Chullin Daf 118

All right, today is daf kuf yud ches. Tuesday's daf. It's another airport lounge one, so we'll hope for the best. So, I apologize in advance for our background soundtrack. But yesterday we got to start our erva, right Dave? All about tumah and taharah. We introduced the idea of the shomer, of that which is to protect a pri or the basar or whatever we're talking about. Today we're going to get more into yad ice as well, those handles and things that are there to hold the thing we're talking about. So, yesterday we started the gemara which brought the braisa that there is a halacha of shomerim for a tumah kal meaning for tumah achlin because of zara zaruah. Now we're going to pick it up from the bottom of kuf yud zayin amud beis. V'lo shomerim l'tumah chamurah mino and how do you know there is no halacha of shomerim klappei the tumah chamurah of a tumah nevelah? The tan rabonon because the braisa says b'neflosa. Because it says by nevelah that its nevelah should be tamei. And we darshon v'lo b'or she'ein alav k'zayis basar. And not if you're just touching the skin, just the or of the basar, that's not a k'zayis, that doesn't have a k'zayis basar attached to that or. Moving over tumah alef. And yochol ani l'hagea k'neged basar me'achorav tamei. I might think that even if you touch the other side of that or, the other side where the meat is, maybe you won't even become tamei. Tumah l'meira yitma that you should be tamei. Now, my comer, what in the world does this braisa even mean? If you're telling me we're m'm'ei at the or from passing along the tumah and there's not even a k'zayis of basar attached to it, why would you become tamei if you touch the opposite side of the or? That should be less of a reason to become tamei. Amar Rava d'amar l'kadi which is the name of an amora or perhaps it means it's anonymous. K'suri me'achorav hachi k'tani. This is you have to read the braisa. B'neflosa, if you touch the nevelah you're going to be tamei. Which sounds like it's only going to be the basar. V'lo b'or she'ein alav k'zayis basar v'or mashlim l'k'zayis. But not the or that has less than a k'zayis of basar on it. Even when that or would be mashlim to that k'zayis. Yochol shani motzei af or she'ein alav k'zayis basar and you might think that even if it doesn't have a k'zayis basar but hanagea k'neged basar me'achorav yochol l'yihei tamei that you're not even going to be tamei if you touch the other side of that or. V'afilu mai sei yad nami l'yoven and it doesn't even function as a yad which is now we're introducing this idea of a yad. Tumah l'meira yitma. That's what the braisa meant that you're going to be tamei when you touch the other side of the or where the basar isn't because there is a kazayis busser on the other side and it acts as a yad. It's an awesome the first mission in maseches uktin says kol shihu yad v'lo shomer if something is a yad but it's not a shomer. And what's an example of something that's a yad but not a shomer? Rashi gives us a simple example of let's say you have a bone that's holding your chicken leg. So you're holding a bone doesn't have any marrow in it. So it only serves the purpose of being a yad cuz it's a handle for that busser. Or the Rambam and the rabbinic Gershon give the example of a branch or a stem of a fruit. So they only serve the purpose of being a yad and not being a shomer to that pri or that busser. Halacha is tamei it can become tamei umitamei and it can actually transmit tumah. The ainamitzdarif but it's not going to be mitzdarif with the food in order to make a shiyur for tumas ochlin. And tamei umitamei according to Rashi is talking about the ochlin that's the noun over here. According to the Rambam it's actually talking about the yad itself. And the way the Steipler understands the machlokes rishonim is the classic lomdishe machlokes about how do we look at yados in general? Is that an extension of the pri? Is that what the Torah is saying? Or no it's not an extension of the pri but rather it's a way to transmit the tumah. And there are nafka minas. The Korban Pesach says let's say if I take that little branch or that yad and I bring it into the Beis Hamikdash by itself. If you're learning it's actually tamei itself because it's part of the pri. So then an acharon you're going to be chayiv. But if it's just a way to transmit the tumah to in itself is not really tamei. Perhaps it could be another nafka mina whether you can use it for s'chach if it's a dover that's actually mekabel tumah or not. But getting back to our mission in uktin here. Something that's a yad and not a shomer is tamei umitamei v'einamitzdarif. Shomer yafeh pishayni yad let's say something is a shomer it's protecting that's what's in side of it even if it's not a yad like a piece of skin of an animal. And it has a kazayis busser attached to that skin that air. But it's not a yad you don't use it as a handle. The halacha is tamei it itself is tamei umitamei it can be mitamei others umitzdarif. But lo yad v'lo shomer if it's neither one like let's say the fuzz that's on some peros it doesn't protect and it's also not used to hold the peri like tamei v'lo mitamei. And now let's look for the mekoros. Yaldei shichik sidin. So we got three mekoros over here. V'chishuv v'chiyuton mayim al zera v'naflumin al basar um'lav tamei hu lo chem. If it becomes wet and then the sheretz falls on it it's to become Tommy. This is the mccuffer hechsher Tommy as we mentioned yesterday. So we dash in lechol shibit tzarcheichem. And what are the tzarcheichem? That any of these tzarcheichem can accept the Tommy. The rabbi says a yod is that's including even a yad for the Tommy. U chosiv and it says number two, v'chi yomus min habaheima shechi lochem, if one of the kosher animals dies, it's going to transmit Tommy sneveila. So we dash in lochem lechol shibit tzarcheichem. The rabbi says a yod is. And therefore we dash in yad is lechachnaso leheitzi. It can become Tommy and it can make others Tommy. So that's all about a yad, but shomer lechachnaso leheitzi leitzara kora, you don't even need to have a pasuk for a shomer because kal vachomer miyado asi, once I establish yad, it's a kal vachomer to the shomer because my yad shein makia machnaso umaiti, a yad that doesn't even protect the thing that's attached to, still it's machnaso umaiti Tommy, shomer lechol shikein, that's more connected to the thing, it actually protects the thing itself, for sure it should have that ability to be machnaso umaiti Tommy. So shomer dekasav rachmana leisa, why does the Torah even talk about a shomer? Because that was the zera zerua that we said at the end of yesterday's daf that the zera is in taste by this protective shomer. Why does the Torah even need to mention it? So shma minal letzarich, not coming to tell you that it's machnaso umaiti but rather it's coming to tell you that third halacha, it has the ability to be mitztaref to be able to achieve the shiyur for Tommy achlin. And when we talk about the shiyur of Tommy achlin, there's an important distinction between being Tommy and being metamei. According to the Rambam, even a chardal, even a kolshu, the tiniest thing can become Tommy. The whole issue of being kibeya is only to be metamei. The Rambam himself only limits that issue of needing the beya to be metamei by a dover yaveish, by a dover lach, it would be even a kolshu who could be metamei. You don't need to have the shiyur. Frecht gemara, the eima yad lechachnas, v'eila leheitzi. The psukim that we brought, maybe they only shows us that the yad can actually bring the Tommy into the achlin but it can't be metamei something else. And shomer lechachnas uleheitzi, and a shomer could go both directions. Avu yad leheitzi, v'shomer letzaref lei. And therefore you don't have any makor in the Torah about zeraf, which the gemara answers now. Because yad lechachnas v'eila leheitzi leimo t'samrei, you don't have to tell me that the yad could only bring the Tommy in but can't put the Tommy out because hashda ayulei ma'alya, afukei meba'i, if it can be the tuma into the island. You need to tell me that you can be matzi the tuma. It's a bigger hidish that the yard could be magnus in the first place. So if you're telling me that the Torah says that a yard can be magnus tuma, kal v'chomer the yard can be metame. Well, v'eima yad lo heitiv ul l'achnas. Okay, so say it the other way around. Maybe the yad can only be matzi the tuma from those island, but it can't actually bring the tuma in. And shomer lo heitiv ul l'achnas. And the shomer goes both directions cuz it's more intrinsic to the actual peria. Aval yad ul l'achnas ul shomer ul tzaruf l'eima. Maybe there is no tzaruf still. And for the gemara, yad you tzaruf still is an extra yad. Tuma mikyuraim yutatz the gaimer. The pasuk over there in the inner prashas shmini says when that kayli, that oven becomes tuma, you got to destroy it. Lo chem l'chol sh'b'tzarchecha. Which we darshin l'rabos es hayados. So since we have this additional drasha of yad, we certainly don't need two psukim to tell me that a yad can be matzi and be metame other things. So one of them is coming to tell you they can also be magnus the tuma. So therefore we still have this kal v'chomer that tells us by a shomer can both be tuma and be metame. Leaving us the additional pasuk to tell us that tzaruf for the shomer. Okay, well haymi na'ami acher. Well, which one of these different psukim about a yad is going to be extra? Cuz I'll show you chumras by all of them. Lich d'rachmana b'z'raim. V'leisi anachna l'eima if you're only going to tell me the one about z'raim that we had at the end of yesterday's daf. I would say the uniqueness of mal z'raim she came to mosin m'ruba. There's more shiyachus of tuma to z'raim than there is by the tanur. Because they can become tuma from a rishon, whereas the tanur can only become tuma from an av tuma. So they're two mosin m'ruba. And lich d'rachmana b'tanur v'leisi anachna l'eima. Let's say you only want to keep the yados of tuma l'gabei the tanur, and therefore we learn the halachos of z'raim and n'veila from the tanur. I would say mal tanur she came metame me'avirah. It has that special uniqueness. It's more chomer that it can convey the tuma al y'dei its own airspace. Whereas z'raim and n'veila you have to actually have some sort of n'giah or contact or massa or something like that. And lastly lich d'rachmana b'n'veila v'leisi anachna l'eima. If you want to only have the yados by n'veila learn from the others. Well, mal n'veila she came metame adam. Which is certainly unique. U'metame b'massa. Which is also a uniqueness by tumas n'veila. And the tuma yotzei migufa. And it itself is a source of tuma as opposed to just being a conduit. Tumas n'veila itself puts out its own Tumah. So, certainly you're not going to want to use the others only by N'veilah to learn Tumah Z'rayim and Tumah Tanur. So, none of them are really extra, which the Gemara says, "Chada mecha de lo yatzya." You're right, you can't learn from one, but "Taysi chada me tarti." But, you could learn one of them from the other two. Well, let's go through. "Ay taysi, which one should not be said and therefore learn from the other two?" "L'lechet d'Rachmana b'Z'rayim b'taysi b'Tanur." Skip that one, learn it from N'veilah and Tanur. I will say, "Mah l'Tanur she came mitumin sh'lay b'hechsher." You don't need a hechsher for N'veilah and for Tanur. Come tell me without hechsher l'kabul tumah, "Tanur b'Z'rayim she'ayn mitumin ela b'hechsher." How do you need to have a hechsher from the Yad Sh'chatah Dam liquids to be machshir Z'rayim? "Amar Rav Huna b'Ray d'Rabbi Yeshua, you know that's not a good tainah?" And I'll tell you they really are damim one to the other. An amazingly interesting lamdish line here. "Peyros sh'lo huchsharu k'Tanur sh'lo nigmar malachto dami." When you look at peyros that are not huchsharu l'kabul tumah cuz they're not wet, they're just like that Tanur sh'lo nigmar malachto. They are not finished, which is probably the most open and obvious rayah to the shitas Rashi and the Chinuch. Because there is a You do with the machlokes Rashi and Chinuch kneged the Ramban about why is there this musag of hechsher l'kabul tumah? How do we understand it? According to the Ramban, when peyros become wet, you kind of open up their spiritual pores. Now they have the ability to be a conduit for tumah. Tumah can get into it once you are make them wet. But, Rashi and the Chinuch have an understanding that when peyros are unwashed, they're not yet done. They're like they are unfinished. There's no g'mar malacha, and that's really what this Gemara seems to be saying. That peyros sh'lo huchsharu is k'Tanur sh'lo nigmar malachto dami. So, it's not so unique about that hechsher. And therefore, if Yad's would have been said by Tanur and N'veilah, we could have learned it also to Z'rayim. So, okay, I'll tell you what, I have a different pircha then. "Ela pircha acheres, mah l'Tanur she came mitumin sh'lay b'negi'ah." You can't compare the Z'rayim to the N'veilah and Tanur because they can be mekabel tumah without touching any of the sources of tumah. "Tanur b'Z'rayim she'ayn mitumin ela b'negi'ah." Okay, so we'll give up on that, and then let's go the other way. "L'lechet d'Rachmana b'Tanur b'taysi b'Tanur." Let's only have Yad's written by N'veilah and Z'rayim, and then learn out to Tanur. Then I'll say, "Mah l'Tanur she came ochelin." N'veilah and Z'rayim are both ochelin, as opposed to the tana which is not an ochel. So okay let's try our third possibility then. Skip navele learn it from tana and zraim. So yad navele and why do I need the Torah to say yad by navele? Which means that just like the yad can be mighty tuma this additional yeter of yad will tell us that you can also be machnis tuma into it. As if the Torah is telling us yad is by ochelim that the yad can be mighty tuma so the extra mentioning of a yad by tumas ochelim tells that you can also bring in and be machnis the tuma into the ochel. So and we fear ice yad la hachnis yad la heitzi and shomer is litzarif. That's our halacha that we started off with. But I still need to have yad for navele dilo kasav rachmana ba navele. You can't learn to something greater than what it's coming from. You can't learn more to navele than you had by the tana and the zraim. And mach anach leima tuma and just like by tana and zraim you can't be metame a person after navele metame adam which we know is not true. So we have a problem of dayai. And that's why we would need to have the pasuk of yad by navele written. Okay you're right. So yad the navele mitzrach tzarech. We need navele the shomer the navele who the light tzarech. We never need to say anything about a shomer legabei navele. So why do we even mention anything about a shomer and navele? If it's to tell me the halacha of tzarech using the shomer to get to the shier of tuma leiman tzarech. You already told me that a shomer of a navele which is a tuma chamura is not going to be metzarech. To tell me that the pasuk is saying that a shomer has the ability to be mighty tuma. Well kal vachomer miyada see I would have known that from the yad because the yad is even less connected. So there's a kal vachomer. So leishomer the navele to now leiyad the navele. To now leiyad the alma. And since the yad is by ochelim tells me that yad can be mighty tuma so so too from the extra word it'll tell me that you can also be machnis the tuma. And therefore again we fear ice yad la heitzi yad la hachnis shomer litzarech. Turning over to me base frekting amar veima im eina inyan leishomer the navele well to now leishomer the alma. And therefore we can say shomer la hachnis shomer litzarech. Aval yad la hachnis lei but maybe we don't have the ability for the ya'ad to bring the tum'in since we don't have a pasuk for that anymore. Okay, so you know what the gemara says? The fact that the ya'ad is magness tum' is not going to come from the extra ya'ad in the pasuk. It's going to be a different makor. El mi kar ki tzivi ya'ad, a haknas tziva. L'chat'chila, when the Torah was talking about a ya'ad, it was talking about the haknasa. And once we can establish that the ya'ad can be magness, we now have that kal v'chomer as we originally said beforehand that it can be motzi. Why do I even need to mention the shomer? Which the gemara says l'gufei. What how lacha are we talking about? What's that kalacha l'gufei that we need? We know that the shomer of an aveila, cuz it's tum'a chamura, is not mitztaref to make the shiur for the boser. So, I don't need that either. So, what's the gufei that we're talking about? So, sometimes you don't really have to have that extra halacha. Whenever the Torah talks about the shomer l'gabei any ochlin, maybe I'll tell you that all it's coming to tell you is the ability of I'll use that same idea that, you know, we don't need to have any new drasha. To which the gemara says, no, cuz heicha dikla mitztarshin, and if I have something to darshin, I'm not going to just simply say I'll use it. In general, the shomer of an aveila is going to be different because keivan d'meitzi ya'ad k'oved, since the purpose that it serves is to act as a ya'ad, in other words, to bring the tum'a in, but not to be mitztaref. So, since it serves that kind of a purpose like a ya'ad, a ya'ad shadina lei, we'll use the pasuk by the shomer of an aveila, which is more dami to the ya'ad of ochlin than a shomer of ochlin, because it really has the characteristic of the delivery mechanism of tum'a, like by the ya'ads of ochlin. And we can learn from it that the ya'ad can also be magness as well as be motzi tum'a. Getting back to the beginning of the braysa, that was the end of yesterday's daf about kol zera'im zaru'a. All the time, what about the mishna in the second perek of Uktzin where it says, The pitam, that stem of the rimon, is going to be mitztaref for the shiur of tum'as ochlin, but b'chanates, but that flowery thing on top, she lei ein mitztaref. But v'amai? Why should the pitam be mitztaref? kind of zero zero in order to achieve a zero if you need to be able to use the possible zero zero of a lecha and you don't have that because of remain is not a zero because people don't plant pomegranate branches. It doesn't fit that characteristic and the pitam would have fallen off anyway if you plant it. The sukkah that now we also learned in the Mishnah how the akiva mid-thigh if the time it to my cycling. So, we know it. How would you even know that about our and busser? That whole possuk is only talking about zero and all of the classes correct CV must be because there are multiple expressions in the possuk. I'll call zero zero I shall use hard the shimer the zero one tells me the shimer of the zero is going to be mid-thigh if the hard the shimer the and either the shimer busser base in the doggins. I don't know how to name it. Even though the possuk literally is only talking about zero and the additional zero expressions that we have there zero zero zero will refer to all these different kinds of categories. I'm going to see a barash in a mirav an important yesh yad the tuma the in yad the rubi akiva and am I yesh yad the tuma ula akiva. How do we look at the yad? Does it only connect for tuma or also for akiva? Meaning if you take that yad and you make it wet, does that make the food now akiva the couple tuma? But, my come up with the eboy is saying the swara eboy is saying the akra. Eboy is saying the akra either tell you dash in the possuk is mar mikra the front of the way of the front of this how far back in that same possuk can you go backwards? Because the possuk is the my am enough of the sum of the love of the so does the of yad is go back to the akiva or only to the tuma? So, it's just about how you read the possuk or mar mikra the front of the way of the front of so that's version one of the how you read the possuk or eboy is saying the swara that mar of akiva the class tuma who is the beginning of that tuma mar akiva love the class tuma who this sounds a little bit more like that ramban that we talked about that akiva is the class tuma because it opens up the spiritual pores if you will to transmit the tuma. Tanya akiva and akiva she is yad the tuma akiva yad the akiva akiva she in the couple tuma akiva yad the akiva in the couple akiva akiva yad the akiva. So, you see this bryson really is going like akiva that yesh yad the tuma ula akiva. I'm going to call it here. I'll pick it up with the mirav for tomorrow.