Chullin Daf 13

All right, Daf Yomi Gimel, Wednesday's daf. Yesterday we began the discussion of the end of the first Mishnah about the Shochet of a Katan and that their Shchita, while not ideal, would be kosher if there's a Hashgacha over it. But now we're going to pick it up from the two dots on Yud Beis Beis. Amar Rabbi Chiya bar Abba boy Rabbi Yochanan, Katan yesh lo machshava v'ein lo machshava. Does a Katan have machshava? What's he talking about? So the way Rashi understands the Gemara's shaila is by Shchitas Kodshim because there's a requirement by Shchitas Kodshim to have kavana. So when a Katan shechts, is that going to be called kavana? Now Tosfos has a problem with Rashi's translation of the Gemara because the Gemara in the beginning of Zvachim, as you remember, has a shaila about stam lishma because as we remember from the beginning of Maseches Zvachim, stam by Kodshim is lishma. So if we don't know what's going on in that little head of the Katan, why can't we just say that it's going to be kosher anyway? Tosfos says that the stam of a Katan is worse than the stam lishma that we're talking about in the beginning of Zvachim because he's a kid and he doesn't understand what's going on at all. And it's like he's being mesasek, which we know is not going to work as we're going to see later in today's daf and as we saw at the end of Menachos like two weeks ago. But right now Rabbi Yochanan seems to be asking this as a shaila. Katan yesh lo machshava ein lo machshava. Amar leih Rabbi Ami, "What do you ask me about the machshava but you don't ask me about the ma'aseh?" Ask whether or not a Katan's action has any machshava in it. What kind of a ma'aseh are we talking about? The Gemara is going to clarify. Rashi already foreshadows the kind of case. Perhaps the Katan is relocating the Kodshim to the northern part of the chatzer and now we want to know, does that ma'aseh have any halachic relevance if it's backed up with machshava? Continues Rabbi Ami, "Ma ishna ma'aseh d'lo kamai bo'alei?" Why are we not going to ask about whether the ma'aseh of a Katan has anything to it's non? It's because we don't need to because we have a Mishnah that says "Geish lo hein ma'aseh" that a Katan does have a legally significant ma'aseh. This is going to be the Mishnah here now in Maseches Keilim in the 17th perek as we're going to get to, I guess, in a couple weeks as we continue through Keilim. So in the same way that we wouldn't need to ask about a ma'aseh because that's befeirish Mishnah, "So machshava nami lo leiti bo'alei." You shouldn't have to ask any shaila about a ma'aseh because "D'its non ein lo hein machshava" because that same Mishnah says that the Katanim do not have a halachic machshava. And now what is this Mishnah in the 17th perek of Keilim that we're talking about? "D'its non" because the Mishnah says "Ha'alayin v'ha'arimim v'ha'egozim" these kinds of different nuts "Shichchah kakum tinaykus l'mad b'hein" That kids are hollowing them out and measuring stuff like sand in them. They're using it to be the holder for the scale. Basically, these are fun toys for kids. Who doesn't like to play with a nut? When I was a little boy, I had these European uncles who one time on Hanukkah, when we went to visit them, actually gave me walnuts. They didn't have quite the appreciation for how much fun a walnut might be. But anyway, historically, nuts were toys for kids. So, if the child goes ahead and makes the shell of the nut into a base keilim such that it should have a potential name of a keilim, the halacha is tamei. It will be mekabel tumah because they did a action that we say makes it into a keilim. Moving over to But just their intention alone is not going to be considered halachically relevant to make it into a keilim. They have to have the ma'aseh. But the point is, both the ma'aseh and the machshava of the katan is before us in this mission in keilim. We don't need to have a shaila about it. So, we have to re-explain what was Rebbe Akiva's shaila. You're right. Rebbe Akiva never had a shaila about machshava alone. That is not legally significant. Machshava nikeres mi teich ma'aseh. Let's say if I understand what the kid is thinking because of what he did, because of the ma'aseh that he did. Kid going, and this is what Rashi had quoted earlier. Let's say a carbon is on the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern side of the southern isn't going to be anything. But here, the machshava is nikeres mi teich ma'aseh. So, maybe that will say it should be a kosher shaila. And now we speak at the shaila. From the fact that he schlepped it to the northern side, so chavin lo. Clearly, he did it because he wanted to be mechaven to bring a proper carbon oil. I don't know makom who de lay shram lay. Maybe he just moved it there because he didn't have a comfortable spot on the southern side, but it's not that he was doing it for the right reason. But the fact of the gemara even this kind of case where the machshava is nikeres mi teich ma'aseh will also know that. It's not because of the Mishnah in Masachet Machshirin in the sixth perek cuz the whole Masachet Machshirin is really all about when can something become tamei and we know it has to have one of those seven liquids of yad shochat dam but that's only if the person is happy that the liquid is there. That's a lot of what the Masachet discusses. So the Mishnah over there says that let's say a person is maleh peiros al hagag mipnei ha'akumah. They're bringing the pears up to their roof not because they want them to be there but they want to avoid the insects that are downstairs. The yored al amtalem now once the pears are exposed upon the roof now the tal, the dew, goes on them. So that's not considered like I want them to become wet and therefore they're einan b'chiutan and therefore they're not muchshar l'kabel tumah v'ein niska'av l'kach. But if you do want the pears to become wet because of the tal, then hareini b'chiutan. Continues the Mishnah in Machshirin cheirem cherish hakatan. Let's say the lav bardas brings them up to avoid the bugs. Af al pishon niska'av l'kach even if they did want them to become wet einan b'chiutan mipnei she yesh lohen maiseh but still they lohen machshavah so it's not considered b'chiutan. The amar of Yochana on that halacha is like Yochana leishana el shele hipach bohen. That's only if they didn't do an actual maiseh after it got wet. Av al hipach bohen but if the cherish hakatan was in machapach them after it got wet hareini b'chiutan and it will become tamei. So l'chara a machshavah that's nikra mitach maisef is already also inferred by Yochana himself. All right, so let's try again about what Yochana shailah was. Hachi kami bo'alei Yochana shailah was d'oraisa a d'rabanan. This kind of machshavah that's nikra mitach maisef do we recognize that on a d'oraisa dikka level or only on a d'rabanan dikka level? And Rav Nachman b'Rabbi Yitzchak must be lo hachi he had the same discussion learned in a slightly different way. Amar Rabbi Chiya bar Abba bo'alei Rabbi Yochana katan yesh lo maiseh o ein lo maiseh. Amar lei Rabbi Yami v'ti bo'alei machshavah and maiseh u'machshavah d'lo kami bo'alei why wouldn't we have any shailah about machshavah? D'itnan ein lohen machshavah cuz we learned in that Mishnah that we had already quoted that we don't reckon with the machshavah of a katan. Maiseh nami l'ti bo'alei that there's no shailah about the significance of a maiseh katan because d'itnan yesh lo maiseh cuz we do reckon with their maiseh. So hachi kami bo'alei this was Rabbi Yochana's shailah d'oraisa a d'rabanan. How do we look at the masa? And what we mean is the machshava that's mikareis meitoch masa, is that a deoraisa dik significance or only midrabanan? And to that the Gemara is pashut, yesh lo masa via filu midoraisa. Their masa is chashuv on a deoraisa dik level. Ein lo machshava via filu midrabanan. There's no machshava even midrabanan. However, the middle level of machshavta mikareis meitoch masa, midoraisa ein lo over midrabanan yesh lo. So, according to this lashon of the Gemara, since midoraisa machshavta mikareis meitoch masa is not going to be legally significant if the kohen katan would move that carbon oila from the southern side of the chotzer to the northern side in a chanami, it would not be a kosher carbon. Only a derabanan dik things like the derabanan dik tuma of the peiros on the gag that the cheresh es of katan is mahapech on the roof. Okay, boy minei Shmuel meirav Huna. Minayin lemasik bekarban shupasal? Which is the same Gemara we had at the end of Menachos. How do you know that masik bekarban is going to be pasal? The way Rashi learns the masik over here is if you're throwing a knife and it shechts bekarban along the way while the knife was flying through the air. Tosefos, the Rashba, they have problems with this shita in the Gemara according to Rashi and they learn masik slightly differently. Al kol panim, how do you know masik is going to be pasal for karban? Shenemar "Veshachat es habakar." That we darshin "Shetishchita leshem ben bakar." It has to be for that purpose. Amar lei Rav Achai bar Rav Huna, "Zubya deino hi." We already knew this. But la akemi na, how do you know that it's me'akev even bedi'eved? And for that Gemara "Loretzeichem tisbachu." Which we darshin "Letzeichem zevachu." You have to be aware when you're shechting. Zagt the second Mishna in this masechta, "Shechitas oved kochavim neveila." If a shechts, it's like the animal dropped dead on its own and therefore has a status of a neveila, not a treifa. And the big nafka mina is umitama bemassa. It has all dinei neveila like the tumas massa. Which now the Gemara is medayek, neveila in it sounds like issur hana'ah loi. The fact that the shechts isn't going to make it into issur hana'ah. So, man tana? Amar Rebbi Chiya bar Rebbi Abba amar Rebbi Yochanan, "Diloi Rebbi Eliezer." Dik Rebbi Eliezer, if our Mishna was going like Shechitas Rebbi Eliezer, ha'omer "Stam machshavos oved kochavim lav oved es kochavim." So, therefore it should be assur behana'ah. Rebbi Ami amar, "Hachi ketani." me Ruby I am going to add another thing that we can see from our mission that they have a carbon but the men love a carbon it sounds like only the of a guy is in the veil but the of a men someone who does Zara it sounds like it will be by Tony and Tony we can back this up with what we see in the price of the men love whatever was shifted by a men you have to assume it was done with shame of a Zara by pass Kusi and therefore you are not allowed to eat it yay his wine is Nesa and will be so far Kausman and therefore you have to which says and therefore you got to burn the books of Tovolent the of a men in Israel is going to be in my sir and therefore we have to assume it's the after turning over to me base one of my the children of these Jewish men allow their own wives to be and therefore you have to assume her children are going to be with who don't agree to this yes I am what do they hold I'm not going to let my car I'm not going to let their wives mess around like that and therefore the kids are not going to be now she have a carbon is in the veil but it's not for the more of a may you should be and therefore it should be I am not a rubber ball I am meaning there is no are going on by the guy I think I am talking about of course there is I am right of the meaning it's not that prevalent because lucky I am I am I am not sure it's love I am I am a carbon they are not that from they are not doing for real I am meaning I am being they are going through the motions they are not really doing religious reasons it reminds me when I was working at Berlin a couple of years ago it was right after the holiday and one of the members in the asked the African American custodian has a sense of humor if you went to church on and the fellow said I am not bothered going so the says back to the custodian you are such a guy >> Anyway. There is no din of men meaning there is no din of Azara to lay my shita it can't be If you have a Yidisha guy who does a Azara his flesh will be considered So the boy a guy that's going to do the Azara of course it would So that can't be the way we're saying there's no din of menas for guyim it's got to be that that of saving or even potentially pushing down the guy into the bar to kill him But how could that be? we would do that to a So over the hammer The whole thing we're talking about is we would accept And even if we would not accept a carbon from a Yidisha men we would accept a carbon from among you but not all of you could bring carbonas bringing the Yidisha mumers carbon but we can That distinction is only made by Yidden and not by guyim and we will take their carbonas How do you know the price talking about taking the carbonas from a guy even if he's a men Do you know how he come here? Me Israel We'll only take from Yidden who are sadikim but we like to come here take carbonas We will never take a guyisha carbonas Now the Tanya ish ish which sounds like a reboy of every kind of person We know guyisha carbonas can be brought Okay the mission said that given the navela since it is a it didn't have a kosher shita of course it over zoo There's that's worse that even Thomas oil will be there. The issue and what's that? If you have an animal that was shocked at four of it will actually be Tommy even through Thomas oil. There's one that is only and not and what is that? But in the we agree that it would be Tommy but oil. The oil it's only going to be but a regular guy is only going to be a bit master. If a blind guy shocked it will be kosher. So not a in the same way a guy is not a guy. Which I didn't speak out but there is a of why exactly is a guy going to be puzzled. The guy says it's because And this is the guy who got through. But the guy is maybe the more simple that the guy says it's and he has to be in the partial being a guy. So a guy is not in the partial being a guy. So the guy uses this mission as a right to support his idea that this that a guy is only the mission to say but the mission to and the guy like the of not being a guy of Just because the guy is blind doesn't mean he can be a guy. Just means he's from listening to the etc. Now according to the other like the who hold that a guy is in even from the guy we need a way to understand this mission and you can listen to the guy who makes a suggestion based on the guy. Okay. So like the guy though the guy the mission says the guy which sounds like the ever din that that only if he has it's going to be kosher but he shouldn't because he can't see what he's doing because he's either blind or it's dark. Pain in the back of his feet it sounds like he can on a roof, he can on a boat, he can up a tree, he can you and me. However, Dr. Seuss would read this Mishnah. The point is he can any time even so why does the Mishnah worry Hashahet which sounds like the ever din? Omar of Papa Bishavuka Kenegda. The Bryce says he can at night is talking about where it's illuminated. He's got his torch. That's when he can Omar of Dekanami the case of the Bryce is talking about where it's comparable to the daytime. But let me to sum up but our Mishnah is comparing night time and sum up where there ain't no light at all. Shmami no. And we'll pick it up with the Mishnah on next time.