Chullin Daf 9

All right, daf tes. This is shabbos's daf, and we are picking it up on ches beis four lines from the bottom. Omar a maymar mishmay d'Rav Pappa, "Lo lischayif inish chafley ilavei bisra." You got to make sure when the butcher is handling different pieces of meat, you can't have it such that the cheilev, which is assur, could drip into the kosher meat because "d'doif tarba ubula bisra." The fat will drip onto the meat below it, and the meat below it might absorb it. And Tosefos speaks out that we're talking about right after shchita, when the meat itself is warm. Once though everything has turned cold, then we're not worried about the cheilev melting and going into the meat. Therefore, you could and therefore Rav Pappa wouldn't have this concern. "Frekht die Gemara, if you're telling me worry about this dripping of the cheilev, he treit zein ami." Even if you just put it straight on the butcher's block without any other meat, "doif tarba ubula bisra." We should always be concerned about the meat touching other meat. But to that the Gemara says, "Karma mafsik mitasai." There's this membrane that encases the busar from the meat that's below it, and that will protect the kosher flesh from this cheilev. But in the first case, when the cheilev itself is lying on top of the meat, we're afraid that it's going to go into the meat. So, "Frekht die Gemara, if you're telling me that there's this karma mafsik, this membrane that separates it, moving over to my left, me iloi nami karma ika." Even in Rav Pappa's case, you still have that karma, you still have that membrane protecting it. Why are we worried about putting those pieces of meat that have that cheilev above the other meat? So, "At die Gemara cuz aidi d'mishamshi miyaldin d'tabcha mifchas." The butcher is rubbing that meat, the above one, and it's going to break up the membrane, and therefore it will release that cheilev to go into the meat that's below it. "Viomar Rav Yehuda Omar Rav, talmid chacham tzarich she'yomar shlosh d'varim." A talmid chacham has got to know how to do three things: "Ksav, shchita, and mila." He needs to know how to do ksav, which is writing, which Rashi learns he needs to know how to sign his name for aidus. Rav Shach can't fathom that. Come on, like everybody knows how to sign their name. So, the Meiri wants to extend that you have to be able to have nice handwriting. And the Rav Shach takes it even a step further when his idea says that a talmid chacham needs to know how to write chal and tshuvis. He needs to know how to write well. Also, shchita, as Rashi says, not just learning the sugyas, but he should have actual practical experience of being a shochet and a milah. He should know how to be a milah. Three more things. needs to know how to tie the knot of tefillin. And Rashi learns that we're talking about the multiple kesharim, the one that looks like a dalet in the back of the head. And the yud that's on the arm. That together with the shin make the letter Shakai. But there is a big challenge in the Rishonim about the definition of kesher shel tefillin is. And you have to know how to be a mesader kiddushin. And how to tie tzitzis. And why does Rebbeinu Tam also want to say these three things that Rebbe Chananya bar Shlamiya said you have to also know? Every talmid chacham knows how to do these things. We don't need to give that independent instruction. Top Tosafos makes the point over here that mecha medakdek Rebbeinu Tam de'ein sarchus lechsheb'hol yum tefillin. You don't have to retie the tefillin every day. We take out our tefillin, the knots are already there. Because there is this Rishon, the Rebbeinu Eliyahu, who holds you do have to tie it every single day. If there is a shochet who doesn't know You got to know hilchos shechita to be a shochet. And this is the big five that we mentioned on the first day of this mesechta. And that can be translated as shehiya is stopping, pausing in the middle of the shechita process. Derasa is by pushing straight down with the knife instead of doing a sliding motion. Chalada is burrowing underneath the simanim and cutting outward. And hagrama, which is cutting the neck beyond the area that you're supposed to cut it. And the ikur is just tearing it out. I mean, the Mishnayos tell you what the different pesulei shechita are. What kind of halacha is that saying that a shochet needs to know Obviously. Maybe you had this guy who didn't really know hilchos shechita. But we witnessed him do it properly a couple of times. The maiseh the previous shechitas he did properly, so hay nami shachat shaper. So, kamashmalon given de'lo gamar, zimnin deshayev derasa lo yada. It could be that he might accidentally do a derasa and we can't see after the fact that he did this improperly. So, therefore, you cannot be someach on his shechita if he doesn't know the halachos. >> After the shochet shacht, he has to inspect the simanim. He has to take a look at the karnayim and the veshet after the shchita to make sure they were cut properly. If the shochet paused, he did this sh'hiyah long enough to inspect, he has passulled the sh'hitah. When we say he paused for bedika, he means checking out the karnayim and the veshet. So, clearly, the mishna is mashma that the karnayim and the veshet do require a bedika, and it's done after the sh'hitah, like Shmuel said. This is what the mishna means. K'day bedika chacham. If he waits long enough that a chacham could check out the knife, and the mishna is not talking about the karnayim and the veshet. So, there's no raya to Shmuel that you have to check these simanim after the sh'hitah. Same k'dei, if you're telling me that Rebbi Shimon's memra is talking about the talmid chacham's inspection of the sakin, to take? It's not a standardized time, because let's say the talmid chacham is further away, or if he's nearby. We don't know what this means, and we don't want to have a halacha that's nisat d'rachim l'shiurin. Ela k'day bedika tabach chacham. What Rebbi Yochanan was saying is that this shochet, who is also a talmid chacham, if he pauses long enough to inspect that knife, that's too long, and that would be considered a sh'hiyah in the sh'hitah. But in the ch'nami, that's not nisat d'rachim l'shiurin. That is a That could be measured as a specific fixed amount of time. Now, we begin these exciting sugiyos of chazakas and rayas. The next three blot. Very exciting stuff. Now, we said that the shochet should inspect the karnayim and the veshet after he's shachted these animals. Now, let's say he doesn't. Lo badak mai. What's the status of this animal if you don't do this bedika afterwards? treifa v'asura b'achila. It's going to be taka a treifa animal, and you're not allowed to eat it. It's even going to be worse. nevelah The animal is actually going to be a nevelah, and therefore, when you carry it, it's going to convey a tum'ah, as we know the halacha is a nevelah is metamei. So, here you have a machlokes whether or not this animal that you didn't check is a treifa or a nevelah. So, b'mai kam palgi? What are they arguing about? B'dei Rebbi Nachman d'amar, because Rebbi Nachman said the heima bechayaha bechezkat issur medas. An animal during an animal while it's alive is bechezkat issur. Ad she'i vad locha be mashina shchuta. Until we can determine that it was shchuted properly, it has a status of chezkat issur. Now what's the issur that we're talking about? That's actually machlokes Rishonim. The Rashba and other Rishonim say it's the issur of einas avucha. But Rashi over here says it's ever min achai. Now the reason why the Rashba doesn't like Rashi saying it's ever min achai is cuz this animal is dead. So how can you talk to me about a chezkat ever min achai? Must be because Rashi's using the klal of machzikin an issur l'issur that we're going to see in other Gemaras coming up that you could take the status, the uftoi of the chezkat issur of the ever min achai and it's continue it until you can prove otherwise that it is gishachtin properly. But nishchita, once the animal is gishachtin, then we flip it around. Harei hi bechezkat heter ad she'i vad locha be man nitreifa. Then it's innocent until proven guilty. We can assume it's bechezkat heter until we can establish why and how it became a treifa. And now we break it down. Mar sover, according to the braisa, when you're not bodek the simanim after the shchita, it's bechezkat issur kayama and therefore we hash ta masei and now we're looking at a dead animal. Well, a dead animal is just a nevelah and therefore it will be metamei be masa. Umar sover, bechezkat issur amrinan. Yeah, you're right. It is bechezkat issur. You're not allowed to eat it until you prove otherwise. Over bechezkat tumah amrinan and therefore it's only going to be a treifa and not going to be a nevelah. The Rosh in klal chof asks a shaila that he you didn't bodek the simanim but lemaaseh you have a rav. Rav matzui eitzel shchita are mumchin as the Gemara tells us. So look here, even if you don't check for the simanim, why can't you just go bust a rav that the shchita was done properly? And the Rosh answers that we would bet some want to say that rav matzui eitzel shchita but the problem is there's a rayasa in the shchita because the shochet isn't supposed to check and he didn't. You want to tell me that rav shochtim are good shochtim? This shochet wasn't a good shochet cuz he didn't do his job right. He didn't check afterwards. Okay, gufa. Omar R' Puna, the heima bechayaha bechezkat issur medas ad she'i vad locha be man nishchita. So it is going to be not kosher until we can establish that it is kosher. Once it is the heter amrinan. it's the opposite. It's innocent until proven guilty. It is considered kosher and until I can establish it's tarfus. Once it's you're allowed to eat it. It's What are you telling me that it's It's a way to give me It sounds like you're still about it and you're relying on the You're not relying on the It's kosher. Even now that there is a new problem, still it's and the animal will be kosher. What's going to be the if a wolf came and took the from this animal? Should we now be that the animal might have been a treifa? What are you talking about? If this took away the Unless they're not here. So why should I be that maybe the animal was a treifa? I should be that maybe there was a treifa there just because the wolf took it away isn't a reason now to be for treifas that would not be typically happening. No, what Let's say the wolf came and he made a hole in the So do we now have to be that the animal was a treifa? If the wolf made the hole, so we can see that the wolf did it. So why should we assume that the animal was a treifa beforehand? The wolf did all the damage here. Now this was the shaila. The wolf took the The wolf brought them back. Now the wolf brought back we could see the teeth marks where the wolf was having these Now the question is Maybe the wolf made a hole in the in an exact place where there was a pre-existing hole meaning it was already a treifa. Should we be that there was a because we're looking at a hole and maybe that hole pre-existed? So he says back to in We don't have to be for such a thing, but we assume rather that the made that hole. So the animal's not a treifa and you can eat it. I'm going to ask you from a braysa which is a different topic. The topic of Sakana. Roa tzippor hamenaker b'teina. Let's say somebody saw a bird picking at a fig. V'achbar or a mouse hamenaker b'vateichim. It's punching holes in the melons. Turning over tumid base. Chosheshin shema b'makom nekav nakav. Maybe there was a pre-existing hole where these animals are doing their little digging in these things. And if there's a hole there already, we're afraid that a snake got in there and might have put its venom inside this perry. So you see that the brice is concerned about a pre-existing hole where these birds and mice are making holes. So how can R'Puna be so confident that we don't have a pre-existing hole in the b'nei mayim by the case of the za'ev? So Amar Lei R'Puna Rava, "Mee kama damis issur l'sakana?" How can you compare issur and sakana? Sakana shiny. We definitely are more machmir by sakana. And therefore you have no raya to ask me from a brice about sakana. Amar Lei Rava, "Rava says back to R'Puna, "Mai shna? Why should it be any different if there's sakana? Sofek sakana l'chumra and sofek issur nami l'chumra." Both are of the same ilk. Both are sofek sakana and a sofek issur. We always go l'chumra. So why would you R'Puna be machlik between the sakana and the issur? Amar Lei Abaya, Abaya says back to Rava, "V'lo shani bein issur l'sakana." Because I'll show you that different kinds of sfekos are treated differently. V'ho ilu sofek tuma b'reshus harabbim, sfeka issur. V'ilu sofek mayim megulim assurin. But when you're mesufek about mayim megulim, if there's going to be aras nachash in the water, the water's always going to be assur. So clearly we are more machmir about sofek sakana more than we would be about sofek issur just like R'Puna originally said. That's So this is Abaya's taina on Rava. So Amar Lei Rava says back to Abaya, "Hasam, when we have a sofek about tuma b'reshus harabbim, hilchos segima r'lameisita. There's a halacha. The halacha l'Moshe miSinai that we learned from seita. B'massei da b'reshus hayachid af tuma b'reshus hayachid. So this is a specific halacha about sofek tuma b'reshus hayachid. But en achani, normally speaking, we're not going to be more meikel by sofek issur than we will be than sofek sakana like R'Puna said. So Rava is putting both sofek issur and sofek sakana on the same level. But most of R'Shimon, I'll show you that we have a difference of standard between sakana and Issur. That Sheretz may be Hulda, if there's a Sheretz in the mouth of a Hulda, in the mouth of a weasel. The Hulda Mehalaches Al Gabei Kikra Shel Truma, and that Hulda is walking on the Truma. Safek Nagah, Safek Lenagah, and I don't know whether or not the Sheretz actually touched the Truma or not. The Halacha is Safek Atei Tahor. But in such a similar case, the Ilu Safek Mayim Megulim will be Assurin. So Al Acharei you see like Abaya that a Safek Sakana is going to be more Chomer than a Safek Issur, which is K'neged Rava. To which Rava says Hashem Nami Hilchesa K'minah Lemasei'ta. There's also a special Halacha to learn from the Seita. The Masei'ta D'var Sheshma Das Lishol only if there is something that you could ask about, like an Isha that you can ask her if she was Mezuna. Ah, so Ken Nami also by other cases of Safek Tumah. D'var Sheshma Das Lishol, that's when the Safek is going to be K'pasken L'chumra. But if there's no Das Lishol, the reason why the Kikras are going to be Tahor is because of this special Halacha. So basically, it's another exception. Now, this whole issue between Abaya and Rava of how do we view Safek Sakana versus Safek Issur, the truth is it's a hard thing to understand the Chiluk. Because why should there be any difference between the Sakana of my physical being versus the Sakana of my Ruchnius? I should be Choshesh for that downside. So to understand this, let's take a step back. Safek D'Oraisa L'chumra. According to the Rambam, there really is no such thing. According to the Rambam, Safek D'Oraisa is really L'kula Min Ha'Torah. And the whole invention of Safek D'Oraisa L'chumra is a Din D'Rabbanan. The Rashba famously argues with the Rambam. But the question is, how can the Rambam understand Safek D'Oraisa being L'kula? What gives you the right to roll the dice here and potentially be Over an Issur D'Oraisa? And it must be that we're not simply just playing the odds here, saying, "Hey, we don't care." It's Mestaber to say that it's much more of a Lumdish concept that if I don't know if I'm doing something wrong, it's felt in the Ma'aseh Aveira. So if I don't know if this is Cheilev or Shuman. So according to the Rambam, Min Ha'Torah you can eat it. Why? Because if I'm eating something that I have no idea if it is Assur, that's not really the same Ma'aseh Issur. Oh, that explains why a Safek Issur would be L'kula. But the Rambam might agree by a Safek Sakana that it's worse. Why? Because a Safek Sakana is fundamentally different than a safek issur. A safek issur is a safek if my ma'aseh is a bad ma'aseh. But a safek sakana is not about the ma'aseh. We don't care about you ingesting this potential poison or walking out into the street maybe being hit by a car. We care about the taitza. Are you going to drop dead from eating the poison? Are you going to get hit by a tractor trailer? So Zozian like the Rambam saying by safek issur that it's felt in the ma'aseh because you don't know that there's vada issur here. But by safek sakana we don't care about the ma'aseh. We care about the taitza. And we don't want you to die. So that would be the idea why chamira sakanta me'issura. Now the Shmaitsa, Shmaitsa dalet perek aleph says a very big chidush that the machlokes the Rambam and the Rashba whether or not safek deraisa lekula is min ha'Torah lekula or lechumra is the machlokes Abaye and Rava in our sugia. That Rava holds like the Rashba that it's safek deraisa lechumra across the board whereas Abaye is more meikel sometimes because like shitas Rambam safek deraisa lekula. That's the chidush of the Shmaitsa. Now the Rashba himself who says that safek deraisa lechumra is lechumra min ha'Torah he still says over here in our sugia that there is an exception to the rule based on the anatomy of the safek. What I mean to say is that a typical safek of is this thing cheilev, is this thing shuman, is this thing basar b'chalav, is this a dvar assur, that zok the Rashba everybody's moskim is safek deraisa lechumra min ha'Torah. However, if you have a safek about whether or not a certain story took place and affected my dover hanidan over here. So I don't know whether or not let's say the za'ev punctured a hole in this bnei mayim or I don't know if the nachash had already made a hole in this peiri before the mouse was chewing on it. Zok the Rashba that's where there's going to be a machlokes Abaye and Rava that's a separate category. It's a little bit troublesome. Why according to the Rashba should there be a cheilek how you got to the point of safek? I don't know whether this is kosher or treif. Somehow it matters whether or not I'm clearing etzem about the zach or whether something happened to that zach. So I just want to suggest and this is a yesod that I'm going to talk about I think in the future daf yomi shiurim kind of my own little thesis that when it comes to how we pasken shailos, we always need to ask ourselves what is our birurei sfeikos coming to answer? How close to our actual shaila is our birurei sfeikos? What I mean to say is, when we're going to talk about roiv, I'm going to take a piece of information of, let's say, tesha chanuyos or roiv metzuyin etzel shchita, otherwise known as rubi d'isa and rubi d'leisa common respectively, and I'm going to apply it to my shaila. I would contend that some roivs are going to be more directly answering the question at hand than other ones. Like, for example, roiv beheima she'ein treifus is possibly more directly about the meat than the tesha chanuyos, which is just telling me where the meat came from. Uma meila tells me the kashrus of the meat. And so, in the same way that I like to suggest such a cheilek that I think will be in the gain in upcoming shiurim, there is, I think, a fundamental difference if I don't know if a piece of meat is cheilev or shuman and I want to use safek d'oraisa l'chumra to pasken it, or if I want to know what happened with this outside me'ura. I don't know whether or not this animal did something to my meat. Uma meila, if that happened, it will make a psak on my meat. I feel like that's one step removed, even though it's not a big step removed, but it might be enough step removed for the Rashba to say his cheilek and therefore not be bound by his general safek d'oraisa l'chumra min ha'torah l'chumra, and that's what the Ba'al Ha'Rov could be arguing about over here. All right, we're going to stop here and pick it up with Sunday's daf to finish up this sugiyah then.