Chullin Daf 33

All right, daf lamed gimel, Tuesday's daf. Yesterday, we introduced halacha of Reish Lakish, which says that once you shacht the kanna, the trachea, the windpipe, the lungs that are obviously connected to that kanna, they're no longer going to pose a problem if they have any kind of hole in them, which would typically be a treifa, of course, to have a hole in the lung. But now, once you've already cut the windpipe, those connected lungs are, in his words, munach b'dikula, they're like in a basket, they're separated, and therefore you can put them in a blender, it wouldn't matter, it's not going to make a psul in the shchita at that point, even if a hole develops in them. So, let's just pick it up again, it's about a dozen lines from the bottom of lamed base mem base. Gufo amar Reish Lakish, shochat et hakanna v'achar kach nikvu harei'ah, after you shachted the kanna, the hole develops in the lungs, ksheira, as we said. Amar Rava lei, amar Reish Lakish ela b'rei'ah, it's dafka the lungs that we're talking about. Hilve harei'ah t'lei b'kanna, cuz the lungs, of course, get the air through the kanna. So, once you disconnect the kanna al y'dei shchita, those lungs are going to be as if they're sitting in a basket. Aval b'vinei mei'ah, im lei, but let's say other parts of the animal, like the intestines, the vinei mei'ah, im if a hole develops in the vinei mei'ah, well, that's still might be a reason to say that. That might that may actually be a treifa. Well, it's a little bit of a question in shittas Rava over here if vinei mei'ah is dafka or lav dafka. I just kind of read it as lav dafka, that it's not the lungs, cuz the lungs is obviously connected to the trachea. So, once you shacht the trachea, the lungs are not nege'ah. But any other part, l'cheira, would still be nege'ah. But the Ran doesn't read the Gemara that way. The Ran says it's dafka the vinei mei'ah, but the leiv and the kaveid, the heart and the liver, those things also are somehow connected to the kanna, and therefore they're also going to be munach b'dikula. But be that as it may, Rava makes this limitation. Frankly, the Gemara maskiflei Rebbi Zeira. Rebbi Zeira doesn't like this kind of idea that some parts of the animal are not nege'ah once you shachted the kanna. Because me'achar she'nolad b'simanei treifa hetarta, once already you can say that you've done a shchita, at least klappei the kanna, mali b'rei'ah, mali b'vinei mei'ah. In other words, Rebbi Zeira's understanding Reish Lakish's halacha, you can only achieve tarfus when an animal is complete before a shchita. But once you've already sliced the kanna, no matter where in the body a hole would develop, it wouldn't matter, it would not create the tarfus, and you could finish the shchita. But said to Gemara, and this is really where we got up to yesterday, the hold of Rebbe Zeira Rebbe Zeira is ultimately chazer from this because we can see from another shaila Rebbe Zeira asked that he didn't himself seem to hold this way. The boy Rebbe Zeira nikfu bnei me'aim bein siman l'siman. Let's say, ma sh'ma this kind of question, let's say there was a hole in the bnei me'aim between the shchita of the konah and the vashet. Ma u mim mitztaref siman rishon l'siman shaini l'tahara midei nevela? Are we going to put together these two ma'aseh shchitas of the two simanim l'tahara midei nevela to say that it's not a nevela anymore? A lie. Because remember the shchita of the konah actually serves two purposes. First of all, it makes it that you can eat it, at least you're on your way to eating it. Also, it stops it from being a nevela. Since there was a hole in the bnei me'aim between these two simanim, Rebbe Zeira asked the shaila, is there going to be a tziruf to say it's not going to be a nevela? A lie. Vi amrinan and the teretz to Rebbe Zeira's shaila was, lav hainu d'boy Ilfa. This is what Ilfa asked, that heitzi ubar sh'yaday bein siman l'siman. If an ubar, which we know the shchita of the mother will work for the ubar, but let's say the ubar is heitzi sh'yaday between the two different cutting of the simanim in a shchita. Ma hu v'stam lacha moving over to my mouth, mim mitztaref siman rishon l'siman shaini l'tahara midei nevela? A lie. But l'ma'aseh you see from the fact that Rebbe Zeira had posed this question, said the Gemara, d'adkan lei boylei ela l'tahara midei nevela. Aval b'achila sura, clearly the hole in the bnei me'aim does ruin the shchita and creates the tarfus. It's only a shaila gabbei hilchos nevela. So you see there Rebbe Zeira was choder bei and was maskim to Rebbe Zeira's idea that there's a chelek between the re'ah and the bnei me'aim. Amar lei Rebbe Achava bar Ravina, well, that's a pushya. Dimli oilam lei choder bei. Maybe Rebbe Zeira was never chazer. Rebbe Zeira was l'dvar Rav Kahana. He's only saying in shitas Rav P'leili s'reili. Amar Achava bar Yaakov, sh'ma mi yamei Rebbe Shimon ben Lakish. From this idea of Rebbe Shimon ben Lakish, that once you shacht the konah, the re'ah is considered like it's munach b'dikla and therefore nikfu b're'ah will not make it into a treifa. So mizamnin Yisrael al bnei me'aim. You can invite the Yid to have the bnei me'aim and there's not going to be any problem with them. But the ein mizamnin Yid k'chafna al bnei me'aim. But you're not going to allow the to have this. Now, what's the difference between a and a Yid klappei the bnei me'aim? My ta'ama because Yisrael d'mishchita tell you milta. We know the halacha is that the animals concerned once you slice its neck irrespective of how much it's flailing about it could be it doesn't matter because however you don't need to have a for a guy that we know we would say that have it much more right you can shoot the animal with a shotgun and it's going to be dead and they can eat it but they have a different because it has to actually be dead physically not just like dead dead and if the animal still flailing about and it and you cut off a limb of that animal so it comes out of a fascinating thing if you're an animal and I this kind and now a whole appears in the so we and no problem that according to once the is done on the and we look at the as if it's in the like it's in the basket so saying based on what is telling us that we have this of once you cut the we look at the the lungs as if they're disconnected and they're there in the basket so if we expand that idea and say that once a is done and the animal is now technically dead the whole animal now is essentially there's no more but the guy will have such a because of for a guy is only when the animal is dead dead and it's not at all to that I was actually there by he said this boy I really wanted to ask him what he really whenever you have a time that's more for a guy we always have this kind of question that how could it be that is going to be going to be but I didn't ask this to him because I mean I because he had a reason he made this is matter for a guy but not for a guy so it's no longer a me because that's going to be the based on this reality and therefore he has a reason so I don't really have a me but the of with a not like because it says if you want to eat from very fresh meat obviously not eating we're not giving you for that but you want to eat the meat before it stops flailing about so how do you practically do that? You want to have as little processing as possible to be able to eat it while it was just freshly shechted. So, the halacha is "chayav k'zayis basar mibeis hashchita" from that place of the neck where there is no skin anymore. So, you rip off some of the basar from that area of the shechita "umelucha yafeh yafeh umedicha yafeh yafeh" and you salt it right away, yafeh" you wash it. The order is interesting. I entice this why we said do the melicha before the medicha. "Umamtin lah ad shetecheh nafsha v'ochleiha" and you should wait until the animal stops moving, right? Let it die and then eat it. "Acharei Acharei Yisrael mutar" by that point both the Yidden and the can allowed to eat it. But, the Gemara is clearly saying "k'neged Avraham Yitzchak and for a the heter is not totally on the animal actually dying because it was removed" remember you took off this meat while it was still being "mefarcheches". So, "l'chumra there is no problem "v'eivar min hachai" after shechita. It seems like this braisa is concerned about the idea of "me ikka midi" that "Yisrael mutar v'Goy chayav And also "l'maaseh" there's a braisa in "Maseches Sanhedrin" "Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yochanan Omer Rebbi Yishmael Omer Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rebbi Parshyan" "A writes a she Avraham someone wants to be healthy" "chayav k'zayis basar mibeis hashchita" "social beheima" take that kind of meat from the place of the shechita "melucha yafeh yafeh medicha yafeh yafeh" "mamtin lah ad shetecheh nafsha" "acharei Acharei Yisrael mutar and by it's going to be the same halacha for Yidden and for a and it seems like from this Gemara that we're not going to say that the Yidden and the have this distinction because the Gemara does seem to have this "tanya d'Maseches Sanhedrin" but the Rambam "l'maaseh" paskens there is a "chiluk" a little bit of a "kasha" on the Rambam why "l'maaseh" he says that the must still going to have the "issur eivar min hachai" "kol zman the animal is still moving about" and it does seem like we stick with this idea of "me ikka midi" that "Yisrael shari l'eichol min ha'eivar min hachai". And Ta'anis goes through a few different cases throughout Shas to make exceptions and "chilukim". It's an interesting Ta'anis. It talks about "yefas to'ar" which "l'chumra" is more of a "chumra" for a than for a Yid and he wants to suggest that maybe because there's a whole "parsha" of "yefas to'ar" that's only written for the Yid. So, that's not like within the same "parsha" we have a "chiluk" between Yid and a It's only "l'gezei'ras hakas Yidden" and likewise by "akum sheshavas" or a that's "oisek b'Torah" which is "assur" for a but "mutar" but obviously "mutar" for a Yid. Those are different because those are "mitzvos" for the Yidden. So, So not going to say "me ikka midi" if there's a "mitzva" for the year. Then Tosafos talks about abortion, which is going to be more chomer for but Tosafos is masking that since it's assur for both and non-goyim, it's just a worse of an onish for a that's not going to be a problem with make a media. Anyway, seems like a fascinating Tosafos to go through more carefully and slowly, but we are going by Torah. So the Mishnah has shochet beheima chaya v'of v'lo yatza mehem dam. Let's say you do a shchita and lo and behold, no blood comes out. The halacha still is kasher. Now the maiseh, why would I think it's not kasher? So the Rambam in Hilchos Ma'achalos Assuros perek dal halacha yud gimmel says it's because maybe this animal was already dead, and that's why it's not bleeding. We don't have to be worried about that. That's the chiddush. Others want to suggest that for chaya and for an of, you have to do kissui adam. And the kissui adam could be is it part of the maiseh shchita, as we'll learn more about when we get to perek kissui adam. And therefore, I might have had a hava amina that if there's no kissui, there's no shchita. But either way, it's kasher. And then the acholin, and you can eat them b'yadayim mesuvaim, with unwashed hands. Which even though your hands are tamei, you're allowed to eat the meat. U'f'shita lo achshiru b'dam. So the Mishnah, the dam, this wet blood, is not going to be machshir the basar for tumah. Rebbi Shimon omer, achshiru b'shchita. It does become achshur l'kabel tumah. So this is going to get us into a tumah tahara discussion. But just to review, we know that the yad shochat dam, ironically, those are the seven liquids that are machshir ochlin for the ability l'kabel tumah. And even though dam would do it, it seems like you have a machlokes over here between the Tanna Kamma and Rebbi Shimon whether the shchita, and therefore the wetness of the dam, is going to render this basar into an ochel. You know, there's two different popular ways to explain why the seven liquids create a hechsher l'kabel tumah. Either it's because like the Ramban says it opens up the spiritual pores, or like the Chinuch, and I think it's a Rashi that says somewhere that because it chaps it into an ochel by making it wet, it makes it more into a food. And that seems like what Rebbi Shimon might be saying here. It's achshuru b'shchita, since now the shchita process makes it into an edible substance, so too that dam can be machshir l'kabel tumah. All right, but let's look at the Gemara. Tamei u'd'lo yatza mehem dam. It sounds like the Mishnah is saying you're allowed to eat the meat without washing your hands because no dam came out. But hayatza mehem dam, but if dam would come out, chareid, it sounds like it would make the meat shayeich l'tumah. Einan ne'echalin b'yadayim mesuvaim. Now your tamei hands cannot eat this meat. But am I u'dayim shni'im saying v'einan shayeich what are we talking about here? We're talking about kodashim, we're talking about chulin. And your hands are shni'is. They have a din of a shaini letamei. Cuz hands by themselves can't become a rishon letamei. So, we know that a shaini is only problematic for trumah and kodashim. And we're talking here about chulin. So, what's the big deal? What should prevent you from eating this meat even though your hands are not tahor? Well, how can I be so sure that our mishna is not talking about trumah and kodashim? How do you know we're talking about chulin? And now the gemara is going to give him a bunch of reasons to know for a fact that our mishna is talking about chulin and not kodashim. Number one, diktani chaya. The mishna is talking about a chaya. And the ilu kodashim, chaya bakodashim eka. There is no such thing as a chaya for korbanos. The su, ilu bakodashim, ilu betamei kodashim, kilo yotzei meiham dam, she'eina when dam doesn't come out they'll be kasher? Hu atzmei ledam mutar echa. If it was talking about kodashim, the whole point of it is doing for the avodas hadam. So, must be we're not talking about kodashim. The su, another idea is ilu bakodashim, if we're talking about kodashim, ki yotzei meiham dam, let's say dam would come out, would be machshir? Wouldn't make it shayach lekabbalat tum'ah like the mishna is mashma? I have a amar Rebbi Chiya bar Abba, amar Rebbi Yochanan, minayin ledam kodashim she'eina machshir? The dam of dam kodashim is not going to be machshir lekabbalat tum'ah. She'eina al ha'aretz tishpach kemayim. That's dam shenishpach kemayim machshir, she'eina nishpach kemayim eina machshir. We're not going to spill this kind of dam on the ground like water. So, it can't be talking about kodashim. And lastly, the su, ilu bakodashim, if we were talking about it in this mishna of kodashim, ki yotzei meiham dam, leidis kasher, is it true that when dam doesn't come out it's not going to be shayach letum'ah like the mishna was mashma? Leidis kasher bechibbus hakodesh. Dekayim lan chibbus hakodesh machshartan. We don't need it to be wet for it to be lekabbalat tum'ah if it was talking about kodashim. Cuz chibbus hakodesh would handle that. So, must be our mishna is not talking about kodashim at all. So, back to our question, who cares whether or not this stuff is wet and it's being lekabbalat tum'ah? Your hands are shni'is and we're talking about chulin which is not going to even transfer. You're not making chulin into a shlishi. So, amar Reb Nachman, amar Rabba bar Rav Huna, chachamim chulin shelacham bakasef ma'aser sheini. We're talking about holy food here that you bought with ma'aser ma'aser sheini. But it's the like Rebbi Meir, not like Shitas Rebbi Meir that we're about to quote, but it's going to be like Shitas Rebbonan. What's the machlokes Rebbi Meir and Rebbonan? Detnan, cuz the mishna in the eleventh perek of parah says, turning over to amud beis, kol hatonei be ashmayim divrei sofrim. Anything that requires a durable indicator villa, which is another fancy way of saying a shiny like Yuria diamond. The time is a kind of a whole place of a trauma. It would be my time I could you my time I always means it could be my time is something else, right? It can create a level of to that could be my time is something else as opposed to a whole place of a trauma that the buck stops there. It becomes possible but it's not my time anything else. Who motor for whom and for my sir meaning it's motor for the whole and the my sir shiny to touch something in and then eat it afterwards and it's not going to become to me by touching it. That's all different from there but the whole and my sir and Ben my sir. But according to the rabbinical Chinese can be my time I my sir shiny and therefore that could be the mission we're going like she does the whole and they were talking about boss that was bought with my sir my sir shiny and therefore it could be my time I be shiny eyes if it took a couple of times. Mask of Laura of semi bar ashy mean my how do you know that according to the rabbinical it could become to me all you be shiny eyes like you diamond deal my account low plea you rabbinical letter be mayor and then be actually last my sir that could be when you eat the my sir I'll be the gears my sir which you were talking about the whole and the whole and like plea and the whole and the gears our mission is talking about touching the food with these unwashed hands. And how do we know that cuz many of them be a diamond super boys. The whole and can be understood as maybe fed. So me lawyer asking them to call Sophie lay have read sounds like this washing that you're being fed by somebody else who has unclean hands. So we're talking about the Negia. So even according to the whole and of that mission who hold that my sir shiny can become to me all you day the shiny eyes you still can't say our mission is talking about the my sir shiny and going like she does the whole and all different from of papa who you diamond key lays asking them. We're talking about where your hands are a re-shine which is going to be a challenge to explain the case but let's go with it for now. Your hands are a re-shine for a mission Ben a loser he cuz there's a stick of a human loser that holds that a hand because of course the whole body can become a re-shine. But how do you have just your hands becoming a re-shine there's no such situation but there could be because the time you went to the price of any of them is the whole and hands can never be that source of to me for a whole and but Ben a loser I'm a mission of a mayor you diamond key lays the whole and they could be who shiny as a trauma. So now let's just clarify I kill us the whole and in the trauma light sounds like only for whom and not for trauma. Of course it should be for trumah. No, what we meant to say of the whole course it will be a source of tumah for trumah. But trumah in hands are only going to be clapping the trumah but not so our mission which is that the busser that became cannot be eaten with these shniyais. It's talking about we can't be eaten with the they can't be eaten with the shniyais. It's talking about that are like now give me the case how do hands by themselves become a ditch none as the mission in the third paragraph of says if you stick your hands into a if you stick your hands into a house your hands become a meaning a if you have the money be a mixture of partial going into this house and not considered a and therefore his whole body won't become a but only his hands will become and this whole is going to be a that's what they're arguing about whether or not we should make a big or to his whole body. The said the said his hands should be like his body and just like his body becomes a when it goes in in total so to his when it goes into the house can become a so to when it goes into the house can become a but according to the he had done which are so according to the the hands can become a by going into the house and will hold like this that even the can be that and the mission is going to so for tomorrow why we say that he holds like just the mission like don't worry that they're but the no right because maybe when said the that when you put your hands into this honey merely a maybe according to himself never become a at all only only like says that the can become even for tomorrow why don't we say that the hands should be considered according to but we can still say that our mission is like Rabbi Akiva. That shall mean Rabbi Akiva the Omar Shainey Shlishi B'Chulin. Rabbi Akiva has a different that you can actually make a Shlishi in Chulin connected to what we've been saying until now because as Ditznan as the mission says in Sota Bo Bayom Darash Rabbi Akiva that day that the Brachas and Chazans and the base talks about when Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah took over for Rabban Gamliel as the Nasi and changed all kinds of Halachas, one of those Halachas Bo Bayom Darash Rabbi Akiva was the Chochli Cheres the Gomer Yetma. So Tamei the possuk doesn't say Tamei ela Yetma which sounds like something besides itself can become Tamei the Tamei Acherim Limal Al Kikar Shainey that even a Shainey which is inside the Kli Cheres in which became a Rishon Shuoisa Shlishi B'Chulin that in turn can make something into a Shlishi even by Chulin. That's Rabbi Akiva's massive Chidush. So our Mishnah which holds that the Dam can be Machshil the Chulin L'Kabel Tumah Yoreh Yadayim Subois should be able to make it into a Shlishi and that could work like Rabbi Akiva. So why set up our Mishnah like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Say it like Rabbi Akiva. Everything works because the Machlokes between Tumei D'Oraysa Rabbi Akiva's Halacha of making a Shlishi was talking about Tumei D'Oraysa and Rabbi Akiva and Shainey Yadayim are certainly only mid'Rabbanan L'Chatchila and that kind of Shainey even Rabbi Akiva would be Maskim would not make the Chulin into a Shlishi which gives us a great place to pause for now and we'll pick it up from here tomorrow.