Chullin Daf 5

All right, Duff. Hey, Tuesday's Duff. As we are continuing to investigate the halacha of a mummer and a kusi whether or not they can be possible for shrita. And specifically, we were involved in trying to bring a riot to shitas of Anan that a mummer love the Zara. It's still motor to eat from his shrita. We're trying to bring the riot from Ovadia and Achav that Ovadia was partaking in the suda that Achav had prepared even though he's a mummer love the Zara. And now we're picking it up 15 lines from the bottom of dalid amud beis that delmo Ovadia zovach who said that Achav and his people were the ones who did the shrita. Maybe it was Ovadia himself who shacted the animals. Which the gamara says it can't be because laroyiv ksiv. There was a ton of these animals. So Ovadia have a sopek. He wouldn't have been able to shact so many animals. It must have been Achav's crew that did it. Well, vidilma shivas alofim Maybe the actual shactim were the 7,000 yidden that didn't do the aveda zara. Dehisiv dehishe b'yisrael shivas alofim kol haper kayam asher lo karu labal bagaimer. So there were yidden that didn't partake in the aveda zara specifically 7,000. So maybe some of them were the shactim. But the gamara tamurei have a mitamrei me Izebel. Those yidden that didn't do aveda zara couldn't have been the shactim because they were in hiding from Izebel, Achav's wife, and therefore they weren't around. Okay, well, vidilma gavrei de Achav have a malu. Who says that people who work for Achav were all the avdei aveda zara? Maybe some of these were good guys. And don't say they would have been afraid from Izebel because Ovadia himself clearly wasn't afraid from Izebel. So there could have been the possibility of other good people like Ovadia. To which the gamara says leysaka daitecha because the posuk says moshel makshiv al dvar shaker kol misharsh of reshaim. So we put them all together. So those were being misharsh of reshaim were also avdei aveda zara as well. All right, but vidilma gavrei de Yehoshafat namilei have a malu. Well, maybe Yehoshafat's people were also not good guys and therefore zavuach gavrei de Achav. Achav's shactim that shacted maybe achol gavrei de Yehoshafat. Maybe Yehoshafat's people ate from that shrita. However, zavuach Ovadia that which Ovadia shacted himself achol Yehoshafat. So maybe Yehoshafat only ate from the shrita of Ovadia whereas all the men of Yehoshafat [clears throat] were eating from the shrita of these mumrim. Which the gamara says leysaka daitecha because midemoshel makshiv al dvar shaker kol misharsh of reshaim. So we understand that to mean kol dvar emes misharsh of tzadikim that the crowd in which surrounds the tzadik is also going to be tzadikim. So you can't say that Yehoshafat's people were reshaim. That would not make sense. So the whole group were the tzadikim and therefore the fact that they ate from the shrita is a raya. But the gamara ain't giving up. Vidilma zavuach gavrei de Achav achol Achav gavrei. Maybe that which Achav's people shacted Achav's people ate. And zavuach gavrei de Yehoshafat achol Yehoshafat gavrei. So everybody basically ate their own respective shitas. Moving over to mad alif to which the gamara doesn't like because lehave a maflek nachshimei. Yehoshafat would not want to have this distinction and like have the two different sides of the room. Okay, you guys are shacting for your people and we don't trust your cashers. It wouldn't be that way. Rather they would have been one big happy family out of it. And there is a raya that Yehoshafat's people would have been eating from Achav's people's shrita. Now, we know and how do you know that Yehoshafat actually trusted Achav legabei halacha? Ileima mide ksiv komaini komaicha amika mecha. That may not be a halachic criteria that I'm maimin halacha. It could be more of just a expression of destiny. Lemiata ksusai ksusecha hoch einami. Which literally means my horses are like your horses. But that's not talking about halacha. El amaida have a susacha to have a susai. Whatever ends up happening to your horses in battle should happen to my horses. It's kind of this expression of destiny. So hoch einami maybe that's all that's meant by komaini komaicha. It doesn't mean about halacha. Maida have a aloch to have a alai v'eilavei ami. So that can't be a mocker that we have the same trust about halacha. El amai hocha. Here's the raya that Yehoshafat was maimin Achav legabei halacha because the posuk says umeloch Yisrael v'Yehoshafat meloch Yisrael v'Yehoshafat ish al kis oimelu b'shum bigodim. That Achav and Yehoshafat each sat on their throne dressed in the bigdei malchus bigodim pesach sha'ar Shomron. And they were the goren which is a threshing floor which was at the pesach sha'ar Shomron. The entrance to the gate of Shomron. So my goren, what does it mean the threshing floor? Ileima goren mamish. We're saying it's mamish a threshing floor. That makes no sense geographically. O tu sha'ar Shomron goren navi. You wouldn't have a threshing floor right by the opening of a gate. Ela ki goren was an expression that Yehoshafat and Achav were like those that sat sitting in a formation like a goren like a threshing floor which is a reference to a Sanhedrin that sat in a kind of a semicircle detnan as the mishna says in maseches Sanhedrin Sanhedrin haisa k'chati goren agula. That's how it was shaped like this half circle. Kedai she ra'in zeh azeh. So this way the dayanim could each see each other. It would help that they would determine the right psak by being able to see each other and debate the halachas. So from the very fact that we put Yehoshafat and Achav that they acted like a Sanhedrin it sounds like they had this mutual trust in all things just like a Sanhedrin including in dinei Torah. Okay, so we have our mocker for of Anan that the shrita of a mummer love the Zara is going to be kosher. Now, leima mesayei lei that the posuk says ha'orvim and the ravens mevi'in lechem ubassar baboker ulechem ubassar ba'erev. These ravens would bring Eliyahu Hanavi the basar and the lechem during this famine when Eliyahu Hanavi went into hiding from Achav and Izebel and he survived because Hashem had this maiseh niseh of sending him these ravens that brought him food twice a day. V'omer Rav Yehuda Amar Rav mibeis hatabachei de Achav. Where did the meat actually come from? It was actually coming from the food prep of Achav, his kitchens. So clearly you have a braisa that is supporting the idea that Eliyahu Hanavi would eat from the food that was shacted by Achav's shactim. Which the gamara says ein kein raya because al pi hadibur sheini. This whole thing is a maiseh niseh that Hashem gave specific instructions. And Rashi says here's a special heter lifnei sha'a. Tosefos is still bothered that it should be posul in the salman ayin cuz no one's seeing the meat. But he explains that in the gamara's kasha al pi hadibur was enough to take care of the basar in the salman ayin. But how do you know that it would take care of the shitas tabachim de Achav? That's also part of what the gamara is being mechadesh. So my orvim, what do we mean by these orvim, these ravens? Amar Ravina orvim mamish. It was actual ravens. Amar lei Rav Nachman bar Yumi v'dilma gavrei d'Avi Shamai hu orvim. Maybe it was just guys who were named orvim. It was Orev one and Orev two. And I'll show you that Orev is a name of a person cuz me like Avi Yargu Orev b'tzur Orev b'zaev gamara. So you see it's a plausible name. Amar lei Rav Nachman bar Yumi Amar Ravina have a Shamai hu orvim? Well, you think both of them punkt happened to have this mudna name of Orev and that's why we're going to call them orvim? Nah. It means ravens. But dilma shema keinan. Maybe it's not such a coincidence. Maybe both these people came from a place called tzur Orev as we had said me like Avi Yargu Orev kidudan me'eretz Yisrael na'ara ketana. The kasha on it we had a problem with that posuk because kurei na'ara v'kurei ketana. Is she a na'ara or is she a ketana? How old is she? 12 or younger? D'amar Rabbi Pedas ketana d'min Uron. It just means that they captured a ketana from the from a place called Uron. So just like Uron is called a na'ara maybe the two guys from tzur Orev are called orvim. So Dr. Ravina to finally answer im kein orvim miboyei lei. It's the wrong nusach. He wouldn't have said orvim he would have said rivim. So it must have been actual ravens. Leima mesayei lei. Bring another raya to of Anan that the shrita from a mummer love the Zara is still going to be kosher because akol shachtin cuz the braisa actually says everybody can shact v'afilu kusi v'afilu orel v'afilu Yisrael mummer. Now, let's break this down. Hi orel, heichi dami? What's the case of this orel that he's allowed to shact? Ileima sh'meis orel masmela so what do you want from the poor guy? He's an anus. Hi Yisrael malyo. Ela shita mummer laorel must be that the orel that we're calling here is a guy who does not want to do a bris mila. He is amazed. Okay. Now, that guy is going to be kosher for shrita. But eima saifa v'afilu Yisrael mummer. Even the Yisrael mummer will be kosher. Nahei chi dami? Im mummer ledavar echad if you tell me he's a mummer for one particular avera. Well, hi nu mummer laorel just like the guy who doesn't want to do a bris mila. He's a mummer ledavar echad. So so too any mummer ledavar echad. Then you're just repeating yourself. Why would the braisa need to repeat that? Ela lav mummer love echad. We must be talking about the avera. A mummer love echad is also going to be kosher and that's going to be a raya ucherei Rav Anan that that will still be kosher for a shrita. To which the gamara says lie. Ela lav mummer love echad is not going to be kosher for a shrita. D'amar Mar Zutra echad sh'kola koifer b'chol haTorah kula. Aveda zara is like a worse and therefore it's like you're a mummer l'chol haTorah kula and therefore the shrita should be posul. Ela mummer la'asei davar. The braisa is just saying if you're a mummer for that particular thing. So a guy who's not makpid on shatnez l'moshel can't be your shatnez checker. You know, you can't trust someone who's a mummer for that particular thing. Ucherei Rava. And like Rava had said beforehand that a mummer who's eating the nevela l'tei'avon is allowed to shact because l'maiseh he wouldn't stam eat nevela if he has the opportunity to eat kosher g'shactena flesh. So we can assume that he's not l'hachas and he's only l'tei'avon. His shrita will be kosher. Maisvei. Now, let's ask on Rav Anan. The posuk says mikem which is the posuk in the beginning of Vayikra that adam ki yakriv mikem. If someone from amongst you brings a korban. So it sounds like we could be medayek l'cholam. Not everybody can bring korbanos. Lo heitzei es hamummer. That's what we darshin. And also mikem that bachem chilak. We only amongst you klal Yisrael did I make the chiluk between a mummer and other people. V'lo leba umos. But I never made such other chiluk by We don't distinguish amongst the And min habeheima, what's that coming from? L'havi bnei adam sh'domim l'beheima. That comes to include people who act like an animal. As Rashi says they're not mekayem mitzvos so they're domim to an animal. They're also going to be kosher to bring korbanos. So mikana amar beis din chazal said mekabelin korbanos mipish'ei Yisrael kedai sheyaziru bahem b'tshuva. But that's chutz min amummer. That rule that you're going to be mekabel korbanos from ba'alei avera is for everybody except for a mummer umenasech yayin umachalel Shabbos b'farhesya. Those kinds of people we are not going to be mekabel korbanos. Now, this braisa is very difficult because hagufa kasha. Amar Rav Nachman mikem v'lo l'cholam. That sounds like lo heitzei es hamummer. V'hader tanni. The braisa then says mekabelin korbanos mipish'ei Yisrael. Which l'cheira is the mummer. So is the mummer kosher or not? So halacha sha reisha mummer l'chol haTorah kula and mitzisa is mummer ledavar echad. If a guy is only a mummer for one thing, he's not considered a mummer l'chol haTorah kula and therefore we're going to hope he's going to do tshuva. So let's take his korbanos. But if a guy is a mummer l'chol haTorah kula, it's unlikely he'll do tshuva and therefore we're not even mekabel his korbanos at all. But eima saifa. The end of the braisa says chutz min amummer umenasech yayin umachalel Shabbos b'farhesya. We're not going to be mekabel their korbanos at all. So hi mummer, heichi dami? Who's this mummer that we're not taking his korban? Im mummer l'chol haTorah kula hi nu reisha. And the mummer ledavar echad in kasha mitzisa? Because we just said that we would be mekabel korbanos from that kind of a mummer. Ela lav hachi kama. This is what the braisa means. We're going to be mekabel korbanos from a mummer legabei davar echad chutz min amummer umenasech yayin umachalel Shabbos b'farhesya. It depends on what the avera is. If he is going to be menasech yayin for aveda zara or he is mechalel Shabbos b'farhesya, then we're not going to be mekabel his korbanos. So we're not just picking any one avera but we're picking those specific averos. Alma mummer love echad have a mummer l'chol haTorah kula. But what do you see? The guy who does the Manasseh love meaning he's doing considered like the status of a what do you have to do who hold you can't eat from their because we see from this you can't and then to you talk about from this and just in this one that my before he we can't accept his carbon because he's like a brush he speaks up because the is in my separation but based on this the asks we can someone who writes a get on or on Kippur has a status of a Terra Cola and therefore the get is going to be possible and the question is this idea of because of the fear in my separation but that wouldn't apply to him Kippur and also asks this and spoke out a possible that the has a different shot than it's not because of the in my separation but rather it's because of the is and therefore there wouldn't be a difference between Shabbos and Kippur both have that same level of and they would be considered a Terra Cola So now we have a more about this and from we're not going to be carbon is from this may also it's the following that we don't accept the carbon from a turning over to the base because the is may that the one who does the can bring a carbon product the but the cannot bring a carbon but you see we should be I shall be and we have someone who had he known would not have done the maybe carbon however in had he known he still wouldn't have been then carbon he can't bring the we we said about this might be what's the between the and because both of them are that a cannot bring the carbon so what's the between these two we will have carbon specifically the who ate and brought a carbon for eating according to the we're not going to be his carbon because he's a I don't care about what he was a about but according to you see he would be a from one of these two but you have a from this and this that a that brings carbon is we don't accept those carbon is question mark what's the if the and one talking about one talking about two different kinds of carbon is and we need both because the we should so I'm not going to accept the carbon because he's not interested in I will the just a gift to maybe we will take it from the we machine the love you he didn't have to bring it and therefore since we don't have to take it I'd rather not take it from a I will what can we do we have to stomach this moment's carbon just because of the that's there but that's why I need have both for going back to the and the whole thing is whenever it says an animal talking about a negative connotation of a person who's not being is it always talking about a negative about a person I have the double says in that saves both man and beast so we're putting us together that's not a negative about us and even more than that a lot of pain a woman which is an expression that they're very smart and they seem to behave they act in a positive way as if they're only lowly animals meaning they're going to do whatever wants them to do they're not second guessing they're just doing their job that's a positive connotation so don't tell me that always is a negative reference and for the awesome all the will behave and behave they are going to be negative all the all the that's going to be a positive now you see I have this is as well all the so that's going to be all the and that's over there a negative everything all the entire made a division because all the the all the fine getting back to the whether or not you see will be Simon Nicklaus or all the Jacob all the issue and all the all the all the all the and the done about whether you see will be we also and they all the all the all the all all the all the all the all the maybe this is only talking about where you don't have the you watching the do it to which all the says all the back to don't be could English it seems like you're one of these people who never learned anything how can you even say such a thing if there's no watching the all the you got to tell me that the can't all the can't it's because as reiterates here they're not lifting so we can't trust their so of course is the case of when there is and yet still it's going to be to eat from that so we all we all we all we all the all the all the will always be not touch my I'll bring you that he was the all the all the all the all the all the all the all the I saw eat from the place that was and after all the all the all the all the all the was asking why would all the eat from this place that was by all the all the maybe it's because they didn't hear about the they had had they heard it they would have been I don't believe maybe they weren't to the and afterwards answered that they knew it they weren't they if you want to entertain the idea that they never heard the had they had they heard they would have been how could it have even happened that they would have eaten something that's how it is all the all the all the all the all the all the all right we're going to stop here and pick this up again from this and tomorrow's so we will see you tomorrow