Chullin Daf 37

All right, daf lamed zion. This is shabbos is daf and we have a new mission to start, but I did kind of get cut off by almost finishing to record before my flight took off last night, but I needed to stop a little early. So, just finishing up yesterday's gemara about chibisa kodesh whether or not according to rish lakish can it be metame, not just become tame, but whether or not it can be metame something else. And we were sitting on a case about the parah shoshef chishlam and ver vir ben achal, so the shoshef was wet and that was an nukimta, so therefore you wouldn't have any raya about the chibisa kodesh. So, just finishing this up now we're picking up four lines from the bottom of lamed vov amud aleph and bet, aleph lamed seifa, the second part of that pasuk that we had quoted, avaha basar sharyiga b'chol tamei lo ye'achel b'eishi soref, which may give us a makor mid'oraisa that chibisa kodesh is tamei. Then the pasuk says, as the gemara continues now, vaha basar, we're going to darshon l'rabos eitzim v'lavonim, those things can also become tamei. Because since the basar is l'chera a yeiter, you don't need to say it, it's coming to include those non-edible things of the eitzim and the lavonim. And the gemara asks, eitzim v'lavonim ben achila l'no, if not they can't be eaten, but still they could become tamei. Al chibisa kodesh mashlim mashlim that's good for the chibisa kodesh that we look at it as if it's considered food even though it's not food, it's wood. So, achi nami chibisa kodesh machsharta. Also, by these ochlin that didn't touch any liquid, the chibisa kodesh can make them become tamei. So, this is now our makor min ha Torah, a chibisa kodesh can make things tamei on a d'oraisa d'chula level. Moving over to amud aleph, so now that we have a makor that chibisa kodesh is d'oraisa, so now we come back to our shaila, mai, what's going to be the halacha by something that's tamei al yidei chibisa kodesh, kiman hu chibisa kodesh achsul d'gufei. It becomes tamei avo l'mimna bei rishon v'sheini l'ei, but it can't make something else become tamei. Oi yoi d'malishnah. And that we finally end up with a teiku, and now we get to start the next mishnah. Hasheches es hamisukenes, let's say somebody shechts an animal that's going to die soon. So, at the very end of today's daf we're going to define what a misukenes actually is, but for our purposes it's just an animal that's going to die soon. So, if you shecht an animal that's going to die soon, what's going to be the potential problem? Right now it's alive. Well, we're afraid that maybe when you're shechting it at the moment of shechita it's no longer alive. Can be hard to tell, right? So, shimon megumi I just need to be out over regular. The animal is not going to be kosher unless it is the out of the regular, meaning it jerks around. Otherwise, we may have to be kosher that it died before the took place. Daya in Zinka. It doesn't have to jerk. It's going to shine that it spritzes down. So, according to that spritzing of down blinds a and it's going to be matter of the behavior. I'm already shimming let's say you have an animal at night which is kosher and you can't see whether or not it's probably or in the next morning you find that the walls are full of blood. It doesn't mean the walls of your house. It means it's the sides of the market where you did the cutting that the down is covering the outside of the throat rather than the inside. So, if that's the case, you see how much down came out it's why is dice it's good clearly it spritzed out down and it goes like the animal even though it was for my room I just need to be out over regular I just need to or wag its tail. According to the argument it's not going to be enough to have the spritzing of the down. You got to have to have the flailing about from these limbs. It doesn't matter what kind of an animal it is except if an animal sticks out its leg and doesn't pull it back that won't be enough to show that it's still alive. It could be the last spasm of its body before it actually expires but it doesn't show life but when this whole discussion about that you have to show that it's still alive that I just need to have a healthy animal. I feel even if it looks like it's when you it wouldn't matter because it's body. It's only an animal that used to be that it was and maybe dead at the at the moment of that's when you need to have these for the animal what's our starting point who says that the animal that is almost dead is mutar eat. Well, the we might why would I think that it should be also in the first place? So, like the Gemara that says it was like "Hachaya asher toichlu." Since the pasuk says about kosher animals that the chaya you're allowed to eat, and a chaya means something that's alive. So, the pasuk could be darshaning to understand chaya a choyil, you can eat a living animal, but v'ish ainah chaya, if it's dead, loy teichal, don't eat it. Which is mashma v'chom sukainis ainah chaya. An animal that's close to death is not really a chaya, it can't continue to live. So, really an animal that was gishachtin and was m'fareish gases, still its shchita shouldn't be mutar because it wouldn't have lived even if you didn't shacht it. So, it's l'chara that's a hava mina that m'sukainis should be completely assur. Now, let's go the other way. Midom rachmana n'veilah teichal, since the Torah says you're not allowed to eat n'veilah. Well, I could be m'daik from that, m'chalah d'm'sukainis sharya. V'yistois, if it's only m'sukainis and not taka an n'veilah, it'll be mutar to eat because the is k'dei d'teichal m'sukainis asira. If you're going to tell me m'sukainis is already going to be assur, why do I need the Torah to assur n'veilah? Hashta m'chaim asira l'yachri m'simi boy. So, v'yistois, it doesn't make any sense to say that its actual death should be a matter of other n'veilah is going to be assur. To which the Gemara says, "No, v'dilma hainu n'veilah hainu m'sukainis." Maybe n'veilah and a m'sukainis are actually the same category. And when the Torah says n'veilah, it's talking about a m'sukainis. And in a chonomi, the issur n'veilah is not assurring something that was already assur. And the way Rashi learns is that when the Torah talks about n'veilah, it's only adding an additional issur, but it was already assur even when it was m'sukainis. Now, according to this hava mina, does that mean it would also have tumas n'veilah? There is a formulation of the Rambam in perek gimel halacha yud tes about certain kinds of treifas that are n'veilah m'chaim. So, perhaps even in the hava mina, a m'sukainis could have had tumas n'veilah. I don't know. But l'maisa, the Gemara throws this out because l'salka daiteich tichsiv "V'chi yom as min hab'heima asher hi lachem l'ochlah n'geivah n'v'losah." That if an animal that potentially could have been mutar drops dead, if you touch it, its n'veilah will make you tamei. So, l'achar misah d'karya rachmana n'veilah, but m'chaim l'yikri n'veilah. The Torah's lashon is very specific that n'veilah only refers to achar misah, but m'sukainis is not going to have the category of nevelah. But d'Gemara v'dilma loy l'meimra lach maybe I still can say that they're in the same category. And when the Torah one is usser the other, but the while it's alive, it's only an issur that you got to eat kosher meat and this you can't eat. Once it becomes a true nevelah and it's dead, then there's an additional love. Okay, so we need another muker to say that a mesukenes is going to be muter. Element of don't eat a treif. Treif. These are the mesukenes usser cuz the way usser. If you're telling me mesukenes which is not being it's not lacking any of its vital organs, it's parts of its body that it needs. That's going to be usser. Treif me boy. Certainly a treif which is lacking some of the health of its innards. A vital that'll be usser. And since the Torah ussers a treif, vice says only the treif will be usser but not a mesukenes which will soon die. Well the treif mesukenes maybe they're the same thing. The lover of the way the Torah only adds the treif to add the additional of the and the way but in the mesukenes should be just as usser which the Torah says in case if the treif was only to add that love. Well the nevelah why would I need the nevelah to add a new issur? Allah if you're telling me that a treif already has a love and so now the animal completely dies and becomes a nevelah. I got to tell me it's usser. There's already a way while it was alive. But since the Torah says a separate issur for a nevelah it's clear that when the animal was alive it was not necessarily usser all you need that love. Well the nevelah mesukenes maybe all three are the same thing. All three are in the same category of issur. The lover of the way the Torah only adds the nevelah so you should be over two love them in one essay. So you can't bring me any right from the fact that there's a love of nevelah that a treif issur doesn't also talk about an animal that's a mesukenes. So this is going to be a muker that a treif can't be talking about a mesukenes because the nevelah treif we know you can't eat chelev, but it itself is not assur and it's not even tamei. The amar mai lamai What was the Torah talking about? Cuz we already know there's an issur to eat chelev. Why would I have to have the Torah l'chayara repeat this? Amar Torah yavi issur nevelah v'yochal al issur chelev. The Torah is telling me that the issur nevelah should be on the issur of chelev. And yavi issur treifah v'yochal al issur chelev. Likewise, the issur treifah should be on chelev. Turning over to base. So I have now issurei nevelah and treifah on the respective chelev. Now we say treifah is all the same halacha. L'chtev Rachmana chelev nevelah yei'aseh l'chom malacha v'chelev treifah lo yisachluha. That you're allowed to use the chelev of nevelah, but the chelev of treifah you can't eat. In other words, let the pasuk say the halacha about the chelev only club a treifah and don't bother saying it by nevelah. V'ana amein and I'll say umacha'im, meaning the treifah, as the issur treifah issur chelev. Selach me You certainly don't need to now tell me that there's going to be an issur on the chelev for nevelah since it's already there for the treifah. Ele me Rachmana nevelah from the very fact that the Torah had to say the issur of chelev can also have nevelah on it as well. M'chol the treifah lav hayinu m'sukanes must be that the treifah is not the same as a m'sukanes and therefore the Torah had to identify a treifah and that if it's a m'sukanes that's not a treifah, it'll automatically mutar. Preik d'gamara maskif l'mar bar Rav Ashi. V'doma l'olam I'll tell you that a hayinu treifah hayinu m'sukanes are all the same. V'dika amar in this that you asked nevelah because of Rachmana why do I need to tell me a a special issur of chelev for nevelah? Well, nevelah the way I see it m'sukanes. I need it for a case of a nevelah that didn't happen from an animal that was on its way to die. Because you can have such a case. Let's say you take a big cleaver and you chop the animal in half. So it was a perfectly healthy animal until that point. You can't tell me that the animal was a m'sukanes and now it's a nevelah. So it's not a nevelah plus. It just went from being healthy to a nevelah. It was never m'sukanes. But the Gemara says not true because even when you chop it in half, also nami after m'sukanes porta. In its death throes, as it dies, it's a m'sukanes before it actually dies. M'kamei d'lifsak l'ruba before it's actually split into. So every Nivea first becomes a Masukanis before it becomes a Nivea. Or V boy I seem like you another mocker that I'm Masukanis is going to be mutter assuming it's not a treifa because in Cain if a Masukanis would be also lame a Nivea or treifa that all three of these things you should not eat and that would tell me that both Nivea and treifa would be on the Kayla. Kayla Kayla why does the tire have to say the Kayla of Nivea and the Kayla of a treifa repeating the word Kayla. Zooey the extra word Kayla tells me that this animal meaning a treifa whose Kayla is not different from its own busser that both are going to have the same issue of treifas. The actual and there's another case of the Masukanis Shakala whose Kayla is different than its busser that only the Kayla is also but not the busser base and which animal is that that the Kayla is also but not its busser. That's the Masukanis. So Masukanis is going to be mutter because of the extra word Kayla and that's going to be our drasha. And now the Gamora is going to give us another suggestion of a mocker that a Masukanis is mutter based on the in Ezekiel where Hashem Navi to do things that seem disgusting to eat this baked on a fire with human saya. It was very strange kind of a request. Some of learned that it was just a navua somewhere that he actually had him do it. But anyway when Ezekiel is arguing with Hashem saying he didn't want to do it and he was defending himself Ezekiel says the following thing and this is what will bring our mocker that a Masukanis is mutter because of the Akiva ahoy Hashem he actually met tomorrow that my neffish hasn't become tummy and Nivea or treifa and Nura I never ate from the Nivea and treifa. The light bulb of Masukanis and he didn't eat any piggle. Now it's no grace of not to do these things. Everybody is not allowed to do these things. So what would Ezekiel be bragging about? We have to these words to mean something a little bit more nuanced. So the Gamora breaks it down. He didn't have shall I hear heart by I didn't have by day which would be lovely to my and Nivea or treifa and I didn't eat Nivea and treifa shall I have busser I didn't eat any kind of meat that people would say oh did quick because it's about to die." Right, there's our misukenet. Fillet Bobby buster piggle, and I never ate piggle. Shulchan Aruch I never had to be on any kulas to eat from basar that a chacham was matir, which he's referring to as piggle, because there was always a machshava that maybe this meat should be not kosher. Up comes the chacham and says it's mutar. So, there's like a shtikel remez to piggle there. You can listen to Rabbi Gross, who used this Gemara as a way to bring a raya to the side of how piggle works. Or back to the Gemara mishum Rabbi Nachman bar Rashi chalti mebeheima shelo hurman asan. I never was nanda from an animal who hadn't given its matanos to the kohen, even though that doesn't osser the basar. So, these are all much smaller things that he says he didn't do. Now, one of the things is that he never ate from any animal that was going to die. They they said quickly shechted. So, he amar Rabbi if you're telling me that be'etzem it's mutar, haynu ravusu diYecheskel, that's why we see the gadlus of Yecheskel that he wouldn't eat from meat that is be'etzem mutar, but he just didn't want to do it also chuma. Eliyahu if you're telling me it's osser, so my ravusu diYecheskel, what's the grace and glick that Yecheskel did by not eating it? No one's allowed to eat it if you're telling me that misukenet is osser to eat. So, therefore we have another muker that misukenet is be'etzem mutar. Now, heichi dami misukenet, what is the definition of this beheima that is misukenet? Rabbi Yehuda bar Rav kol shema amida ve'eina amida, he tries to stand up the animal and it doesn't do it. It can't stand even if you're going to smack it up, it won't stand up straight. Rav Chanina bar made a rav amar afilu bika iyas, even if it can eat wood, it's still going to be osser if it can't stand up. Rabbi Berechya amar afilu kiyaris, even if it can eat these big beams, it's still going to be osser if it doesn't have the strength to stand up. Bisura mast niachi, but bePumbedisa mast niachi. Then heichi dami misukenet, how do you define an animal that is misukenet? Amar Rabbi Yehuda bar Rav kol shema amida ve'eina amida, if you try to get it to stand up and it can't stand up. Afilu bika iyas, even if it eats these pieces of wood. Rabbi Berechya amar afilu kiyaris, even if it can eat these beams, it's still going to be osser to eat, it's still going to be considered misukenet if it's not strong enough to stand on its own. We're going to stop here and pick it up with Ashi uShmuel for Sunday's daf.