Zevachim 70

Today's daf is walking off and we are about 20 lines from the bottom of God summer test on the base moving along the last stuff in paddock hot as always so the topic of the daf the last few days was if a coin does a malika pasola with a hot as always or an oil as always so that's obvious that as it relates to the way that some of the car it's not going to be a kosher avoided the question is what about with regards to the two months navela of the do we say that being that the malika of the malika pasola so we look at the now as if it's an available if it's an available an ice that's an available is to me so this this hot as always that had a malika pasola is going to be to me as well or do we say that despite the fact that the malika was a malika pasola as it relates to the way that but as it relates to Thomas navela it is enough malika to say that it's not going to be Thomas navela and the rule of thumb that we saw was pun intended it depends on whether the of this ice pasola is going to be in all the way just got it or you if it's going to be in all the way that means that even though the malika was a malika pasola but on some level it was a kosher malika because as a result of this malika there could be a or be it of a malika so that's enough to say that it's a malika to be the ice me day to me if however the is that means that only is it not a malika with regards to an exchange but it's also not as it relates to an pasola thus the is the ice will be to me to me now what kind of to me doesn't ice navela have it's a very special type of to me it's called to me base of Leah and that's in contrast to the to me of be him that's an available that's the base of Leah but rather it's the over master so an available in addition to it being it also is to me a be him that's an available is it contracts to me either if one touches it my go or if one carries it master the way it ice that's an available contracts to me is not through my go it's not through master but rather it's the base of Leah by eating it so if somebody would eat the navela of an ice to me if it would be in his base of Leah if we have time we'll speak later in the daf a very important in the sector daf base of the base that [snorts] has tremendous impact in our but it's not the rather it's the base of Leah that's the discussion the discussion is a malika pasola on an ice do we say that being that the malika was pasola so we look at it as an available it's do we not look at it as if it's an available as a result it's not going to be the base of Leah from here the mission digress a little bit and discussed another what would be if a coin did malika and afterwards he found that the ice was treifa or the way explains based on a mission in the sector tires what would be if somebody an ice that was same so ice the equivalent there of of malika kosher see he did the malika you did the afterwards he found out that the ice was a treifa so obviously it's not going to be kosher the question is do we look at it now as an available so it's going to have to me base of Leah or not from mayor and mayor the question is mayor mayor now one thing was clear from the little bit of this that we began yesterday and that is the whole with regards to an ice whether it's malika kosher or but as it relates to be him as everybody agrees that it's going to be a meaning it's not going to be to me to me of my go that's not the discussion the discussion is what about what about malika kosher or do we say it's like be him as with >> [snorts] >> the even though it's not at the end of the day a real because the animals are but at the same time the works so that we shouldn't be to me of my go so maybe the same thing should be by an ice or not now in the mission said the is that it's to me how does he know it a and but jumped on the mission and he said this is I didn't realize 101 so the had to tweak the mission and the said you're right is not coming from the is coming from a so where we're up to we actually saw this quickly yesterday but it segues very much into today's daf is again who holds that there's a there's a distinction between be him and ice or with that is it relates to be him is it's not going to be to me to me of my go but as it relates to an ice will be to me to me of base of Leah my time what's the reason what's the between and in ice says the cross the who the base his on a the says and it's in the possible test and we're going to have to get quite familiar with this possible for the next 20 minutes or so I should navela or treifa but the God of the mind the to me the without knowing too much what the possible talking about two things are clear number one navela or treifa number two the person that ate it became to me the base of the God of the the mind the to me now if you look at the context of that possible but I she speaks it out of right there we're talking not about a be him but rather we're talking about an ice in other words we're discussing an ice that's an available an ice that's a treifa and the possible says that the is if someone eats from it to me base of Leah you ate it the base of the God of you put God in even become to me the base of the mind your goof is to me the to me your to me at night the only afterwards you would become to I'm so you would have said treifa I don't understand this possible the possible mentions treifa why is the possible mention treifa the essence of this possible is discussing to me base of Leah of an available but why are we talking about a treifa since when does a treifa contract to me and he said in treifa if a treifa while it's alive presumed to be able to live meaning whether a treifa is can live or a treifa cannot live and it impacts a lot of areas in so it says the if the and this is that a treifa could live that means a treifa there's no reason in the world while it's alive to contract to me the only time a treifa would contract to me is if it dies if it dies then it's an available I rate an available and the says navela has to me base of Leah and in treifa in a if you want to tell me that a treifa really is not and maybe the reason the possible is mentioning treifa because that being that a treifa is not while it's alive we look at it already as if it's an available but if that's the case I rate that it's included in there's no to me treifa there's to me and either treifa is included in navela it's not included in navela but but why we talking about treifa says the so you know why the treifa treifa it must be the only possibility that I can think of says you would is we're talking about an animal that's not an available you know why it's not an available because it had but it was treifa and said the God of the the to me the the to me the the in other words it's going to be so it says I know the when it comes to be him is not the way I know the somebody be him the is it's not going to be to me to me of my go but by I have a possible the possible says navela or treifa what does it mean treifa while it's alive why should it contract to me the only time that you contract to me while it's alive is because it's but if it's then it's an available so why the have to say treifa the reason the said treifa is because we're talking about a situation where it had a kosher so navela it's not an available there was a not a was in the treifa and that the is the base of the God of the the to me the the to me the that is going to be to me in other words he told him it's from a possible told that that's the case meaning if this is the to your that is a between be him and say when the possible says in and the context of it is a completely different context it's discussing the navela treifa the so the is that even though an available we just said is to me but there's a very big the of an animal that's the part of the animal you're not allowed to eat that's the part of the animal if somebody eats he's that's you always find if somebody but the says that even though you're not allowed to eat the ironically the is not so the part of the animal that you're allowed to eat when it's a if it's an available it's to me the part of the animal that you're not allowed to eat such as the here the is that if it's an available it's not to me the navela treifa also also means you can do with it it's not to me as it relates to our the same time the obviously not allowed to eat it but said if you're bothered with the word treifa in the possible you have to be bothered with the word treifa in this possible as well so now we ask the same question make the same in treifa if a treifa could live that means the only time the treifa is even in the discussion of to me navela is if it died if it died have you never I didn't try to treat the cat with you want to tell me even while it's alive it's a discussion but the mother then you tell me we look at it as if it's dead right now that's there's a conversation of tomorrow but the bottom line is how do you make the same so must be you'll make the same exact as you know what the table said novella treif to tell me a case where there was a not where it's an available not where it's alive Who there was a to tell me that but you're going to tell me that the venom is straight for where you would have thought that maybe should be commercial that the is going to be the problem with saying that is is it's going to come out that only the is because the saying that only the is the rest of the animals going to be how can you tell me this is what we spoke at in the intro that we spoke at yesterday the theme of the and that is that that's partial that the venom is straight for the is that there's no so it's not just the that's going to be in that case the whole animal is going to be in that case so when the table over there says you can't say it's talking about where you did an animal straight for the that that the is going to be because that would suggest that only the is going to be which is what the is saying and that's not true because in that case the whole animal was there Would you have to say the name of there's no there there's no there's no and we don't have to learn the Miriam and then the we don't need a whole of that's three lines in it's very straightforward everybody knows that so I can't the words of the of the of the in the same way the words novella in what are you going to the words in of must be straight for Something to tell me that this is that the is Of an available is is only true if it's a not if it's a to me and we do you see that in the word straight for me it's only the game animal who has straight for As opposed to a to me that doesn't have the concept of straight for because a non cultural animal doesn't wake up in the morning straight essentially so there's no of straight for so that's why the wrote straight for the wrote straight for to tell me that the law of the the of the and that is that the of the is tall even though it's only the if it's a to me it's not the game and straight for the word straight for You know straight for the purchase you might say the same when it says in the that the is of the applied the novella straight for and the question was why is the to say straight for the to teach me that this of is only the game but it's not the game why not because it's a an animal that has no straight for but the bottom line is what we're doing is is we're just saying that if you to your that the straight for the is It's still going to be coming to my because it says novella straight for because your understanding of novella straight straight for is extra so novella straight for is telling me where it's not an available there was a of an straight for that it's treated like an available that means you should have to be consistent and you should have to the novella straight for that it says in that way as well and the just prove you can't that way what then must be the in the offered an explanation maybe when it says straight for it's a man A to me that doesn't have the partial straight for so maybe that's what it means as well but the bottom line is is you have to be consistent you're coming up with a very interesting way of the word novella straight for in I have those same two words in and there I can't it this way that should prove that you can't it your way as well as a result what we have is is we don't have a so the now is going to be the is going to be very very fast and not an easy it's going to take us halfway down to the until finally is going to explain Exactly what meant when he said that his is but for now there's going to be a lot of back and forth of trying to understand how to the novella straight for and the novella and straight for in says the if the maybe really you're right the way is going to the of the of straight for is straight for if you straight for it's a to me That it doesn't have this that it's not going to be but at the same time he didn't it that way you know why because he knows the that doesn't have so what else so he doesn't need the novella and straight for to teach me that what does he know that from the time we don't have to be I would have thought that just like the novella is so the novella should do the same thing tell me what it says in the novella and straight for we learn from there me so the novella you any mission novella The mission tell me bottom line is he knows that from somewhere else so you're right the novella straight for that he's going to the the novella of a to me but at the same time when it says novella straight for he's not going to use it to be an to me because he knows to me from somewhere else from a different so what does he use it for he uses it to teach me this straight for the is it's going to be but the I know Just like I have another to to teach me the of That the of a to me is Is to me meaning it doesn't have this that it's not meaning I can learn that from somewhere else as well How it says in the the novella of straight for our and let's learn from there is mission of the novella Novella you any mission of the novella and mission to me the you can A similar in the without saying the word straight for to teach me that the only talking about a to me because the seems to be saying the novella so only something whose is mission novella only you have the of of but as opposed to or that the is not going to be but as opposed to something that that's for another reason because it's a to me anyways says the you're right you're right good point I don't need straight for in of To teach me the of a to me so what is straight for coming to teach me but it's still coming to teach me something else coming to be maybe the is this is talking about a what about a the of a to her not a to me the of a to her is it going to be or is it not going to be so I would have thought maybe the only time you have this that the is [snorts] not is when the is and the is there Over there you have this that when it's an available the is and the is not but there's no between the the and the the is only said by was never said by a so over there the and the are the same so just like that the same as it relates to the is maybe they should be the same as it relates to the as well so maybe you don't have this so maybe straight for is coming to be how would the word straight for be and you go from straight for To anything that has straight for is going to be included anything that has straight for even a has a concept of a straight for if a becomes a straight for it's a straight for animal so anything that is to straight for is going to be included in this but the bottom line is again the saying at this point that I know what to do with the word straight for in but the says to me I don't agree with your you want to tell me that straight for is coming to be it shouldn't be a Because we know we just established that this that the of a is is only true by it's not true by a to me so it's not true by a but you want to say it is true by a to her says the I don't see how you can be between a to me and a to her why the of why is a to me excluded from this presumably because There's no between it's and it's they're both so from that standpoint and the of then I think a to her should be the same thing because there's no between it's and it's they're not both they're both how could you even entertain the possibility that when the said the word straight for the is coming to be how what is the say the of the novella of straight for the sounds like we're talking about a that you know how to eat that's That's about by it's not so there's no way that's what the word straight for is coming to be so what in the world is straight for coming to be in the wanted to use the word straight for to teach me his the problem that he ran into was was giving a very hard time he said if you're going to straight for you have to straight for and the had a few suggestions of maybe what the word straight for is coming to teach me but at the moment the tomorrow to have Failed in all its attempts to explain that word. So, what we're left with is is that if you're going to dash in the word treif in parshas acharei mos, you have to dash in the word treif in parshas acharei mos. Hello, my abaya. So, abaya said, "Now, I'll explain it to you. Treif l'gufay, you know you know what the word treif in parshas acharei mos is coming to teach me? It's coming to teach me l'gufay. What do you mean? It's shalayt tamei you shouldn't think chelev tamei asur m'chayim v'treifasur m'chayim. An animal that's not kosher is asur while it's alive. An animal that's treif, that is asur also chamei'ah. As soon as the animal becomes a treif, even before the sh'chita, it's already a problem. So, mat may I would have thought chelev tamei after all. Treif of chelev tamei, I would have thought that just like a tamei'ah, its chelev is m'tamei. So, maybe an animal that's a treif, its chelev should be m'tamei as well. So, kamashma lon, that's what the pasuk is coming to tell me that the chelev of a treif is not m'tamei. Maybe that's all it's coming to say. But, the gemara says yachid b'tzibur ainami mibaya lay. So, darshan treif the same way in parshas acharei mos. Shalayt tamei mar oif tamei asur b'chiyuvo. V'treif asur b'chiyuvo mat oif tamei in m'tamei. Av treif in m'tamei, maybe that's all the pasuk is coming to say that a treif even when it's an aveilah, maybe it doesn't have tumah. Just like oif tamei doesn't have tumah base avliyah. So, maybe a treif that's an aveilah doesn't have tumah base avliyah either. V'oif says the gemara, "Me ikka meidav treif m'tamei?" I don't agree with this whole premise anyway. Do you want to tell me that the reason the Torah had to say treif in parshas acharei mos, and maybe the reason the Torah had to say treif in parshas acharei mos is because you would have thought a treif that's an aveilah is different than a regular aveilah. Because maybe a treif should be more comparable to a beheima tamei'ah or to an oif tamei. Because the tumas m'chayim, at the end of the day there's a difference between a treif and a tamei'ah, even though they both have tumas m'chayim. How so? Tamei'ah lo hayah sh'lo shas aklisha. Tamei'ah never had a shas aklisha. A beheima tamei'ah was born tamei. Treif ois sh'lo shas aklisha. Treif always had a shas aklisha. Sh'chita didn't make it tamei. Treif made it bad then. There isn't an example of a treif that had a shas aklisha. How is that? An animal that is born a treif? May ikka oima? P'pameina. Me oif ikka. But, the bottom line is there is a concept of a of a treif that did have a shas aklisha, says the gemara. Elo mar Rav, and this is the final answer. A Torah amrah, the reason the Torah wrote the word treif in parshas sav is to teach me yoveh is an aveilah v'yochal al isur chelev. Yoveh is a treif v'yochal al isur chelev. to know why the Torah wrote the word treif in parshas sav the chelev n'veilah v'chelev treif teaches me hold of an halacha. It's not coming to teach me the halacha that there's no tumas n'veilah by a treif. Yeah, Rebbi Yehudah's cheshbon is a good cheshbon, and that's why he was able to make his cheshbon in parshas acharei mos. Really, that the word treif is extra in all the different halachas the gemara thought maybe the Torah needed the word treif for to be m'tamei the beheima tamei'ah. I know that from somewhere else. To be marbeh chaya, the gemara says no way we're being marbeh chaya. It's but it's for a completely different reason. The reason is is that you shouldn't think that what would be if the animal was an aveilah and a treif. A Torah amrah yoveh is an aveilah v'yochal al isur chelev. Yoveh is a treif v'yochal al isur chelev. To teach me that the isur aveilah is chala on the chelev and that the isur treif is chala on the chelev. Why would you think not? So, this already touches on the sugias of isur aveilah isur. So, you would have thought based on the sugias of isur aveilah isur, maybe chelev, which is the part of the animal that's anyways asur b'chiyuvo, can't be subject to the rules of an aveilah. Chelev, which is again part of the animal that's asur b'chiyuvo, maybe shouldn't be subject to the rules of a treif. That's the chiddush. But, tzirich the gemara says I need this chiddush side with regards to isur aveilah and side with regards to isur treif. The yesh meina aveilah cuz I don't only had a b'aveilah I would have thought m'chayim m'tamei'ah. That's true because n'veilah is tamei. Av treif, treif that doesn't have tumah ain milai. Yesh meina treif ain oif oif treif is chala on the chelev. I would have thought m'chayim m'tamei'ah cuz it's asur m'chayim. Av n'veilah, which is not asur m'chayim, ain milai. Maybe over there you shouldn't have that halacha. Tzirich that's why that's why we needed this pasuk. Bottom line is that this concludes the very first part of the daf, which discussed in in very great detail back and forth, a lot of cheshbon, not an easy gemara at all. But, basically that m'charta Rebbi Yehudah's shita that despite the fact that the halacha is that if somebody shachted a beheima v'nimtza treif, the halacha is that the sh'chita works so that this n'veilah shouldn't be tamei tumas n'veilah. It shouldn't have tumas magah umasa. When it comes to an oif, whether it's being a shochet oif chulin or a melech oif kodshim, the halacha is going to be different. The halacha is that if you shachted or you did the melech v'nimtza treif, there's going to be tumas base avliyah. How did Rebbi Yehudah know it? He knew it from a pasuk in parshas acharei mos. This is the maskana of the gemara. V'chol nefesh asher tochal n'veilah o treif b'ezrach u'vager v'chiveis b'gad u'vrachatz b'mayim v'tamei ad ha'arev v'taher. Rebbi Yehudah felt the word treif was extra. So, why is the Torah saying n'veilah and treif? To teach me a chiddush that even if there was a sh'chita not in aveilah, it was a sh'chita v'nimtza treif, we look at it as an aveilah. Thus, it has tumas n'veilah as it relates to tumas base avliyah. We're discussing an oif. So, that the chiveis b'gad u'vrachatz b'mayim v'tamei ad ha'arev v'taher, there's going to be tumah. Ay, if you're going to darshan n'veilah o treif in parshas acharei mos perek yud zayin pasuk says well, don't you have to make the same drasha on perek zayin pasuk of daled as it relates to the halachas of chelev? That was the daf. That was the gemara that we just learned. So, before we go weiter, one hour. So, we're learning a hard gemara, let's pick out a hard hora'ah. And that is not but it's in the game really p'shat gemara. This is not just uh But, uh just one hour. So, we said that there's a a cheilek between tumas n'veilah of a beheima and tumas n'veilah of an oif. Uh beheima that's an aveilah is tamei. It's tamei tumas magah umasa. Uh oif that's an aveilah is tamei and it's tamei tumas base avliyah. And we saw in yesterday's daf that a beheima is not tamei tumas base avliyah. And an oif is not tamei tumas magah umasa. Meaning, if somebody would touch or if somebody would carry the n'veilah of an oif, he wouldn't be tamei. And if somebody would eat the n'veilah of a beheima, he wouldn't be tamei either. Uh n'veilah of a beheima is only tamei tumas magah umasa. And the n'veilah of an oif is only tamei tumas base avliyah. But, there's an obvious question if you think about it for 9 seconds. And that is how could you tell me that if somebody eats the n'veilah of a beheima, he's not going to be tamei cuz there's no tumas base avliyah. When you eat it, aren't you touching it? B'chura. You're touching it, you're carrying it. I would think that when I eat it there's some element of magah umasa, right? So, how would this make sense? You're telling me that n'veilah of an oif, that's m'tamei b'base avliyah. But, the n'veilah of a beheima, magah umasa, yeah. Base avliyah, no. B'chura, when you put it in your base avliyah, it's touching you, right? It's coming in contact with you. So, if it came in contact with you, and even if you're talking about ha'acha d'maskana where somebody literally was tochav b'toch groinei, he stuck it in his throat. He stuck it down his base avliyah. It doesn't matter. The base avliyah is part of the person. So, if it's part of the person, there should be a magah, there should be a masa. So, how do you understand pashut shain in this gemara? The truth is you know discusses it. Abaya v'Rava discuss it in the gemara maseches nida daf mem daled amud beis. The gemara over there discusses eibay ilahu makom n'vilas oif tahor. The makom where the n'veilah of an oif is m'tamei. Meaning, the base avliyah. Balua havi? That area, where wherever it is in the anatomy and the physiology of the human being. Wherever wherever the chazals understanding of the base avliyah was. That area, when the food is there, do we look at the food as if it's balua? It's swallowed? O base astom havi? Or do we look at it as if it's not swallowed? It's not balua. It's just in a hidden place. It's concealed. It's not a place that you can see. It's not exposed to the public. But, it's not literally balua. May nafka mina says the gemara, oif gantz sh'chita v'eichal k'zayis n'veilah oif treif. What would be at the halacha? We're not discussing the n'veilah of an oif, but rather the n'veilah of a beheima. And somebody would go over to his friend and he says, "Nu, kim do hein?" He stuck this n'veilah into his his base avliyah. Would he now become tamei tumas magah umasa? Or would become tamei? Ee, amrit balua havi. If you're going to tell me that that area is balua, so it's as if it's swallowed. Tumah balua lo m'tamei. Tumah that's swallowed already is not tamei. So, even though something that's tamei, if you come in contact with it, am nishmas Yisrael parsha. The halacha is you become tamei. But, if the tumas balua, it's halachically swallowed, if you come in contact with it, it's not going to be tamei. So, if that area in the base avliyah is as if it already went through the digestive system, so it's balua. If it's balua, it's not tamei. So, if it's not tamei, so there's not going to be magah umasa. Av ee, amrit base astom havi. But, if you're going to tell me it's it's base astom, meaning we don't look at it as if it's a makom balua, rather we look at it as if it's a base astom. Nehi nami d'vei magah lo m'tamei, b'masa meya m'tamei. That at the very least it should be tamei tumas masa. What's the bottom line? Abaya amrah havi. Abaya said it's balua. Rava amrah Rava said base astom havi. That we don't look at it as if it's balua. We look at it as if it's a base astom. So, it's a machlokes >> [snorts] >> uh Abaya v'Rava. Amrah Abaya, "S'abaya sh'meina oima lo hadoi. I know that it's balua and it's not a base astom." The time we went to the braisa, "Yoch, I would have thought ain n'vilas beheima t'meia m'tamei b'gad u'v'base avliyah." I would have thought it's a braisa that the n'veilah of a beheima should be m'tamei b'base avliyah. Tam u'v'loi man n'veilah o treif lo yochal. V'tam av lo. And we learn from there misha eima tumah al achi v'lo. Yotzei zusha m'tamei kodshei acharei mos. Says that Abaya, "I'll prove to you that it's balua." Because the halacha is at the end of the day, meaning the gemara is posing this hypothetical question. What would be if somebody would stick the n'veilah of a beheima into somebody's base avliyah? Would he become tamei tumas magah umasa? Or would he not become tamei magah umasa? So, Abaya says it's not a hypothetical question. It's a it's a real life braisa. And the halacha is that oif is m'tamei b'base avliyah not b'magah umasa. And beheima is m'tamei b'magah so it's before it's below because if you're going to tell me that it's not looked at as a it's just a concealed but technically it's still then what does this mean when we say that a of a is not a matter of the same thing it is a matter of the same thing it's a matter of the same thing when how The same way it's a matter of the same thing it could be the longest is not a matter of the same thing it could be the longest is a matter of the same thing it might be a fundamentally different in terms of how you understand the one is a matter of the same thing it's like the other one is a matter of the same thing but at the end of the day it's going to be the same so by yourself from the fact that we know it's a that a is not a matter of the same thing it must be that when the is in the it's looked at as if it's like as if it's in the digestive system already so it's not anymore is when we still look at it as but once the is it takes on another a name it's not a food anymore so at that point if it's not food so by there's a of a matter of the same thing but as it relates to the ordinary rules of a matter of the same thing that's not going to be we'll hold it for here not to get too crazy but but the point is is that the obvious question what is mean that the has a matter of the same thing but it doesn't have a matter of the same thing isn't the a matter of the same thing always a matter of the same thing the answer is we already discussed it it's an important that it either way is a matter of the same thing we are we now return to so we explained it says [snorts] the what about I trade for my you said it was from the word trade for that is what do you do with the word trade for you see you know what he used it for yesterday's off he used it to teach me that if somebody would an definite an of a matter of the same thing it won't be it'll be a matter of the same thing and the reason is cuz it has to be the and just like show a matter of the same thing so to has to be show a matter of the same thing that was yesterday's so as a result you want to know what he uses the word trade for that's the you said of the word trade for it's coming to teach me that that it's that the laws of as it relates to a has to be somewhat similar to trade for and just like by trade for there's no between and so too the only time a is a matter of the same thing is going to be a matter of the same thing if there's no between and we how does know that it says the word trade for another time the says why did they have to say the word trade for twice one is coming to teach me the we just mentioned and the other one is coming to teach me an that an is not a matter of the same thing we how do you know that an is not a matter of the same thing so we had it in the previous we knew it from we how do you know what does it do with the word coming to teach me that that is an that's a matter of the same thing how much do you have to eat you have to eat frankly micro camera why do I need it for that the when the mentions the introduces the concept of a matter of the same thing it says a matter of but it says a always means so why do I need to teach me cuz I need a to tell me that the of a matter of the same thing is of course it's it says so the says you need two to tell me one to tell me one to tell me one to tell me that if you would eat two parts that that it would be so I would have thought being that is a that's for sure so you not maybe even if you eat more than an maybe that should be enough that's the to tell me that no only not if you eat more than an says in the of the the is talking about the of a so this is the in that the was very busy with it says the of a even though it's also ironically the animal in a is it's not so there's too much but that's only on the part of the animal that you're allowed to eat the part that you can eat is when it's an the part that you cannot eat is not a matter of the same thing but it's only after you tell me it's of a are you I'll tell you why I think we're talking about the of a we know that takes an animal that would have been subject to a matter of the same thing and makes it obviously if the does not need to talk about the and you find that the said that the of a is meaning there's two ways to make it number one so it's not really making when you do so you might see a matter of the same thing never really became an or the says that the of a is going to be as well so so but you have to just like only works for after so to when the says that the of an is going to be the talking about a maybe the way the is a little bit differently the of just like the of just like just like when the said that there's no we're talking about a the will explain what that means in a minute after the so just like when this of so just like when this of it's so what is that referring to the is going to mention it in a number of but just even at this point we're talking about the of an that's a matter of the same thing but we mentioned that the only time it's a matter of the same thing is if it's an if it's an it's not a matter of a matter of the same thing so it comes at this special of a matter of the same thing that by a an doesn't have a matter of the it doesn't have a matter of the same thing so just like there's a just like there's a a of a matter of the same thing after by a there's also a of a matter of the same thing by a what's the of a matter of the same thing after by [laughter] a only works by that's the ultimate way of making something a matter of the same thing but where's the of a matter of the same thing an an that's a matter of the same thing it's only an that's a matter of the same thing it's not an so says the maybe maybe this that's discussing is talking about a matter of the why cuz the of by a matter of the same thing but after the of the the first option would mean that the is talking about a the second option would be talking about a the trade for says in the trade for the word trade for is a we're talking about an animal that has a concept of a trade for that's obviously a doesn't have trade for I said says the >> [snorts] >> of a trade for the way is a she is what about a and if the the is trade for a has trade for the way we're talking about something whose is also but is as opposed to a she will be a matter of the same thing if that's the case a matter of the same thing a matter of the same thing is it true that only the of a matter of the same thing is but the of a matter of the same thing is is not going to be a matter of the we said of a matter of the same thing is a matter of the same thing it sounded like the only time is an animal is if it's a of a matter of the same thing not if it's a matter of the same thing so told I should be walking away from this thinking that cuz that was the first thing the said the said that the only time is is by a matter of the same thing is that really true he told him a lot of Eden made the same mistake I'll say for of a matter of the same thing we say that that a of a matter of the same thing of a matter of the same thing we don't mean a what we mean is an and we mean that an of doesn't have a matter of the same thing but in terms of a matter of the same thing a matter of the same thing is going to have the regular of a matter of the same thing of a matter of the same thing so from here until the end of the is actually not so hard but before we go further let's see one or maybe maybe two so the first is is that the in it's back and forth and what to do with all these different so the said that has a to tell me that the of a matter of the same thing by an is there's another to tell me that it's after why would you think it shouldn't be after so I would have thought the being that it's a you make maybe it should be Tommy even McDay Prescott. That the law is it's going to be Tommy just to get this very very clear. We know that is that wherever the Torah says that you have to eat eat a kazayis. You don't have to eat the kazayis contrary to what some people think. You don't have to eat it in one second. What you need to do is eat it within a certain share. What's the share? But they are here as president of the few minutes but with the point is is that you have a 9 minutes maybe but is what you have to means a little bit of a because the Torah says for example you eat matzah by the how much that's the so does that mean that you have to take the matzah and literally in one eat the whole kazayis no it's not what it means. It could be several as long as all the happens within the share of of brass that's going to be enough. All the are going to be now if you eat it the now you run into issues but as long as you do it within the I'm a staff so if the if you over there they're not going to be the more says that the Allah today brass just like it's true with regards to such as matzah or such as this all and all have this the same is going to be true when it comes to Thomas so if somebody would eat the and you would eat it in two a half and then within a half another half the law is the two would be big day brass stating that the more I need a for it because without a I wouldn't have thought that I would have thought that the being that Thomas is a maybe it could be even maybe even if it's more than a day brass it should be mid staff that no that the law is that it has to be so I'm going to tell you two give all the cashes that both of which were literally in the base managers these two cashes shook up literally shook up the base managers. Cash number one and asks the cash and it's and it's asked the cash and the and others ask this cash as well that's the one in this a very big the more said that being that Thomas is a so I would have thought so good I that maybe even the two should be meaning maybe this idea that have to be that's for regular but this of Thomas maybe over there even maybe it should be able to be from the more that the school the more of discussing the law of and the more of brings a whole almond a discussion amongst the what would be if somebody ate in two shots so you ate the kazayis you ate the full share even also the kazayis but he ate it in two parts as the more how could be rash how could be the kazayis next like so this person ate an entire kazayis of but but he ate it in two shots he ate a half and then he ate another half now what's the law what's the is it going to be or is it not going to be listen to rash now me feel the the more fish do you say at the end of the day you ate two half and even though you didn't eat it in one shot but you ate the so just like by all these is so so to [snorts] is going to be or do you say that being that this is a don't give it that some is the you don't find anywhere that somebody eats a bone of a of an animal that's not kosher that there should be a problem even is a that the are considered able I would think maybe being that it's a and if you eat it in one shot you're going to be this time I feel mash I will say what so says the more you want to know what this whole in shots cooling cooked with the more discussing somebody in a but not the whole in one shot you would eat it in a half you would eat a half and then another half is it do you say why not I feel it's always or maybe it's different because being that it's a and what do you mean you be why should you be able to be it's a massive that you should be able to be staff to a so being that this is a of able to to say a of to say to say a that that some is also of and that two of maybe not maybe think he doesn't understand that two of each other the more said that Thomas of Thomas I think that it's a and I will say that being that it's a I would think that could be even you will even you will I need a to tell me that no it's only to the two are going to be but if it's it's not going to be and here I have a just the opposite that being that is a why is it a because given that are not also so you have this over here so if that's the case you shouldn't be able to be to even today and that's why there's a whole discussion in the how could be what's the law you ate the two half not what are you going to be or you're not going to be it's it's a but it's more than just a it's a in how you're supposed to look at the idea that two could be with the brass meaning this idea that there's a that doesn't mean you have to eat a matzah one shot you could be brass this I will of brass what would be with that with that you would assume the past this is you have to eat it or or the past this is you'd be able to eat it that's what's the the is that it has to be brass or the is that it works when it is brass it's a fundamental what would be the law of if you didn't have this law of two be what I meant what I meant that you have to eat it in one shot or not if it's the opposite what I meant that you could eat it our that without the of I would have thought you could eat it you will eat it and that's what the more is saying that being that this whole is a so make it to say a of Thomas is a so make it to go ahead and now and say another what would be the second to tell me that it has to be brass maybe no maybe in this even from cooked it's just the opposite it's that the is not that it has to be within the is that you could do it within and you don't have to do it as long as they're both that's going to be enough that's why the more says that maybe by which in and of itself is a maybe you should have to eat it to cash in the end he asks the cash of he says at the end of the also as good as he says I'm not the first one to ask this cash this is a really cash that was discussed on the of of one of those is the in the it's actually a classic it's true man this true have but I have but some true have that just have so many elements to it this is one of them incidentally this true was written guys so so this is who this true was some of some of the most true was written guys but anyways cooked man is is to the he asks this cash here as well that's the first the second is after everything we just discussed let's go back to that this need tough 10 days on the days but just a little bit of a I saw in the safe of one he brings that in the they say over that was a he lived in he was a living in he lived in and there was a guy in he used to he used to give a share to the share was for but some of his they were young they used to crash they used to go to they don't say that they used to go to to share and they used to hack around they used to ask cashes I got they say over that they bothered them because these were coming and they were asking cashes and one day they decided that they're going to so they went over to and they told him he should the share the maybe he told them to leave so told them I want you to know as the share the whole share is for them you think it's for you I'm not saying for you I'm saying it for them it's for those so let them stay there because that's the only reason I'm giving the share incidentally they bring that used to go over to he would try recruiting people to come to the share and used to say quote as this is the part that's in quotations a good to share which is a major so used to tell people a good to share one of the that were there was the guy remember he used to prepare share for a bath and the next thing you know, the crime is on one side, the Rokeach of a guy is on another side. But I don't know if these were the bomber caches that they were asking for. He used to say over caches tire that he heard from Mendel of Slutsk. One of the caches he said he heard when a bucker and remember those Slutsk asked the following question. We just mentioned the Gamorah in Maseches Niddah where Abaye made a phenomenal kasha. And we it really it starts with a question and that is that the nevelah of a behemah is metameh tumas magel massa. The nevelah of an oif is metameh tumas base abliyah. The nevelah of a behemah is not tomeh tumas base abliyah and the nevelah of a behemah is not metameh tumas magel massa. Lo chayerah, it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense because how is it possible that the nevelah of a behemah is metameh the magel massa but it's not metameh the base abliyah. Lo chayerah, when you put the nevelah into your base abliyah, aren't you touching it? Aren't you carrying it? You have magel massa. So if you have magel massa, then lo chayerah it should be tomeh. So Abaye was mechiach from this that it must be that the base abliyah is a makom balua. It's an area that's considered part of the digestive system, so to speak, of the animal. As a result, the food is considered digest not food anymore. So based on the ordinary rules of tumah, it really wouldn't be metameh the magel massa. There's a parsha mechudeshes of tumah called tumas base abliyah that says that by an oif there's base abliyah it's going to be tomeh. But based on the natural guidelines of magel massa, it's not going to be tomeh because it's balua, it's not base of stomach. You argue with Rava, Rava has to find himself within the sugiyah needed that base of a base. But that was Abaye's grace of time. Grace of time it was every base abliyah should be magel ooh massa. And from the fact that we see that there's no tumas base abliyah by a behemah, so you say meres that there's no magel massa either because if there's magel massa, then lo may nafka minah that there's no base abliyah. Right? That's the kasha. Lo may nafka minah that there's no base abliyah. You have a drasha that there's no base abliyah. Very nice, there's no base abliyah. But there's magel massa. So what does it mean there's no base abliyah? Ela may, it's not magel massa either. So Mendel of Slutsk asked that we just learned the Gamorah but the Gamorah said that the halachos of tumas base abliyah conform to the halachos of achilah in kol derech achilah. And just like two achilahs are mitztaref bigdei achilas pras, so too you have the same halacha by tumas base abliyah. So somebody would be by layah half a kizayis of an nevelah of an oif and then another half a kizayis of an nevelah of an oif, the halacha is the two half a kizayis and as long as it was bigdei achilas pras, it would be mitztaref. Said Mendel of Slutsk, that's parsha that by magel massa there's no such halacha. If somebody would touch a half a shiyur and then touch another half a shiyur, the two magels wouldn't be mitztaref. If somebody would carry a half a shiyur and then carry another half a shiyur, the two massas wouldn't be mitztaref. That's a chiddush in achilah. That two achilahs are mitztaref bigdei achilas pras. So afraid Mendel of Slutsk, what what was Abaye's kasha? I don't understand what Abaye's kasha was. Abaye doesn't understand what the may nafka minah that a behemah nevelah doesn't have tumas base abliyah. Doesn't it anyways have magel massa? I'll tell you where it's negayah. It's negayah what would be if a person ate a half a kizayis of nevelah, it was the base abliyah, and then another half a kizayis the base abliyah. Al tzum magel massa, there's not going to be any tumah. The reason there's not going to be tumah because it was pachus mikishiyur. I mean that it was pachus mikishiyur, he's not going to be chayav. It's only if there's a new parsha of tumas base abliyah which says a chiddush that if you eat tumah, there's a concept of achilah in tumah that conforms to the halachos of achilah that the two achilahs can be mitztaref bigdei achilas pras. That's a chiddush that you have by oif. That's not a chiddush that you have by behemah. So you want to know where it's negayah that you don't have tumas base abliyah by behemah? Don't I anyways have magel massa? If you did the two half a kizayis shelo be vasachas, is it mitztaref bigdei achilas pras? Al tzum magel massa, it won't be mitztaref bigdei achilas. And economically said Mendel of Slutsk, if you would be tochech bigdei achilas pras, a full kizayis of nevelah of a behemah into your friend's base abliyah, you'd be tomeh. You'd be tomeh tumas magel massa even though there's no tumas base abliyah. And you're right, lo yalsonem nemrah demyah that there's no tumas base abliyah. You know it's negayah that there's no tumas base abliyah. Where it's negayah that there's no tumas base abliyah, where it's negayah that there's no tumas base abliyah is where the two kizayis happened shelo be vasachas. If the two half a kizayis happened shelo be vasachas, lo chayerah tumas base abliyah. So that's the chiddush that the two achilahs can be mitztaref bigdei achilas pras. But if you don't have tumas base abliyah, then lo chayerah wouldn't be mitztaref bigdei achilas pras. So what exactly was Abaye's hachrach? That's the second kasha. Just end with one last thing and that is is there chatzi shiyur when it comes to tumah? So chatzi shiyur is also min haTorah. What about chatzi shiyur? So if somebody comes in contact with with a tumah of a chatzi shiyur, do you have that idea of chatzi shiyur also min haTorah? Now, chatzi shiyur was said regarding issurim. But the question is what about someone that's not allowed to come in contact with a tumah? For example, they are Kohanim. A Kohen is not allowed to come in contact with tumah. So let's say he comes in contact with a chatzi shiyur of tumah. Do you say chatzi shiyur also min haTorah or do you not say chatzi shiyur also min haTorah? So there's a beautiful rayah from a Rashi in Maseches Berachos daf hey. How do you get to Berachos daf hey? So we know the Gamorah says that Rebbe Yochanan ben Zakkai lost 10 sons during his lifetime and he used to walk around with the bone of his 10th son and he would say "Dein geromo d'asira beih." He'd give people chizuk, he'd be mechazek people, he'd be menachem think you can't get through your situation? Look at what I've dealt with in life and and I lived to tell the story. Be strong, have bitachon, be mekabel yissurim be'ahavah." The Gamorah's over there in in Maseches Berachos. Incidentally, we all know the rest of the story and that Rebbe Akiva exactly Rebbe Yochanan had an 11th son. The Yerushalmi says that he sent his 11th son to Shmuel, to Bavel, to go and learn Torah by Shmuel. Rebbe Akiva Rebbe Akiva in Shas was Rebbe Akiva's 11th son. But either way, Rebbe Akiva used to walk around with the bone of his 10th child and he would say "Dein geromo d'asira beih." So Rebbe Akiva in the Rishonim asked a kasha. Tosafos asks a kasha on our Rebbe Akiva was a Kohen. If Rebbe Akiva was a Kohen, how is he walking around with a bone? Kohanim are not allowed to have a bone. So the Rishonim said maybe it was a tooth. Maybe it's a bone that's not tomeh. If you look in Rashi right there in Maseches Berachos, I don't have it in front of me but if you look at Rashi, Rashi says it was an etzem that was pachus mikishiyur. A bone is only metameh mikishiyur. It was pachus mikishiyur. Pachus mikishiyur? What happened to chatzi shiyur also min haTorah? So it's a rayah that there's no chatzi shiyur when it comes to tumah. Just to end this epic week with one final red bite and that is not even a red bite, just a few hergashos, very very short. This week's parsha is parshas Vayeitzei. Parshas Vayeitzei begins "Vayeitzei Yaakov mibe'er Shava vayeilech Charonah." What an appropriate way to start the week. "Vayeitzei Yaakov mibe'er Shava." Yaakov Avinu left Be'er Sheva, he left Eretz Yisrael. "Vayeilech Charonah." He's heading to ancient Turkey. But the point is he's going to Haran. "Vayifga bamakom hu." And he came to a certain place. "Vayalen sham." And he fell asleep there. "Kiva Hashemesh." Because the sun had set. "Vayikach me'avnei hamakom." And he took from the stones in that area. "Vayasem mera'ashosav." He put them around his head. "Vayishkav bamakom hu." And he went to sleep over there. "Vayachalom hinei sulam mutzav artzah verosho magiya hashamayimah. Hinei Hashem nitzav alav." "Vechulei vechulei vechulei." The Chida in his sefer Rosh David parshas Vayeitzei he brings a a pshat in these pesukim besheim his famous grandfather Rebbe Avraham Azulai the Chesed l'Avraham, the great great Yerushalmi mekubal who said "Derech chovevim hanemonim." The derech of people that like each other "B'hipardam ish me're'eihu." When they part ways "Bo'ichim." They begin to cry. "U'mefaisim zeh lazeh." They start saying divrei peirus, "I'm going to miss you. So b'simcha, we had such a good time. When are we doing this again? We have to put something on our calendar." "K'mo shem matzinu b'David v'Yonasan." Like you find by David and Yonasan. Said Rebbe Avraham Azulai, "The kol kach gadol be'einei Yaakov Avinu al Eretz Yisrael." Kedushas Eretz Yisrael. Avraham Avinu loved Eretz Yisrael so much "K'vi yagi'o l'chum Eretz Yisrael." When he came to the chum of Eretz Yisrael and he was about to leave the kedushah of the land "Kalsah nafsho b'hipardam mimenu." His nefesh pashut started leaving him. He was going meshugah. Because he's he's leaving the land right now. "V'hishtalel fiyeis u'l'chaviv oretz." And he started giving divrei peirus to the land. "I'm going to miss you, Eretz Yisrael. I can't go. It's going to be so hard." And and he started crying. "U'l'hagei'a tzarah." He was mamash talking to the land. He says, "You don't know how much pain I'm in. Ki b're'eihu I have to run away. Avu lo yami madai tilav." I'm telling you now I'm going to come back one day. "Ad hahi v'hahi." As this was happening "Mishshoyah mishmar merubacha." As he was mamash he was crying. "U'mefayes al preidasah." "He'eiriv shimsha b'lei'l das." It got late early. And all of a sudden the sun set. "V'hu tzarich l'lun sham." And he had to lie there. "V'zeh shekosev." This is what the pasuk means. "Vayifga bamakom vayalen sham." "Vayifga" said Rebbe Avraham Azulai is a lashon of peirus. You find this lashon in different places in Tanach. And it was b'makom [snorts] dayka, it was in that place. And it was because of that place. So you make from Eretz Yisrael makom hakodesh. "Chilik li kamai mal p'yochal eretz lo meto'arah." "V'kol kach cherev peirus u'priyah k'derech oyeiv re'eha." "Ach shezeh hoyah seivah." This was the reason. "Vayalen sham kiva Hashemesh." "V'chulah yada." He had no idea. "V'al derech zeh hu mashah amru." He says this is an inyan that you find by tzaddikim. The Gamorah says that some amei ha'aretz have a mincha ki b'd'ako. When they would come to Akko, they would kiss the floor because they had such a and they wanted it so much and when how much love of he wanted so badly not to leave cuz he understood this is home and this is really where he belongs but sometimes a person has to do what a person has to do. And told him you have nothing to worry about. He said I promise you I promise you I'm going to make sure you come back one day. You so badly don't want to leave the day is going to come the day is going to come when you're going to come back. I don't think there's a more appropriate way to end such a week than with these by all means but we got to do what we got to do. But when a person feels that way and a person leaves with those types of and I told him and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing to worry about and I told him that you have nothing And he had to leave he ended up spending [snorts] decades of his life in Italy not a place that he wanted to be. These our first stop on this trip was the and we saw that this 200 years after he passed away that he was to be returned because it's but this is the way you're supposed to leave there's a just to end I heard from you didn't have to say but he told me he was a He was in camp that was summer camp I went to I went to camp I didn't go to camp but he said he remembers they went to camp and it was at the end of a a very very fun and the stuff he got up and he wanted to say wanted to say he gets up and he says say and if somebody says goodbye to his friend I'll tell me what should we talk about now. So he said that the this is the world of that the said that what does it mean he said that when a person says goodbye to his friend he should say goodbye with a show. Why would I show cuz if you say goodbye with a show the person that you're saying goodbye to is going to always think of the show and when he like this he's going to remember you and then could be in a year from now he's going to think of a terrorist he's going to remember you you're the one that asked him this show that's what the attached this very well known that when a person says goodbye as in a show cuz if you leave somebody with a show that person that show is going to be on his mind And he said the and I'm going to leave you boys with a show. He said but this show that I'm going to leave you with right now is a the show It's a show I'm telling you right now nobody in the world knows the answer to and he said everybody's sitting there with baited breath and everyone's heart is pumping what's this show that no one in the world knows the answer to that the is leaving the book room. And he turned to the book room he said show show My show is kosher will lie for us then That show is just want to end with a show we say on you come and we ask the very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very I mean this is the most beautiful show in the world everything there is nothing that's not in this show who we want to get this show it's the one of the most beautiful shows in the world the very very very very very very very very very very We should be because we're leaving with our show and we're going to to the show the show of the show the show of the show of the show of the show of the show of the show of the show of the show of the show of the show and the color of we should be to show of the show of the show