Chulin 43

Today's daf is megiml and we are 10 lines from the top of megiml. So yesterday we began the third peric makus which is almost a for itself and that is perus and the Mishna began with a list of the and the Mishna went on to list 18 defects that if an animal has this defect the is that even if it has a still you will not be able to eat from the animal. Whether the mitus of a tra is that it's or whether the matas of a is that it's means that as a result of this defect it's a mortal defect. The animal will not be able to live that says agrees that at some point this animal is going to die. The question however is can it make it pasta holds that it would be able to. Additionally, we saw that there was a who said and in the Gmorra was that the 18 mentioned the B of not the same as the 18 mentioned in our either way the Gmorra asked that aren't there more you have the other regardless we went through some of the yesterday moving along so one of the traers that were mentioned in our Mishna is nikah If the animal's gallbladder has a neck, what does neck mean? First rash in the per neck of a mashu, a hole, a puncture that's even the size of a mashu, that would be enough to make it a tra. what we saw with the garra that it's really the opinion of it's the opinion of it says the and what these five things have in common is as we'll see in a that's not that often quoted in it was and he said five is all of which are going to be quoted right here so the first thing he said was like a puncture in the gallbladder is enough to make the animal audi is the say no says yeah the question however is is there there must have been background to this there must have been a give or or says, "I have some inside information. I could tell you what went on behind the scenes when the debated this question whether a negative in the should render the animal a tra or not says the told how could you tell me a hole in the makes an animal a tra but there's a p the context over there is says it would appear that had a hole in his gallbladder so to add insult to injury amongst everything that was dealing with. He also had a punctured gallbladder and his the gold those are the contents of the gall bladder were pouring onto the floor. That's what he said literally. We're not supposed to take it as poetic license. But who don't the literally now ended up living 140 years after that rough patch that he went through in life. So what do you see from there? We know that a tra. So if a hole in the gallbladder would make an animal a tra then should have died. So how did live to tell the story you're bringing from the whole story of is not something that we can understand. It's above our pay grade. It's leo min. And as a result, don't prove from the fact that if had a punctured gallbladder, yet he lived that that means that anybody with a punctured gallbladder would be able to say, and I'll prove it to you because another one of the diseases that have had at that time is he had kidney disease. A kidney disease that the Gmorra assumes for sure would render a person a tra yet you see that he was able to live. Elani you have to say this whole story was that's why [snorts] he was able to live what's the proof in the that were raised through these of when we learned Babas together at the end of the first bar it's many many that discuss the episode of in very great detail but one of the the points that we need for this is that Hashem told the Satan that I want you to torture I and I want you to Eve that the world has never seen but at the same time you have to make sure that you keep him alive. So the the sultan so to speak had instructions to keep alive thus he was forced to keep him alive even you can't bring any from you. We'll get back to this one. A third thing is like the number that says that a person has to have a kazas of or an animal has to have the a kazas of its liver in order for it to not be a tra in order for it to be cautious. Now our Mishna mentioned the liver as one of the was if the liver was removed from the animal and there's nothing left is clearly implied from the mission is if something would be there even if it be less than a kaz that would be enough that the animal should be kosher. The problem is as a mishna later in the peric where the mishna says very clearly that as long that the animal has to have a kazayas of its liver in order for it to be kosher. But if you would remove it and some would be left but that amount left would be less than a kaz it would be a problem at first glance it would seem to be a steer bottom line is which is the is like the first or is like the second is like the secondishna meaning an animal has to have at least the kaz of its liver in order for it not to be a trade is the name is and our club it sounds like as long as something's remaining even if it's less than it's going to be a so the garra says you're right it would seem to be at first glance because like the second Mishna it means he's not like the first Mishna the first is always it must be not everybody agree this is a little bit that meaning throughout it's universally accepted that was what emerges is natural never everybody held that way it was there was that said that like the second which means not like the first Mishna I doesn't I guess not and then there were that held like which would then mean that would have no choice but to pass like the first mission in the peric which is a very big koola that as long as animal has a little bit of liver that would be enough that it shouldn't be a traitor but there's a very obvious question on this rasha and has the kasha and that is it's true and likeishna but in this case they're both stamishna so if they're both then maybe over here it's going to be different what's the kasha you have a mishna that seems to suggest that an animal that has a little bit of liver even if it's less than a kazayas is not a tracer then you have an animal that says no An animal has to have at least a kazay they're both you have a ste so said I heard from is like the secondishna how could it be hold it means he's not asking you like the firstn how does that I understand but here you have an issue you have a steer between two mishnas and as a result you have to pick one right what else are you supposed to you can't pass like both it's it's not possible so Maybe but if there's a said I have no choice but to pick and choose which I want to ask like either way says According to Rauda would render the animal a traitful and oh by the way said in the name and this was the first of the five that he said in this morning's that is like so at this point this animal is so what happens if the has but the liver of the animal is it's it's stuffing it it's plugging the hole that's enough for it to be cautious finally if the had a neckv The kiss, but the kiss is intact. The is that it's [snorts] going to be so a cork is translated in English as the gizzard. It's part of the digestive system of an o of a bird. So, think of the bird's stomach or something like that. Regardless, it's made up of a sack, which is where the food ends up as it goes through the digestive system. And it's surrounded by a wall of tissue said in the name that if there's a nek in the cork that means that wool that's surrounding the cork of was now punctured but it didn't impact the sack itself the nek didn't go into the actual kiss into the actual cork. So the outer lining was punctured but it didn't penetrate. Then is going to be which is what if it was in the reverse. What if there's a hole in the kiss but the wall surrounding it is I guess the hole came from the inside. says that if either one has a but both don't have a nev that's going to be means said in the name that if the nev is in the but the kiss is in that order meaning if it was in the reverse order it would be the same the only way it' be considered a is if it's both the surrounding wall and the kiss itself that would have the hole The the esophagus is made up of of two layers of skin. The outer is red and the inner is white. And when the Mishna says that which is the first of mention is considered a that's only if it goes through both. But if only one of the so to speak would have the it would be okay says the it's very important what said that the only time the is considered a traa is if it goes through both layers but why was it important for to say that the outer one is red and the inner one is white I mean what if the outer one is white and the inner one is red is is that really important when you when you're sitting and learn it's very important you know why what he meant to say was it has to in that order. And if you would find an animal that had it in the reverse order, it would actually be a problem. We would look at it as a defect that the animal has, it would render the animal ag layers. The first context that we said it was the name regarding the cork is considered a but there's two parts to the cork. What the refers to as the kiss what the refers to as the cork itself that's that wall that surrounds the kiss. The neck would have to go through both. If the neck doesn't go through both it wouldn't be considered a ta. Now we just had a similar regarding the ka regarding the esophagus. It's made up of two layers. The outer one is red. The inner one is white. And you would need that the neckv should go through both of them in order for it to be considered a tra. So again there's these two layers that the nek has to go through in order to render the animal a traa both in the context of when describing the tra of the cork and with regards to the behema or the but in this case the behema when we're talking about the and in both case has to go through two layers. The question is what happens if the two holes meaning the hole went through both layers but they weren't aligned. One was on top and the one was on the bottom. So the outer the red layer of the esophagus has a hole on the upper part and the white has one on the lower part says in the context of it's going to be a possle but as relates to the it's going to be the behind this is is what's a vash that's a pipe it's the food pipe the food goes through the vash being that it passes through the vashet the gumar assumes that unless you have two line two holes that are aligned with each other that goes directly through the esophagus then it the the fact that there's a hole there is not going to impact the animal. If you have a hole where food can actually go through where things can actually get messed up that's when the animal becomes a dful but for that you would need the hole to go through the entire vashid. In this case you don't have one hole that goes through the entire vashid. You have a hole in the outer part of the vashid. You have a hole in the inner part of the vashid but because of the fact that they're not aligned with each other nothing is going to happen. Now maybe there should be a concern that somehow something's going to seep through the inner hole and make its way out through the outer hole that being that the food is going through it. It's not such a as opposed to the kavan that's the stomach. What happens in the stomach? Food sits in the stomach being that it sits there. So even though these two holes are not aligned with each other but it's going to spend some time there and as a result you never know what could happen. But the said he said I think in just the opposite the which number one is the food pipe but additionally the is also attached to the trachea which means that every time the animal breathes the is is is moving as a result. So it keeps on expanding and contracting every time the animal breathes. So there's a concern that even though the two holes are not aligned with each other but maybe being that it's so active the at some point the holes may align a little bit better but the doesn't move being that it doesn't move if the holes are not aligned with each other over there you don't have so it's really two ways of looking at it either way I trace this back all the way to papa I heard like you not like what The garra said the garra said where the two holes are not aligned with each other said told graashi I heard from namea just the opposite not the way it was previously reported but rather the way you thought it in that regarding the if there's two holes not aligned with each other it's still going to be possible because being that it's so active we're concerned that something bad can happen as it relates to the circum being that it sits in one place over there. We actually do not have to worry just one more. If an animal goes into the vash and he sees that there's a a little scab so the looks a little like there must have been a neck there must have been a hole in the vash and now it healed and because it healed there's a scab there. So the question is do you have to look at it as a vasha right now it's considered a tra or do you not have to? So Rabba said that that scab is not a scab meaning it's not considered healed. We look at it still as the animal is going to be. So before we go just one in many places in shas brings the very big from we mentioned that the laws of impact animals paradis that deals with of an animal but the of also impact it impacts human beings. If somebody kills a trad says many that deal with human beings where the laws of are impacted as well brings from in many places said that even though you find of regarding and you find of regarding the are not one and the same. So you can't sit down and learn and learn that there were that were never and the way the rama brings the end of par that there's many of as well and in totality he says there 70 of the 25 of most of which deal with laws of that we're about to learn you can't cut and paste you can't apply these principles that we're learning now per to the of because and are not the same. So there's of this there's of and they are not one and the same. One place where says the context over there is discussing status when he entered the and the in the of the whether was a tra or whether was not a tra how could there be a discussion in a gammorra an entire [snorts] half a of whether nyak was a tra by a few places whether no was not a tra We know that lived after the flood for 300 years. We pass in soyak wasn't a tra. Yeah. So maybe in real time he was a tra was not a traer. I have no idea. But in hindsight, which is 2020, we know for sure that was not a tra because he lived 300 years after the says and says the used to say and this was one of his mus that there's a difference between a and a what's the reason the is because a person has mas a person has mas person is different has no ma quote unquote a person does have masa and because of the fact that a person has masa it's going to be different doesn't explain what he means when he says other misla so what came to mind of course is we go over there discusses an animal that two times or three times or four times so the is but an animal that's because it is people it's considered a mood with regards to behem as well. If it kills a you're going to have to pay but if you have an animal that's a mid it doesn't necessarily make him says the why because a more a practical and then a more says a person knows how to take care of himself. An animal doesn't know how to take care of itself. So just because an animal is a muid and knows how to get a yeah sometimes it's hard for him to protect its blind side but an human being he's like as a result it's going to know how to look out for itself and it's for that reason it's not going to just because you're a doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be a Rashi says a different shot that it could be Muslim means person has a malik that watches him that protects him but the bottom line is is just said that and as a result the laws of are impacted differently when it comes to and when it comes to the way you read is that even though it's true maybe that's only by but maybe the idea of is not that's a very big if that's really what means that's what says over here in another place where says this is in the context over there is a a very well-known it's tucked way in the middle of the story of Cana and Baransa. So we know that at at the very endpacian sends his son Titos to go destroy the Bas Mikdash. And when Titos arrives in the B mikdash, he does something very terrible. He performs an act that would go down in history as perhaps the worst that a person ever did. Says what did he do? And he took and he was boiled on top of the wasn't done and he took a sword and he cut the blood was coming out and that's the gammor over there says the gammor that was very proud of what he did and he walks out of the shakadash with a lot of he goes onto his boat arch of Titus. He's on his way back to Rome carrying the maybe not the either way he says the felt that such an a requires Titus is going to have to be punished right now for what he just did. So thee creates this ridiculous storm and and Tus's ship is about to sink. Satita said I think I know God has is powerful and I know he avenges sometimes the Jews but at the same time it looks like he has one trick there's one way that he knows how to do this he knows it with May what happened when par came right he sunk him in the sea what happened let's see if he can Let's see if you can fight with me on the ground. I want to tell you something. I'm going to give you a little class in zoologology. I have a very little Bria. It's called a net and you're going to see that it's going to fight a war with you and let's see who's going to win. So the says came and entered his nose and it's clapped for seven years. One day he was passing a blacksmith. He heard this smith who was clapping and when that happened this stopped pecking. it stopped doing its thing and and he had a little bit of relief. He said, he was so excited. So he had blacks that they would come to his palace and they'd be clapping off in cup says if this smith was a non-Jew, a gentile, he would give him four. But if it was a he told him, I don't have to pay you. Why? Because you're seeing Hashem take revenge from your enemies. That should be worth more than the few shackles that I'm going to give you. This went on for 30 days the end of the 30 days already got used to this this noise it wasn't doing anything for him at that point it was already over says I was a dign one of the dignitaries in Rome died so they did an autopsy they opened up his brain literally and they found they found that this had grown to a bird it Mishkalnes and there's different versions of how much it weigh either way this is a well-known story about Tusa. So what happened this entered the brain of of Titos and was clapping literally on the brain for seven years says I don't understand we know that one of the traers that are mentioned in the smack in the middle of our we know that one of the traers is that if the membrane that surrounds the brain gets punctured that that means that the animal becomes a tra and we know the laws Trava don't just impact animals they impact as well and we asking so if aaya how could tas have had this which later grew into a sea that was mishknim clapping on his brain for seven years had to get into the brain it went through the the so if it went through the the if that's the case then it's been he had no business living for seven years says It's not a cash up. Why not? Why not? Because if you paid attention to the it went through the nose goes in through the nose. That's how this negative happens. Maybe over there it's going to be different. throughout we could chalk this up as another riot said between the so it's true with that makes a and based on that titos would had no business living for another seven years but that's all by the behemoth there's a difference between a tra and a trad either way said a very important again this this is mentioned throughout shas even when tus quotes it he says rau This is a big is one of the big famous right some of them we know this is a famous we have a from we have a from regardless of a and everybody asks not I'm sorry it's himself ask is a riotto is a riot but if is also biblical figure. How are WE GOING TO EXPLAIN if cuz we had a gimmar over here where the gimmar said that how could you tell me that a hole in the is a tra you see that lived past and then the mentioned with a diseased kidney what's the maybe as it relates to a mikah is a tra like said ah you have a just like the wasn't a problem for and just like whatever trauma thought was wasn't initially he lived another 300 years see was able to live another 140 years whatever the exact number was even after he went through this episode what did say don't rise for miracles we have to come to a miracle maybe it wasn't according to this is the way it is that it's true but that's only but maybe as it relates to maybe over there it's going to be different so we have to spend some more time but this is part one either >> [snorts] >> So we just mentioned that the vashet has two layers. There's an outer layer, there's an inner layer. The outer layer is red, the inner layer is white. So rabbit said that when you're doing aik and a vashet, and you want to see if there's something wrong with it. So you can't do theik because presumably what you're going to be looking for is blood. And being that the outer layer, we'll see what this means in a second. The outer layer, the bash is red. So you're not going to be able to see blood because red against red isn't going to show. The way you would have to do it is you'd have to look at the inner layer. If you look at the inner layer, which is which is white, the the blood is going to show. It says why we looking for blood. So Roa said it's suffic is if you have an animal and you have a suffic whether it was a Jerusa or it was not a Jusa. So is the tra that's mentioned in the right that is the the is one example that it gives of a tra everything else is meaning you have an animal it was clawed or was trampled on by another animal that in it of itself that in of itself makes the animal a tra so you don't have to do any inspections if you know that it was a tr a drusa that itself is a problem what we're dealing with is when you had a sufficer we have it said that maybe this animal was clawed what would create the suffix. So, it's really Gamar's later, but you know, you walk into your pen and you see a lion there and you see one of your uh lambs there and the lamb is making noises and you know, the lion has this guilty look. Actually depicts a very similar picture to the later in the per but regardless you have reason to suspect that maybe there was some foul play here although you don't know for sure. So then you start doing you can look at the if you see a little bit of blood that would be a sim that maybe it was a ro said when you have a sha yeah no so what's do you do an inspection so suffic if you're looking for blood you have to look from the inside you can't look from the outside because the outside is red so it's not going to show says right was the one that said this and the word says where there was a suffix ju that was presented to and rabb starts looking at and he was looking at it from the outside told was so he says how could you be looking from the outside aren't you the one that said from the outside so the says so what did was he flipped it around and then he was and then he found two little splats of he made it a knew this all along but he wanted to see if was going to pick up on that. I mean, Rabbi was the one that said that you can't check the vess from the outside. So, how was he himself? He didn't need Abaya to remind them of what he said, says the Gar. He was just trying to test to see whether Abaya was sharp enough to be able to point out this mistake. What happens if an animal has a thorn in its but there's no neck? So there's a thorn there, but there's no puncture that goes through that would render the animal a tra have to be concerned that if there's a kit, that means that presumably there was a neck. I the neck is not there. It healed. But once there's a we said the scab is not a real heel. As a result, maybe we should treat it right now as a as a says the suffic. Why is it different than a suffic we said that when it comes to a suffic we're concerned we have to be that maybe this animal was really clawed. Maybe it's a tra. I mean, it sounds like a very big ko that you have a kite in the vash, right? There's reason to you have a smoking gun and there's reason to assume that maybe something happened over here. But at the same time, what's so why we have circumstantial evidence that would seem to tell a story that maybe the animal was clawed? There we go. says it's not a you're assuming it's not everybody agrees with that holds so is consistent is not worried that maybe the kites made a hole and now it healed somehow is also not worried about a suffic I hear what is not worried about and a very interesting gumar the next 10 lines where the gumar is going to throw in a lot of lisha ideas we'll do what we do but says the how could you tell me that you're How can you tell me that if there's a you're not concerned that maybe there was really a nek there? Why is it different that if somebody has two pieces of meat? One is kosher meat, the other meat is and what's someone has a which one he ate? He has to bring an obviously you're going why if you're not and you're not worried about the kite that's in the why you're worried about this is no there it's different because over there it's you know for sure you have a non- kosher piece of meat you're just not sure which one you but that is a non-com piece of meat there it's going to be different what about somebody who was doing his his thing he did and then he saw he saw nicks on the knife If there's a on the knife, that's a problem because then there's a concern that maybe the wasn't done properly. And over there's a suffic. It's a it's a very big issue. Now, over there there was no viser. In the case of two, he had one piece of meat that was what's there's a a concern that being that you know there was an issue with the knife but not the piece of meat. Maybe the animal became a traer. You went ahead, you don't have the animal anymore. You chopped it up. It's already in the it's in the flesh already. So, it's too late to go do aika. So why is it a problem if for is for the kit that's in the so why are you worried over here that because there was a on the knife maybe there was an issue says the obvious answer is over here even though there's nothing there's no real piece of meat for sure that's but at least the knife which is the core of why we're concerned now has a on it has why is this different than every why you asking me from maybe bring a riot to me from there that's learned from you can't bring any rias from there the obvious question should have asked this is why don't we ask from a piece somebody has a piece of meat in front of him and he's not sure if it's kosher meat or it's not kosher meat he has a suffer You lie to eat that piece of meat. Somebody has a piece of meat. He just he's just not sure if it's kosher. Not one is for there's no we're not talking about which is all very simple. A person has a piece of he's not sure if it's kosher or not. So why did you're telling me you're not worried about something? What about every most suffices? There's no there's no rises. There's just no sufficient suffic. I'm just not sure. So if I'm not sure isn't that either coming. So one of the was in front of he said the following said what was again if you had a a thorn that was stuck into the of the animal it's not a problem. You don't have to worry. Now this this one of the raon when he said over this he said over a little bit differently. He said if it was if it was found inside the it wasn't lodged in the it was found in the what he added was but if it was actually lodged into the wall of the would be a problem don't listen to what he just said why not but if it was only nes you don't need for that of course it's going to be okay Why? Because all the they're always eating thorns. I mean, anytime you chop up an animal, you're going to find thorns inside the va. So don't bring me rias from there. That has absolutely no parents. So before we go, just one and that is we mentioned very briefly yesterday. So again it says in one in the explicitly it's implied in other but it's one it's tucked away it says which literally means a Jerusalem's alive because it's not alive it's anyways in a ve so we're talking about an animal that's alive says the you should not eat it stating that we know that's only of and you have the all told us there's a host says the even though all the being that in theory there's only one and that's a and it's where is it manifest that if you have a suffic if an animal's a not a you go to what about other not always is the suffix going to be but sometimes the suffic is going to be says the something fascinating it's true all the traers are the same there's nothing to talk about every tra is the same but at the same time you do have to realize that the tyra wrote one the other ones we only know we know which suggests that there's something more about Jerusalem than all the other ones Where does it manifest itself to says the when it comes to a co every suffic is going to be awesome when it comes to one of the other it's not necessarily going to always be awesome in other words the I'm saying very very clearly that is more than an ordinary and every single asks this that I understand how the rama learn before the over here asked that was that said I'm sorry that if a animal has a inside it it right you're not worried why not you can assume that there was never a negative there and you have why is it different than avi why is it different than a si that's the rama by you go as it relates to other you don't necessarily always go but that question in light of what the Ram says is very very now the answer to that is a real tra we're not ready for that but the truth is there's a there's another that is asks as follows says that yeah, it's posh to me that even though the Ram says that is more in the he doesn't mean that something that's in the to say that you're not allowed to say that because you're somehow questioning the the validity of and the credibility ility of it's one and the same there's no let us say that there's no difference between and more so says what's the means this and oh by the way there's that also no incorporates all THE IN THE YOU HAVE to know is in the but but the point is it it's some there's no way that there's a sed that something that's in the could be more than and based on that he so what does the mean and he says but I think that it's worth mentioning one we spoke this out before and that is in his says just the opposite says I'm going to tell you and that is that we know this Anything that's in is than something that we only know from something that we only know from and even if both things are it doesn't matter something that's in the is more than something that's not in the he brings four let's just mention two the first is that we know is that so for example is not enter the what if he does mix only if his hands enter So it's this is where we spoke this at asks that we know that the as part of his he would have to stand by the he would have to stick his his hands his so that he can get the from the of the he brought the according to when this sticks his hands into the azara he's walking into the azar so why are we making him much has his hand his and stretched out. Well, why couldn't he just walk in if mix? So, makes sense. You don't want him to walk in cuz then he's going to be over the of But anyways, so he anyways walked in. If he anyways walked in, what's the point of this charade? Let him stand here. Let him stick his HANDS IN JUST WALK IN ANYWAYS WALKING IN says it's true. But being that it's not the foolish and the ter that beas. It's for that reason we'd rather violate a beas than violate. Not that there's a difference. There's no difference between if and somebody enters. But at the end of the day when it says in theory that is not let enter the literal meaning of the you can't enter. Now we learn out but if we're going to have to be if we're going to have to violate one of them we'd rather violate the mix then go ahead and violate the one that's another brings is the famous where we know the is that if somebody makes to be to be so the is not right to doz but the famously says this is 101 one that the only time that's only if it's a mitzvah that's but if it's then you don't have this you see there's a no one said that and you have a real says that that whole idea is only if something that's in the but if something is not in the over there you're not going to have that it brings another by the way from worth mentioning So the over there is discussing right the sedum. So we've we've seen a lot one of the things that the mission over there says that always comes before an ash. So if you have a sh bring a you have a sh bring an why says the because has two things overshas went on the four corners of the and the of the went on the site. Now if you read the garra it sounds like the shirim of an asham did not go on the site. That's not true. The shim of an asham also went on the site and the already points that out in the Mishna says the so what does it mean when the Mishna says that the is on theite not the what it means is that by the it says the goes on the we only learn from and mean that by one it's the other one it's only by the it's unbelievable. So is more kesh than because has a mitzvah of that's in the paras as opposed to the bottom line is has three has a fourth also has we just mentioned three and a beginning that there's a concept that something that's in the is more than something that's not in the I think That's the says that the Jerus that's as it relates to the others that's only and it plays itself out and manifests itself in suffic a regards to the other sometimes you go sometimes you go and said he doesn't understand he says we have it I think that's the RAM.