Chullin Daf 12

All right, daf yud beis. Tuesdays, daf, as we are closing out on this sugiyah of the mekuris ruba d'leisa kaman. If you're keeping score, I believe it was nine different tries, some of which were niskabbal, some weren't. And now we're going to pick it up 10 lines from the bottom of yud alef amud beis, Rav Ashi omer, "Ashi mishchita atzma. You could bring a raya that you go buster ruba d'leisa kaman from the very whole institution of shchita. The omer rachmana shcheit v'ye'achel. The Torah says, "Shacht and you can eat it." So the Torah's telling you that shchita is a legal mechanism. But v'lechu shama b'makom nekav k'shacheit. How do you know that the place where you're actually doing the shchita on the neck of the animal there wasn't already a hole there that made it into a treifa? Must be al al mishum d'amrinan tzel b'seruba. It's because we're going buster d'ruba d'leisa kaman d'rav b'heima she'einan treifus. So if I say the Torah is saying you go buster raiv. Omer Rav Ashi, "Amri l'shmaitsa k'meider Rav Kahana." So after Rav Ashi had said it to Rav Kahana, the amri lo Rav Kahana k'meider Rav Simi. V'omer lei and Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi or Rav Simi said to Rav Kahana, either way, "V'dilma heicha d'efshar efshar, heicha d'lo efshar lo efshar." So maybe where it's shiyach to avoid being sameach on raiv, then maybe we're not going to be sameach on it. But heicha d'lo efshar, but if it's not possible to avoid being sameach on raiv, lo efshar, then we have to be sameach on it. In other words, show me a muker I can go buster raiv even if I can get to the bottom of it and find out without being sameach on the raiv. Like for example, it would be efshar to verify the parah adumah and the eglah rufah if they were treifus. Maybe only then we could be sameach on the raiv. But when you can actually determine, like by a regular g'shachtin animal or a cut in ketana, whether or not they could do yibum cuz you can wait around to see if they become an islandness. Maybe you have no muker to go buster raiv. And back to the gemara d'lei tamei lo huchi cuz if you don't want to make such a chilik, the Rebbi Meir d'chaish l'muta. According to Rebbi Meir, who al amo is chashin l'muta, huchi nami d'lei achal bisra. You going to tell me he never ate meat? I've heard that he would eat meat. And maybe the gemara says, "Well, v'chitem huchi nami, maybe you're going to tell me Rebbi Meir was actually a vegetarian." Moving over tumat alef. Pesach v'kucham yichlu meimar. The Torah says you got to eat those things. It's interesting how the gemara makes two categories, Pesach v'kucham. Isn't korban Pesach part of kucham? Could be this is a smach to that idea of the base Halevi that kucham is a mitzvah to be eaten, but Pesach is in different category because the carbon Pesach you have a mitzvah to eat. But anyway, Rav Meir had have to eat these things. So, the only way out is that Rav Meir would say, "If you can be efshar, if you can figure out the answer to your question, then you're not allowed to be sameach on Rav. But when you can't figure out, you have to be sameach on Rav." So, based on the fact that Rav Meir has to hold that way, he had to be efshar efshar, he had to be efshar efshar. So, if you don't agree with Rav Meir, we're not coming out with any muker for having you know, you go bust a Rav by Ruba de Leisa come on. So, now lemaisa, how do we know that we can be sameach on a Ruba de Leisa come on? So, Rashi here has two different answers. One is that bottom line is it's a halacha lemaisa mi Sinai. Hold the sameach on Ruba afilu heicha de efshar, even in a matzav where you could technically get to the bottom of it. I'm not mechuyav to because I can go bust a Rav. That's a halacha lemaisa mi Sinai. Or inami acharei Rav Mehatis. Rashi says in this second lashon that acharei Rav Mehatis is mashma bein Ruba de Leisa come on, bein Ruba de Leisa come on, because they're really both the same thing, which is kind of amazing because the Gemara itself started off our whole Sugya by saying, "Okay, I know Ruba de Leisa come on because of acharei Rav Mehatis. But what about Ruba de Leisa come on?" So, the Gemara seems to be acknowledging a fundamental difference between the two of them. And now Rashi so easily just says, "Well, they're both from acharei Rav Mehatis." The Maloy Haroyim says an interesting point that our Gemara here that makes the chelek between efshar and le efshar seems to be a nice smacha for the Taz. The Taz in Hilchos Rosh Hashana that says this that we say Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Echad Adonai Echad, therefore you can't blow the shofar because of gzeira mi derabanan on Shabbos when Rosh Hashana falls out on Shabbos. For like the Taz, I believe he brings the kasha from B'shem the Mizrachi, "Why don't we always assur blowing shofar because shema Yisrael clear shofar?" Chazal's takana should exist all the time and should essentially uproot the whole din of tekia shofar. To which the Taz says, "Hagufo, Chazal don't have the power to uproot aganza parsha in the Torah and say it's never negeya. If their gzeira would say you're not going to ever blow shofar, then they don't have the power to make such a takana." So, that idea of the Taz is born out in our Sugya here. Okay, getting back into Hilchos Shchita. Omar Rav Nachman Omar Rav, "Ro'eh Echad Sheshachat, if I see somebody shocheting, so the halacha is in front of me if I watch him the whole time, then Omar Rav also says you got to witness the whole thing in order to make it into a kosher shchita." Now, what are we talking about? "Hey you dummy, idiot of the Gemara, if I see that this guy is a proper shochet, he knows Hilchos Shchita, so why do I have to watch him? I can be and the idiot of the Gemara, "If I don't think this guy knows the Hilchos Shchita, then shchita, it's pushit that if I'm not going to be I mean I don't got to I can't trust his shchita. What's the chiddush that Rav is telling us? The Ella said the Gemara, "De lo yada de igamer ilai gamer." It must be that we just don't know whether or not he knows the halachos. So, in such a case you're not allowed to just assume that he knows the halachos, but you got to know that he knows the halachos. So, leima Rav Metzi'ina Amuchanin, but why don't we just say that most of the shochtim, most of the people who are doing shchita know what they're talking about?" As Rashi says, "Shem lo haya mumcha, lo haya shochet." If he wouldn't know what he was doing, he wouldn't be doing it in the first place. And we see this from the braisa K'milo Tanya, "Hareisha Motzei Tarnegol Shchuta Beshuk, if you find a geshochten a chicken, I shall shluach et shchita or you tell your shliach to go and shacht for me my tarnegoles. Bahalach u motzei shochet and now you see it's geshochten, chashash kasha shochet, you can assume that it was shachted properly. Alma Amrinan Rav Metzi'ina Shchita Amuchanin, whoever did the shchita must have been a mumcha. So, achi nami also by our case, if I don't know whether or not the shochet here is a proper shochet, leima Rav Metzi'ina etzel Shchita Amuchanin, whoever happens to be the shochet must have known what he was talking about." the Gemara "Le'olam de'ada de'lai gamer." Now, I'll tell you the cases that we know for a fact he doesn't know Hilchos Shchita. So, how in the world could this be okay? "Hu k'goen de'shachat kamon chad siman shaper." We're talking about when he shachted one of the simanim in front of us and then he did one of them without the hashgacha. So, my ta'ama de'havei shaper, just like he did one of them properly, hach nami shaper, I can assume the other one was done properly. "Kamar Shmuel now Rav is telling us a chiddush." Because his ramuya is ramilei, it might have just worked out for him okay that he did it properly, but ve'eida, other siman shema shema doras we have to be cautious that he did it improperly. So that's the even if he did it one. Now it's mashma if he does one it wouldn't work. What's going to be the halacha if it was one and a half? Let's say he did part of the second siman. So from the simple reading of our gemara it would be mashma that it's davka one it's not going to work but one and a half it would be okay. But the rajba in the chelek aleph siman bet says no even if it was one and a half it would be no good. And now if you're going to ask so why didn't our gemara say a bigger that even if you did one and a half see the complete two simanim. So Dr. Rajba because since by an all you need is to shacht one of the two simanim our gemara is saying the also the but in even anything less than both simanim you can't assume that the who doesn't know the would have done it properly. By Rav Dimi bar Rav Nachman. How I really say let's say a guy tells a to go shacht for me but shacht and now you found it now can we assume it was shachted properly? Rav Nachman to Rav Dimi now that we already had seen that's what we said beforehand. Next shaila. How I really say you go and be with my Paris. The whole of who wants to so my can we assume that the was done properly? I'm really not sure it's not good enough. Now what's the difference? One of he has as a who says I feel why can't we just assume that the did it properly? And as a that in general we can't assume he's going to do his job I feel then even the shouldn't be good. So what's going on? So I'm really back to Rav Dimi take all of all the milk when you bring me a core of salt then I'll explain to you. Now what in the world does that mean? So the way Rashi learns this is a joke. He's making a joke. When you bring me the salt I'm going to explain it to you which is obviously hilarious to bring me this massive amount of salt but this definitely indicates to me that I'm not an expert in humor. But Rav Nachman I mean I really there really is no but we can assume he actually did it right. In the of also a because maybe somebody else went ahead to shacht the animal and Rav to So you have this music that if it's good we can assume it was done properly. However, true show me the term. Maybe by the true somebody else not your when he had and did the true of Russia and in such a case it's a problem cuz have like terms but terms in true must say true. So there's a fundamental difference between true and whether or not it was done by somebody else. But certainly saying that in the rush over here says yeah, that's only going to be where it's a dinner like and true but by dinner about to we do must going to say cuz I got to say true. So after the murder rave matzo in the street and maybe that whole idea is my because the time is the price is if somebody's goats or chickens got lost the whole street and you find it and now you find them but low and behold they're now and I want to know where they shut it properly. So I can hear that they're going to be also when there's an indication that they weren't checked in properly cuz you found them in the garbage pile. So Mr. Marin a veil and then you can't eat it. But the difference in a show that they'll be because that point I can say the rave matzo in the street and I don't think I can and that's how the says now my love I'm reading matzo in the street and I don't think I can and I'm reading matzo in the street and I don't think I can. So that's good for the all of them but you because the cool rave matzo in the street and I don't think I can see everybody's mask into that rave but bias the cool in the street and therefore everybody's mask in that if you find this lost meat in a house they're certainly going to be and I should be a shook the cool in the street and I don't think I can cuz if they're in the public dumpster it's for sure in a veil but keep looking where is it going to be in the street and I don't think I can that's in the street and I don't think I can the garbage can in the back of my house tomorrow all of them in the street and I don't think I can according to a person would put the into the garbage pile of his own house and it's not going to put it to the public dumpster tomorrow in the street and I don't think I can but I And therefore, since it's not the derech to put it and you still found it there, you can assume it was gishakten properly. Taisus speaks out that the case here was talking about somebody who lost their animals and then they found them gishakten. So Taisus says, "Who had the nignevu?" Even if they were stolen l'chatchila. And you can't be medayek from our Gemara that we're dafka talking about where it was lost, but if it was stolen it would be different. And why would I think it would be different if it was stolen? Because I would think if the guy is already a thief, maybe then he's not going to be makpid on kashrus. But Taisus speaks out it's not that way. Just because he's chashud al gneiva is lo chashud al neveila. Because people's priorities are messed up. Just because they are a thief does not mean they're not going to be willing to be makpid on kashrus. It reminds me of a story my brother-in-law told me when he was learning in BMG as a bachur there was a problem that somebody's milk was always being used for other people's coffee and he was writing on there assur b'li reshus, assur assur, and still people would take his private milk stash and use it for their coffees. So he finally wrote on there cholav stam and lo and behold, nobody ever touched it again. Okay. Getting back to the braisa we were discussing. Nearin divrei Rebbi Yehuda sh'mutzan b'ashpa. So my ashpa, what was meant in this braisa when we're talking about the ashpa? Eilima ashpa sh'b'shuk, if we're talking about the public dumpster, why does he say that Rebbi Yehuda makes more sense? Which makes it sound like Rebbi Chanina is going to argue. Ho amrei d'chulyalma pligei d'assur, ela l'pshita b'ashpa sh'b'bayis must be when we say ashpa we're talking about the ashpa sh'b'bayis. But eima seifa it's mashma from the end of the braisa. Because v'divrei Rebbi Chanina ben Noshaia Rebbi Yishaya Gliliya sh'mutzan b'bayis is more mistaber where Rebbi Chanina says, "When you find the gishakten animals in that bayis." Ma bayis? What does it mean? Eilima bayis mamash? It can't mean mamash the kitchen table because d'amrei d'chulyalma pligei d'shari. Ela l'pshita b'ashpa sh'b'bayis we're talking about the garbage pile in the back of the house. So far the Gemara kasha to Rebbi ad d'Rebbi. We have a real steira in the braisa v'eima o bay. Turning over to amud bayis, so hachi kamar, it's a different shita what Rebbi meant to say l'chatchila. Nearin divrei Rebbi Yehuda l'Rebbi Chanina ben Noshaia Rebbi Yishaya Gliliya b'ashpa sh'b'shuk. That everybody's going to be maskim where you find it in the public dumpster. Rebbi Chanina ben Noshaia Rebbi Yishaya Gliliya nechlaka alav ela b'ashpa sh'b'bayis. Aba b'ashpa sh'b'shuk mai dilai? If they are found in the public garbage dump. We're going to clean this mask and tribute to they're going to be us sir. So we're actually being crazy from the shot we had said beforehand in the brice and near and etc. It doesn't seem like Rashi was curious the words near and we can skip that. And we're finally going to get back now to our original mission of the masachta. Who is my hair straight to the cotton shimmy a calico a shrita sun. That everybody's kosher to chef except for someone who doesn't have gas because we're afraid they're going to mess up the shrita. So now I think the gamora the lotion of you calico is strange. Shimmy calico like a tiny Ella shimmy a calico. It's in the future they are going to mess it up. Why is the mission say it that way? Why is the mission just say maybe they did mess up? I'm a rabbit there to tell you a halacha. As I say Maris a master in the hand cooling the hot killer. This idea that if you want to be watching them and be my shriek them while they do it you might think you can actually do it like a hot killer. No, it's not a good idea because they will mess it up. So don't plan on even giving it to them with the oversight because it's not a good idea. And then the mission had closed it out the whole shishito the hair my nice on shishito doesn't share that as long as they're being watched and there's someone being I'm in a gobble. It will be kosher. So man 10 the light being covered in the shrita. Why is dice they don't have to be my cabin because you're watching them but we're talking about a hair straight to the cotton over here. So clearly carbon is not necessary for shrita. Now even before we go fighter there's an important taste this here that jumps on this line. You're telling me that you don't need to have carbon for shrita because of the fact that hair straight to the cotton can work. Yeah but a hair straight to the cotton can write a get if someone is got a lot of mental gobble and you need to have carbon for a get. So Tyson himself is my cabin between the cases that here we're just having somebody watch the cotton. Whereas by the get they're instructing the cotton. But the Raj bar says a more fundamental idea that the concept of god will I mean I'll gobble will work when something is easy to be shriek us that by getting which is easy to be shriek us if you're I mean I'll gobble that will suffice. But here where it's not going to be easy to be shriek us it's not going to work. And the beer at the moment can be based on the Tyson in shiva's on I and dollar that anything that's easy to be shriek us is easy to be tonight. That when a person has a certain control over the like by getting in condition so you can make a shriek us because I can exercise my control over it I they shriek us. And likewise god will I mean I'll gobble can also work because I can control the actual chalice. But Shita, Chalitza, things that happen in the mail that the Torah just does when I go through the motions, I'm not in control of the chalice. I can't make a Shliach and I can't be a God I mean I'll go above. Okay, but back to the Gamara. Who's the tunnel who holds that you don't need to have Kabana for Shita? Omar Rava, Rebbe Nosson. He the Tani Eram Demin Chavraya Zarak Saken Tzafakozo. Someone threw a Saken in order to make it stick into the wall. The Halacha Kedarka and on its way it Shachted the animal. So Rebbe Nosson is Machshir Paslin. And Tani who Omar and learned this price and he also said on his own that Halacha Rebbe Nosson. It will be a Kosher Shita. So by he doesn't need Kabana for the Shita. I there's a technical issue but again in my home maybe you got to go back and forth with the knife. If you're just throwing it in one direction it doesn't go back and forth. If the Marshall Kedarka it bounced back. It's kind of an amazing thing that happened here with the knife but it bounced off the wall and therefore you're in your back and forth motion. Rashi speaks out the Halacha that we're not really marked but you have to always go back and forth. If the knife is long enough you're allowed to do it in one direction. It's also important to note that you still have to have Gabra. If a knife would just fall off your lap and Shacht an animal it would not be a Kosher Shita. But since there was a Gabra akin to like Shadayim Halacha that you need to actually have the human input. So the guy did throw the knife. It's just he wasn't intending to Shacht an animal. Anyway, we're going to stop here and we'll pick it up with the next child tomorrow.