Bechoros Daf 25

All right. [snorts] Hey, Tuesday's D. And yesterday we had introduced in the Mishna that said that when you're and you want to move the hair around to make the better. You could be you can part the hairish and even pull out the hair despite the fact that Giza but this will still be it'll be the same. And that was whether or not is different than or that tish really is guees. But the issue at play here is whether or not is going to be muter to which he said yeah the issav is going to be and now we're holding at the very bottom of it'll be the same moving over because now of course we know that's actually is going to come out like that is mut now me did rav say that dashim is going to be mutter. That's the case of the that's stopping up that barrel of liquid or wine that the you can't squeeze it in there on because by squishing in the you're squeezing some of the liquid out of the now that which is coming out of the is an unintended consequence. I'm not really interested in squeezing. But Rob says it's because so that won't work to say that Rob holds and for the as we all are well aware even according to that hold but he's masked by that's going to be the whole idea of being is kind of an amazing thing because we also know that is going to be so what's the difference between aufa where my intention is not to do the actual mala and where my intention is not actually to do the ma and it's a big struggle for the to actually separate the two things probably the most popular mahalik is that is two different msim whereas a lufa is the same msa but then the question is why is the fact that it's two mim somehow make it worse because your iiso when it's obsicia but is masking by raia when it's v going to happen that it'll be oser it's only going to be mut according to shiman when it's a suffic if it's going to happen. When I was a bach, I was very busy with the suga trying to understand the idea of dash muskavan being a suffake because we don't treat it like hilkas fakeus even though we don't know if it's for sure going to happen. The way I phrased the question or at least the way I phrased it to when I had asked is I said if I was asking Yehuda who holds can I shle this chair on shabas it might make a karitz in the ground. So we know that would say so the question I asked was how does the Rambam who hold suffic because according to the Rambam anytime there's something as a suffic and I go ahead and I'm actually going to be I there's no isa there is a dinder butuda says when I drag that chair and it does make a even though it was only a suffic that it was going to happen that's an isa how do you reconcile those two things and now I think the truth is the kash is not a non-starter because there's no connection between the suga of fake of suffic when it comes to dash muskav visa v apes ratio it's not a den of suffk articulating the kilik I have a harder time with that but I do believe they're different sugis but I will say that at the time when I asked he said something that honestly I don't believe would necessarily say the same thing right now but I'll tell you what he said at the time when I asked him how would the raamu say understand that dshavven is if it does theer he said because it could be according Yehuda he looks at Muskavan like it's is an example would be according to the Rambam that says that suffic isra that's only when it's one option but let's say I have two in front of me one is v one is vum and I just don't know which one is which the would not say over there because that's a case of where the is in front of you so could be had suggested at the time that if I'm going to drag a chair and two possible outcomes might happen and I don't know which is going to be the outcome That's going to happen that might be considered to even allow him to say which is ultimately what would say anyway interesting food for thought more about right taught this of without actually attaching it to any other names just ram themselves. And this is the way he said it. But we're still stuck with Aasha. How can Rav say that holds like himself and for a different reason because this plucking hair is being in an unusual way. It's and that's why it's going to be butter fractishes. Isn't the same as gaza says if somebody pulls out a feather from the wing of a bird and then you clip it, meaning you cut off the top of the feather, which has a different kind of use than the other part of the feather because the tops of the feathers are softer. They're used for pillow stuffings. And if you pull off its hair, meaning you're smoothing it out by stripping out the surrounding hair to explain this, And but the point is that you see that is like and for shiny there's a difference between feathers and hair because how do you remove feathers? It's by plucking them off but you know sheer feathers now that we've already established that hold that there's a kilik between the kaf from the gaza of the cyrus. Therefore, it should come out that is the sufferer. But is that really true? Does mash actually himself holder? I de says madim ver this is about paraduma where we know the whole paradum has to be all red. Let's say there's a couple of hairs that start off red but at the tips of the hairs they become black. So what he would want to do is just trim those hairs to take off the black tips of those hairs. So you can just trim him no problem. Therefore the whole hair will be red. You don't have to worry about being over the about doing the gaza on. So since even trimming these hairs is a misa of gaza but a mash is m because what's your whole intention here? It's to make it into a kasher paradum not because you want to cut the hair. So you see that dash maven is mut which the says well shiny par the basiz. It's not the kind of animal that you would be shearing. I mean cows don't have wool so they don't have the issiza anyway. So even if hold like rav that he would still be m cutting the paradum's hair but that the work and the shearing will crisscross both animals and therefore the paradum is according to who says it's to trim these hairs of the paraduma Igavin is going to be awesome. According to what you wanted to say, it's not and therefore there is no that's only you can't cut the hair. So the paradon so how can you trim it there still here the parad is unique because it is not and therefore I won't have it in it's interesting at first glance here it sounds like but we've already established that all the cows will have the isiza so the way the way they learned this over here is that it's not common to have a paradum in the first place in fact in history there were only nine paradumas at all so therefore that's why it's going to for a parad instead of trimming these hairs while the paraduma is hedish. Why don't we take the kaduca off the cow by redeeming it cut the hair and therefore we'd avoid the whole problem and for the gar no cuz you want to go ahead and put the kadusha on money. Do you know how much money you would need? You remember the story of ton of money. Well, there's still another okay go with you don't have to have a dollar for dollar amount forged for the you can begish onto just a shaputa. So you really have no problem at all. Just take the whole and be onto a but that's if a guy happened to have done it on autum and put on a maybe a more basic terret that of the are not the same thing but doesn't have to hold that is going to be he can argue with Rav. Okay. Okay. Then the mission said you can pluck out the hair as long as you don't move it from its place of the only to take away the hair was with your hands but you can't do it with a k using it with like a tool would bear. You're doing it with this kit with this cleaver. It sounds like you're using a clear tunn. You're doing it for the purpose of the cleaver which is basically the knife you're going to cut the animal with. But of course that's not the cle you're using to handle moving the hair. Then the mishad said you also have the same head to take the hair away to look for a possible if you're going to be from are you allowed to be plucking out this hair or is it only says let's say you have wool that's all tangled up in the ear where there might be a m in that ear but the only way you're going to know that is if you pull the hair out. You could pull out that tmer and you could see the mum or at least show the to the vice from this bryer saying it's to do it we have it that says so it's tell me the is saying that a case of suffic is the same as in so much that you are not allowed to move it from its place well then it's totally redundant if where the itself shows that your whole point is cuz you want to make a good but not because you want the wool and still it must be that the Mish is comparing the plucking of the hair. So from our you see that you can do this. So the last was telling us the about pulling out the wool. Now let's talk about the wool that came out on its own. Let's say it just shed its own hair or its own wool. So this this hair or wool that came off this and then you put it into this for later. You put it there for safekeeping. Now you could listen to who discusses who has a over here about this you put the over there and then you m he's m this for turning over because even though it's when it's attached to the but that which became detached prior to the is going to be because we don't want the delaying this in order to accumulate more hair because might end up yielding a problem of that wasn't the case. What was the here's the hair's falling out. I put it into the and then the drops dead. So I think is going to go and explain next case. Let's say you have wool that's detached but it's still there dangling. So mut after the animals if it's seen as part of the giza it'll be mutagiza because even though it was detached since it's all kind of misharin inside of the wool of the animal it's not going to be obvious that it became detached before theita and therefore it'll actually be mut after the just like any part of the temer that was connected but any detached hair that even though it's mud is clearly not part of the is going to be because we treat it as if it was completely disconnected from the animal while was alive. And we're going back to now's version of the soal. It sounds like from that ising this disconnected hair when the bkar was gash and it was mut when the bkar was and it's only when the bkar died on its own. But how can that be? If you tell me in the case where Daniel drops dead and the attached hair will certainly beer a be when it was already detached and put on the sh for sureal will be m that kind of hair. So how could not say that way? This is what meant to say to in a case of when the animals and that's not where was the hair and the really everybody's mask that which is detached is going to be where the animal drops dead after the hair was detached. In that case and the are going to the mahal and the is talking specifically about when there is a muma on mum who was already makar before the hair got detached because we're going to make a dinder to ask for this hair even after the death of the animal because we don't want the bum to postpone shifting the animal in order to accumulate more hair but a kav is going to say loy we don't make such jera But the hair that fell out when there was not a from a then calls to beer that's rich and on that says if you have balm that got mixed up with timurin the whole flock's going to be because you can't say by living animal but yukar you check it out we're saying like what are you talking about what does mean to say if you're saying you should check out this flock of animals until you can figure out which one is the one that has a mum and then take it away. That can't be what means cuz you think the tanakama would argue with that once you take out the balm. So there's no reason to say that the tim are going to be changed. We're talking about not with a balm animal that got mixed up with other animals. But we're talking about the shearings of that balm animal that came off all the animals alive and then it was put away and then it got mixed up with these shearings of these huland animals. That's going to be and they all becomes and they have no way to take care of the problem. They all look the same. Now remember there's no mum on the shearings them because he's m these giz after there is the sack of the about the mum he's going where he says if the bkar is gash then the raan are going to be m the shearings so you do have a way to be m these shearings and therefore all of the taris becomes mut and now comes with his kash finally victer rei still says you got to check it out so what does he mean by that doesn't mean that you should check to see what kind of a mum is on this. Now if the sees that the is the can be and that wool becomes even if the wool fell off before the so says on behalf of when he says he doesn't mean that the should check it out to see whether or not it's a what he means is that you should check it out whether or not did a come here to bear that's what you're checking out did the ma do his job or but if he didn't already say the mut Wool will not be M. He saw a gro and when went up and when he heard that he said those foolish Babylonians since they sit in such a dark land they say darkim whatever that actually means didn't they hear the memory from that the Bryce is talking specifically about a case of a that got mixed up with and where you checked and like I couldn't even find the problematic one after the fact of that's a big classic about when you can't find that thing which you wereic about afterwards as the says it's guilty until proven innocent. You got to first find that source of the in order to take you out of that. But you're allowed to dig until you hit the rock of the ground or ground that's never been touched beforehand. This is talking about where you found a mace where you can't find that mace afterwards. So you just got to take care of the suffic. So without getting into the of those cases may have such a is if I can't find the source of my problem afterwards. So the whole of mayor that the whole flock is going to be considered no good until I can determine that animal then I'll have a problem. But according to that since you couldn't find any it'll be okay. The whole group of animals will actually be okay. did find that animal that's what's then because we have a brace that says if I can't find the grave in a field someone who goes into that field is going to be but if found in that if you go to any other part of that you'll be tar even though you didn't really inspect the whole field but you could be ta that was the kev that you had a question about shi who kever That's every you got to look everywhere. You can't just tell that's the one you had. So that'll be the same. You can't just be a toilet. You could be that the one that you just found is the same one that was lost and therefore everything else will be okay. Now why doesn't want to say the case is talking about where you checked out the entire flock of animals and the was not found because we will say about digging until you reach the cell or that's going to be because I can always be that maybe a raven came and took the human remains of the mace in question or but here by the was lost inside this group of animals you can't find Where do you think it went? But will say maybe it was never really to begin with. Maybe it healed. And that's why you can't find the time. He'll say that will still be the whole field because it's normal to bury people in fields and therefore cover just like you found one dead body there, you can find others are there as well. to debug since you already checked it out and you saw that the one that had the balm was already identified. Why should be worried that there's other balm in the same group of animals? Da buma is it so normal for animals just to develop mum? It's not. So even therefore would be mask that the balm that was discovered would be m the rest of that flock of animals. Therefore our Bryce is talking about a case where part of this group of animals was checked out by the and you found the balm. You can't say that the tanakama would hold the rest of the animals will still be oser. What wouldi say since animals are goring each other? It sounds like a no it is possible for mumim to develop within the animals because the animals will do it to each other. And we're going to stop here and pick it up with a mace fay for tomorrow's duff.