Chulin 71

Today's is and we are eight lines from the bottom of so the Mishna on the top of brought him in regarding someone who sticks his hand into the of there was an uber inside the uber was dead. We know that a dead animal in addition to being because of also is to and is mama. The question is this uber who died is it or is it not to the said that it doesn't matter if the or if the behav does not have the ability to be argued and he said it depends on the animal. If the animal was a kosher animal such as a cow, then the is the uber will not be tom. If however the animal was a non-coosher animal such as aer then the is the is thus if somebody touches the uber of a is going to be if somebody touches the of a he's going to be and had a detailed discussion as to and based his position primarily on and is really the context text of Makasha which is why this Mishna is mentioned right here in Pericasha and that is that if somebody and we find that afterwards there was an Uber inside the so the of the mother helps for the so the of the mother is it works to be then certainly the has to be that if the mother's it should work to be as well if the mother could be m the child then certainly the mother should have the ability to bear the child as well. Thus, even though the child is available, but the mother's not avail that that only works with regards to which if you would bear and the inside would be as well. Thus, you have the the building block to establish the butt is never anyways. So you can't say the you have to add a second piece to the and that is a it says and then it says what the saying is that if somebody touches a dead he's going to be but stating that the is referring to referring to we have a king and just like is it is not as long as it's so too is going to be with regards to either way is based on two things number one number two a heish a tucked away So shear says not based on two things but the masar came out is based on three things. Number one agrees with the and that's where hold that has an that dies inside of it. If you touch the you're going to be taught and the reason is because now obviously doesn't hold it the second part of he doesn't hold it because if he held it then just like would also be basically the ark he holds how does he know so the garra said it's really based on two the first one is also in the says which to me is it's inside another which is also why because it means that it doesn't have split hose the point is inside is going to be the said that almost teaches me in fact it teaches me every single inside with the exception of how then Does put it all together? What's his m that even the inside is going to be? He learns it from a third and that is in par in the context of the with that if somebody's and he enters the base he eats kachum he has to bring a special carbon and the to describes how he became tom and the tyra says that he came in contact with a behemoth and the question is why does it have to be a behemoth? It could have been a behem as well. It's coming to teach me that there's some ina that you don't have in. That's the uber inside the is the uber inside the and that is again a that the said if you have the second what do you need the first and the answer that at the end of yesterday's the bottom line is the tanakama holds that an is always going to be it's based on a and a two of the says, "No, it's based on three things. Number one, the number two another either way with that brief recap, I had the following conversation with Benazi." So every now and again the gmorra takes us behind the scenes and gives us a little bit of insight to the exchange and how exactly the conversed and learning. This is such an example says that I was once talking and learning with manaza and I asked him the following question. I said there's a in the says clearly that of what's the it's one of the we mentioned this morning. We're talking about it says clearly and it says if somebody touches he's going to be we also know how do you know those you know that from another one of the we mentioned this So clearly but there's no anywhere in the where it says mafurish that if somebody touches the the dead carpass of a kosher that he's going to be dumping. So I know the I know the I know the what's missing the said told me that you know from the following it says that's the third that we mentioned this morning it says over there and every single every single doesn't matter if it's or it's meaning even if it's once it dies it's gonna be too from said that I told there's no there's a what does it mean? means like it's coming to teach me not every but an animal that's inside an animal that's inside etc etc everything that we discuss so then as I told so he said I hear you're saying very good so did you hear anything from your grace innocence and I told him as follows. I'll tell you exactly what I heard from my rebi. It says, okay, it's true. You don't have a that tells me that is going to be. But you know what I do know? I do know that the of is going to have to and so wherever the says the word it can include. So once I know I know by the way wherever it says includes as well. But as it relates to answering this question once I know I know as well and he continued did saying what he heard from his bottom it doesn't matter is always therefore if I know I know is going to have to as well says the is recounting. He said after I told this to you know told me he says wow I didn't realize how is wow he could say such a rabbish is the when it comes to allas but he says I didn't realize and I it's such a had I known I would have been mishamish I would have spent more time going to shurim hearing from him learning from him because I realized how much I could have learned from just from the way he so beautifully explained the how you know that the is also going to be we'll get back to this one says the it sounds like from the way said over in the name of that everything he mentioned had implications meaning again says what are all these not giving us first of all how do you know talks about the kosher animals the lists 10 kosher animals it starts with and then it mentions three and seven it's talking about why you mention okay it's how do you know so this is a pari again where the talks about the kosher animals and then the mentions the of the kosher animals And it says it starts and then it talks about okay must be and doesn't matter and we said there must be in all these different examples. What are those that's going to take us to the what's that is included? The term mentions of doesn't mention the what are the you know how you know if a isra says how do you know ifra oh so whatever a kosha simmon is for that's going to be the koshim for the as well what's that is included when thera refers of the Torah says and it's important to know that that's not only it's going to be even says the when the Torah says and referring to it can mean as well say so he's referring ing back to the empire. This is a little bit tricky. So again that talked about the carbonate it said that's again the parish of specifically the boash that once it says in that if somebody touches he becomes and the laws of mikt apply why mention Isn't meaning so once it says I know so said as follows it says and it says somewhere else where's the somewhere else says that's in par and over there the says that if somebody is he came in contact with and he eats kim he's going to bears the reason the wrote the word to here as well is to be able to have extra words in a m to make between parishes and par that just like in par when the person was to he ate kachchin so to hear this pik is describing someone that's tom that ate kachch what's the explanation in this because the truth is as much as this pik we keep on saying bay is referring to someone that's tom and he was guilty of mikal it actually doesn't Say anywhere in the anything about read the it doesn't matter how the happened what was the sounds like maybe he became it doesn't mention how he know it's talking about said it's only because of it says it says there it's here too it's but I need the words to establish so really didn't have to say you want to know why it to to teach me this that the par of related to tum is talking about. How do I know that? I only know that because included in this a little counterintuitive if was not included in then the words wouldn't be extra. I wouldn't know this that is only so you want to know it's huh yeah because that is so the words are extra to teach me and that's how I know how to understand this either way says what's thato that is included at the time The context over there is a woman that has a baby. She's a she's in the beginning of para 33 or 66. What happens if a woman miscarries? So depending on the stage of the fetus at the time of the miscarriage that would determine whether it be to or wouldn't be. The context over there is a woman miscarried a child and clearly was in its early stages and the child the had the of a or that wasn't a but it had the of a says the woman that miscarries that is you treat it as if it was a regular child you're going to follow the laws of you're going to of you don't know if it was in if it doesn't have a it's not considered. Now what's ramor is that the surah of a is also considered a because the says okay that's good for what about the so you want to know where it's when the says it didn't only mean it says Yeah, but as well what's the understand the in the beginning of of it talks about the to do with no it has a big that a woman that miscarries a child that looks like a because the use the word to describe it therefore triggers the laws of the same is going to be true by I never said by said and is either way. So we had for all the four examples of doesn't matter if it's a and a or if it's a either way. So we had the and said that said based his position specifically that on and the parish of it says According to the Raon who argue with also known as the what do they do with the ink how they going to dash from the parish which seemed to tell me that the is that is going to be where did you see that in the because the emphasize that in the case of Tomas mikt the person that became tom became tom by coming in contact with why does it have to come in contact with it come in contact with we just said that even once it dies it's so why the emphasized must be there's a time where could be and cannot be what's that answer that the even is going to be so cool so that whole Josh is coming for which so at the end of yesterday's d we said we're going to wait for We got it. So what it means is is this that said that the reason the mentioned the word is to establish the between so that I know how to understand that para. The point is the point is is that really the could have mentioned but had it said that. So the had mention why then did the mention could it not have said? So rashi asks the kasha rashi gives an answer either way exel. So just before we go v one and that is so the mentioned in exchange between where they were discussing what's the veil of is that says it says by never said apparently didn't know and said I'll tell you what I heard from my and the concludes If you take a look at says what's the says that where is it? Oh, commented and he said not just but it's a tremendous to the world that what a loss that I had because I wasn't many times quotes this and He says that if you think about it, it's unbelievable. Who was Benaz? Benaz was considered amongst the as amongst the greatest. Says Benaz said this. He said to me they were like they're like the shells of of garlic. Literally that's what he felt. He felt that he was so much greater than I'm learning. Benazi never got married said and they named the host of Benazim right in the beginning where if someone is he doesn't have to get married he's from he said he was he said learning says that used to say there was one day in the year Abaya felt that his learning was so clear that he had such a a behus today I feel like Benaz and he said if anybody wants to ask me a question today's the day I'm going to give you an answer and said they would come and they would ask him questions Benaz was the paradigm of a learning someone who had reached unbelievable mad so what made Benazi so great because what did Benazi say he one member from and he said that had said that when Benaz said included right and he he must have known who Raish was otherwise he couldn't have said that so obviously he included Rabishal he was from the great was much greater than Rabbi Schmal he wasn't saying is greater than me. He knew he was greater. He said it himself. But he still felt there was something to learn from and that unbelievable desire to grow. The name of one of the talks about this is alloys is just unbelievable for every do and learning. Either way, that's the first. The second order we have a little bit of time and that is that so we mentioned many times this week right it came up several times here in the beginning of and that is if a gives birth to a cult a par has split hooves it's a kosher animal what happens if it gives birth to a baby and that baby pra has closed hooves not split hooves is it going to be kosher or not kosher is it's going to be kosher stating that is shim says is going to beer. And the truth is at first glance, right? Why should it be? Why should it be? At the end of the day, its mother is a par. If it mother, it's a kosher animal. If it's a kosher animal, why just because it was born with hooves that are not split should it be? So the rug and softness said, you know what is how you do? We spoke at the khakira many times and perade with traus and that is what is the reason that an animal that mafess is paras and is malaso is tar are the sim of a behema a sa why they're or is only a sim that it is tar meaning is there something intrinsic about having split hooves and being malaso that in the somehow makes the animal kosher or they don't make the animal kosher. They're just our way of knowing of what's kosher and non-coosher. What makes something kosher? I don't know. But the point is is how we supposed to know. So the gave us a sim. That's your way of knowing. That's your assim that it's a kosher animal. Are they a siba? Are they the reason that it's kosher? Are they? And the same is true for the fish. A fish that has gases is kosher. Are the simony a siba or is the which is much more complicated. Are the simus you can peel off the cork etc. Are they sus? Why is what about the grasshoppers? All the sea that you find in the parish that the discusses in the terus are these or are these said what's he said what's it matter what's the we spoke at the ra says if there which only have one which have one of the two sim is going to be say for the animals that don't have any of the simum He says that's where the mish says famous that there's no problem in that case the problem what's what's the kosh he said what's why is it aimer they're both non kosher so he said it's that means it's actually possible to be a little bit kosher right could you be a little kosher is it possible something to be kosher right I don't mean could it be kosher is that even a possibility the answer is it's totally in this love this if Simon a sibo then maybe yeah so I have one of the two si boys I don't have both sabi boys if there are simmon then either you have the sim or you don't have the sim I have half the simmon at the end of the day I'm the same not kosher as if I wouldn't have any of the sim the ram seem to establish a kosh in the ram's kosh just spun a little bit differently the ram seems to be saying that an animal that has no kosher is less kosher than the kazu is not the most even though it's the paradigm of the non-coosher animal it's actually not the most uncoser animal cuz has one of the two. So the the are not kosh at the end of the day can't eat it and his mouth is etc. But at the end of the day, it's only something that's that's not but that's all in the world of that's all. But doesn't matter if it's a or if it's a what happens if a kosher animal that's my para it's mascara gives birth to an animal that's cult that's not my precious para will that baby now be kosher or not kosher if the simbo said it doesn't have the sim if it doesn't have the sim it's but if the sim are a sim that means the sim are just our way of knowing what's a kosher animal. What a kosh what's kosher species? We know the pur is a kosher animal. Why? Because the pur is my friends. I just found a par that's very nice but it doesn't change what I know about the min. So at the end of the day if the par is a kosher animal it's going to be kosher said the garbage of a guy that this is who holds with me make is going to be you know what the is cuz he held that theim are that's why it's going to be if the sim that doesn't make sense at the end of the day we know it's kosher is a kosher animal puncta doesn't have split hose but that's only if the split hose is a punct but if it's the sea it's the reason why it's tar then kamu said is going to be we mentioned last week that said that there's a between an animal and between why an animal the mentions the tyra by the doesn't mention the simra the says you're allowed to eat and then the mentions 24 example 20 21 22 24 26 of this it's 24 birds that you're not allowed to eat and we learn but the never mentioned what to see Why not say that's why the terror mentioned it only see fair he said that's why even though you find is going to be only find you don't find such a shim anywhere in with regards to an he says it's he says you want to know why he said it by not by because by the mentioned even he only said it Being that it's at the end of the day, you have an animal that's there's no way it could be a kosher animal for where it's only a sim even is going to agree that the equivalent thereof of a in the context of birds is going to be kosher either way. So again we're going here in discussing different of a with an we saw it in the context of in the context of in the context of and now we're going to digress even further and discuss it in the context of human beings a human fetus a woman who had a vad that died inside her womb who pushed and the midwife stuck her hand inside the womb of the mother and touched the child. She's because at the end of the day this Uber is considered a life. Thus it has and she's going to be Tommy with the and the whole of an ordinary misha the mother she remains Tommy despite the fact that she has this that's inside her womb she remains until the is born. We'll see about that in tomorrow. Either way, the first he said was that we know that if somebody comes in contact with it's what's known as maga someone comes in contact with he becomes stating that is saying that if the toma is it's an it's swallowed it's absorbed in something else at the time that one came in contact with the toma He's not going to be that's the same is true said with regards to if something that's is in a state of and it comes in contact with being that is it has no way of becoming and he said it as a if that's something we know so how did know this how do you know that that's in a state of does not have the ability to be from It says that if somebody eats he becomes he has to wait until the night he has to wash his clothing but as soon as the sun sets he's going to be said how do you know that this person didn't eat the doesn't say that that's not what happened certainly could have happened and solitary says he's tar why is he tar if this person eats 5 minutes before and now he goes to the mikvah is it so partial that he should bear he has the which hasn't been digested yet it's still inside his body so why isn't the that's inside his body he's in contact with it oh it must be because it's why once it's not so th all you need to do is just follow the prescription of the of how you become and it's all good but you see from there that is not because then this shouldn't work for someone that ate Yeah, if you ate six hours ago, the food's digested. You know, it's maybe out of your body already. At that point, you don't have to worry about it. But says, "Who says we're not talking about where you ate and still it sounds like says the how do you know that's true? You're telling me you have a big if somebody eats you should be I'll tell you the answer." The answer is very simple because there's a rule that the only time is mama is if it's roy the says what do you do with the so one place it says you give it to the another place says you give it to a dog but the points we learn from here one anyways it has to be roy and if it's not it's not it's very good this is not once you swallow food even a g is not going to eat it so the garra says as in that says that it doesn't have to But rather it has to be an out because it is a dog would eat it. Dog would eat digested food. So being that a dog would eat it, it's technically in a state where it could be Frank. Why then is it not the most terror must be that it's so but according who holds that as it relates to it has to be once it's not even if it is maybe the reason it's not because it's so says fun of it's not true. Who said that because the person swallowed the food that it's not ready to look at? Now, it's true. If he sees you spit the food up, he probably won't eat it. But at the same time, maybe if you put it on a plate, you blindfolded him and put a gun to it. No, I mean, you you did it in a way where he doesn't realize what he's eating, then at that point he he would eat it. What's the point? The point is once a person digests food even fun of it's not really but maybe the case is where the person ate it a second before he literally just put it in his mouth he swallowed it and he has to cough it up and then maybe somebody would eat it as long as he's not looking at it and he doesn't see where it came from there's a good chance he would eat it meaning that that's how do you know that's not what the said anytime a person eats during the day meaning before then the sun sets as long as he went it's going be fine. Even if he ate it a second earlier or a minute earlier, I it's possible that it's still in that short period of time, you could just cough it up and maybe a G would eat it, albeit if he doesn't look at it, but at least it would taste okay. He wouldn't that that it's something that he shouldn't be eating and still you see that it's not a problem. Why not? Why is there no must be says because it's either way. So that's how continued. He said that so too if something is and it's in a state of it can't contract them. You know, how do you know that that's sealed that has to inside of it and it's in an oil? Okay. So you have a do you have a do to it's inside a sealed and there's what's the do to in the let's say it's a little bit of bas and it's in an oil now with somebody else is the person's going to be oil he's in the same oil as the mace what do you mean the mace is inside it's sealed doesn't matter is stating that that same that sealed as if you would have a inside a sealed and it would be in the same oil as a m would have become so you see that the sealed could protect the from becoming but it can't protect from being so so a person who swallows where we say that the person could be mats the from being mama not like the It could be not then certainly it should be able to be from being so it's aimer what's the kimer from by you see that it's easier to be mat on a from being becoming than it is from being so that where the person could be mats from from being able to become but says how could you learn from a way more than doesn't have an ability to be mame from the outside one of the only what falls inside inside the the the the walls of the becomes but anything that touches the outside doesn't it's not that way so you see that is more so just because uh seal protects a do from becom doesn't mean an could protect from we're not talking about this whole conversation is not about being from the outside we're discussing a person who swallowed a person who swallowed a that has a or sealed inside of it and when you're dealing with it's just the opposite is more Because you see a could be even if something's in the of the you don't have would have to at least eat it or swallow it. But the point is is if that's the case so I know that uh is not how do I know can't become then I know it says that we have that is not if a person swallowed a what if somebody would have inside his g but he didn't put the tummy in his gad he put He didn't put it in his mouth. But Rashi said he put it until it became absorbed inside his body. How do you know that even in that case it's going to be considered and it's not going to be says upper part of a person's body that doesn't digest food is considered to the point that it doesn't allow the to be the bottom part of a person's body that is certainly should be able to protect but say if a person puts something in his bare nothing is going to be digested even if the digestion takes part in the lower part of a person's body but at the same time it's it's it's only if it goes in so what does that mean if you put it in that would somehow that would somehow be more of a it should be because if you do it that way it's not says it's true but at the end of the day the lower part of the body the gar understood is where the equal takes place and as a result It's more stabber that you should have the if the is in the base of the person than if it came in through his mouth says the okay so we found the now that you have that where do you find right what's the was from a person that ate from an even though it could be he didn't even digest the food yet and still that is he's going to be tar why is he tar why isn't an available that's inside of him. The terance is that it's a that's all for an how do you know for a person who has a a person while he's alive could become of course but that can never become while it's alive when it dies then it's but while it's alive it's not that's in the laws of when it swallows food it's considered and it doesn't become certainly But the says you're telling me that I'll find you a house. So a person that walks into a house that's auga that's a he becomes Tommy right away. Stating that his are Tommy right away. He needs he has to be there for a certain period of time in order for those things to become as opposed to walks into a second he becomes. See you see over sometimes requires you have to be there for a certain period of time by you don't find that says that's not a why not be that ent right away and you don't even need it's if you had on it so if there was sitting on top of the behemoth the become right away that's where it's negither become right away. It's a we should all know this. And he had [ __ ] on his shoulders and he was holding shoes. He was holding rings. He and the things he's holding on his shoulders, his everything is tummy right away, says the Gar. If however, if he was wearing his clothing and his shoes were on his feet and his rings were on his fingers who he becomes right away and until he waits. How long does he have to wait? The amount of time it eats takes to eat a which is a half a loaf of bread. Bread made out of wheat, not made out of barley. also sitting down. But the point with a dip. But the point is is that that this ostensively we found by is not a because what's the mad if it becomes also becomes miad. The only time you need by is if he's wearing it which by is not neg anyways. But the point is, but the point is is that you don't have any over of. So if there's a of when it comes to Adam, certainly there's going to be a when it comes to behemoth. Well, either way, the tomorrow is going to pick up on this note in tomorrow's. But just to recap what we just said, and that is of this was how do you know? It's learned out from the T says if you eat all you have to do is you're done. It would make it tasty. What if a person ate the right before maybe you should have to wait till you digest the food goes to the bathroom the food's not in his body anymore. So you see that once it's poo at that point it doesn't bother me. Okay, that's how you know is not mama. How do you know? Zone says that I know from because from I see that it's easier to protect from becoming tame than it is to protect from being mama. So if not then certainly doesn't become okay. So now I know as it relates to an how about with regards to a laws of how so? Because Adam could become even while it's alive. Behema can't become while it's alive. If you have certainly you're going to have the tummala as it relates to exile. So just to end with a little bit of raid. So really the theme of perma started with the laws of we all learn and it spoke about and there's an inside the mother. What's tal with regards to the we then digressed to a bea that's masha le about to give birth to its first child different laws of then we discussed the behema that had a fetus inside of it where the fetus died now we're discussing an isha that has a fetus inside of it that just died and the gumar is going to continue through the end of the week and into next week discussing different I just think it's to speak about something that although it's not mishi that we're learning but just to go with the theme of the garra digressing from our digression and that is whether an is considered a life as it relates to is it okay to sometimes kill an uber or not also known as abortion. So abortion in how exactly is that viewed? And really the shila begins with a mission over there says as follows. When a child is born, even if it's only one day old, there's a whole If somebody kills this, he's going to be throughout his that it sounds like the only time someone's for killing a child is if he's a or be a but let's say he's not a let's say he was an uber. It sounds like there would be no problem. What does the Mishna say? And if somebody kills him, he's going to be why only if he's sounds like says that if it be there would be no says found this pamphlet this it was called and he found the following we know that a person is unless that this person's stating that for violating one of the can already kill him you don't even need to him he doesn't another thing that it said in this safer it said in the name of that even if a kills he's going to be best says that I have a which seems to be that only but for you're not going to be I have that says is one of the and kills he's going to be says. So at first glance it seems that is more than is only if he kills a whereas even if he kills an is how could that be? We know that throughout the says is it possible to have something that we know that's not possible. So status is always more than the guys. So if a guy is for killing an how is it possible for that the says that only which clearly implies that for an there's not going to be asks this and says a oneline answer how Does it reconcile with the rule of says it's true that aid that kills an uber is going to be but at the same time it's not means you can't have something that's to that's not what was the Mishna says clearly implying that if somebody kills is it's true but doesn't mean it's still going to be it's true but at the same time nobody says it's going to be thus it's not a problem of so it seemed very clear we have a tus says based on the principle of that even though at first glance it would appear that it is okay that it's not user for aid to kill but not yet but can't be because the rule of immediately throws so it must be that although from the you see that a person is not for killing but at the same time there is no question that it's going to be awesome the truth is in the says as follows the is discussing the laws of so if ruining is trying to kill shim shim is allowed to turn around and kill ruining in fact anybody's allowed to kill ruining Anybody's says the is based on this. I'm going to tell you another butle. This is a woman who is in labor. She's about to have a baby and the doctors realize that this is going to be a very challenging labor and if she follows through with it, there's a chance that she's going to die. It's okay to cut and to kill the and the reason is because if the is threatening the life of the mother we look at the as being a and if the as a then it's like any other you're allowed to kill stating that says and this is the punch line that we need but once the head of the emerges from the mother why the head that's the because when the head emerges is considered at that point. You're not allowed to touch the Uber and even if the Uber is still threatening the life of the mother, it doesn't matter because at this point, how do you know that the Uber is threatening the mother's life more than the mother's threatening the Uber's life? It's exactly what Rama means when he says that. But at this point, says the once the baby's born, oh, now it's a whole different story. Now it's my cous. Now you don't look at the uber being a roy to the mother any more than the mother being a roy to. So again there's a lot in this rama. But the point says the ram is is that if a woman is mashle she didn't give birth yet. This is a very challenging pregnancy a very challenging labor. At that point says the ram if the doctors say that they believe that the uber is threatening the life of the mother. You're allowed to kill the But so it's clear in the Rama that once the mother gives birth of course you're not let to touch the baby. It's already it's considered but when it's inside when it's inside the womb of the mother so then you're allowed to. But why are you allowed to? Why are you allowed to? Only because we look at it as a right. We look at it as a right. Maybe you're allowed TO BECAUSE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO. WHY SHOULD IT be user? Isn't that the where the Mishna says that's only that the even is considered a it's just that it's not the same as once it's born and we look at it therefore as being a and is allowed to kill the way same as you're always allowed to kill a but it's but without the piece of you wouldn't be allowed to kill the Uber it would be us why is it sir is like that even though he departed It's true. It's clear says you're not until it's but at the same time it's going to be the in one of his most famous ch it's inf was asked to shil by the story was as follows there was a married woman that was mis and after she had terrible And she cried. She didn't stop crying. Not during the day, not at night. Very poetic. Her tears was streaming literally like a she literally was banging her head against the wall to the point where not only were tears flowing from her eyes, but blood was flowing from her forehead. the Bible. She told her husband what happened. She even sat down with so that he should work out for her. She said, "Whatever you tell me to matter what it is, I'm prepared to do it." What happened afterwards? A little time passed and she realized that she might be pregnant because from the time that this happened she stopped having a vest which used to come very timely and then she realized she had a much bigger problem. So is it okay for her to swallow something to kill the child that's inside of her? This got he sent it to the says the first of all he gave a very nice preface to the story. There's a woman that's pregnant. and she wants to abort the child and the preface is that she was an assh that was miser says I don't know what that has to do with the shila says let you do anything doesn't matter if she's an assh that's miser or if she's a puya or if this was something that happened with her husband it's irrelevant at the end of the day the shila is the sh he said if you meant that being that she's an assh that was misana her child is a mamzer and because the child is a mam maybe we don't value the life of aer the same way we value the life of a regular yid And he says, I'm sure I'm sure you know this could be the greatest just can't come to the when it comes to being everyone knows this is more If he's an he says the only time you find something about is that the mar right that when it comes to of you don't say that you don't say you don't say because we don't want to be EITHER WAY THAT THAT'S THE ONLY THING YOU FIND ANYWHERE and then he quotes very very small as that relates to he says I'm not sure why you needed this whole story says you are stating was a sh and we have to sit down and we have to work it out. So he said like this my first glance was close really you want to know is killing a is that considered or is it not so he says this was my first glance I thought maybe we should take a look and ask ourselves is it 40 days from when she became pregnant or not because the says in and that the first 40 days a fetus is treated as mayab so if it's not really considered a human life yet then maybe at that point it's going to be okay he said another thought I had was that Maybe it depends on which trimester we're in. The first trimester it's like you can't really tell that the woman is pregnant. So maybe during the first trimester it's less but once we get into the second and the third trimester I think at that point it should be more but says these are all nice but translation. We know what a car is. We just learned daily. do very nice but at the end of the day these are stomach suarees right these areas these are this is not what we're going to do we have to go through this as it relates to and he wrote and he came out at the end then he quotes another but the bottom line is that he said that it's and he based primarily on the Tyus that we spoke out then he gets involved in the component because if you're going to abort the child it's going to come out that for sure there's an issue he discusses that in the as well either way a classic famous from the most famous it's invasim brings this chuva from the and he begins as follows He says that told the he said I don't know why it was naya for you to tell me the whole background the whole history of the story right you know it wasn't necessary like what's the point why does it matter if she was an that was misan or this is any woman that wants to abort the child say that I think made a choice I think he didn't really understand the shila and in fact in fact to me the the idea that she was an ancient sister that was mis makes a tremendous difference as it relates to the to the says And he says that I think that in the as follows he says it's not the child and he repeats a lot of the lumbness that the spoke out is true it's posit it's not even a question he said but this was a very unique case this was a woman that was anish that was mazana what would have happened if this would have been man in the times of the vict if there were she would have been not only would she have been they would have killed her and the child What the child do? Maybe wait until the child is born. Says something called inuyadin. You don't allow someone to be on death row, you know, for 10 years. Not what we do. We try to kill the person immediately. And we're not going to even wait 6 months for her to give birth to a child before we kill her. So they would have killed it together with her child say that even though today there's no and we don't have but many places in that means the concept of still applies if that's the case and incidentally this is one of the most famous truths in as well and that is if not the most famous that it's being that this man this woman would have been we looked at her as being today if she's because she's a she's a there's no for someone that kills a if you kill a you're not doing anything wrong and if that's the case then there's no ORDINARILY THE BUT THIS IS BEST because they would have killed the mother together with the AND EVEN THOUGH THERE'S WELL, THAT'S A BIG LEAP. BUT THAT'S WHAT SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, and this is even a bigger leap. WE LOOK AT THE MOTHER and the as if they're dead people walking. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, SO IF SOMEONE WOULD KILL THEM, they wouldn't be then who if they kill themselves, they shouldn't be either. I think it's a to take her own life and maybe the life of her child as well. There are many stories in that would seem to support that they kill some right there's so many there was remember who was who used to be in Reb's house every day and the day Rebby passed away he wasn't there and when Rebi passed away there was a basel that said whoever was then hears about it later and then the jumps and he killed himself I can't was there every single day I didn't miss a day and all of a sudden the day that everyone's going there this many where people killed themselves and they were even says so you see that it's something that could sometimes be okay specifically when it comes to he brings this right but either way so he says it's push it's push to him that not only is it okay it could be it's even a good thing what's the at the end of the here's the final analysis of You're not let it kill a child. But as it relates to this married woman that was I'm telling you what I think and that is that it's even a good thing are now referring to I disagree. I think there's a very tremendous difference. He said this wasn't just a and he held that it's partial like that that it's not okay to abort the child because even though the Mishna says you don't have the but at the same time there's no question that it's not okay stating that stating that as it relates to anious is said that being that could be over there it's going to be different in this in he brings the entire is about abortion in and he says as follows says I saw things that you p can't even say over and this whole idea that is that's misana has a dinner of And he says, "Where do you find such a thing and therefore you're allowed to killed a child?" He says there's no such thing. He says even in the times of the mash if somebody would have killed somebody and he's in the process of being prosecuted until there was a den from Bezdon. There was a marin that this person is going to be killed. He didn't have a dinner. He has a dinner of a regular person because he's being tried now and maybe we're going to find him guilty even if the situation looks very very bleak. There's no need to talk about that this person would not be viewed as a god. So how's it possible that something like this could be true and is very and and he's very shar about how he doesn't understand what wrote and he says at the end of he said you shouldn't pay any attention to it and said why he was being so sharp he said he says the reason I'm writing this and the reason I'm being so dramatic about this truva is because unfortunately there was a that happened in in democratic countries and specifically init. Now the context is wrote in 19 in 1977. We know that in 1973 the Supreme Court issued one of its most famous and controversial decisions and that is they legalized abortion in the United States of America row versus way. So 1970 was a big toml and it was a good that fell that we need to plug we need to stop because once it became okay and it became something that was discussed says now I need to speak and even though said it and he was a but at the same time felt because he was worried in the context of the times the 1970s when this was a an issue that was tuming very very seriously. we have to come down very very seriously. And then Ramosa said that the truth is is that another reason that I'm writing this chuva and I'm saying it as dramatically as I am and you have to see it inside to realize the drama is because I saw another chuva from another bol another where he said even a bigger kadesh than that is alzenberg it was an that he wrote to the head the chief medical officer of shared hospital it's a tremendous we're going to have to wait for tomorrow's have to hear the additionally we're going to have to wait till tomorrow to understand. So what's going on here? If somebody aborts a child says it's not but at the same time at the same time it's user is it is it does it fall into the of that it's at least is it does it fall under the ten commandments there's a lot to talk about will pick up part two and tomorrow's da