Chulin 69

Today's and we are nine lines from the bottom of today's being learned as a for so we're moving along at the beginning of the fourth real the topic of which discusses an incredible and that is that in the event that a she's a female behemoth and there was an uber inside the of the behem at the time of the tal is that not only is the m the mother but the is m the uber as well we mentioned that the mar is a in paras that talks about the simon of a kosher animal it says The racial of the mentions the of the mentions what's that the that's inside the of its mother is going to be when in the event it was a on the mother we'll see a lot more about that drussa in the latter part of today's talk but that's the general background and context to the and to the sugasha. Now, as it relates to the first, it pivoted around the Mishna that said that in the event that there was a Bahamashle, there was a behem that was literally about to give birth. And at that time the was also about and at the time of the at the time of the uber stuck out its hand and then immediately withdraw. So the Mishna said you're going to be allowed to eat the rafter after further review we saw it was and what exactly means Rav said that means that you're allowed to eat the meaning despite the fact that it was but that of the does not constitute a as a result we still view the as and it's for that reason it's of the and if you would want to eat it you'd be allowed to eat it but as it relates to the itself the is even though it with true it would still be and said it's based on a And something we spoke a lot about in yesterday's but according to Rav when it says it means everything but that was said that means not only the but it means the itself is a so is not necessarily to the I there was a that mentions the and the says that the is that being that we compare this is to the tra once a tra always a tra so to as it relates to this is you would say the same thing the gmorra said I hear in fact the garra said why was the one that said over the name but the bottom line is as it relates We have two according to it's also means everything other than the according to means everything even the now one thing we made a big deal about yesterday which will play itself out again in today's and that is that's in the event that the took place while the Uber's hand was outside the of the mother for sure that and would not be included in the hat of the and then for sure it would be everything other than the Mishna however said so right now at the time of the hand was in the hence we have a hence it's not so it's not a universally accepted that the hand won't be m what is it in this now at first glance what is the background of this is the which the means as we spoke about yesterday but there's another to be had over here that says once BA leaves it be it the we spoke so much yesterday in the raid about be the inim but there's an idea of seems to subscribe to this not so much. It's a good kasha. It's such a good kasha that the gumar didn't even say kasha which means I hear the gumar said either way the now is going to begin with another version of this and so the affformentioned version which was the entire first of makasha was the way that the used to learn this in in now we're going to see the way they used to learn this init as follows there's a concept of hold there's no such thing as now Rashi clarifies that That's posh. Everybody agrees that's the first of the first mission of that if all the did was one of its that meaning that's posit that if all that was born was an a it's not considered a lea for the entire oper. However, Rav in Marava is of the opinion that the aited the body that itself is considered to be born as if to say this animal is partially born and partially not born. Whatever was born and whatever is still not is not going to be born. But says no such thing. You can't have a le only on one. Either the Uber is an Uber or they was already born. But it's impossible for it to be both. What's the point of this? It's the same essentially in terms of how to learn the Mishna be it in a different that holds. So he says that when the says means everything other than the why not the yad was born already and once it's born it's not ah it's back inside the that would be the equivalent of an animal being born and then somehow you put the animal back into the mother everybody agrees you wouldn't have that the mother and being that once there at that point it's already going to be too late so therefore Even the ether is a no it's not considered a not for the entire Gulf also not for the as well says the way learns the what's the between the two is there between the way they say over the in the way they said over the init they said over the arguing in the is learning that the is there if it's based on that more general or it's based on soar says there is and that is would be what would happen if the was but not all of its it was only some of its or just from where of the where only of it remained inside. If all you would have is the then you would say whatever it was if however when it comes to there's a concept of in fact we're going to learn more about the coming up but in the world of beas wherever it's right but in the world of leo You don't need that the entire child should be born in order for it to be considered born. But as long as was born that in of itself would be okay. One of the areas in that features prominently is when it comes to so says the if the is that and nothing else. So whatever was whatever not not if the was so that yeah the remain is still I who cares there's no to the to say oh of the went out so if the went out no whatever went out went out whatever remained remained but if there's a concept of there is to the a because an a can have a le and then you would say rub that if that a was already born quote unquote It's as if the entire thing was born. So there actually is meaning according to it's nothing. It's nothing whether you go with the Babylonian or you go with the western either way it's not going to make a difference where is in according to if all you have is so only that they used to say that is more than that holds it's more than by the way the assumption would be that also holds we saw it's already doesn't hold. But the point is it's more than that. is actually a would be to the extent that went out if all you have there. We're not going to go past this, but it is mentioned that the way we just learned the is what's the between yesterday's and the way they learned it. Every single they have a whole different understanding of what the means when it says they have a whole different understanding of what the even means according to almost all the it's not it's not. And when the garra says is obviously not asking between the two but this is way beyond the scope of uh what we need to do today according to the holds that it's the great what would be if the was then it withdrew until if you would add up all the that it was it would emerge that of the actually exited the what's do we say enough at this point we can go ahead and we can aggregate all the proverbly speaking so that now you're going to have already a and to the extent you have a it's considered that there was a a so now the of the mother is not going to work for the anymore or maybe no I mean each one was nothing. So 0 plus 0 plus 0 plus 0 plus 0 equals 0. So the question is do we aggregate all of them or do we not aggregate all of them? Now the is why because if the old then it's part to the would be considered a because then it's not 0 plus 0 plus 0 then it's 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus one. just to speak out the the still a little bit of a and when says that the only time he was it's considered a a but the bottom line is you never had out at the same time to say on but being that each a when it left the body was a le so it's a of a lea so I could say 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus one on of the so you're going to end up having by the way has but once you have the so then you're going to end up saying that but if you hold it's not one plus one plus one plus one it's 0 plus 0 plus 0 plus 0 plus 0 0 it's over that has or maybe not says the other side is that it's true each one individually is a zero but once it tax to arrive and maybe you're ready I don't look at it as Now I'm seeing up a mitarf all these individual leases which in themselves are nothing but once I I see a bigger picture so maybe they could bear that it should be a of the says if you're going to tell me keep on that if you hold a you can't even start all these different what would be if the was and then the guy went and he chopped it off and then he And he chopped it off again. Not just until now you have a right what's the over there m do we say at this point for sure it's now why would you say this is different because over here it wasn't over here it was and the fact they have all these sitting on the side of the mess over here in the so that means that for sure that lead had some sort of that's had some sort of k as a result we would say that roy If it is the mother that remains inside is not going to be or maybe no you have to have if you look at the last says something says regarding this really you can clare even if you because being that the ising now or the piece of the gar is when you went ahead and you chopped up the so is to say that even if you hold yes but maybe that's only true if all the are intact but to the extent that you went ahead and you chopped them up even though each individual aa was considered a so based on that it's one plus one plus one so I can add it up and if I have a I could say that even the mim is going to be considered but maybe I need them all to be if they're not all here maybe it's not going to work so the of the sh of the inim of and is going to be a little different but at the end of the day interestingly says that even though it's an on the first and the first but you should know FYI I could hear this even but either way says as it relates to the second I think we could be pushing it from somewhere where this is not such a wild could be we could be pushing it from our Mishna so the Mishna had said, and this was really the second part of the Mishna, that in the event that the and he cut some of the of the while the Uber was still inside the mother and then heeded the mother. Meaning ordinarily if you cut off an a from a live animal it's but to the extent that you cut off the a left it and then the mother then is the of the mother is going to work the said that in the event that the would go and do the same exact thing to the mother herself or just any animal and leave those parts of the animal inside even though it's behem. But in that case, it's already going to be and then the mish concluded with a rule. Anytime you cut a part of the animal that's part of the of the animal and you leave it there, you don't have the rule of is going to work for everything that's inside of it. If what you cut was a part of the then yeah, by the way, this is why should it be this way? If there's so just like the inside the mother even though it's once you chop it to pieces but it's the mother. So if it's the spleen or the kidneys or some other organ why wouldn't you say the same thing? It's going to be the gumar's cash later in the d. But the bottom line is that that was the rule of the mishna. So theor says that from the fact that it says we know the rule is wherever it says it's coming to be something. Now first glance if you didn't know that rule. So you would say that what is coming to say it's just a nice summation of the Mishna. The Mishna says that a chopped up part of the uber inside the at the time is it loses the is a chopped up part of the mother that is not but it can't be because we know always coming to something and specifically we want to know that right that's the part that we need now that's not clown what exactly is it coming to be marb says the gammor So we have to come up with something. We have to make something up, right? It's not the because that we know anyways. So what's it coming to be? Maybe it's coming to be it's coming to be which in the event that you had an that was one at a time and every time you went ahead and you chopped it off and there's a mute inside and now you go ahead and you sh the mother and you want to know if the is going to work for the mute. What's the sad? Because maybe there was already a where was the was already born. So even the mute is born or maybe not that if you have pieces in this case of mute there's pieces that's in the mother it's going to be so we're not all these different to say that there's a so is this like a straight up riot not even close but at the end of the day we have we have to be it can't be the so it has to be some maybe this is what it is so the says if you're ready willing to go down that and something that I'll give you a different maybe it's coming to be the infamous which we saw a little bit about in yesterday's we'll see more about it even in the course of today's daf and certainly in coming doin but what's the kara it's talking about where a para which is a kosher animal somehow was pregnant and gave birth with an animal that doesn't have seam on him that a kosher doesn't have split hoofs right that's what k means says could be the coming that the is of the mother. This is all in the world of holds that is so ordinarily gives birth to a even though the mother is quote unquote Jewish kosher right the child is not going to be that's only true but in the event that it's going to be that's what is coming to be that but as it relates to this The bottom line is we leave our with aa we leave it with a shila. We do not have a a resolution. And this really concludes the very first part of today's daf which was really the conclusion of yesterday's daf. Another version the way rashi learns the suga of the is we have the babylonian version. We have the western version. We even know what the nafamina is. And the had a couple of shilas. first one and the second one with an false attempt of the next part of the D and really from here until the two dots close to the bottom of the is going to bring threeas threeas that are all related to the sugour the first is going to be the second is going to be Ilfa of Ila fame's ibaya And the third one is going to be obviously if this is of so many asked the first question. What would be in the event that there was a like the case of our Mishna? But it just so happened this took place in Nazar. Now why would it happen in you right has to be in right so somebody wasing and it was what's the do we say that the iser the is of the having exited the mother is going to be in effect or is it not going to be in effect the fact that it was is that a problem or is that not a problem so meaning the whole first would that relate over here in this case or maybe being that it's in all of a sudden it's going to be different. Why would it make it if it's an get ready for the do we say that being that is ach right when you're dealing with which is obviously what we're dealing with over here because by the way you can't even bring so obviously we're dealing with when you're dealing with so the is if it's so it's so being that the a is a so we see as if the is taking place within a here's the point. So even if the Uber is it was out of a but into another. So maybe we say amigo what we always refer to as the other amigo that being that is a this second with regards to all the maybe so it's going to be considered a side it's true it's a regarding the is the mother and it left the mother so if it left the mother it's not going to be considered So the has this wild and that is what would be in the event that was within do we say maybe it's still or do we say no way it's very nice that's a for that but what is that have to do with this and he followed up with him he told him he said why do you only ask your question was in that's like a superimp Why didn't you clar the behemoth was mashle and it was in and then you went to the azara so we're dealing with kachen right you went to the azara and you did it over there and we should have the same exact shil whether the of the mother is going to help for the child or not going to be there for the child now why would this also be a valid shila this would be a valid chila Because has a of as relates to being able to eat it. The makita of column is but the of column is so really this muck to say that if the was anywhere in could be it's not considered do not and the reason is because it was it from a but into another and maybe saying of this animal so it's to be considered a to say that even though It wasn't really outside in the saf in a case where it was you could have asked the shilah where it did happen in it happened even that's true but is also and by the way even forum is a but is a as well so wanted to know why didn't you ask that said I know why not why didn't you ask him because you're going to say what is it's two different here too it's also no truth is again this is a little bit of extra credit this is more in the lus of but you have to know why really wanted to ask the question of more than just the And not just that is like telling from the fact that you didn't ask the it's you know the answer the answer is because so if it's the answer to your question is also I don't know if I was I would say I could have asked the question by it's the same exact question and just like I'm not sure in the that I asked it I'm not so sure I would have noted it in that usually when you find this signon It's why didn't you ask the kasha in the more obvious way and there's an obvious reason why you didn't ask the kasha in the more obvious way that obvious reason cut and paste you could apply it to your sh as well I know to me they both sound like the identical shan doesn't know the answer to this he would know the answer to that either it's a little bit soft getting more of the lumbness of but either way this is the first of the three wanted to Oh, if it was do you say that once you have it's going to be considered as well and not by the way the we mentioned in yesterday's do makes a very big deal about this that you see from here that the gather of the which is the basis and the gather of the that you find in the world of such as are the same because one is and the other one is a more then for sure from the fact that Ethan has it's not the same it's going to be so it's the same of this is all part of that girl that we mentioned yesterday says the gum the second ila posed the following question and before's question we need a tiny bit of an introduction so in yesterday's the on the bottom of and on the top of that brought a ba that mirror the mishna albe it a longer version of it there were four different cases of the yesterday's we needed the first two forl we need the fourth the fourth case was where there's a a behem And the was then while the of the was outside the went and shed the mother and and only afterwards did he chop off the hand. In other words, the hand was outside when he went and heeded the mother. The question is as follows. That's that the was outside at the time of the is off limits. That's not a suglonian version and not in the western version. That's part of according to everybody. That's going to be a problem. The question is what about the rest of the or the rest of the mother even what's the over there and that was it was the said holds all the is now going to be and the reason is because that was outside which was outside of the is considered na is not only so any bus that's now touching the isa is going to that. No, we don't look at it as that's pushing it already. We look at it as we look at it as something that had a but what's the mush of something that had a that's what a tra is and as result is that the rest of the that's in contact with it is not now going to be. So is according to the that hold that when you go ahead and you do a and there's that's outside of the behemoth even though the doesn't work but at the same time it's not going to be a which means that really as much as it's true universally accepted all the synonyms that we mentioned earlier that this doesn't work for that yan it's a little bit It doesn't work for the for it to become but it works for it a little bit for it now to be as if to say the is not mate but at the same time it's met because when aita doesn't work at all when aita just falls flat on its face so then you have from the fact that you don't have over here that means that in as much as it's true the is not working it's only that it's not working but it really is and that's where the remains We ask according to the there is a little bit of it's going to be okay. So again with that background what would be if there was a we're going back to not now and was on him and he and then he's about to and the all of a sudden the what's the what's the sh do we say now that the that he was mighty Is going to be or is it not going to be in other words that's part that goes without saying that being that it was sim at that point the second you didn't have a good to be mired you had one sim where the y was inside one sim where it was outside is not a and as a result that's part that if you're going to want to eat it you're not going to be able to eat it the Now again we mentioned three times right the is going to the even if it was where the is not but at the same time to be it is so what's if anything this is even better the first sim the happened when they had inside so that's even perfect that even could have been m it was only the second one okay so the second one where if it would have been outside by both sim but is a big London Poda Balbus but a big London and ila comes and ila says no I'm going to tell you what my sh is my sh is that it could be that the only time you can be mitar the of two simmon is in the event that the of the two simmon are the same type of BUT IF THEY'RE TWO fundamentally different then already could be you can't be m and being that the of the first simat had the ability to be m and the of The second sim clat only had the ability to be mat. So could be the not the same and it could be twoas that are not the same don't have the ability to bear. Well, maybe no. At the end of the day, maybe it could work. And if that's the case, it's going to be okay. Says the robber heard and said, "I don't hear you. It's a rabbit said at the end of the day end of the day good lump this but but at the same time I think practically speaking these two the are going to be matar the animal it's going to be mat the mother it's going to the rest it over minus this yeah not only will it be matar it'll be m meaning It's going to be a proper 100% as it relates to the rest of the animal. If this is a if you give me these two that it should be a 100% perfect with regards to the entire animal even to be then for sure it has to be a good enough as relates to that one to be and that's the which is the which is the now what's going to say is going to say I know copy the rest of the behemoth it's a bonafide But you know one of the is that we could spout the with regards to the mother the rest of the versus the yad in the yad the twoas maybe would be different but this was ruststein was that if the m and the rest of the uber this these two acts of could combine to even be certainly able to that one a that came out either way that was the second by 30 by had the 30 and he said what's the do we have to be concerned with its zer now what exactly zary is referring to is a little bit unclear that the gumar now is going to have a bunch of attempts four different versions of what exactly Rabier Zay even was. So usually we know what Rabier is. We just don't know how to be push over here. We're not really sure what exactly means. He's very very cryptic very initially thinks as follows. Thear thinks the shila is what would be if and this is very reabiric. If you have a behema that was inside the raim of its mother at the time of the mother was a behem this textbook example and it was then it came out. So now you have this animal in the gas and this animal everybody knows has one hand that's trafe right the link is mish hand that you can't go near. So one day you're going to go ahead and you're going to shack this animal and you should know that this animal is going to have a little bit of an issue because there's one hand of this. It's a funny concept but there's one hand on this animal that's going to be not kosher. Okay this is where's imagination comes in. What would be if this animal went and got married? Right. And it made it with another regular just a regular animal. Doesn't have such a past. Nothing so dramatic like this animal over here. It goes and it gets married and now they have it. So the question over here is wanted to know what's the status of this baby that was just born specifically the link the left hand of that animal. Do we say it had a father that had a left hand that wasn't kosher? So you were born also you have that same movement. You're going to have that same blemish. You're going to have that same problem. Or maybe not. Now the truth is as we'll see in a minute this is in a few things. The most notable thing that this is talen is a big shila that's coming up later and that is this is a very basic question. Does have in theat. So a person right there is simply put you're Jewish if your mother's Jewish not if your father's Jewish however you're calling later the is if your father is Jewish right the question is as it relates to the of a is there a mus of a ben right he's a benaben you know 50 from an animal that was once a garbas I guess that would be a or something I don't know but the bottom line is is near a concept of or could be the only we is the mother. Listen, it was in the womb of the mothers. Now obviously there's something called but the question is the most notable place that this is in the is it the mother and the son is it the even the father and the son. Now if then the assumption probably would be if the father had an issue I wouldn't really get if the mother had an issue that's maybe a different discussion but's question is where it's with the father and the way the understand is where there was an animal that had been this mated with a regular animal that doesn't have any dramatic history now this child do you have to be worried Now about that yacht that identical yacht within this child is that a problem is not a problem. So the say let's understand the question a little bit better. Again, we just explained it the way the garam thinks means it. But now the is going to work it through is the case where this whose mother was that was went now and made it with a regular just a regular behemal meaning just an ordinary. So why do you have to say that maybe there's going to be a problem over here with the left hand because of this is that every single time you have an animal a regular bmpaka. Now what's a bmpic? So there's a more technical definition of bmpu but bmpakua is an animal that was inside the of the mother when you shed the mother it came out and now it's it's walking around it's doing its thing. By the way, the nuance of empad ended up dying as soon as it was born. This benu has already been that's when it gets the title. It's the case of our Mishna but where it has the viability of a regular animal. But the point is so why would have to clear his question in this unique case with every bakua that mates with the behemilla is user to eat the child. You know why he said there's no to the child. You know why there's no to the child? Because of the mother. It's a regular child of the father. It's a mother of the father. You can't do as so the minute there's a and you check to the mother and now you're being the child with the mother and now it's viable. It's already holding age. It's already holding getting married. So obviously it's a benu that any child that it's going to have is going to be a problem. You don't have to declare the sh in this specific case. So the says you're right. The case was the already a different type of there was between two ben right there was a benu and a bas in they come together. Obviously the wasasha I think that's obvious. But anyways, they come together where else you get embarrassed. You're going to say on if you just came back from the country. But the bottom line is say but the bottom line is so here you have a bas. But it just so happens that because it was right. So they looked into it a little bit. The bottom line is so what happens the beaka marries the basa. So in this situation you don't have raashi because was what was but it was a ba and a reg over here it's a paka and a so of the father and the of the mother there's no need for however of the father it has this issue with the fact that it was what's the question do we say okay so what's the sh then you would think for sure there should be a problem over here the sh is like this do we say a moid And therefore wanted to know do we assume that short is a problem right is a problem but the problem is the so if it was the left hand of the father so it's going to be the left hand of the offspring chop off that hand the rest of it is going to be kosher or do we say that the father has when it fathers this childish it spreads and it permeates throughout the entire offspring. So all of have this little bit of this is inside of it and as a result if you're going to go ahead and even chop off the hand it's still going to be a problem. Do we say so whatever the issue was with the father that a is what's going to now transfer over to the child or maybe we say whatever the issue is is and therefore the entire offspring now is going to be an issue. Now it's not sure who Omar is. It sounds like Omar would have been Rabia, but it's it's clear in the Gar is not even sure that this was so somebody said that that could not have been because it's because the because if you're not going to say that anytime you have from a physical standpoint a father that has a certain mum, that m should show up in the offspring in the same way. And that's not the way genetics work. So that could have been because it was it should be that you have a between ampu and apu and the has an issue because it was from the spiritual it should be permeating the entire child. Okay. What then was every its parents are 100% kosher? They're not 100% kosher. Think of the is not kosher. The d is not kosher yet. So therefore had it sad that just because there's one hand that it has that's because of but why is it different than the or the anyways the anyways so now you also have this is malus so I don't know it was anyways a ter is who cares maybe that it could be if the father has two issues the is not kosher and the d is not kosher then I don't care about the offspring but if there's a third issue you have the and you have the mean I know two issues doesn't transmit but maybe once it's three where it's right that's the third one maybe in that instance already it's going to be an issue but the says says technical problem with the can't be you know why because there is no mand in the world that holds that if you have let's get this a ben that was that now fathers a child with because otherwise we're not having the conversation from earlier that there would be a because there's three over here. is no one that holds three. And really the background to this as we'll see in the course of the next few lines is let's see it inside says mayor is the shin mayor mayor holds later that Ben is not even the only time the mother works for the is to the extent that it was like but if it ends up being a regular child it walked around and I don't know what the definition of that is but once it reaches a certain level of viability No, it actually doesn't work. The doesn't work. So according to Ramor, this is a moot point because to the extent that this animal is mating, by definition, it's a ben get married. So obviously it's a ben. So if it's a benu, the hope is neither here nor there. There was no mother not. But this whole story is dead on arrival. According to this anyways a point and it's true. He's pl. But the problem is who doesn't know it's not it's going is going to be here's the point we have two and with regards to R holds that is not the of Mother Rabhuda holds it is Mayor holds that the of Pakua is assur it's not even a thing right holds that the is is going to be M here's the point if that's the case when you have a benu that was at the time of right now and all you have is two is you have the isam everybody else is an isam according In addition to this, what about this? You don't have the but now we know IS NEVER A PROBLEM BECAUSE IF was a problem every single time you would have an issue. The ter is not a shilar was maybe tra is not a sh but three already is going to be different but the is no that holds three because really if you just take the twoas and you plot them next to each other you're going to end up that everybody holds that is only going to be twos they can't be that that was the sh the like this you have to say that everybody holds that any time you would have a situation like this where you wouldn't say there's an issue with the child and the reason is a little tricky how to read this not because really it's going to be and the reason it's going to be is because we know two things don't go over and it's always going to be two and you want to know where was different actually a pretty easy sh are you allowed to drink the milk of a ben that has an issue with one of its hands and this benu Can you milk it or could you not milk it? What's the I mean at first glance you would say there should be a problem over here and you have to assume that the is playing a role in the milk now and maybe there would be initially chop the hand off but you think that maybe there's a problem. So the like this really all is why because one of the definitions of is that an that is from is from and still the could be the that comes from the more accurately from the right that comes from the even though really there's an in the shouldn't be a problem when it comes to the as much as it's a very but it's an is that has a you can go ahead and check it. So it could be that comes from something that you could be maybe is not so but over here that is going to always be and as a result right even if you it's going to remain so so that's not going to be says the what it almost always says this was very long-winded but we came to the answer that we sort of knew we were going to come to and that is I hear Again we had three. This was the second part of the d as it relates to this shila all major shas over here was what would happen if it was or in do we say the second was and that was according to that when would be pain simil Muslim. Do we say that the first is the second one is only so maybe you can't bear if we're not but that was and the third was and we had a holy what even was a lot of but was if you have pua or really pua that had been there's an element of over here and now you went ahead and you milked it is that considered Isn't that not considered the third shila? And this concludes this part of the doc. So moving along. So the garb now and really until the mission is going to fun a little bit and that is you know we took for granted up until this point that what's the makart to the benu what's the mccart to this idea that there's a mother that you shack and there's an inside of the mother is going to work for the so we said it's learned out from the parish starts concludes something's extra here really the to this idea right away in the beginning of the bar quoted it's this right here we're going to have a couple of it's going to take us until the base what's the general idea that the mother works for the it says this is the we said so many times If you're going to tell me what it's a little tricky if you're going to tell me that an uber is called that when it says the word beh is the so that means the word be can satisfy in its definition even an if that's the case you boy there should be on an uber of kach so we know what turra is if you have an uber that's kachchim and somebody says I want this to be that he should violate the laws of tumor And the reason is because the criteria as it relates to is the says then one. But the bottom line is the criteria is the word. If an is then there should be by an who said not you can't do meaning not you can't do tomorrow that is an isra but the so if you take a of a and you say I want it to be the of you take an of you say I want it to be instead of the a of kchum But the bottom line is see clearly you can't be in an of why not so I always thought it's probably because it says but if you're telling me the isra says you're right something else it says right the beginning of the it's coming to me So it's not the word doesn't mean there's no. So what is it? It's the word and the way you have to read it is anything that's gator that's inside the womb of the you're allowed to eat. So the Uber is included in that. Everything it's anything that's inside that meets these criteria is going to be okay. Says it's not if somebody goes ahead and he chops up pieces of the mother itself and leaves it inside the animal. It should also be mo and we know it's not with a claw meaning if the limit is so it's talking about a but if YOU TELL ME IT'S anything any part of an animal. Okay. So the should be worse than the I hear but it says the end of the and we learn from that it has to be a schol. So if there's a dove shim like an ubra that's inside that's included in this but to the extent you have just pieces of an animal that's not going to be included ask another if you're going to tell me that is not but what is it as long as it's a what would be if somebody sh how this happened but somebody shacked an animal and all of a sudden the baby's born and it looks like kosher bird, right? It looks like a dove says history. It should be why should it be? Because it's full thing that's inside the not going to be okay. So the what did the say? It said it says clearly that we're talking about where it has regular not a ya not a bird by the way the y is even though a bird is kosher says so the end of the day that's why it's not included right that you don't have so it's a shame and it's it's an animal it checks off the boxes my friends as opposed Not say I hear what you're saying, but I have a different if you're going to tell me that the is not included in the hat. Why? Because it's not. So then the should also be. Now we know because we had this twice already in the peric that the even holds that is but a is going to be why based on the that the mother works for the as well. But if you're going to tell me that the only time it's going to work is when it's par if it's a by definition it's not paraso but the not they used to say over that's it says in the says later it says and it says but the word was coming to be that even if it's not even if it's closed it's not split even then it's going to be okay and it's for that reason this is something that we could be so the bottom line is where we up to what we're up to is how do you know the whole of right the whole of the whole peric it's predicated on this one big what's the martus so we thought up until now it was amazingly the rejected ed it rather uh quickly because the Garra said if anra is called a there should be by and it's a that there's no byra really recalibrated and say it's not the is it says not anything that's in the is included in that a lot of things are included in that why not has to be why we It's because why are we because it says there's a little bit of a draw to be had. But at this point, the is not what we said 100 times. It's not stating that says no. I'm going to tell you the it's connected to the say why presumably because it's not a so that undermines the entire Joshua says that Misha it says is not the Alib is an Uber or an Uber is a right. So what does the Mishna mean? You want to know the that there's a heckage between and how does it play itself out over here just like there's no rights and it requires they should be born not is not going to be that way either either way that is the is going to interruption this last piece of is a little parenthetical. The Gmorra is just going to try to prove how do we maybe know is going to be but is going to attempt to prove. So not just to suggest that maybe the T of the Mishna in is no is the the fact that an Uber is or isn't a is going to try to prove that it's and for sure that Mishna then is is because how do I know that is because take a look at the safe of that said you're telling me that there's no by there's no byt If someone goes ahead and he's not, right? Is always when you have and now I want to transfer the onto something else. What sometimes refer to as when you do something when it comes to you want to be mish something if somebody would say I want the foot of this animal to be an so if somebody says I want this to be it should be the same way. So Rabio is arguing with the Tanakama as it relates to he says I think there should be not I think this should be you know why because I think at the end of the day you find so was talking to the who is the Tanakama was now says why would you think it's why would you think It's I mean right here why you think so is because is always so these are the two most obvious attempts that's and sometimes if you find a Tana arguing with another Tana you don't know who that Tana is think of who is right if a is arguing with somebody is probably maybe right but usually you're allowed to make these assumptions so the point is like It can't be. So it sounds like whoever he's talking to is of the opinion that if someone says it's a hold of that you would think if somebody says and we dash like this that if somebody is you take part of an animal and you sh it. So the mime is what's but not the entire so you would think one second. So meaning the rest of it is like okay how do you work this out and if somebody says you know what happens what happens is only the foot becomes an what you do if only the foot is an you take the entire animal you sell it by doing that you bring and you take the money kga that a and you use it for and everything else remains. But the point is clearly hold that when you say it doesn't become 100%. It's just that that's the names matter says. So according to only the according to the entire thing is says so now in the is saying I hold there is specifically right I you know I know that because so here as well and it sounds like it only sounds like it because the is going to be there but it sounds like he's TALKING TO THE TANAKAMA YOU WAIT CAN WE AGREE to agree on this yeah okay So doesn't aget who is he then talking to either a mayor mayor or who's his primary hold it must be he's talking to someone that holds it who holds it we know two is not talking to himself so we could eliminate that who's he then talking to you see it's oh once I have a from the part of so I know who's usually not in this case is when we say that there's no it's also because it's beautiful but you're making a big over dramatizing the mission says all this drama it's turning to the and say don't you agree with this or therefore that could be like I don't know what you're talking about I don't agree with that either now then what's he saying I hold That's true by as well. But it could be the and therefore it's that that response wouldn't be true as well. Either way, another intense stuff. Got to get used to this here. Exhale. So, as it relates to raid, I think it's good to pick up a little bit where we left off yesterday and do a little bit of a part two. So in yesterday's d we saw a very big thera says which means this something called what's that was the last month of that's peric but we saw that learned another from this very same kazal said that from this we learned that if you have baser that has a and the leaves it at that point it's going to be user to eat from that boser again what are examples of that what example is even though the mission says but the bottom line is it's the game Another example like we saw on which we saw is really a brings inf and that is that as it relates to if you would have that would leave or that would leave or that would leave would be that at that point you wouldn't be allowed to eat the food that left its respective and not just that if somebody would eat from it he would be which says very clearly is the bottom line is two distinct at first glance completely disparit that are both burnt out from the same number one number two this is now is learned out from the word. It's because the word thought was superfluous and what if you found it in the what if you found it in the barn? What if you found it in your house? It would be the same. Why did say the word a second as if to say that's teaching me that's teaching me the this is something that is that emerges from school the truth is here's another said it says in theory and we learn from this is the love in the that a person is not allowed to eat when it says in the meaning not only are you not allowed to eat an you're also not to had to learn the according to is the boss. According to both learn from what we always thought it was from the saw if you take a look at rashi and inus rash and both learn I'm going to read it's the we know we saw in today's that the doesn't just mean that you go and you take a live animal and you just bite into it. If an a of the animal is taken off of the animal itself and you go ahead and eat that, that's also if you stick from a live animal, you eat it, that's also it's the means the bos that was supposed to be on THE ANIMAL, YOU FOUND you found it sitting in the And that's where learns from the as relates to the word that's in other words saying learns like that is the learned out from you think didn't know that of course and he knows is the but held that there's another love that's learned out from this and that OTHER IS IS UBASA BASADA. It says basada and what is basada teaching me? It's teaching me that busar that was supposed to be on the you have this live animal and it should be part of the bus of the animal and now you found it lying around in the field that but it's that is that's what we know as from well both learning the same way that had in because he was bothered with the And that's how we came to to this truth is just looking at this I thought this doesn't look like but the bottom line is what is going to do he learns it to teach me a similar but something else not that's not what is coming to teach me out of But it's off the go that is not out from but rather it's out from but the bottom line is whether that is could be it's that but either way we have over here three that are learned out from the same because the regular is a We mentioned that was that as you would expect that we learned this of so there's three that are learned out from the tra fascinating thing is a trait that everybody knows additionally the is and additional to that these are read and they're all learned out from the same are over because this is going to segue into the next part of this. How do we learn that but didn't have to say so we as it left its that's what means it was and that's what this means over here stating that if you take a look at the Rama inuro paric says the if somebody chops off a piece of from a live animals, that buser is a tra and if somebody goes and somebody eats a from it, you're going to get malus for being over because this bus came from the Rams. But the Ram says one thing that didn't say and then says but the Rambam holds that if somebody eats he's actually eating that means the in the world of the Rambam the in the world of the Rambam is Bam that is what it is it's the isa the seem to learn to learn that the gather of how learned his and this is not that is of the says no the says when someone eats eating and if that's the case it's mour that the ra had a definition of tra that doesn't uh I think at first glance but murish reconcile so well what we thought we know what a traf is we learn traers we saw all the pictures so we have an idea of what a A TRAFER LOOKS SAYING AT FIRST GLANCE just like is not but the ra saying no that is he says it twiceer So the Ram is referring to it as if to say it's one if it's one of the if it's at first glance what is it's very very he says I'm going to tell you what I think I'm going to tell you what I I think thehat in this Rama is the Rama must have learned that the T of is when you have a a live animal and you removed a little bit of Basa from that live animal. That is what's referred to as you saw a lying around on the ground. If you go ahead and your a little bit of that that's sitting there, you eat it. That's what the definition of tra is. Tra is like says that is the t of what a tra is. But it doesn't matter if that buser was pirish because you went ahead and you were pirish or if it was pirish because the eave came and he was tired of it and that's what caused it to be pirishak. At the end of the day, if there's lying on the side of the road or lying in the field that was a tra and the says and really the says is the from the live animal happened an animal. But here's the point. Khaz said there are certain times where if something was pirish from an animal meaning something happened to an animal where we say that the existing animal is not going to be able to live anymore. When we see that then the way we de hair the pisha is not just I have a and something was pirish the way I see it up over here is is that the two would each other and it's not only the you remove that we look at as being the tra but the remaining animal is also deemed as being a traif However, but if the entire became so then the way we look at it is as if the came and he chopped the animal into two parts. And it comes out is literally the tra in other words the t of a tra is where you have that was it was from a live animal that you're not allowed to eat and I don't care if a person did it or if an animal did it call it call it tra WHATEVER YOU WANT THAT is what traa is. There are times if you go ahead and you do that, what's left is also going to be considered as if it was ripped apart. Now the way it was ripped apart was you took A from B. But when you took A from B, you didn't just tear A from B, you tore B from A as well. It's from because P was holding on to the left ear. You tore the left ear away from the right ear and really you tore the right ear from the left ear. I don't care what side of the animal what a it was that the z physically got his teeth and put his clenches into at the end of the day you ended up tearing it apart. So really just like the that was torn apart is tra the that's remaining is also considered a tra and that's what the general idea of trai and and took this and expanded it a little bit that just like if you take an animal you chop it into two if it's a that's also going to be included and if there's a hole in the in the etc etc etc but the bottom line is from the fact that the calls it's to me that the of that was that's the way you visualize your classic that's usually the way you visualize the of and the point of the traus is is that when what was separated is such that it made such a profound difference on the live animal then I look at the live animal is also being torn apart they were torn from each other and just like this piece I wouldn't be able to eat even if a person did it would be that part because it's viewed as viewed as again it's all one shem it's all going to be one thing so really the t of tra this is the tricky part the type the t of tra is not an animal that has some wound that's not going to be able to live tra is is when you tore apart a piece of an animal that's why fits right into the into the t said, "What was the mar to the raom to learn this way?" First glance, it sounds a little bit like Rashi must have learned it a little bit more, right? What was the what was the to the to learn that is not just included in the but rather he says you want to know where I think got it from? He got it from target. If you take a look at What does mean that was torn from a live animal? The ultimate you know what about doesn't say A WORD ABOUT DOESN'T SAY A WORD ABOUT ANYTHING HE SAID WHICH IN OF ITSELF IS a he doesn't make sense that he IS BECAUSE REALLY is and is one and the same thing but the ra saw in that we're not just being from the extra of it is that is what the is and being that that's what the is that's why that's why said must be that isn't just from the of but really is that we just mentioned is on that really I'm sorry talks about this in a little bit in the beginning of perfus it's a piece and over there he says that he found that his in office already spoke about this so I looked up that and that goes with this same that the to the is and that's where the ram saw that this is the and then he goes ahead he says something beautiful he says I believe that the is this is beautiful. We know the says, "What do you do with the says, what do you do with the says regarding the either give it to the or sell it to the and already asks the why is it that the you give to the and the you give to the in fact says say that really the and if you want to go ahead and you want to give the to the give it so why does it says but the bottom line is is that rashi was BOTHERED WITH THIS WHY by the does it say and why is it that when it comes to the over there the says what do you do with the you give it to the guy I HOLD THE WAS BOTHERED WITH THIS HE COULD understand why here and why there do you give it to the guy you know what must be because you know what this is saying what this is saying is not just it's saying is one of the and being that it's one of the he can't give it to the guy that's why it had to be was bothered with this grace This is what was driving. What was driving him is is that why is it that when it comes to the trade like yeah when it comes to the you go ahead and you give it to the guy must be it's over here it's being that it's over here it's going to be different I saw in the from this beautiful on this raid says from right this is the ramson we have from on parishious and chamoy brand new maduras that the mia is yidi But either way, he says as follows. in parenthesis. It belongs to the But there are other extrapolated from this. Why we mention that's usually where it happened? There's another gave for the mitzvah and then concludes. I don't know why the said this now in his over here brings a little bit of a tuml like what he meant what was bothering but he comes out and I think it's that what was bothering is this three there's three that we learn from this AND I DON'T KNOW. Why did the feel that in the you know what it's referring to not the OTHER TWO concludes with a he says I'm not sure why this is the but I think the ter is the that's the says why do you have to go ahead and give it to the make a profit off of it maybe give IT TO THE GUY THE SAYS BY THE So what do you do the is the saw that the posit must be that we're dealing with something that even a must that's why the who's the most shot in this how is he was with regards to this office could be the terret to That's the either way. Three tremendous that I learned out from this L.