Chullin Daf 52

All right, Daf Nun Bay. This is Sunday's Daf and we were discussing birds that have an impact with a surface, whether or not it creates a neoola and we have to be that they squash the insides of their bodies. And we left off yesterday listing different materials and now we're picking it up from the very first word on if the bird falls onto fine sand then we're not going to be but if it's coarse then we are if it falls onto dust of a road then we because that dust becomes hardened and compacted on the road as well as straw that was made into piles will also be because that comes hard but if you didn't make it into those kinds of bales of piles If it falls under wheat or anything like that which has hard then you have butley and things like that. If a bird hits a pile of legumes, you don't got to worry about it. Labar mean except for rubia we have on rash is one of our fenugreek which are peas and but which are arabis chickpeas. What's the difference between them? It's because one is completely round like a pee and a chickpea is not completely circular. anything that will move and push down when there's an impact. It will disperse the impact of the bird. But if it doesn't move around when it gets pushed down, so then it's going to create more trauma for the poor bird when it hits the surface and therefore you have debuk. Let's say a bird gets caught on a glue trap and then it falls attached to this trap. So raashi osar nowadapig everybody's asking if only one wing was caught on the glue trap that it's going to be mut because the free wing which is not glued can soften the fall but gapy where is there going to be is when both wings are stuck to the glue trap the one who says how is the bird going to lift itself up in other words for much more trauma in it hitting the ground I guess they'll push itself up on the wings but not the feathery part of the wing that's stuck to the glue trap, but rather the I guess the spine of the wing that could still help cushion the fall by hoisting its body up. Some want to learn that everybody's mask that both wings are caught there's no because even fly with one winger he can't really fly because of the other wing that is not free. can't fly with a free wing either and therefore that's the bottom line. All right, moving right along to the next thing in our Mishna. If most of the ribs are broken, the animal immediately is a so following is going to deem most of the most of the ribs being that there are 22 of these ribs in there. So as long as you hit 12, you've now gotten to right. Whether it's six on one side and six on the other or 11 on one and one on the other, you got R of the ribs. The breaks of these different ribs have to happen from their midpoint towards the upper dorsal part of the spine. That's the part of the rib that has to get broken for create that tapus. The kind of ribs we're talking about are the kinds of the larger ribs that have marrow inside of them. Apparently, there are other smaller ribs that don't have marrow. Ula Benzakai Omar and the way Rashi understands Benzakai is a name of someone it's not Benzakai so Rashi says this is someone we don't know who it is but there does seem to beim that understand this as a person named Benzakai you can listen to Rebecca Geru discusses that but either way let's say the ribs weren't broken but they were just kind of uprooted from where they're supposed to be attached to the spine it will still bipus even if it's only if it's only on one side If the ribs were not just uprooted but they were also broken then the animals going to be a tra if it's ra of both meaning then you have to have 12 ribs be able to have rave ribs it's always going to be about ra in order to make this traus if a rib gets pulled out with one of the with one of the vertebraes in the animals immedia traa doesn't have to have a whole bunch more What's going to be the if a rib on both sides of the vertebrae is uprooted but the vertebrae itself but that itself is going to stay put and it didn't get taken out. So what's going to be the gist? What are you talking about with the animal split in two? That's a noa. He didn't like that question cuz he said that's push it that it's going to be not traile. It's actual noa. It's a dead animal walking the nami but Raf himself in the first pock the rib that was pulled out with the vertebrae. This should also have the problem of gistra meaning there should also be an avail. So why is Rav saying it's only a tra which the garra says when did Rav say that the animals a traa when the rib came out without the he said it was coming out with a no he only meant part of the and therefore it's not going to be a gist of it must be when they asked about we're talking about a pair of these ribs that were taken out without of the and it was about that case of these two different ribs without the k that Rob said are you talking about We split the animal in two which indicates that Rav holds that an animal with a pair of ribs that were uprooted is going to blob gistra and it should be a nea even if all the vertebrae even if all the kier are still there but how could that beak had said if the ribs were uprooted the animal's going to be a tra even if of only one side is going to be uprooted but if they're broken then you have to have the r to be broken so since zaka is saying it takes six of these kinds of uprooted ribs to make it into a traa A pair of uprooted ribs, which is only two, is not going to make it into a traa. Certainly not, but that's connected. So would say in Zakai's case, those uprooted ribs are not going to be a pair that they're opposite each other. And therefore, that's why it's not a tra until you have six. But in the case of they're asking about when they're connected each other. So since it's like a complete hair that was uprooted maybe then it will be considered gistra and we consider a nea and there's still a problem for rav because had said whether or not the ribs are uprooted or they're broken it's going to be a traa as long as there's ofen meaning 12 of the ribs are going to be uprooted or broken you're going to have to have a pair of ribs because you're going to have which means you're covering both sides that means that you're going to certainly have two ribs that are connected and still makes it Traa not a nea. So is not going with rav. And for the gammoroisa by case of the bna was taken without theisa like the pestle was taken without the mortar. There's like a ball and socket kind of thing. So if the vertebrae socket was still intact that's the case saying it's not going to be considered a traa until all 12 are uprooted. But by the case of we're talking about both aspects of the actual rib and its socket on either side of the vertebrae were pulled out together. And therefore that's we're going to say it's a novella and not just a traa. So dav then the case of ravanasi is exactly the same as rav because it's a pair of ribs being pulled out together with with part of the vertebrae. So if Rav already said that even one of these ribs that comes out with the kuly is going to make it into a traa then certainly if both of them are coming out so why would even have to ask a rav about that case and for didn't hear what had said but well let them ask the same shil as Rob why are they asking about two ribs let him ask just about one rib just like Rob had said it is because you're right they could have but but they felt if we ask the question this way about two ribs we'll get basically two for the price of one we'll get both questions answered If we would only ask about one rib that comes out with part of the vertebrae called I get it. If you're going to tell me it's then fine if two ribs would certainly become tra but let's say if you asked the about one rib with part of the vertebrae it was kosher and that would be then I will have no way of knowing what will be by two of them. That's why I asked the question about two. So now I'll know about both that doesn't help. You're also going to have missing information if you ask about two ribs because if both of them are kosher then certainly if you only are missing one it's going to be kosher but that's fine in that direction. What about the I won't know that if you only take out one of the ribs with part of that will it be a trauma if the animal will be a tra even when one of these ribs comes out with part of the then rav would be angry for them asking about that question and he would have responded that way if that was a strategy to see if Rav would get angry didn't get angry he did because the fact that Rob said, "Will you talk to me about an animal that was split in two? That's going to be like a noa." That was a way for him to basically feain anger, but that response was his anger. Okay, Nugar. So, so they're going to say a few members now the doctor that number one comes completely out of its socket. The gulgis or a skull got crushed in it. Even if nothing of the skull is actually missing but it got crushed or the flesh that covers most of the caris that part of the stomach was somehow missing. We're going to see in the what that means. Trafa all three of those halakis are going to be tra. Now let's break down each one. Nakritamar traa if the rib was pulled out completely from its socket. The animals are traa ivoru turning over to bay is kamakasar and bashedra the missionist that says how much has to be missing from a spinal column of a human being so it no longer is going to make a tumis oil. It's interesting how we have no problem comparing of animals to two vertebrae. So Bame is saying that the spinal column is going to be considered aer and it's a tra only if two vertebrae are missing. Whereas basil says it's going to be and a trafa only if one vertebrae is missing. Now if you take away a vertebrae you got two ribs that are going to be removed as well because they got nothing to be attached to. So you see according to schmool alain taking away the vertebrae makes it into a traa and not just the removing of one rib. And for the no where was saying that the uprooted rib was making into a tra is talking about just taking the rib by itself without the vertebrae and in that case the uprooted rib makes it into a traa but the case about the oil where you're taking only away the ky and you're not moving any ribs away in that case taking away the ka will make the animal also into a tra you can take away a rib without the how do you take away a vertebrae and Even though there's nothing to attach the rib to, aren't you automatically taking away the ribs as well? You're uprooting him. And for the gamarra bashile cafle, we're talking about the vertebrae that are the end of the lumbar region of the spine. And at that point in the spine, those vertebrae don't have any ribs attached to them. Masler of Aisha, if you're going to be able to make the basil bias about the tummus oil also such that basill will end up being mach about how much is missing to make the animal to a tra. So this should be listed in the mission of Edius that has all those unique cases of Shila in was talking specifically about and in that case so you're not going to start listing a case because of an application that makes Basil into the Mahm. Then the next thing the said was the goal is the skullbas that most of it's crushed so is that the height or the width of the skull and there's a big DNA in the rea but whatever it is take a look at the picture books but the bottom line is the next thing said is the flesh that covers most of the kis is missing the animals going to be a traashi what do we mean karu nut is it just missing or is it torn let's be pushed this from what it says in the Mishna the that the Mishna had said that the animals will be a tra if the cari is torn or punctured of zooimi. The whole thing is called the carapene and what's that outer car that the miss is talking about? That's that flesh that covers the riv of it. So the mission is saying clearly that it's a tearing of that carina that makes the animal into a traa and is saying that the carina is that flesh that covers of the car. So clearly just a ka just a tearing of that flesh that covers of the car is going to make the animal to a trai but the doesn't like that cuzn't the reason behind what saying other than just to figure out what is the accord. So you can't bring me from how the of by me that when the Misha says the it's talking about that area that does not have any of that fuzzy wool inside the lining of it and therefore the according to is the area that does have that fuzzy wool lining and it's not referring to the buser that's covering rye of the caris so you can't bring any raya to ashila and now let's get into the drusa now remember druses a is about a poison that comes out of their claws now we don't have this in any of our modern science it could be that it's not really like a venom that's created by the wolves. But it could be that the wolves that have all this decayed bacteria from other flesh that they have torn apart could create some kind of infection in animals. That's the shot that some go with here. So let's talk. Okay, but let's get into it. Vus, an animal that was clawed by a wolf. Any animal that was clawed by an animal that makes into a tra that's only if it's clawed by a z or something bigger than a z. That's his point that the missions are dafa. even bigger. When it comes to birds, which have a smaller constitution and will be more easily killed by an animal, any predator the size of the nates, which is some kind of predatory bird, or bigger would also be considered a problem for the bird. So, what are we coming to exclude? A cat that won't make it into a tra. So, we already learned. So we know it's already so Rav wouldn't have had to make a new to be that maybe the whole of our Mishna listing wolf not to be but simply to say that the can even a very largea and then we would therefore need to be butusa. So Rahuda is certainly not arguing with the Tanakama in that respect. And therefore when the Tanakama says the Dusa says Zave, it's talking about a smaller animal that was clawed by this Z because the larger one won't be a tra unless it was clawed by a lion because a large animal is not going to be considered a tra unless it was nudas by a lion. You want to say that is actually arguing with the tanakama rather than explaining the tanama. Hood is not arguing with the tanakama. You're asking a steer between Rav and because that's what really because that's what's coming out here and Rav might actually have a mus with holduda is coming to argue with the tanakama. All right. All right. Well, maybe I'll tell you that Rav is and that is coming to be and really when the Tanakama says it's coming to be from making the animal into a traa even from smaller animals but still we need to tell you from because if you didn't have Rava maybe the Tanak is mentioning because that's the one comes Rav and says it's not the Mishna is telling you the orca but rather the Tanakama is saying Davka Z saying that's the smallest kind of animal that can be dy is an animal make it into a traa. But a smaller predatory animal like a kasul cannot make it into a traa even with smaller animals like sheep and goats. An animal that was daras from a cat or a neio some kind of weasel animal is going to make the into a tra if a weasel is das a bird it'll make it into a traa says that if it was doris from aul and nates or it's not going to be a traa unless it went all the way into the inner kal of the animal you have to have puncture marks all the way in a jerusa lela but just clawing it up is not going to make it into a trafo which is connected batisbra nates ly doris you're telling me that a nates doesn't actually kill anything by being darus it just makes holes I bought tonight but drew on so does Bryce's bet difficult it depends if we're talking about clawing up the birds or clawing up these other animals and will not become a day just the drusa of the nates now we're in the middle of this conversation but we're going to pick it up with mik tomorrow and we'll see you And