Chulin 56

Today's daf is and we are at the Mishna three lines from the top of nunish. So the first in the per discusses a voice of toice to voice of tice. This Mishna is discussing not the tra but be but rather the tus stating that Rashi points out right in the beginning based on later in the d and that is that all the traers that are mentioned by are also so really the Mishna that says is merely going to add additional to the we're already aware of but just like or etc etc are tas when it comes to a behem they're going to Traus when it comes to says the missionar if there's a nef in the esophagus even that makes the tra if the garggeras the ka the trachea is severed a nek is not enough it too would make the animal a tra incidentally rashi asks the obvious question that if all the tra and the mission as we're going to see is not going to list all the traits that we had already on bas so why does the khazer I know that from the so if we're going to repeat all the because they are then repeat all of them and if not why are we repeating sashi says a very good he says that there would have been a time avaras does not make a meaning you need that's a behemoth a behema in order for it to be a proper you need basically the vash and the ka. In other words, if the ka itself had a that would not be considered a proper because the of a is more in the vash than in the ka. But the point is is that if something happens to the in of itself, it does not constitute a as it relates to be. So you would have thought that it's for that reason that a ne doesn't make the animal but in all you need and we pass in other either the or in the even though it was in but the is either in the or in the so you would have thought that by an where if all you need to do is the you see that the life of the is in the so maybe a neo that should constitute a as well that's If a weasel bit the on its head in an area that it would make him says that means it was connected the it was near the brain a puncture in the membrane that encases the brain. We know that from the makes an animal. It would make an as well. If a bit the in the area of its head that would make it a ta and as we're going to see that line in the Mishna will be the primary topic of today's that's the gizzard that's part of the digestive system of the if it had makes it a intestines were punctured it's a fell into fire and the intestines of the animal were singed and they changed colors. If they became greenulum, they're gonna be possible if they were red. We'll see more what that means. If somebody trampled on an threw an against the wall or one was fighting with this, knocked it down and it's clinging on for dear life. If it lives for 24 hours, it's going to be otherwise if it doesn't live for 24 hours, it's considered a or for the 24hour period until we know for sure whether it lived or didn't live, it's going to be considered a and this of course parallels the there was an idea that a falls from a gag that you have to wait a 24-hour period to see what's going to happen to this animal to decide whether it's going to be kosh or not. So in a similar vein, if was trampled on, it was thrown against the wall or two were fighting and something happened to this. Now, so there's this 24-hour waiting period where we're going to have to see whether this animal is going to live. If it survives, we know it's kosher. If not, then obviously was a tra. But the point is during this waiting period for 24 hours, we have to treat it like a traer. We'll speak out more about that a little bit later. Either way, so the Mishna had said, we know what that is. We know what that is. We even know now why the Mishna had over by even though we already know by the is a specialish that yeah a negaras know even by knife even though if you the garggeras by knife it would constitute but as it relates to traus a nef in the garggeras would not make the animal a tra you would need that it should bear you need that it should be severed. Third tra that the misha mentioned by an is if a weasel bit or hit the by its head. What area of the header in the area where it would make it a tra meaning is we look at it as a stating that a very big when the says is considered a tra it's not an automatic traer what it is is a traer you have to be concerned that maybe something happened what might have happened it could be that there's a a tear There's a in the and that's something that we need to be concerned about. So what do we do? We inspect it. So there's a a way to determine whether or not the membrane surrounding the brain was actually punctured. You stick your hand inside the mouth of the and you hit up on the pallet in the vat. If something starts squirting out from the animal, it means that what's squirting out is some of its brain. How is it squirting out? because there's a puncture in the membrane and if that's the case it's a nothing comes out it means that there's no hole says this all makes sense that holds when we say that if there was a ne it makes an animal and the same is true for a knife because whatever is a tra for an animal is true for a knife the is parallel each other that the was it doesn't mean that only the outer membrane needs to be punctured or does the inner membrane have to be punctured as well as we've seen that there's layers of quote unquote membrane that surround the vital organs of the body as it relates to the brainar talked about an outer membrane and an inner membrane now the neck obviously came from the outside the question is does it have to puncture through the inner membrane as well or does it not have to puncture through the inner membrane says the if that's a sh by the presum it's a sh by a knife as Well, so it says the Gumar, if you hold that, you need both membranes to be punctured in order for it to be a tra. So this is a good experiment. Let's see if anything squirts out. If nothing squirts out, it means both membranes were not punctured. Thus, this animal's not going to be a tra. This won't be a trul. But if you don't need both membranes to be puncture and if the outer one is punctured, that's enough to make it a trao. Why is the fact that nothing's squirting out a ria that this animal's not a tra? Maybe nothing's squirting out is because only one of the membranes were punctured, not the other. Thus there's a blockage. There's something inhibiting the from being. But why is that assuming that the animal's not a traitful? So that's all good even the lower membrane to be punctured. So it's very good that this is a good way to experiment. That says that if the outer membrane is what was punctured even if the lower one wasn't it's still a tra maybe the outer one was inner one wasn't. The Qur says if the atom was punctured the lower one would give as well because being that we're dealing with an and the membrane the organs of the are very very so there's no question that if you push its pallet and one of its membranes were punctured the skull was obviously punctured how else did the weasel get into the chrome of the may that would be enough to make everything fall apart thus it would be a good said I disagree with Rav and Ley and Ley said and when the Mishna said it's a tra it doesn't mean it's a vi what it means is we have to experiment we have to do a what's the he explain what the is argues the said there's no there's nothing you can do in other words when the Mishna says what does it mean not it's a sufficer but it's about that tra it would be suffic if there was a way to do a bad to determine whether or not it's in fact a but if there's no way to do aika then by definition you have to treat it like a and the reason is he said because the teeth of the that bite the are very very thin what why is that as far how big do you need the neck in the crim to be in order for the to be a mash so why is the fact that a revelation know what he meant was like They're number one very, very small. They're also a little crooked. And because they're crooked, we're worried that it's going to make a hole in the outer. It may even make a hole in the inner, but the holes are not aligned. And mean that they're not aligned, you could push up against the pallet of the nothing's going to squirt out. So the fact that nothing's squirting out is not a that it's not a and it's for that reason is not good when came to he sent a telegram and he said you know I'm people used to say in my name I had that I'm retracting I take it back I heard the You couldn't do and how do you do with your hand as the gar explained earlier they all said so we can addish to that list as well that you do aika even though mish says doesn't mean what it means is there is a to do aika to determine for sure whether or not it's a traa and again how do you do the you do theika with the how do you not do You can't do it with a needle or with a nail. So, apparently there was another way to do this and that is is to take a a nail and to push it around the the surface of the the and we're going to see if it goes around smooth then obviously that means that it's that there's nothing there. If there's a little nick, if something gets nicked, that's a right that there must be some hole. And if there's a hole, that's going to be a way to know that there's a in other words, we have another way to test. The way we discussed doing the was put your hand on the pallet of the see if any brain squirts out of the earth. Okay, that was one way to do it. But apparently there was another way to do it. The other way to do it was using this said, which is why was he said it said it le said it said it. I'm out. I'm being but at the same time he said the only way to be is you cannot be even using this nail oh by the way it's already discussed you both had different so if you came to bring them with an where they could do a which seems to be the of the but they had a a c from a custom standpoint how they would do it. One did it with that. Yeah. Like the discuss did it with the like discuss one with his one who did it with his you know I don't like what you're doing because you're causing a lot of why very simple because it's not advisable. It's quote don't try this at home to take a and start scraping it around the m of an because what's going to happen even if there was no hole you may create a hole. She said it's a very good way to be. You're right. If you could take this nail or needle and you can move it around the of a and nothing gets in the way. It's smooth. That's a ray that there's no nev in the crumb. But at the same time, it could be it will in it of itself create a ne. So you said there's a bad idea. This year this Arman is coming to you with a with a chicken. He has a sha, right? What would somebody do today? Throw the chicken out. Obviously, it's an aroma. He's coming with a chicken and and im. I can't eat it. You're going to take now a or you're going to start putting it in in in the life the life of this animal at risk. That's not a nice thing to do. So, the other said the veils of veils. I mean, I hear what you're saying. I mean, it's not that there's a good chance this comes at risk, but what's the other side? The other side is be with your hand. I don't trust being bick with your hand. And the reason is because maybe when you bite with your hand, nothing is going to squirt out. And the reason is like Ziri said because the the teeth of the are crooked. So it could be the two holes in the two crumbs of the not aligned with each other. So the fact that nothing is coming out is not going to be a says the one second. No one said anything about all right. I'm asking why either way says the we'll see what so we had here this is but it sounds like we don't know who said what we don't know if was the one that was and reverse or vice versa so the says I'll prove it to you is the one that was time The continued and he said if the skull of the animal broke even if there was no ne that too would make the animal that will be the topic of the next part of the but for now says the checkmate this is aud is the one that was which means then is the one that was he was the one that was but what was the last line said that was the topic of the first part of then he said if the skull of the breaks even if there's no neck in the still the animal's going to be a tradesh now you're telling me that you don't need any neckv in the in order for it to be a meaning as long as there's a nev in the skull. That's enough to make the sh with the whole that we just learned. Let's see what you see from here. There's a concept of doing a what's the bit the head of the we know for sure that it went through the skull. The question is is there a negative in the membrane that encases the brain or not? So skull inside the skull is the brain. The brain is encased by this chrome. So we have a shil now. Is there a neative in the or not? If there is then it's a trade. If there isn't then it's not a trade. But if we're ding whether or not there's a nek in the we're discussing using a mas what does that mean? That means there was obviously a nek in the skull and that doesn't seem to bother me. So how could the end of the everything we just said? So theor says you have to say that last line is discussing a different type of it's discussing an that lives in the water. It doesn't have a crook. being that there's no for that reason a nef in the skull would in of itself make it a trade for can't be it doesn't have a mean that it's very once is a nek in the skull in the that's a that presumably a nev well either way it's true that a neckv in the skull could make the animal a trafer it's true that a nek in the skull does not make the animal a tra unless there's also inactive in the crim. How's that possible? The two things blatantly contradict each other. Two different types of there's an that lives on dry land. There's an that lives in the that lives on dry land. A nek in the skull does not make it a you would need the neck to puncture through the as well. They all discuss how you're supposed to do the to make sure that this puncture didn't just puncture the skull but actually went through the at the same time there's an idea of an that lives in the May being that it's very very soft. So once there's a hole in the skull that's enough to know that there must be a hole in the as well and that would be enough to make it into a traman told I've heard from you that used to do a he would do a with his right he had in the beginning of the ram used to do that said it in other words to used to do the same thing. All the tra we have by the but one that has that doesn't have and that is that by doesn't make it a trap doesn't make it a traer. you need that it should be but when it comes to what are we doing ridiculous for we know for sure that was he told him what we just said that's disgusting because doesn't have a but the brain is just floating in the skull there must be a very like we said before says the same thing in a different context house they sent it to they weren't sure if it was a trade He looked at it and he said like this sure it was a good sh because there's a hole in the skull of this but I did I did a I see it didn't puncture the he said it's kosher so they told him yes so what do you mean I thought enough so what did he tell him that's disgusting how's it possible that an even shouldn't have a groom being that it's very soft it's going to be different says the when they brought him that was so he would do the a little bit differently till now we had two ways that the was done or was he would take the I guess after the take it out of the animal out of the and he would put it next to the sun and he would inspect it that would be using water. He would pour water into it and see if something fell out. If something poured out, obviously there's a hole. He had another way of doing it using a strand of said another related to everything we just discussed. that treated like said that if an falls into fire and it got burned if the color changed they're green now they're going to be pled if they're red they're going to be so we say that if it turns green after it fell into the fire becomes a how much of it has to turn green a little green a lot green like what's the shear So in the name that what it means is is that any a of the where if there would be a neck if it would be a the so the would be that if that turned green even if it's only a mashu it would be a tra as well because ne is always the mashu. So, so too when there was no nev it just turned green because it fell into fire came in contact with fire you would need only a mash of it to have turned green in order. So whatever is but is not then won't keep what happens if the liver became green. What's what's the so says the he told him it's a traer but in light of what we just said why should it be a trait if so really when an animal becomes green you have to look at the what happens if there's a and then just apply it now then what happens with the liver the liver could be removed and it's still going to be kosher so how could you tell me that if it became green it's going to be The reason it's going to be a tra is not because the liver itself became green. We don't care about the liver so much. What we care about certainly not if it became just because the animal can live for the most part without most of its liver. We're worried is that if the liver became green then probably the name became green as well because of the fact that they're situated in such close proximity to each other. So even though we don't see the bayan as green but there's a chash that it is and with the bayam even a ne in the bayam would make it a traa. Thus a little bit of green would also make it into a tra. So the issue of the o being a tra where a little bit of the liver became green is not because of the liver but it's because if the liver is green then that should be a sign that are green as well. who makes it the point. This is not the but it's what the seems to be telling us about. He sent it to and he told him to me this looks green. So the rest of the story obviously is that this came in contact with fire and sent it to ask him if the animals are tra. So he looked at it he said it's green and it means it's the mission said just the opposite. Says that if turns greens it's possible. So it's green it's from the he told him back. It's true the Mishna says that if it turns green it's possible but the Mishna wasn't referring to every single part of the it was referring to specifically the kirkan the gizzard the le the heart the covet and the liver but as it relates to any other part this is not going to be true and the reason it's true for those three body parts because they are naturally red says so that they're usually red now that they turn green that's a sign of the following of And said that if they turn green, it's going to be a was in line with this that even though the Mishna says green is a problem, but green is only a problem with those three. Ordinarily, green is actually a good thing. And that's what he told. He said, "Oh, it's green. It's because it wasn't in the that's why the fact that it was green was okay." A similar story. He also had a regardless that also came in contact with fire and he also sent it to a he told him he said oh it's red perfect it's f it's also if it's red it's going to be told when the says green is a sim of and red is a sim kosha that means that if it was red and it turned green now that it's green it's a sim of tra or if it was green and it turned red that's not a similar but I'm the reason he ra in this case that red was a problem is because this was a part of the body that's supposed to be green it's supposed to be green and it turned red that's that's when it's going to be an issue so it's really not green or red there's no magic to the color green versus the color red as it relates to hookah tus but rather the point is the of the is is that if an O comes in contact with fire, we have to start examining the internal organs. If they changed colors, they went from a more greenish color to a reddish color or from a more reddish color to a greenish color, that's going to be a problem. If they did not change colors, then it's going to be okay. What happens if there was a pot of the that's usually red, came in contact with fire, it turned green. Then they cooked it and lo and behold it was red again. So what do you mean it had been green? So why don't we say that being that it was green for a short period of time that makes it a a because what we're allowed to assume is that even though it came in contact with fire it wasn't a sim of tra that caused it to change color but rather because it was also in contact with smoke the smoke was what changed its color. And therefore when you cooked it came off right. Point is, if the color goes back to its original look, as soon as you cooked it, that's a sign that the discoloration was not a cement, but it was more a sign of the fact that it was in the presence of smoke. As a result, it's not a we could take this principle, we can apply a little bit further. What happens if there's part of the that's usually red? It came in contact with fire. Nothing happened. It didn't change colors. So far, so good. Then they cooked it and it changed colors. I think it should be now. Why? Because it just showed its true colors. Pun intended. What it showed is is that really when it came in contact with fire, it had changed colors. The only reason it didn't look like it changed colors is because smoke. So the fire did two things. Number one, it it changed its color, which is a symmetry. But then the smoke made it look like it didn't change its color because the smoke has the ability to camouflage the color. The now that you cooked it, the color is going to be different. So he said your idea of cooking the after it came in contact with fire to see what its true color is. You said it in the context of a but says the we could say it in the context of as well said if this is the case I don't think you can ever eat any that comes in contact with you have to cook it first because you never know what the real color is you're going to look at it it looks like it's it's the same color no maybe really the color changed but the smoke the tooth thing it changed its color and then it made it look like it didn't change its color point is you should always have to cook it to see what's going on but the says it's not to assume that something happened. So if the comes in contact, this is a very important in all that if you if an comes in contact with fire and nothing seems to have happened, you don't have to start cooking it. You don't have to start doing badas cuz as far as I know, nothing happened. It's only when it looks like something may have happened, that's when you have to start being concerned what happened. So if there was a change in color, okay, so now we're ready. You cook it. But the point is that if as far as we know nothing happened, you don't have to assume that maybe two things happened and that's why it looks like nothing happened. No said that if was was trampled on, it was thrown against the wall. There were two that were fighting. So there's this 24-hour waiting period that we have to wait around for 24 hours. It's a problem. After 24 hours, we see what happens. Even if it ends up living 24 hours, you're still going to have to do a meaning after we shill it right away. But after you sh this, then you're going to have to do a similar to the that we saw last week when we went through the gumas of exhale. So before we go v just one and this is really an important chlo this type of as it relates to the sug. But let's just segue it from the last that we just learned. So the last mentioned in the Mishna the discusses not the not the but rather the said that so took a little bit of a beating. Somebody stamped on it. Somebody threw it against the wall. There were two that were fighting and it's says something clearly happened to it is for 24 hours we have to treat this as a you have to wait 24 hours it's only after the 24 hours that it's going to be okay the said that even though you're allowed to eat after 24 hours but you still have to do some sort of ordinarily we're not that something might have happened in this case we have to be concerned now what do we what are we concerned about so we're concerned about the same thing that the Mishna was concerned about when it discussed and the mentioned what We saw a whole black gumar with the gar discussed. We're worried about we're worried that maybe some of the vertebrae slipped out of place something that would make the animal a tra. So if it lives for 24 hours that's a sign that there was no then you have nothing to worry about. if it didn't live for 24 hours. So there's this of of a 24-hour period during which time we have to treat as a and this is a very bigish because ordinarily when you talk about and time so you're thinking in terms of we can which means that it can live for this is a different time frame that's used in the context of it's a time frame of 24 hours which essentially is the maximum amount of time that an animal can have this of or with regards to an because once it lives for 24 hours then it's not a tra anymore and if it doesn't live for 24 hours it's anyways unavailable. So really it's only a gay this for a period. It's a for a 24-hour period. When Rashi discusses said something very interesting even though right now you don't see that anything happened to the concerned we're concerned that if you do a proper internal examination you would see that something's off. It's up there ain't betray us. I want you to know that there's no tra and that's why don't ask any when it comes to this of what does it mean 24 hours? No. There's nothing you have to worry about. All the bothered that why did Rashi right here with regards to the decide to tell us now whatever exactly that means it sounds like Rashi should have said it right in the beginning. No, we went through. Ah, she didn't say anything. ETA, etc., etc. And Rash says, "I want you to know the you know why." There was obviously something bothering Rashi as it relates to this particular that Rashi felt that right here. I need to tell you in order for you to understand and and something shouldn't really really bother you, you have to understand this and that is that because so the in right here classic work he asks this as it relates to the what's the we're concerned that maybe something happened. So he says, "I always had a suffic during that 24-hour period, which is the period where an animal has the traer of Once 24 hours passed, it can't have this. It's a 24-hour traer. During those 24 hours, is this animal a va or is it a sufficer?" Tremendous mean that suffix rice. So you only go to if there's another suffic you could start clearing. So the the navas are endless and the levari wanted to know is it a vader during those 24 hours or is it a safer on the one hand it would make a lot of sense that it should only be a sufficer because we're not sure what happened what's except the whole thing is it certainly sounds like it's a it's a but then again says and the mentions it says the topic behavior I ain't sure being that it's mentioned in our so it sounds like it's a place has a different why did the not mention that if the animal lost its upper jaw that should be a reason that it should be a tra but says although the says it and the crazier place he says it and I happen to think that way as well it's very mash that way because the discussion notic and is mentioned in the v but if you think about it it's crash. Maybe something happened. Maybe something didn't happen. There's a very good chance that nothing happened. If nothing happened, there's a perfectly healthy. We're going to find out in 24 hours. It's not such a long waiting period. We're going to soon see there's a good chance nothing happened. Even during the 24 hours, if it gets up, if it wants to get up, if it thought about getting up, remember the So, that would already be enough for it not to be a tra. OKAY, THERE'S A BUT also maybe nothing. So why would that be a reason for us to look at it as a that's why Rashi felt I have to tell you in order for you to understand not the concept of but why which is really PREDICATED ON A that something might have happened is treated like a that's why The time you want to know why Rashi spoke that over here because Rashi was not merely coming to explain the concept of traus and tomorrow is going to talk about that. But Rashi was coming to explain was something specific about that isn't just treated as a suffici if tra was you'd right you'd be right it wouldn't make any sense but tra are not trai it's not a is this is a very important rash and this rash is really the basis to the ram and the end of good that we've spoken out many times throughout and that is the ram says that all the traers that are mentioned in the even though we know today based on modern medicine that some of them don't die and some of they may live. So shouldn't that be and shouldn't that force us to rewrite the barrier to have a new list based on modern medicine says all we have is what guided us with and really if you think about it at first glance it's what's the I mean at the end of the day there's a behind it doesn't sound like it's from the maybe it's from the in terms of why there's a but at the end of the day we know what traer is a tra is a a defect that an animal has that's going to cause it not to be allowed to live. you basically you saw from all the garbage we also in the garb that to the extent that there's a for this that is in and of itself a reason for it not to be a tra so in later years we were developed that should be the terret is this the does it make sense why a guy should be treated as a no it doesn't even make sense the ter is it's and it's for that reason even though now it was readiness for a lot of the should not impact anything because at the end of the day what matters is what was and was is and being that that's the case it doesn't matter what would change at a later date would always be that way I'll tell you something very interesting there's another there's a it's ra's discussing but not rather so The laws of tra is govern behaviors obviously is but there also is scattered ins that deal with an that's a for example if somebody kills a reason is because this person didn't have the ability to live he says as follows somebody calls a he's every person. If somebody kills him, unless we know for sure that this person is a tra and the rabb continues, "How do you know for sure that somebody's a tra you're going to have to consult with doctors and the doctors are going to say that there's no referral for what this this person has and this person's for sure going to die." So it says how do you know if somebody's a tra? So the way you know if somebody's afer is person has to have a doctor's note. He literally would have to hear from a doctor that this person is a there's no for the person. Only then will you know he's a trait and the stencils they both this which underpins and that is that money and there could be from today till tomorrow everything could change it doesn't it doesn't impact anything it's all said there was there was so you would think the same thing should be true when it comes to on them as well. When it comes to somebody kills a person, if the person had a tra who cares that today the 04 the ram says what DO YOU DO? YOU ASK A DOCTOR. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO in parallel traers. Do not ask a doctor. Nobody cares what the doctor has to say. The doctor's going to tell you that nothing. Of course not. He's not going to tell you that. The terrorist says we don't care. There's so many of these nas today that we have rafu for the whole shila with the da. I mean today there's no shila. There's rafu for that. Nev in the ka that's not a problem. They stitch it up. These these animals live for a long time. That's not the problem. The pro cares. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day, a ne in the cave is a problem. It of itself is a reason that it should be a a nobody said animals with circus can't live, but it doesn't matter. They can live. Who cares? It's irrelevant. A neo makes an animal a tra. Here the SAYS IT'S UNBELIEV from everything that we thought. says that you see from here that that was only it wasn't true with regards to but the said it very shar the briskar said it very briskish said the brisk that you see from here that it's the and the other how so traus the be is like rashi says it's it's all and is that if an animal has this sim it's a tra if it doesn't have this simmon. It's not a tra. The reason these mara is because once upon a time these sim meant that the animal wasn't going to live and an animal that couldn't live was deemed a tra and as a result it's off limits. But the point is once it was that these make an animal a tra they become sim. So just like you ask what makes an animal a kosher animal or versus a non- kosher animal. So it's maligra parasa it's a kosher animal otherwise it's going to be a non-coser animal these are sim of a kosher animal they're sim and just like nothing can change that nothing can change this now gradually we have more information as to why than the what makes a kosher animal make an animal kosher why is an animal that's mal gay or kosher okay maybe we'll see that in the sugas that we're going to learn but that seems to be a little bit more esoteric why are sim traa because it means animal CAN LIVE AND WE DON'T WANT you to then eat an animal that can't live. But at the end of the day, the way we the was not that an animal that can't live is off limits. A behav can't live 5 minutes and it's a kosher animal. That fish should eat it, but it's considered a kosher animal. Right? That's the point is there that a traer is possible just like a a you can't eat. You can't eat a traer. What makes something a tra if it has money traer? What are the sim traer? 70 but at the end of the day these are merely that this animal is a I don't care who what when and where might have changed over the generations at the end of the day just like my friend says and of is not going to change of is not even going to change because that was that was said it over the wasn't so it was underpinned by some level of but the point is the way it was Yeshua was not in the realm of but it was in the realm of there's a that something that's when it comes to it was a whole different nobody ever said that there gets capac there it's a different it's it's called it it mirrors and it's similar to the laws of tra but the is different is there you need that this shouldn't be able to live that's it's a different rule I mean that it's a different rule you have to speak to the doctors you have to find out could this person live foresh or could this person not live for that's why it's true the ram says in that when it comes to a we don't care if it's we don't care if now we have to a lot of these that didn't have for but at the end of the day was that if an animal has it's a tra when it comes to that wasn't there. We need the way that was set over is that a person that can't live, he's considered a tra. For that reason, if something caused a person not to be able to live 2,000 years ago, but today this person can live with this condition, he wouldn't be afra. So before we decide that someone's because he killed somebody, we have to consult the doctors and we have to hear what the doctors have to say. But just one more a that somebody told me on Sunday he heard from Shapiro, but I found it in Kaz inside. It's in hilus ina it's so the of we said are governed and determined not based on what's considered a tra today but what was considered a tra the already talks about in this is very important because most or many of the traers of kazal would not really be considered tra but it doesn't matter because then it was a tra so we don't really get that it's a tra now so we spoke out a brisket mahalik from the brisk that The just was at but the end of the day the the of is that an animal that has this is a what dictated what are whatever was considered a tra back in the day but the end of the day it's possible not because it can't live it's possible because it has but one unbelievable that said and that is he said that we know the say of it's also You have to be the to say this. Everybody knows. The world was created for 6,000 years. In the first 2,000 years, there was no next 2,000 years. There was the last 2,000 years. Mashiah could have come already in the year 4,000. And unfortunately the Gmorrah says that Yatsu he missed that already on a lot of these years but Mashia is from the year 4,000 till the year 6000. So the rule was created for 6,000 years. The first 2,000 years there was no Tyra. What happened in the year 2000? There was Tyra for 2,000 years and yes of but nobody was spreading Tyra and then Abra who started spreading Tyra was being people and that's when the years of Tyra began and there was from 2,000 until 4,000 after 4,000 is already says that really you could look at this and you can make a very terrible mistake. You could think that maybe after the year 4,000 there's no anymore, right? It sounds like there's three distinct of 2,000 years. There's 2,000 years. Then you have the last 2,000 years of Mashiach. The middle 2,000 years are years of Tyra. Right? The latter 2,000 years or latter 4,000 years were not. The first 4,000 years were not. So you would think the first 2,000 the last 2,000 are also not years of even though from that. And of course in the last 2,000 years is Tyra. There was Tyra from the year 200 to 4,000. And this Tyra from the year 4,000 that was unique to the first 2,000 years was unique to the last 2,000 years. But as it relates to Tyra began in the year 2000, but it didn't end by the year 4,000. It extends itself until the year 6,000. But we've spoken this out many times. Says not mash that away from the gum. The gumar is mashma that there's three unique periods of 2,000 years. There's 2,000 2,000 2,000. If that's the case, it's mashma then that in the latter 2,000 years from the year 4,000 to 6,000, which is the tufa that we're living in right now, there's no what does that mean? He says because the says in that when the not only did we lose the wen't able to bring us anymore but we also lost that on the on the as well because to a degree that we look at this right now as if as if it's years said the same says it in his pan we It seems like we're connecting the What does one have to do with the other? One is the and the other one is we'll be able to bring that makes sense. will be able to bring if we lost that on that we lost out onto then it's going to be again the same that's when we're going to get the back but the point is is that there was a 2,000-year period where there was Tory real Tyra after that what we have now is a diluted version it's we're living in a tufa of mala visa that every single of it's unbelievable was decided during that 2,000 year period. So there was a 2,000 year period of Tyra and the of Tyra were ha based on what existed during that period because what are you going to tell me now the mitzvah has changed in the year 5,700 and whatever. So now that's going to be a reason that we should rewrite the laws of transis. We're living in a tyra. Tyra has to be determined during the 2,000 years of Tyra. Unbelievable. So during the the we can decide of So you want to decide during those 2,000 years we could sit down and we could determine we get to decide all the of but what happens after the year 4,000 being that this is a it doesn't really matter what happened. And is that the the EM is that the Kaz says that we it's it was clear in the Gmorra that any for which there was a refu would not be considered a tra so says the we know that had a safer ra there was there were in the there's for every we should be to it but unfortunately we don't have it but the point is there were refor all the so if THAT'S THE CASE HOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND it what you're going to tell me that that all the do for we know they were for so he said what matters is what was ngala during this period of the 2000 regardless hey you have to be the to say the cook of a of a of a ty it's unbelievable he said that the of traus had to be decided during the 2 years of terra what happens today doesn't matter are all nice and these are all things that this radon and this pill and it doesn't just govern it govern so many different but at the end of the day said that this is all after the year 4000 after the year 400 these are years because Malcra and as a result doesn't really matter what we find out what would have mattered is what would have been determined during that period