Chullin Daf 127

All right, Daf Kuf Kuf Zayin, Friday's Daf. We're picking it up right after the Mishnah on Kuf Kuf Vav Amud Beis. Tanna Rabbanan, the Braisa says about Sheratzim Ha Tamei'im. This is the pasuk in Parshas Shmini that discusses the Shmayim Sheratzim. The full pasuk is Eila Ha Tamei'im Lachem B'chol Ha Sheretz Kol Ha Nogeia Bahem Mayisam Yitma Ad Ha Arev. So, if you touch a dead Sheretz, you're going to be tamei. So, the Ha Tamei'im is L'rabos Beitzas Ha Sheretz V'chulas Ha Sheretz. It's not just the actual Sheretz itself, but if the egg of the Sheretz, it's the bone of that kind of bone that has marrow in it, the chulas, will also be nichlal in that same tumah from the Ha Tamei'im. So, Yachol Af Ilu Rikma, you might think that even if that embryo inside the egg was not formed, it will still be tamei. Talmud L'meimar Ha Sheretz, that my Sheretz Sh'rikam, just like the actual Sheretz is fully developed, Af Beitzas Ha Sheretz Sh'rikma, so so too that egg of the Sheretz in which there's an embryo has already been Rikma, been developed. Now, Yachol Af Ilu Nikva, you might think even if that egg shell has no hole in it, it will still be metamei. But, Talmud L'meimar it's not true. Ha Nogeia Yitma, only if you touch it you can become tamei, and therefore S She'ef Sh'liga Tamei, you have to be able to physically touch that which is in the egg shell, but the S She'ef Sh'liga is going to be tahor. So, if there's a small hole in the egg shell, the egg shell becomes a Shaimer because now the inside is accessible, but if it's totally sealed, it will not become a Shaimer because it's not accessible and therefore will not be metamei. V'chamei Nikvasa, and how big does that little hole have to be that we're talking about in the egg shell? K'chutas Sa'ara, really small. She'ef Sh'liga K'chutas Sa'ara, because you can actually use a hair and pass it through that hole and actually be nogeia to that dead embryo inside the egg. So, it could be an itty-bitty little hole and that's enough to create that egg shell as a Shaimer making it be metamei. The Mishnah had said Achbar She'chatzio Lo Chul, this amazing half basar, half earth mouse, or however you touch this kind of Achbar. So, the Mishnah said if you touch the basar part, you're going to be tamei. If you touch the dirt part, which is not yet formed into basar, it will be tahor. And we mentioned yesterday for the Pirush Mishnayos La Rambam and the Tiferes Yisrael about how these creatures were verified by the science of the day that they actually did exist, amazingly. And even though they would eventually become fully formed as basar, but until that point, they are half earth, half flesh. Amora Rabbi Yeshua ben Levi, the Husha Hishrits al pinakulai. This halacha will only be true if this achbar is developed into a complete achbar on one side. Half of this achbar has to be completely busser, otherwise touching the busser half is not going to make it tamei. But he could have mazni los seifa, some learn this qualification of Rabbi Yeshua ben Levi that the Husha Hishrits is really on the seifa, meaning Rabbi Yehuda aimer af an ageva dama, even if you're touching the dirt part, she can negate busser, it'll be tamei. Now if dam Amora Rabbi Yeshua ben Levi, Husha Hishrits al pinakulai. The only time touching the dirt part will make you tamei according to Rabbi Yehuda is if the busser part has been completely developed. Now mind the masni al ha reisha, if you're learning that it has to be fully developed on the reisha, meaning if you touch that busser part, it will be considered tamei. Kol she kein al seifa, certainly if you're telling me that if you only touch the dirt part, mind the masni al ha seifa, but if you learn the qualification of Rabbi Yeshua ben Levi is only limiting the seifa of Rabbi Yehuda's shita that if you touch the dirt part, but then al ha reisha al ha godlei Hishrits, you'll still be tamei because it's a kol she kein. If you can tell me the dirt part is going to be metamei you, certainly the busser part will definitely be metamei you. Tanna Rabbi Yehuda the braisa says, "Mi teich she nemar achbar." From the fact when the Torah lists the shratzim and one of them is a mouse is an achbar, "She me ani afelu achbar she be yam." You might even think this achbar she be yam is also going to be metamei because "Shishma achbar," it has the same name. Rashi says it's actually a fish that looks like an achbar and its name is achbar. It's name is mouse, which gives us a different layer of meaning of m o u s e cuz it's a mouse of the sea. Okay, that was a bit of a stretch. So I might have thought even the achbar she be yam shishma achbar didin hu, but I can make an argument that it's not considered an achbar and it won't be metamei because "Tima she be chulda," the Torah said that chulda, the weasel, is tamei. "V'tima be achbar," and the Torah also said that the achbar is tamei. So "Ma chulda min ha godel al ha aretz," so just like the chulda, the weasel, is something that lives on land, "Af achbar min godel al ha aretz be mayat the achbar of the yam." Oy, klach chulda der zu, maybe you can argue the other way. "Tima be chulda," the Torah says a chulda is tamei, "V'tima be achbar," the Torah says the achbar is going to be tamei. So "Ma chulda kol she shma chulda, af achbar kol she shma achbar." If it has that name, that's enough to make it tummy. Even that sea mouse should be neckla because it also has the name achbar. It tell me only things from the ground are going to be classified as sheretz and they're going to be tummy and therefore the achbar she be yum is going to be tahor. Now e al ha aretz if the Torah would have only used the words al ha aretz yachol I would have thought al ha aretz you tummy. That such an achbar is not going to be metama but yar al yam let's say if that achbar the achbar she be aretz went into the water lo yitama. Maybe it won't be metama and therefore in turn you can't use that pasuk to be memayet the achbar she be yum from tumas sheretz. Moving over to amud aleph tamud l'eimar ha shoraitz that has to crawl on the ground. Kol makom she shoraitz wherever it does that creeping whether that's on the aretz or on the yum it's going to be metama. So therefore we have now al ha aretz be memayet the achbar she be yum from tuma. Ayeno maybe I could say not that way. Ela ha shoraitz that it can procreate more of those kinds of shratzim. Kol ha mashritz yitama. Anything that spawns more of its own offspring that's not going to be metama. Shein mashritz lo yitama. And therefore I see achbar she chetzi basar v'chetzi v'adama shein par v'rovah. This kind of half earth half mouse creature that the mishna discussed spontaneously generates it's not par v'rovah. V'din hu and I can actually make an argument that that way because tima b'chulda the Torah says that the chulda is tummy. V'tima b'achbar so machulda kol shesh machulda af achbar kol shesh mai achbar. But av the achbar she chetzi basar v'chetzi v'adama but now I can include the achbar she chetzi basar v'chetzi v'adama and therefore ha shoraitz is not going to be talking about she yishritz but rather that is shoraitz. It just that creeps around. And therefore wherever the shoraitz is al ha aretz or al the yum it will be metama. And therefore al ha aretz is not teaching us that the tuma is only going to be metama on land but even the achbar she be yum is not going to be metama. But I kol ha derech zu maybe I can argue the other way and achulda par v'rovah av achbar par v'rovah. And therefore al ha aretz could very well be telling me that a sheretz can only be metama on the aretz and not in the sea. And therefore we're not going to be memayet the achbar she be yum. So basically you can make our logical arguments in both directions therefore tamud l'eimar b'sheretz that even a sheretz that cannot be mashritz like this achbar that's half basar and half adamah. It's still bechlal tumas sheretz. And therefore we can dash it from ha sheretz that a sheretz is going to be metameh both bar aretz and bayom. And while al ha aretz will be memayet the achbar she bayom from tumas sheretz. Amar lehu mi derabbanan le Rava, "Eima ba sheretz lo asuya achbar she chetzi basar ve chetzi adamah?" And ha sheretz will come not come to include kol shehu sheretz de she bayom. Ve im eima she al ha aretz and you want to say "It's not that way because al ha aretz which is being memayet the achbar she bayom, that could simply mean al ha aretz yitma that that kind of achbar is going to be tamei on the location of the ground. That's where it's not going to be metameh. But yard leyam, if it actually relocates and goes down into the water, lo yetamei." That's a fine way of darshan. So why does the braisa want to darshan in a way that's memayet the achbar she bayom? Amar leizer kroveh back to him because when mi achrei de shavi say "La yam makom tumah", once you made the yam into a place of tumas sheretz by saying that an achbar she bayom is tamei, mali hacha mali hacha. What's the difference where its location is? Doesn't make sense mi tzu varer to say that the same creature is going to be tamei and at the same time tell me that the yam is a place where it can't be metameh. So we don't want to learn that way. Ah, I have a high al ha aretz aretz for a different din which is if you have safek tumah. So we know there's halachos of safek tumas tzafa which is yaakov mi shmuel rabbeinu, but there's an idea of safek tumas tzafa. Let's say this sheretz is floating on the water. Domar vi yitrah bar avdimi, al ha aretz is lo itei safek tumas tzafa. So we'd a special din we only need al ha aretz for it. After the gemara talked the al ha aretz kasevi, it says it twice. One could be for safek tumas tzafa and one could be to be memayet achbar she bayom. Tanya rabbanan in the braisa says "Hat'tzav leminayhu." When it's talking about the shmona sheratzim, it lists the tzav. But it sounds like "leminayhu" is coming as a rebu'i. So what's it being marebeh? Lo haviya arvad uven anafelim ve salamandra. So a tzav we might want to taich as some kind of toad or a turtle. I once time heard about a family that bought a turtle and named it shamini because as you can imagine by Vayikra tzav shamini. That but it's really not supposed to be that's what a tzav is. But anyway, this tzav that we're talking about is including also the arvad which is this product of breeding a toad and a snake. It's a very dangerous thing. You might remember the Gamorah in Brochos Lamud Gimel where Rav Chanina ben Dosa killed an Arvad because the Arvad was killing people in town. Anyway, it's also Mar bar Ravana de Filum and the Salamandra which you can imagine is the salamander. But it's not our salamander as Rashi says, it's night sermon or comes out of fire all you dig shuffim and if you schmear its blood it will protect you from fire. So the Salamandra sounds something that would come more out of a fantasy movie than a zoo that you would take your kids to. When Rav Zeira and Rav Akiva get to this pasuk and he would now talk about these other kinds of fantastical creatures and what would he say? Mora bumaseh Hashem that yesh locha briyos gedolas ba'yam that you Hashem have created creatures that are gedolim in the water. Yesh locha briyos gedolas bi'yabasha shebayam lo malei ayeles bi'yabasha miyad meyses. The sea creatures that would come on the dry land would right away die. And the ones from the dry land lo malei yardis leyam miyad meyses. If they were going to the water they would die. Yesh locha briyos gedolas bo'or you've made some creatures that grow out of the fire like the salamander that we talked about. And yesh locha briyos gedolas ba'avir and there are some that are created in the air. Shebo'or the ones that are made in the fire lo malei ayeles la'avir miyad meyses and sheba'avir lo malei yardis lo'or miyad meyses. It's just hard to understand. But mora bumaseh Hashem that's what Rav Akiva had said that about. Tanu Rabbanan the braisa says kol sheyesh bi'yabasha yesh bi'yam chutz min a choled. For every kind of creature on the yabasha there's always this counterpart in the yam except for the choled which you only have on dry land you don't have a counterpart in the water. Amar Rav Zeira mikra where do you see this in the pasuk? Because the pasuk says hazinu kol yoshvei choled. And yoshvei choled are the land dwellers which is a reference to people who live on land and not the water. And Dovid Hamelech in Kapitel Mem Tes is referring to the yoshvei choled the people that live on land. Amar Rav Huna b'rei Rav Yeshua divrei denarash einan min hayishuv. The beavers from the city of Narash don't live in the yishuv but rather only in the water. So they're like the opposite of the choled that only lives on land. Amar Rav Papa b'shamtah Narash the people in Narash should all be in cherem I guess they were not such good people. Tarbei mashchei ba'alyo sei its fat its hide and it's tail, which is an expression that everybody from top to bottom, that whole city needs to be put in the hair. Aretz Aretz Aretz Shmi D'Aretz Sham. The possuk in Yirmiyahu says ligabei these people of Narash, the possuk goes Aretz three times. Amar Rav Papa, "Lo ava Narash Shmaya D'Aretz Sham." That Narash doesn't want to listen to the words of Hashem. That was what he saw in that possuk. Amar Rav Gedolah Amar Rav, "Narshan Nash Kech Minay Koch Yoch." That if somebody from Narash gives you a kiss, you should count your teeth afterwards. They were prone to steal things. Nar Paqaida Lavyach Miglay Mashicha. Shfira D'Chazi Lach. And if someone from Nar Paqaida is going to be malaveh you down the road, it's only because he sees you're wearing some nice clothes and he might want to steal from you at the first chance he gets. And Pumpedisa, and if somebody from Pumpedisa is Lavyach, Ashnay Ushpizach. You should You should make sure to change where you're sleeping that night in the hotel because if he finds out where you're staying, he's going to steal from you while you're sleeping. So, these are all folks that you need to be very wary of. Amar Rav Zuna Bar Toyrosa, "Pamachas Alach Ti Lavad." Which is also a city of bad people. "V'Ray Ze Nachash U'Karachel Atzav." I saw a snake hanging around with Atzav. Some kind of toad or a turtle, but certainly these two were too close for comfort. "V'Liyuma M'Yotza Arvei M'Vainayhem." Clearly they cross breeded together. And what came out of that union? An Arvid, which would bite and kill people. "U'K'Shabasi Lifnay Rebbe Shimon Achasid And I told him what I saw, Amar Li, he said, "Amar Kodish Baruchu, He May Viu Briah Sh'Lo B'Rosi V'Lo Ami." These people of Vad went ahead and they made a Kilayim. They cross breeded different species and I didn't make that, they made that. "Safni Avi Alayim Briah Sh'Lo B'Rosi V'Lo Ami." I'm going to actually bring them the Arvid, which is their meet to connect to meet to punishment. "V'Amar Mar, How's it even Shayach that the Arvid was created? We know we have the member of Kol Sh'Tashmishin B'Ibur U'N'Shava." "Shavei Yoldin U'Megadlin Zemi Zeh." They have to have their Tashmishin U'N'Ibur U'N'Shava in order to be able to create another offspring. "V'Chol She'Ain Tashmishin B'Ibur U'N'Shava, Ain Yoldin U'Megadlin Zemi Zeh." So, a snake which stays pregnant for a long time cannot produce another offspring with a union of a toad. So, how can it make an Arvid? So, Amar Rav, "Nais B'Sichnais." "What do you mean Nais B'Sichnais? Ha'Purana'asu." That's not a nais. A nais sounds like it's a positive thing. This is a punishment. Amar Rav, "No, my nais B'Sichnais L'Purana'is." Because of the Avlah of allowing these different animals to cross breed. Then Mishna now says, "Ha'Aver Av Basar M'Guldalin Zeh." you have an or buzzer that's barely hanging on. It's like it's it's like dangling off the animal. So the they can be even while they are attached to the animal. Like you think he's a living animal. But yeah, but it already has the dinner island because it's falling off. It also needs a to make it it needs one of those seven liquids in order to make it a couple of turning over to the animal Okay, let's say you shift this animal that has this dangling limb. The blood of its own is the couple that the know it's not a couple of will see the Mesa let's say this animal just drops dead now becomes an a buzzer meaning if it hadn't yet got any extra before it died even though the rest of the animal has now become to miss the villa but that buzzer and is not going to be an available. This is because Mesa is the actual death makes it that the animal dollars is considered like it's disconnected and therefore it's a minute at that point and not going to be to miss the villa. So it needs to have its own couple of however so that is going to have a dinner the animal that's different from is now except the regarding the animal to miss in it sounds like from the mission that it will have to miss but to miss the villa but we are talking about the animal if you telling me that this can regrow and become once again attached to the animal then I feel to miss the animal it shouldn't be considered like food. It shouldn't have to miss the animal cuz it can heal. The animal if it's not going to regenerate and it's just physically there but it ain't connected to the animal in any meaningful way then to miss the animal it should be considered a vermin that's what we're talking about here not so much the to miss aspect but it's a reference to the animal to which the animal says the animal you're right it can't regenerate it's not going to regrow but to miss the villa meaning the animal is different because the animal the is if it will fall off which we understand to mean that if any aver is not part of the aver min hachai, i.e. it piles until it totally falls off, and therefore it's not considered detached. And there's a bit of a tumble of how this drasha works cuz the pasuk really seems to be referring to a sheretz and not the aver min hachai of an animal. So therefore Tosfos actually learns the drasha differently from a different pasuk than Rashi assumes. Tani ami Hakhu, we see this in the braysa also, that even if an aver min hachai of an animal is even attached with something as small as like a thin hair, yachol yetameh tumas nevela, tam lamar yipol ad sheyipol, i.e. it has to be completely disconnected for the aver min hachai. So the Gemara says even so, it's going to be tameh tumas achlin. But even so, it's going to be tameh tumas achlin. Even though it's considered like attached to the animal, but it's considered disconnected tumas achlin. So we have this double standard, and that's mesayei leilei Rav Chiya bar Ashi, that the din of our mishna is a rayit of Rav Chiya bar Ashi than Rav Chiya bar Ashi than Shmuel in a completely different context to einam shid samchei be eibehin. Let's say you have these figs that dried up and shriveled, and they're still on the branch, but they're completely shriveled up. So they're no longer being yanek from the source anymore. The halacha is tumas tumas achlin. They have a halacha of tumas achlin even though they're still connected to the tree. V'ateles me Shabbos chayei chodesh, but here's the double standard. You're still going to be chayev for being tolesh on Shabbos even though they are considered achlin already. And leima mesayei leilei, let's bring another braysa to support this idea that yerakos shid samchu be eibehin. Let's say you have these vegetables that shriveled up. They're still connected kegain hakruva d'alasa, that they're dried out and they're no longer being yanek. Einam tamei tumas achlin. They're not going to convey any tuma because they're not edible in such a state. But katzitzan d'yavshan metamei tumas achlin. But if you cut them off and dry them, they now will be metamei tumas achlin. So let's clarify. Katzitzan d'yavshan tzalcha d'eiteich. You tell me the braysa is saying you cut them and you dry them, so then it's bamu. Those are not edible things. They're not food. Such dried out cabbage etc. is not edible and therefore it should not be metamei tumas achlin. V'amar Rebbi Yitzchak, b'al menas l'yavshan. No, no, of course if you cut them off when they're like wood, it's not going to be tumas achlin. But we're talking about when you cut them when they're fresh for the purpose of drying them out. So therefore the braysa is saying that even though they weren't intended to use as food, but you intended to dry them out, they're still going to be metamei tumas achlin as long as they are still physically moist. Tamei d'kruva d'alasa, but that's only because it's kruva d'alasa because keivan d'yavshan lav achlin innu, because once dry out they become completely inedible. But other kinds of which will be edible even after they dry out they will be even the option if you're telling me both the actual and the stem dried up obviously it'll be because they are considered like they're detached from the ground even so there will be no need for the price of it to tell me such a it's possible but I would say it must be that they dried up without their stems drying up and therefore it's a riot to this double standard of small's that dried out but edible connected to that source with a good with a good stem is still going to be even though it will still have the of disconnecting it from its source on but the is in this because really I could tell you everything is dried up even the is dried up and the was really for the second that if you were cut and the reason that the price of had the first was only to introduce the second so you can't really bring a riot to from the first about the double standard try one one more to even by if a tree split and a branch broke off and there were on that branch that broke off how they hang the fruits the that are on that detached branch if they're still moist they will have a of but once they dry up even though they're still connected to the tree how they hang they'll have a of and therefore if you pick them on you can be so my love can't we bring a right from here that my the whole and it's all or nothing that you can have a double standard to which the says no and I maybe the area how could you say how could you say that when the price of says that the fruits of a broken off branch are considered that they're detached means both of the of and the of but the dried out fruits that are on the tree you only meant of but the of they're considered detached and therefore it's perfectly fine with of and we'll stop here and pick it up with of for of death.