amora'im are treated in Chazal on the same level. You have Rabbi Yochanan, you have Rav, you have Shmuel, all the Amora'im were Gedolei Gedolei Gedolei Amora'im. But, when it comes to different areas and Sugyas, just like an Amora can't argue with a Tanna, you see that different members of different Amora'im were treated differently in Chazal. Regardless, Rabbi Yochanan was the Godol Hador in Eretz Yisrael, Rav and Shmuel were the Gedolei Hador in Bavel. The Gemara says in Seder Nashim that whenever Rav and Rabbi Yochanan argue, the law is like Rabbi Yochanan. The Gemara says in Eruvin Mem Vav Mem Zayin that whenever Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan argue, the law is like Rabbi Yochanan. Whenever Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue, we just learned this, the law is like Rabbi Yochanan with three exceptions. So, the point is, Rabbi Yochanan was considered to be a Godol Amora. I'll tell you something interesting. Tosafos in Maseches Megillah Daf Chof Zayin Amud Aleph says, and I read this Tosafos in many places in Chazal, the Tosafos says in the name of Rabbeinu Tam that there's one Amora who, when he argued with Rabbi Yochanan, the law was not like Rabbi Yochanan. And that's what Rabbi Shimon ben Levi places brings this raya from the Gemara in the Gilfus Zion amongst others, but it's just kinda hearing inside. The halacha of Rabbi Shimon ben Levi regarding to Rabbi Yochanan. Either way, so although it's true that halacha is always like Rabbi Yochanan, the great Rabbi Yochanan, but Rabbi Yochanan argued with Rabbi Shimon ben Levi who was also an Amora, the halacha follows Rabbi Shimon ben Levi, the halacha does not follow Rabbi Yochanan. Either way, that's the first order. Second order is that the Gemara mentioned that a shaila was brought to Abaye. It was a question there with treifas, an animal that had a fracture, and a little bit of bone fell off, and the question is there was still reva basar, but now that it's missing a piece of the bone, it's chaser, maybe that's not enough to say that the animal is not going to be a treifa. Now, Abaye didn't know what to do. So, Abaye waited sholish regalim, shehi close to rigley. He waited three yamim tovim. Rashi says lishol halacha l'chachamim hanisafin l'regel, and he wanted to hear the answer. I said Abaye still didn't know. They brought it to Rava. Rava was a sakina charifa or a charifa sakina, and Rava was paskin the shaila in a second. Now, such a charifa as he said mishazon say anything about this is about. So, nish bar atzan to me is nish bar atzan with it. There is a little piece that fell off. There isn't a little piece that fell off, but regardless, it would seem from this Gemara that there was some concept of oileh regel in the times of Abaye. And really, it's a very big chiddish. Number one, Abaye lived hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years after Abaye lived almost a half a century after churban Bayis Sheini. And if that's the case, a half a millennia. So, if that's the case, then b'chaira, what's the the pshat that they were being oileh regel? They were coming together on Yom Tov? Well, what's this idea of coming together on Yom Tov? Once upon a time, sholish p'amim b'shana yera'eh kol z'churecha el p'nei Hashem Elokecha. But this is already almost 500 years after churban Bayis Hamikdash. So, why is it that the Yehudim were coming together? And besides, where did Abaye live? Abaye lived in Bavel. So, if Abaye lived in Bavel, the unit will come together in Bavel. And the truth is is that there's a Gemara in Maseches Nedarim daf chof gimmel amud aleph. The context over there is the Gemara is talking about uh somebody makes a neder and then he has charatah that he made a neder. So, he can go to a chacham with a pesach and a charatah given schtick to redefine break, but sometimes a chacham has an ability to say mutar lach, mutar lach, mutar lach. Similar to what Abaye said, and you have an ability to get out of a neder. And the Gemara tells the story. The Gemara says, "What maiseh b'adam echad?" There was a story with a person she hidder es ishto milayla es l'rega. He made a neder, told his wife, "You cannot come with me to be oileh l'regel. Going myself." V'overes al da'ito. And she didn't listen. She came along. V'oileh es l'regel u'val lifnei Rabi Yosi. And he came to Rabi Yosi and he says, "My wife, she violated a neder and this is very very terrible." Amar lo, "So, Rabi Yosi tells this man, "You know what? You say you are there. So, you there is al da'itcha v'oileh l'regel." Including da'at. Had you known that she was going to violate your neder, would you have made the neder? Amar lo, "Lo." So, here of Yosi. That's why you need a good Jewish lawyer. Said, "Had you known she was going to violate the neder, would would you have made the neder?" Of course not. I only did it because I thought she was going to keep it. So, then the whole neder is not a neder. He was able to be chiddish in Hilchos Nedarim of Yosi. But we don't need the Hilchos Nedarim piece. We need something else. So, what was the story? Maiseh b'adam echad she hidder es ishto milayla es l'regel u'val lifnei Rabi Yosi. Says the Marit Chiyus, Rabi Yosi Rabi Yosi is Rabi Yosi of Akiva. laughter He lived after the Churban. He lived in Eretz Yisrael already. He lived after Rabi Akiva who lived years after the Churban. Akiva witnessed the Churban as a younger man, but years after the Churban. The point is is that Rabi Yosi this story happened after the Churban. If this story happened after the Churban, why they being oileh l'regel? Says Marit Chiyus that it could be that being that this man Noman Chasta holds that Kedushas Eretz Yisrael indicates to the side of the Kedushas Lashon Harah. He makes a cheshbon with Rabi Yosi and she does like the Kedushas Eretz Yisrael indicates to the side of the Kedushas a lot of money? I mean not a picture of you could be the eating used to be regular and they would bring carbon noise on the they would do it the way you were supposed to do it when you were getting even after the based on the idea of what you were doing and you were doing it says you take a look at the picture of Rush on this section of the it seems that the Rush was bothered with this question. Listen what the Rush says. Also the regular the Rush is explaining the story. People used to come together to learn after you missed for a long even the women would come. Why were the women coming? They were coming to hear no literally speak for the entire to see the entire says what was bothering the Rush? The Rush felt that he needed to explain what was coming after you were getting everyone knows there's a lot to be regular. So what's what why you why does the Rush they used to come to get Rush's and the women used to also come and cater. What why why do we need Rush's and come and cater? It's a nice news but but we need this for I don't know what to do with the says it again and again and again it says it many times in the there's a lot to be says cuz the Rush was bothered with my castle. He was bothered chronologically lived after the if you lived after the they weren't bringing carbon noise if they weren't bringing carbon noise then why were people being over regular? The says even after the the minute of Jews coming together this pilgrimage where they would come together on this still took place and as a result that they they used to come together. So the truth is that if the idea of being over regular after the is related to even after then only passes so there's a lot of but if they do a lot of Rush's and to see the maybe they did it in as well. Now by the way just it's worth mentioning that we spoke to a few times and it's a good in the second paragraph of the song In the sugyas of chala v'akum and shemen akum and pas akum and pas palter. And that sugya has its madayik Gemara that seems to place Rava at the port of Haifa. And then Yaakov Emden says, "Rava lived in Bavel. Why is Rava at the port of Haifa?" So, he says that we know that you find that Amora'im used to go to Eretz Yisrael to learn Torah. He says, "Not only the Amora'im that I mentioned, Rava is mentioned, Rav Yava, Rav Dimi. You have Rav Zeira, right? A lot of Amora'im mentioned in Shas they went up to Eretz Yisrael Rav Zeira. But he said that it all the Amora'im went to Eretz Yisrael. Rava also went to Eretz Yisrael. As a result, Rava is in Eretz Yisrael. So, pashut, you could think, "Oh, maybe this took place in Eretz Yisrael." But it's not mashma that way. Cuz this doesn't sound like a younger Bayo v'Rava you're learning in Eretz Yisrael. Sounds like a Bayo v'Rava the poskim that they're bringing shailos to them. They brought it to Bayo, then bring it to Rava. So, it doesn't sound like this took place in Eretz Yisrael. Regardless, I think in this Gemara Chullin Yadayim, you see more than you see in the Dor Hamakbilim. In the Dor Hamakbilim, you see there was a concept of aliya l'regel after the churban. But that was Eretz Yisrael. But Yosi, over here you see that it was true even in Bavel. But based on the Rashba's pshat in that Gemara in the Dor Hamakbilim, I don't think it makes a difference whether it was Bavel or Eretz Yisrael. Cuz if the idea is to bring korbanos, yeah, obviously you can only bring korbanos in Eretz Yisrael. But if the idea is related to l'shmaya hadrasha, to stay away, to seek koved haTorah, thus even the women came, if that's what it's about, that's something that would make sense in Bavel just as much as it would make sense in Eretz Yisrael. Look at the Mishna in Yevamos Zavei'eiha. So, we now return to our regular program, which is perek Beheima Mekasheha, which discusses the halacha that if you shachta a female beheima and there's an uber, the halacha is the uber becomes mutar. Says the Mishna, what happens if somebody shachta beheima u'matza v'shilya? He found not an uber, but a shilya. So, the shilya is the amniotic sac that the uber lives in. So, an Uber develops in the womb of its mother, whether it's a human, whether it's an animal, it's the same. It develops in the rechem, but it's enveloped in an a sac of water, which itself sits inside the womb. So, the Uber is in the shilya, which is the amniotic sac, which in it itself is in the rechem. So, in this case, somebody shach'ted a beheima, he didn't find an Uber. What he found was an amniotic sac. We can see the Gemara says that an shilya is a siman vlad. Obviously, if there's a shilya, if there's an amniotic sac, it was developed because of the child. But you didn't see the Uber. What you found was the shilya itself. The halacha is nefesh chaya of tocheleno. If you can handle it, you're allowed to eat it. Meaning it's kosher. Most people can't eat it, but at the same time, it's okay. Ve'ein um metameh de'eitz doesn't become tamei le'tumas ochlin ve'lo le'tumas nevelos. Being that most people don't eat it, it's not considered an ochel. And as a result, even if it's tocheled a couple tumah and then a sheretz falls on it, it doesn't become tamei le'tumas ochlin. Additionally, if the animal dies naturally, [snorts] for example, and then you find inside the animal the shilya, it's not going to be tamei le'tumas nevelah. K'she'valah, if the shocheit had or had in mind to eat the shilya, then the halacha is because you had in mind to eat the shilya, so now the shilya does get a din ochel, thus metamei le'tumas ochlin aval lo le'tumas nevelos. So, it gets a din ochel, thus it's subject to the laws of tumas ochlin, but it's not going to be subject to the laws of tumas nevelah. Rashi says because in order to be tamei le'tumas nevelah, it's not enough that you're ochel. You have to be basar. So, shilya if k'she'valah will be considered ochel, but it won't be considered basar. Shilya she'lo tzamcha tzosar. What happens if before the shchita a little bit of the shilya came out of the mother's. So, now you shach'ted and a little bit of shilya is is out. The halacha mother be'achila. You're You are the entire shil ya. Why not? We had a sur ya on the perek. The reason is because as the mishna says siman vlad b'isha u'siman vlad b'beheima. Because if there's a shil ya, we assume that there's a vlad cuz why else did the mother develop the shil ya? Obviously cuz there was a vlad. Now you don't see the vlad. So the vlad must have been Something must have happened to the vlad. There was an a very early stage miscarriage. But if there's a shil ya, there was a vlad. We're concerned that when the shil ya came out, the vlad came out. Which part of the vlad? The head. Which constitutes leida. Once there's a leida, the entire uber is no longer mutar b'achila. Thus we're worried that inside the shil ya there's a vlad. So how do you say roisha? So now you can't eat the shil ya. Not because of the shil ya. The part of the shil ya that was inside doesn't bother me. That's outside bothers me. But that was inside doesn't bother me. The issue is the vlad that might have been inside the shil ya. Which could be its head poked out. Once that happens, the entire vlad is assur. So in this case it's going to make the entire shil ya assur. I'm a vicarious shil ya people shil ya baby that miscarried. A shil ya. It's her first child. Halacha is there's no kiddushin. Kiddusha ya shlichanu l'klav. You can feed it to the dogs. The mara's going to explain this. Uber mukdashim. Let's say you have a regular beheima that's actually like a shlomen that could be in a cave and it too miscarries a shil ya. Halacha is the cover you have to bury it. Then korbonos u'proshos achim not let her bury it at the fork of the road. We'll see what that means. Then to nice of Elon additionally not allowed to hang it on a tree mipnei darkei Amorim. So apparently the over the avoda zara, the pagans, specifically those from the land of Amorim, what they used to do is if a beheima would miscarry, so they would [snorts] take the neifel that was miscarried and they would do one or two things. Either they would bury it at a proshos drachim at a like a main intersection or they would suspend it from a tree and somehow they thought was a good thing. That was a school of that this behemoth should not miscarry again. That's something the Jews know how to do simply because it's How do you know that if you an animal you allowed to eat the shulya? Because it says the same that tells me you're allowed to eat the tells me you're allowed to eat the everything that even if it came out a little bit that same that teaches me that you're allowed to eat anything in a behemoth says that we learn from the they only eat the shulya but if the shulya came out then you can't eat the shulya anymore. And so you believe that why would they why do I need a to tell me that eat the shulya if it came out? We just spoke out in the that it's a we know it from the beginning of the and so you believe that if the shulya came out maybe part of the blood came out. A part of the blood that would constitute later that I can't eat the shulya because the of the blood that's intertwined in it maybe. And if that's the case then why do I need a to tell me that if the shulya is yet to come now we need to eat the shulya. I don't need a for this. I have enough information up until this point in in the to know this to know this the says you're right cross true you really don't need the it's only the the mission said that the shulya was not to on the topic of foods that people don't usually eat and whether or not they're to my cycle but pose the following question somebody takes the the skin of a donkey and he cooks it really really well. So the skin of a donkey apparently was not really but he was rash in the bottom bottom of the he he cooked it double he cooked it a lot now it's at the point where maybe could eat it. So the question is what's the so what's the regarding what? You want to know if it could be coming to my to either the is where is this the time went to the or show you to my cycle >> If you cook the or for a long time, or if you had in mind to eat the show you then that's before it's the or is coming to my cycle. So what exactly is the shower? You might as well or she shall come out. You want to know if you take the or and you cook it a lot whether it's coming to my cycle that's my first surprise or or she shall go that clearly is coming to my cycle. So maybe the question was something else. Maybe the question is maybe is it coming to my videos? But it wasn't coming to me and that's also my first. Then if lost it says in the 39 to eat the video. This is it does not apply to the skin or to the bones or to the Gideon those are the same news. But kind of or to the horns of the animal or to the hooves of the animal or to the So you see clearly that the or is excluded from the video. So we know that if you cook the skin it is coming to my cycle. And we know that if you cook the skin it's not coming to my video. So either way it's these are prices. So what's going to show you? We're explaining that last price and even if you cooked all the after mentioned still it's not coming to my video. And shall we go to my cycle and shall we go to my you want to know about the or of a hammer because the or of a hammer apparently is different. It's distinguished from the or of other animals. It's disgusting. Thus the question was I know there's a price after that if you cook or it could be it is that it's going to be coming to my cycle. But maybe the or of a hammer being that it's disgusting it's going to be different. That was the question. >> [snorts] >> The only time that it is that if the show you comes out of its mother that it is that you're not allowed to eat the show you. That's if there was no flood inside the mother. Little tricky tomorrow. But if there was a flood inside the mother the reason if the show you comes out you know how to eat the show you cuz we're worried there's a flood inside the show you you just don't see it. And when it came out the rash came out thus you can't eat the show you because of the flood that's inside. But if you see a flood in the animal so you see the flood somehow was detached from its amniotic sac. The flood is inside the animal didn't leave the animal. It's a show you without a flood. Oh in that case that there's no reason it should be a problem. I mean what would be the side that it should still be a problem? Maybe you have to be concerned that there was another flood inside this show you. Now that already is not so reasonable. It makes more sense that the flood that has no show you and the show you that has no flood are related to each other. Thus somehow they got detached. It was only the show you part that went out not the flood so that's not a reason for it to be also by now. The other side would be that the flood that's inside the mother without a show you is a flood without a show you. And this show you that came out really has another flood that's crushed inside of it. To be a issue of flood when you see already a flood No. But you have to number one says I disagree. Any of flood of flood of flood you always have to be a issue. Then maybe there was another flood in the show you that came. That in his was the in this case is the is the maker. Said the only time you know how to eat the show you is if you don't see a flood. If you see a flood you can. You can meaning a cooler. Even if you see a flood you cannot meaning a cooler. So how could say that all of us are the based on this explanation So the says eat the eat say that the was different. The was first of all different case. That >> [snorts] >> talking and says that the only time it's true that if there's a show you and it comes out That logic is in another way to show you that's only true if there was no vlad attached to it. Elosha in a shurable vlad, I have a shurable vlad, but let's say there was a vlad inside and the vlad was attached to the shilior, then for sure we assume that the vlad and the shilior are together. Only the shilior went out, not the vlad. When I hire us the vlad after and as a result Rabbi Yochanan Rabbi Yochanan is on the way model said that the only time shilior is a problem is if there was no vlad. But if there's a vlad then the shilior is not going to be an issue. Either way, in this case it comes out that it's the one that's cuz in this case Rabbi Yochanan said that if you have a vlad inside the animal you have nothing to worry about with the shilior. Rabbi Elozar was the one that said that if you have a vlad it could be a problem but only if they're attached. But either way, we just switch two things. Number one, we made Rabbi Elozar the Number two, we switched the case. Really, all we needed to do was make Rabbi Elozar the which the discuss. But either way, just for we switched two things. We made Rabbi Elozar the We also switched the case a little bit. Either way, the It's very good that Rabbi meant when he said that Rabbi Elozar was the one that was But either way, it comes out as a It comes out that if you have a shilior and a vlad and the vlad is not in the shilior, do you have to assume that maybe there was a different vlad inside the shilior? It depends. If the vlad and the shilior are attached to each other, then you don't have to assume there was another vlad inside the shilior. If they're not attached to each other, in that case you would have to assume it. So, there's something about the vlad and the shilior being attached that somehow makes the difference. As the Gamorah, that prat kind of give us the We have a brice that supports that. I'm a palace The shilior in buyer. So, this is discussing a woman that gave birth to a child that looks like a animal. So, we had this earlier in the perek where was the main whether she's told me to you ladies or she's not coming to my ladies and says yeah because it says so by as well the same no because that's the of life doesn't have a of life there's no of you ladies there's no laws of with the so this price is going according to that there's no of if it doesn't have a of life so what happened a woman miscarried a child looks like a behema of but there was also an amniotic sac and there's nothing inside that amniotic sac the question is we have to be concerned or suspect that maybe inside that amniotic sac there was once a child and as a result as a result maybe she does have to have you ladies not because of the child that we see she miscarried but because of the child that might have been inside the what does the say it depends if there's a man if the child that looks like a behema is attached to the amniotic sac and has no you don't have to worry about because we assume that the child belongs to the sac and the sac belongs to the child and if they're not attached to each other then then already you have to be concerned I'm concerned maybe the the sac once had a fetus and something happened to the fetus and and the fetus the child that was miscarried once had a sac and something happened to the sac if they're not attached to each other now I have to suspect the worst what does the worst mean you have to suspect that maybe there was a child here that miscarried as well as a result two what are the two so the one is obvious you have to be concerned that maybe she had a child if she had a child there's now you have to worry about the you ladies that's outlined in the beginning of but there's a as well in the reverse that is when a woman has a baby so maybe she's told me 7 days or 14 days depending if she has a boy or a girl. But after that, any blood that she sees is not dam nida anymore. It's all dam tahara. That dam tahara, that chiddush of tahara is only true if you have a a child. But if you have a min b'min chiyuv, if according to chachamim, you don't have dam tahara. So [snorts] really, it's a chuma both ways. You can have to be machmir and have y'mei tuma, but also any blood that comes during the y'mei tahara, according to what it was earlier, we treat it as y'mei tahara, because maybe she never had a child. If she never had a child, it's regular dam nida. So as a result, you have to go ahead and work with both chumas. Am a vakairish sh'bi vo, the mishna said that am a vakairish that has a a woman that miscarries her first [snorts] child, so what's the halacha? Yashlichuha l'klavim. You could throw it to the dogs. My time, why let it throw to the dogs? Am Rabbi Gevirah Ami, the reason is because rov behemois yoldois dovor hakodesh b'chiyur. Because most behemois give birth to things that are kodesh b'chiyur. But a miyut yoldois something that's not kodesh b'chiyur. There are babies that don't have kodesh b'chiyur. Why? So Rashi says, again, same thing, that if a baby, here we're talking about animals, that gives birth to an animal that looks like it's from a different species, Rachel sh'yolda min ayish, oy ayish sh'yolda doimeh l'Rachel, u'mayu nidma. That's what a nidma is. So not all animals are subject to b'chiyur. Most are. Let's say 99% are. But it's not mechtzin zachar u'mechtzin nekeiva. And all babies are either a boy or a girl. So let's assume 50% boys, 50% girls. Seich miyut d'nidma. Take the miyut of nidma, little math, l'mechtzin d'nekeiva, carry it over, move it over to the mechtzin d'nekeiva, have a luz chaim miyuta, it comes out that there's actually a smaller chance that this child is subject to b'chiyur than not subject to b'chiyur. Because there's a possibility that it's in and there's a possibility that it's going to be a nigma. That's why it says it's not you can go by the way. You can take this nifa. You know if it's a boy or a girl. Those are things that you have no idea. So, what could you do with it? You can feed it to the dog. If I ever this was a payment of hectish, then I have to have to bury it by time. What's the reason? Because the majority of them are subject to hectish. Because most of the animals are subject to hectish. You know, there are examples of animals that are not subject to hectish. But when it comes to hectish, it doesn't matter if it's a nifa. So, as a result, most of them are going to be subject to hectish. Thus, the law here is to cover. We are going to end right before the new period. Next tomorrow is a a fasting tomorrow. God willing, we'll pick that up next time.