Chullin Daf 14

All right, folks. Dafalid. This is Thursday's Daf and we're going to pick it up on at the Mishnaurim. A guy who an animal on Shabas or he's but even though he's of those terrible it's still going to work. Just because a person does an a through this process is not a reason it shouldn't work. Now Ricker asks well whatever happened to the mahani if you're trying to affect a through a so why shouldn't this Mishna beh that if you're a shabas it's still going to be mahani so there's a marit that the bring that the marit is mad the only time there's an Indian of mahani mahani is where by it not being mahani you'll be saved from the ara if by taking off this kind of trauma is a so if it doesn't work I haven't done anything wrong because there's no trauma being mafish or this marriage to the woman that's a surah if the marriage doesn't go through so then I didn't do anything wrong but here if you're shabas so you want to say it's not aita but the animal's still dead and you're still shabas by killing an animal whether or not it's a kerita is not going to impact whether or not you're so therefore the says it won't be another can be based on inval the only time you're going to talk to me about is if I am in charge of making this so if I want to marry this woman but the woman is a to me. Now the question is if I do it through an a am I still going to affect this? But let's say it's not a at all. Let's just say it's a reality. If you it becomes kasher. It's not because I made it kasher. This is the same idea as you can't make a onita. You can't make a onita because you're not really affecting the kal directly. You're just doing the mita and the tire is moderate. The same idea would be by come to you're not going to talk to me about because not a that you actually make. Rabbi gross also went with this kind of mahalik in his prepar. So that's how this mission is not going to be negi. The other major issue here is the shast that wants to know how is the going to be the guy who shabas is anan and therefore he's a mmer if he's a mmer a mmer. So Tyus initially makes a between different kinds of amer if you do the but then ty drops a major bomb here to a lot of which is doing something once is not going to make you into a moomer. Now does he mean that if you do it twice you will be a mmer or do you need three times? Take a look at the rajba and the basif and kof test says you need to do it three times to be a mummer and it could be that between a general mummer for a zora and specifically shabas apparently there's chis rajas about that there is an important run where the run says between the beginning of the msita that there's only a kilk in the end of the where you're actually accomplishing the and based on that says that the kilk in the beginning of the which is only shouldn't make enough whether or not if someone is on if that will establish them as a Moomer because based on this run they would not be a moomer. So this is an important topic and Tyus in the shuga of what constitutes a moomer. Omar rahuna who's the ravuna. So Tyus yesterday and even today Tyus makes mention of the fact that there may have been more than one ravuna because Tyus has a problem historically working out who the ravuna is. But be that as it may even though the Mishna says you can she's kusher but you can't eat the meat that day. You got to wait till Shabas is over to eat it. Even if you wanted to eat it raw, you got to still wait till after Shabas is over. Now where's that coming from? The saying that it's a surah is rebu now. Hey Rebuda, which are we talking about? And that's what we're going to spend the rest of today's daf getting into tomorrow's d. Who is this that would say you can't eat from it today and you got to wait till tomorrow? I think we're going to get through three mahalim that thear is going to not be happy with fora and we'll wait for number four for tomorrow's daff. So try number one it's about in regards to because the shab says you can cut up these vegetables or fruits or gourds in front of an animal and the dead nea of meat for the dogs because even though the animal died without it is not avah it's just a nella so according to this tanakama since it was alive at baymos it's considered mutzah But once it dies, it loses its mutah status and now you can use it as dog food. But Yehuda argues mayor of Shabas if it wasn't from when you went into Shabas, it's going to be and we maintain that status of that is shabas the whole time. We could just say what do you see from as long as it wasn't from the day before and it's even on today. since this animal was not mu from Shabas and now it it's going to be the whole Shabas. So the T of this mera that's gonna be on Shabas is gonna be of so you want to compare the to our case of the when the animal was still alive it was in the sense that it was ready for a because the typical use of a live animal is going to be for human food and not for dog food. It's too valuable to give to the club. So it makes sense to call this because it's changed the whole usage type. Whether or not you did the for a regular animal doesn't really change what this animal was made for. To which is back it's alive. It's not it's for breeding other animals. So there's enough of reason when it would be considered because it was not food. How do we an animal according to it should be considered and therefore should never be moderate because it's really for both things for and being other animals and therefore once you it becomes hoover that that's what it was supposed to be at banish mushes however then it sounds like retroactively it'll be what this animal was aimed for at banish mushes which sounds a lot like braer but fractur of brahuda doesn't hold a braer as now we digress to show that ribbuda doesn't hold a braer mean no nolan and how do I know that doesn't hold a braer name are worse than amaratum and therefore there's no trumis and micers taken off at all yet and I want to be mafist but I don't have the kaleum available or I don't have enough time to get it done before shabas so I'll make it tonight I say lugan shani laafish the two lugan that I will separate aluma haruma and assur will be myian and tish will be my sorer sheni which rashi learns you're transferring the kaduca of the micer sheni and putting it onto the coins and even now before you actually do the hafa you're allowed to have this wine because ostensively you're going with brea to say later on what you were mafish that's all different mayor but rajuda shim are because they don't hold a brea so you see a muk that does not hold a breathing shabas will not tell you that baymos it was m turning over to bay that is not going to be a proper muker that huda does not hold a braer because hass the reason why it's not going to work is kiktan mayor forget saying maybe but the reason why you can't say because maybe this barrel will break and even if you want to hold a breer but you never were mafish and therefore that's aash that you should be worried about to which Omar mayor said back to them I'm not so worried about it we'll worry about it if it ever happens we don't have the mukbud doesn't hold a bra it's from the A person can't make two that I don't know if I want to go this direction to hear the rabbi speech or this direction and I want to make my in two directions. So a person can't do that. What's the only case he can make such but you can't go both ways to be hoover because does not hold. So that's that does not hold a brain. What's the shot in the BR so that you can't go in both directions and say no matter where the comes from that's where my should go because they so you shouldn't be able to make the either to just the mis or the if you don't you don't so to explain understanding of the bry that you don't need if there's only one either going to the or the because so it's not really bra because it's already now it's right now but lisa you see thereuda does not hold the bra and therefore we can't use abba's idea that the isert of what Shabas is connected to. We got to find a different shabas. Anytime a kali is okay to handle on chabas and there's no you can also handle their broken parts as long as those broken fragments of the kali can still be used for a for example arva. Let's say you have a big bowl and now you have the pieces of that bowl. If you can still use those pieces to cover a or to cover the bottle, so then these broken pieces are not considered. Not only do they have to be usable, but they have to be used in the same way that the complete kali was also used. For example, the pieces of that big bowl can be used as a container to pour in your mikah, your porridge or to pour the oil into them. Then it won't be. So based on that only if it's of the same but and therefore according to this if the kali or the thing in question is for a different kind of it'll be this animal was not for my food before therefore even though now it's not it's a different it was a cle and now it's a broken piece and it's going to be a problem of so therefore it would make sense to say that it's only not going to be if its usage is of the original but in the case of it's different forms of food sure it wasn't before shabas but it's still food before shabas in one form and now it's food after the hasn't changed and therefore it's like food from food dummy there is no is of if you have food from food if I cut off some piece of cake from a bigger cake the smaller piece is just another form of that same food. So the same thing the animal this before shabas is now a different kind of but it's also as a different says you can't squeeze fruits to get their liquid out of them but if the fruit juice just oozes out on its own it'll be it'll be if the were intended as food because it's just different form of food as we just explained if you intended to use these paras for squeezing then kazal have a reason to say aux that we don't want you to be squeezing them and therefore man is but you see according to this idea that there's no when one food changed into another kind of food. So it can't be that the meat should be so but that same in the case of baskets of olives and grapes where the fruit juice that comes out of it is so vice according to since olives and grapes are generally always muhan for squeezing. So y therefore that's what's on the mind of the owner to use the mayas from the zuman even if he set them aside to use them as a fruit salad but there's a special because that's how you usually work with since an animal is really for all the time that's how the person thinks of it and therefore really is for the to which says no the handling of the is on that day of shabas is ra's memor ra himself said argued with that. So it ain't going to jive according to Rav himself. So you can't explain Rav's memor based on this ribbuda if Rav himself says that Rhuda is going to argue by the zen of him. So now Rubacious is going to try a different ribbuda, but that will save for tomorrow's daff.