Chullin Daf 115

All right, that concludes the love. Sunday's daf. We're going to pick it up smack in the middle of kuf yud dalet amud bet, beginning of this new sugiyah to find the muker for the issur basar b'chalav by both achilah and hana'ah. So, the gemara smack in the middle of the amud, amar Rav Ashi, "Mei'ayin l'basar b'chalav she'assur b'achilah?" How do you know you can't eat it? "Shene'emar," as the pasuk says, "Lo yei'achel kol ta'avah." Can't eat any ta'avah. So, we understand that to mean kol she'ta'av dilcha, whatever the Torah says I have made into a ta'avah, "harei hu b'lal ta'achal," should also be b'lal a bal ta'achal. So, if it's a ta'avah, you therefore can't eat it. That's Rashi's rule. And the way Rashi understands the "harei hu b'lal ta'achal" is whether or not there was an aveirah or there wasn't an aveirah that was done with it. And his example of shelo ba b'aveirah is al yedei katan or al yedei eived k'chavim. So, Rashi seems to go out of his way to mention katan as an example of when there's no aveirah being done. And it is interesting because the pasuk says a katan would be doing an aveirah, he's just rachmana litzlan because he's a in a b'dias, and therefore he doesn't get an einish. But, Rashi seems to be putting him in a category where he's not a ba'al aveirah at all. And you can listen to Rabbi Gross, he wants to say that Rashi's lishita sei, but al kol panim it's an interesting Rashi. Zoker of Ashi further, "V'einah ela b'achilah." I only know that there's an issur basar b'chalav to eat it, but b'hana'ah mei'ayin?" Kud Rabbi Avahu, there's the famous Rabbi Avahu, "D'amar Rabbi Avahu amar Rabbi Elazar, kol makom she'ne'emar "lo yei'achel," whenever the Torah says you don't eat something, whether it's "lo yei'achel" or "lo yei'achlu," no matter how the Torah formulates that don't eat, "echad issur achilah v'echad issur hana'ah b'mashma." It's both achilah and hana'ah from within that same issur achilah. "Ad she'yifrach l'cha hakasuv k'dei achilah u'farat l'cha the nevelah." Unless the Torah specifically said that it's going to be mutar like it did by nevelah, because it says "l'ger ba'arecha tite'nah lo v'achalah o im macharta l'nochri." That you can give it to that ger toshav who's a or sell it to an eived k'chavim. "D'itanya," like the braisa says, "lo yei'achlu kol nevelah l'ger asher b'arecha tite'nah v'achalah o im macharta l'nochri." So, when you read the pasuk, it's only "l'ger ba'arecha tite'nah o im macharta l'nochri." But, "l'ger b'machirah" mei'ayin? How do you know that the nevelah can be sold to a ger toshav? "Talmud lomar "l'ger tite'nah o im macharta." The Torah tells us to that Gerritsen who is living amongst you you can give it or sell it and likewise how do you know you're allowed to do the to tell me that I need to come to I can get you pain but here Messina give me mayor but who the Torah is supposed to be exactly the way it is in the Torah which is good gear and in my time why is it holding you have to take it so literally the way it's written because the Torah says that if you want to learn the Torah saying it like the way it says it that both in the scene and the can go for both the gear and the so I will call the gear can lump all together why is the Torah say to break it up and who does that's why uses this as a reason to say it should be understood the way the Torah actually writes it that is the gear and the gear to which mayor says back mayor hi is for important reason the scene and the gear the there's a hierarchy first you should give it to that gear before you sell it to a guy but both the scene and the are going to be for what would you do say back the scene and the gear the that's wouldn't even need that to tell you there's a hierarchy of who gets it first because the you have a to be that gear the and the you have to anyway the got off on a tangent to explain the whole but the bottom line is that there isn't any of the the Simian plays my savior so the is now going to still be asking questions on saying that anytime there's a that's always going to create an element moving over to my let's say a person is Shabbos the product of their cooked on Shabbos that should be for a the because the Torah said it was a ta ava. But we have to know there isn't any issue there is to eat the mice of Shabbos as Rashi brings from the earlier Gamara quoted on Tes Vav, it's only going to be a dinner of a bunam. Everything more or more crow, key kodesh he loch em that it is kodesh, that he kodesh vein ma'aser kodesh. We so we don't look at the mice of Shabbos as something that would really be us. So it's a cause of that is not going to be us. All right, let's try again. Khairish b'shor u'v'chamor u'v'chaysin u'v'pipara u'v'dash, but let's say if you do a kharisha with these different animals, an ox or a donkey, or let's say you your chaysin u'pipara, when you do these aveiras, litzaru, let it become us. And what is it? Rashi actually learns we're talking about the produce that the field is producing. And as you do the melacha in an us way, that which grows from the ground is going to become us for the Gamara. It should become the us of Rachila. Tyson doesn't like that cuz like what's the ground have to do with it? Should be the animals themselves become us. But either way, there should be an issue created from the fact that you're doing an aveira with this. Why? To hot after the whole because there is a ta ava that you're doing. To which the Gamara answers, hash to ma shabbos to chamira. The guy behind the shabbos which is chamira ma'aser mutar. We just established that a mice of Shabbos is still going to be mutar. Hani lo koshkin. So certainly these less chamira deka aveiras is not going to create actual us by doing them. But for the Gamara clay is roim litzaru. Once we have our asha's halacha that a ta ava creates us of hana and achila, what about the clay has roim to hot after the whole? But we never find there's an us of hana for the clay has roim. Everything Gamara mid ali Rachman clay akarem pen tik dash from the fact there's a special us caused by clay akarem by a vineyard there's pen tik dash for pen to kodesh. So my clay has roim sharu. So the Torah essentially is saying that there is dafka no us of hana by clay has roim from the fact there is the us of hana by the clay akarem. For the Gamara clay akarem us ben achila ben hana and clay has roim by achila us by hana sharu. Okay, there should still be an us of achila for the clay has roim based on the fact that you're creating this ta ava. For the Gamara is kish la clay beheima dech sib beheima sarbia kilayim sadcha le sizra kilayim. So ma beheima just like by the kilayim of your animal me men as you're allowed to eat that product. So too look at me if you plant seeds of climb in your field that you ate to me that product will also be mature to eat. Now let's go back for clay behind my go find me Nolan how do you know that if you put two animals together the product is going to be mature despite the actual of air of doing it everything the fact that we answered for carbonus climb the head yard must be it's only a problem for Goya and not for head yard. Let's try again. I say yes but no sir. We've been talking about the issue of let's say I'm actually over the shouldn't answer the actual flesh because it's a tie able to do the and based on the rule that the mother of doing the carbon prematurely meaning before it's eighth day that will head yard cherry so don't tell me I say yes but no which is another way of saying because I could have waited out the day before you child animal that's not going to be a problem for head yard so only a problem for Goya. Well she if I didn't go ahead and send away the mother bird but rather I did do the of the and for the lay over terror shall lay over if you're telling me that this mother bird that now is a product of a will be it would become a for other people so it doesn't make sense that terror would create a massive of for others and the for actually asks for a over here is don't you see that this is taking sides in the issue of the issue of that's a for shining. Where they know when you're is that the one and it seems from here for us to say this would be a to call over the device dice you have a right for that for shining the importantly points out that the only time there's a love the device that's only by the >> [snorts] >> but by everybody's mask him that it is also and therefore and therefore this is not taking any sides on that that's an important okay so now we finish with the marker for now we're going to move over to over to over to over to over Mimenu Na Uva Shel Mevushal." Regarding the Korban Pesach, it says you shouldn't eat it partially cooked or roasted. She'ein Talmud Laimer Mevushal. Lechairei, the Torah didn't need to say the word Mevushal because Uva Shel itself indicates that we were cooking. So, Ma Talmud Laimer Mevushal? What's that extra Yiter saying? What the extra word? Laimer Lecha, Yesh Lecha Bishul Acher Shu Kaze. Lechairei, we can Darshan from the fact that there is another cooking that's Assur to eat as this. So, what else is the Torah kind of hinting at when it's talking about Korban Pesach? The Aizeh? Zeh Basar Bechalav. That's that thing that's Assur. So, we're using the Mevushal expression by Korban Pesach to tell me a totally different Halacha that there's an Issur of Basar Bechalav. Amar Lei Reb Yechezkel, I'm turning over to him in Bais. K'ura Zu She'einah Revi'i. Why are you giving this as the Muker? Is it so K'ura? Is it so Muchor? Like bad? That which Rebbi taught from the Braisa of Lo Yisoch Lechelnu. The Torah repeats you shouldn't eat it. And I'm talking about Dam. So, since the Torah didn't need to repeat the fact that there's an Issur to eat Dam by Basar Bechalav Akasuv Medaber. So, At Timer Basar Bechalav Akasuv Medaber Einah Ela Be'Achilah Mikol Asher Yishnu Ba'Torah. Maybe it's talking about other Issurim that the Torah already Assered. So, Amar you could say back, Say Ulamad Mishalosh Esrei Middos She'HaTorah Nidrashes Ba'Hein. From one of the Yigamel Middos, Dover Halomed Be'Inyanei. Something that's learned from its own context. So, Ba'Ma Akasuv Medaber? What is Taka going on in the context of that extra Lo Yisoch Lechelnu? It's talking about Bishnei Minin. Things that are part Kochum and part Chulin. So, Afkan Bishnei Minin, here also when we're talking about the Lo Yisoch Lechelnu, we're talking about two Minin. Those two Minin they're going to be Basar and Chalav. So, Eima Reb Yechezkel Reb Resh Lakish, Hava Mina Hanimi Lev'Achilah. That would only be Achilah. Al Ba'Hano'ah Lei. So, K'Mashma'an comes the Torah and says Mevushal, the extra word by the Korban Pesach to say the Basar Bechalav Assur Ba'Hano'ah. So, we're not arguing with Rebbi. He's just building on it. Now, for Rebbi, who learns the Issur of Basar Bechalav Lo Yisoch Lechelnu Ba'Hano'ah Min Lei. How does he know the Issur Hano'ah? And for the Gemara, Nafka Mina Hacha. Because Na'amar Kan Legabei Basar Bechalav it says Ki Im Kodesh Hashem Ba'Lo Yisoch Ish Gedolim Achilei Mayim. V'Ne'emar Lo Lo Lo and it also says Legabei the Pasuk of last year that we have this word and that just like the talking about because the is by two is also another time like and this is the same I'm going to this when you sell that to the guy don't first cook it with and then sell it but rather you should sell it right away. That's his for and now finally the arriving at the more famous for the the time like shall I say three times in the after this after this time you went to the easy mean I shall the going to be to eat now because it says the pressure of and therefore you shouldn't be because never also says by a fiance to you and me the way so we're going to make between the word and my also just like eating a is going to be so I've come by it'll be so really by or by I know this is I'm my there's no done with but still yet so shouldn't have the we actually did it in and so by now but you can argue you can go was never but initially had so then to that professor show still by now but my you can so it's more and you don't have that by to that I'll say because she ain't but also by now there is no for but yet still so you see that the is is the factor now for the Gamara, why did I need to ask let's just use that from that we started with and say still so should have the in addition to the simple from to give you both ideas of and by the from higher if you do the by plowing with the and the donkey and you muzzle that cow that up slugs your should but yet still the product of these things are going to be now why did we use to show that is not the critical to show there's just use but then you could go back and say you could say the is going to be because of the using and we would be able to use to show that is not that critical factor either which the Gamara says you can't learn from and we should but we don't like that because called can be slugged up but but you can't slug it up from an exterior you have to show within themselves there's going to be that some common characteristic that is not shared by the one you're learning to but you can't show it from some outside context. All right, we're still in the middle of all this but I think we're going to have to stop now and we'll pick it up in tomorrow with from to continue this discussion.