Chullin Daf 10

All right, Daf Yud Sundays. Daf, we were discussing if Sakanti is surah. We had a Mikin Rava who didn't want to differentiate between Iser and Sak. And we had a Bay Rashimi who did say that there was a kilik. And now we're picking it up with Omar Ravashi who's going to give us our knockout punch to prove that there is a musakura nine lines from the bottom of Tessim Bays. Omar Ravashi, bring your riots. Let's say you have this this container of water that is for meas to add the aphera to it. So let's say it was left exposed and open and now you find it was covered. Well at that point who's going to be covering it? It's not going to come from some sort of an animal. It's going to come from a person and that person was and therefore we say that it is a person came and covered up the kay. However, let's say let's say you left this covered. Now you show up and say hey now it's open. if an animal like a weasel could come drink from it or in the rail who equates it with a hula that either one of those two different kinds of creatures could have drank from it and therefore their backwash would go back into it making it no longer suitable for measil or the de fell at night which also would make it not shy for measula it's going to be pussle now it's only pusle it's not going to be tame for ley mamm what's the reason that the ratio where it's being covered is going to say it's taa But where it's uncovered, we're going to say it's puzzle moving over will uncover a kali, but it's not going to cover the kali. So if you find it uncovered, I can now go buser because there's right to say it's pussle that the or the drank it or the talwin in there or a person touched it but who wasn't tame. There's only one side to say it's t which is the mute that a t was the one who uncovered it. However, the other way around covering it, which is going to be from a person, we're going to be it was a person whose tummy. But skipping the parenthesis, but even though of the different kinds of creatures that would drink from it are not going to be poisonous creatures, but yet still for the saka. So, mic drop. End of story. We learned in the Mishna in the eth paragraph of trumiskuri. There are three different liquids that are user algu meaning the sak of having the eras or some other kind of poison in it vay water wine and milk. So if you leave these things uncovered for a certain amount of time we have to be that the snake got to it. So how long are they going to be uncovered? So we have to be for that eras is a reference to that that kind of creature if there's enough time for it to come out from a nearby location and take a drink. Let's clarify. There has to be enough time for this rakash to come out from a hole underneath the handle of the kal and drink some water. That's what the bry means just long enough for it to drink. But then the person would see the raash and therefore know about it. You wouldn't have a suffic to drink and then go back. So we didn't see it come there. And therefore now that amount of time is enough time for it to deposit its evil venom paguma. Let's say and then afterwards take a look at the knife and you see that the sakin has a nick on it. Of course we know if you with a nick in the knife the is going to be puzzled because it's going to tear the simonum and you're not going to be doing it properly. So now that I see it's paguma, I just don't know if it was pugum at the time of the soar rahuna zrauna who we had before on yesterday's daf au even if you have all kinds of reason to think that the paga took place afterwards that you're chopping up bones with this knife. So there's all kinds of reasons to be tail the pigma happened after the still because we have to be that the knife got that nick while it was cutting the animal's neck right in the beginning of the in other words we knew before you started that this knife was a good knife but we have to be that in the beginning of the process is when it developed its neck and therefore it poss But is the opposite. You could be that the sakin stayed completely good because when did the actual take place? We'll assume the nick got developed when it was smacking bones after the took place. So now that breaks it down who we talked about yesterday that hold you always go. So the behem has a until we can verify that it was gash properly according to and therefore until I know for a fact that the took place afterwards that the remains why would be why don't the nick was there beforehand will say a bone would certainly or very likely cause this nick in the knife but suffix it's a lot less likely for the skin of the neck of the animal to cause the piggy. So this is most probably a borrowed lion because it's not technically a suffic it's very likely to not very likely. So that's just not so to say that it was pum at the time of the more likely happened afterwards. So is going to ask to bring a riot to Rahuna and be more because of himself. So let's say somebody came up from the mikvah and they discovered a katita on themselves and the rish would speak out. It's very unlikely that that katita was rubid because you wouldn't hey I didn't know that I was mostly covered with something. So pashes were talking about a small kit which is only going to be a draon. So it's just to keep in mind this is a don level. If a person is and they discover the kit after the fact but they don't know when that kit came on. So, it could be that maybe after they came out of the mikvah, they were busy handling the whole day with that thing that they discovered as the on their body, which would imply that the happened after the still is not going to help until you can verify that you know the wasn't there, you have the was there and you're so we know for a fact the guy went into the mikvah. suffic whether or not that was so but yet still we have to take that suffici from this which the garra says no the person has a so therefore the you have there is enough to say that you weren't midday case also where you find the piggy on the afterwards. Why would he say that you could go and therefore it's no longer because it's the guy came out of a mikvah. So why are we using his from beforehand? Well, because now that we found the on his body, there's a to that original. Well, you found now the nick and the knife. So that's also a reesa which the garra finally is malik sakin isroy by the case of the knife the sakin is what has the risa it has the nick on it is the bahim itself doesn't have any raya and therefore we can assume that the is still a kasherkita even though of course the animal only becomes kasher alade from the knife still that ryesa that exists in the sakin does not carry over to the animal because lisa the pikima is far more likely to have developed after the shita than before the so therefore we're not going to call it a rasa that would undermine the idea of harish but by the case of the where the actual the is on the person himself. So in that case we can't assume that would be a let's ask from the following which is a in the second per of let's say somebody the of a bird. Now the is that you only need to one simmon to be for birds. So if you the should be all you need now you're okay and afterwards the garggeras which is the trachea that becomes dislodged. It becomes disconnected. Now that would be a traa in of itself but you're already because with that one was done already but the other way around let's sayar and then only after well then it'll be because then now let's say but then but now I see that isn't even there which would make it into a and therefore would be kosher possible whenever you have a suffic whether or not the is done properly The shita is puzzle and we have to assume that the garggeras was dislocated before the and therefore it's usert this bird. Now frankly suffici this expression of like a general rule suffices it sounds like you're coming to include a particular case. So maybe it's coming a case just like our case where we're checking the exterior thing like the pigma on the sake and then that should posslug that which we said on behalf of that the raya on the knife is still going to make the kosher which the says no you're making the wrong it's not suffix of the suffic das that expression of kuffita is talking about when you're about whether or not in the process of the when there's a suffix shah or a suffix dissa if you have a suffic in one of those kind of cases we are going to possibly But if there's a problem with the sake, we're going to say the is okay as said. Turning over to what's the in these two different fakus. Why are we going to the if there's a suffic about the shah or the drees, but we're not about the piga in the sakin. And you know what is because by the shah is in the actual animal. Therefore, you can't say but case of the because what's the shila the is what's going to be with this animal was it properly and not a shila about a knife the knife is a step removed and what's the bottom line who's with the kisser assuming you weren't using that same knife to break a whole bunch of bones after the and also who's more who says you say it's a as long as you have what to be titled on as long as you were breaking bones. But it sounds like that will be even when you didn't break any bones with that after the now you got to have a rationale of how did this piggy take place because you want to be tilted on something. Where did the piggy take place if you weren't breaking any bones with this knife afterwards? After the is done there is a neck bone which could damage the knife. So you could be that the paga happened after the was already kosher. There was a miser where somebody had a sackin and checked a bunch of animals but wasn't biting the knife in between the and as many as 13 animals would be user to eat very machmir. You can imagine what a massive heid m that is but he was machmir that if you didn't check out the knife in between and we have a problematic knife at the end a lot of these animals have to be thrown out. So who's asking like is he saying like that there's a and therefore even the first animal you have to say is going to be and that the of the actual skin of the animal is what caused the pigma to which the gar says maybe it's who says that it's the bone in the back of the neck after that first that caused the piggy in which case the first is actually kosher it's all the subsequent ones those are the ones number two to the end those are the ones are going to be the tra or if I can say really I could say it's going like ravuna and when you found that piggy in the sak said all the animals are tak if you want to go like who holds that number two to the end are going to be kosher is it even going to make sense according to we wanted to be that the nick and the knife happened at the end of the first of the first animal when the knife hit the neckbone who says that it happened at the end of the first maybe it happened that happened at the last animal that was gash and therefore all the animals might be actually and since definitely traed up some of these animals it's got to be going like rafuna and notashi required the checking out of the knife between every of every single animal and therefore if you're going to shuck a bunch of animals in a row you got to check between each well kman who's that going like who's of saying like is he going like possibly even the first one if you didn't check which is like I could really say it's going like and the purpose of the in between each knife is just to the last one if that's the case you need to be in between each one of these animals because of the future animals you'reing you should have to have the being done not just by the but by the in town and why does therefore say that you have to be with the of the which says the himself can check his own knife. He doesn't need to go bring it to the of the town. If that's the case, why do you ever have to bring it to the of the town? Why do you have to bring it initially to him? Because the only reason why you bring it to the in town is not because we require it out the can, but we require you to go out the and now the Gar asks a very fundamental question. How does know that? Who says there is a talking here about who says there is such a thing? Give me a mocker. So the says by the who went ahead and checked the person's house. So the cayenne checks it out and he says, "Oh boy, looks a lot like Teras to me." Then he leaves the house and he announces that this house should be Musgger, right? It's making this house into a 7-day period to see whether or not the Saras changes. Well, Frank Gamara Dilma Adafiosa maybe once he leaves the house but leure maybe the Saras shrunk to smaller shear sees the same thing. He's not looking at it anymore. It must be because we're that it hasn't changed. And there's your mucker for you're assuming that the can't see that the size didn't get smaller. Maybe he walked out backwards and he saw the lelay kofic. So he saw it as he was walking out. You're not relying on a no. I got two different that walking backwards out of the house and the terra called it. So that can't be how he will left the house and also what are you going to say behind the door where he push can't see it even if he walked out backwards. So he has to rely on maybe you're gonna say before he closes the door he may cut a window into the door so he could see but that can't be because we learned in the second par of baseel if it's a dark house you're not allowed to cut windows to see the neg so that's not an option so you have to rely on the that you said that no that can't be because proves otherwise Because the Torah calls that and we learned in the Mishna that what should the he walks out the same way he walked in meaning he walked out backwards and we called that and this that you said that you're not allowed to cut windows in order to get light into the house to see the nega that's only when there was no already of having a negative but if you already established there is going to be there you may have a window cut to keep the negat in your vision. So because of this you might still have a kasha from that bias cannot be the source for we have a negative because the kay's going to leave the house I might have thought that after he sees the negat could go into his own house and close off the bias of how would he go and how would he go to his own house and close it off from far away maybe with a long rope limer but it's not true because the terror says you got to go to the entrance of the house and Now you might thought you have to stand underneath the mashk underneath that lintil of the house and therefore that's where you close it off. You exit from the house until you completely leave the house. So okay how do you leave the house? You stand outside the mash and you close it off. How do you know that if he did go into his own house and closed off the other house from far away with that long rope or whatever it was he stood inside the banuga and closed it off that it still works. So what is the telling us that the could close off the house even though you can't see the nega's whole to begin with? What would he say? How's he going to understand the Bryson moving over to Modalf going to kim de he's talking about a case where there's a line of people standing outside the beta manuga up to the cayenne's house but amry kay and they tell the cayenne that the negataras is still there so because the cayenne is being told the nega is still there he's not relying on khazoka and we're going to call it here and tomorrow we get to talk all about ry how do we know zilbasa I'm looking forward to that one and we'll see you