Chullin Daff 128

All right, that kuf kaf shin bet is daf, we're picking it up from the two dots towards the bottom of kuf kaf zayin bet bet. The Mishnah had said nishchita beheima, if you have this ever midal dalis, it's barely connected to the animal. So, the Mishnah brought a machlokes of Rebbe Meir and Rebbe Shimon whether or not the dam of the shchita will be machsher that ever midal dalis for tumah. The question is what is their machlokes between Rebbe Meir and Rebbe Shimon Rebbe may come if you like you have the Gemara is going to give us six different machalchim to what this machlokes of Rebbe Meir and Rebbe Shimon is. The first version of this machlokes is amar Rabbah, the beheima nasis yad le-ever k'am if you like you have it. Here you got this whole animal and you got this dangling ever. In a way, the whole animal can act as a yad for that ever midal dalis. Because we know that a yad has the ability to be metamei the thing it's attached to. For example, if an oichel is tamei and its yad touches a tamei thing, the oichel now becomes tamei. Or likewise, if the oichel is tamei and the yad touches something tahor, the yad can now be metamei that tumah from the oichel. So, what Rabbah is suggesting is the machlokes is how do we look at an animal? It's kind of funny to think of an animal like a yad, like a handle. Because one thing is clearly the ikar and one is the tafel. So, can the ikar animal be the yad, which sounds like a tafel, to that ever? Mar sover ein beheima nasis yad le-ever or mar sover beheima nasis yad le-ever. That could be the machlokes. That's option one. Number two, Abaye amar be-eichas be-katan ve-ein eichas ela im eimai me-eiflig. The metzius over here is that this ever is hanging on by a thread, right? So, if I pick up that ever, it's going to rip off. Ein godel ela eimai. So, the question is how do we view the single unit kite of something that could rip off if I try it up based on that ever, right? I rip. I pull up the arm, the arm will rip right off. And although we may say it's just a flesh wound, but le-ma'aseh, it's it's hard to say it's really connected. So, zakt Abaye, that's the machlokes. Mar sover eichas be-katan ve-ein eichas ela eimai harei hu k'maihu. And therefore, even though if I hold the ever midal dalis, it will rip off, but if I hold the whole animal, the ever midal dalis will come along with it and therefore it's considered one unit. Mar sover einav k'maihu. And continues the Gemara this idea that Abaye is suggesting that this is the machlokes of Rebbe Meir and Reb Shimon. The after Reb Yochanan and so forth by his back cotton the ain godel oil in my Mahloki. That is the Mahlikas between Reb Mayor and Reb Shimon. We see this from Reb Yochanan. The Reb Yochanan Reb Reb Mayor the Reb Mayor. He made a steer in Shitas Reb Mayor. Because me Omer Reb Mayor Oichas back cotton the ain godel oil in my Harayu Kamayu. Which it sounds like it is that way in our Mishnah. Freak Reb Yochanan from in who we have a different Mishnah in the third perek of Maseches Tuvlium that Oichas Nifras U'ma Aira B'Miktzas. Let's say you have Trumah that was Nifras was broken but it was still partially attached. U'ma Aira B'Miktzas. Moving over to Amud Aleph. So Reb Mayor Omer Im Oichas back cotton the godel oil in my Harayu Kamayu. The Im Lav Ino Kamayu. So here there's a steer here from this Mishnah in Tuvlium to our Mishnah. How is Reb Mayor going to be reconciled? So Omer Reb Yochanan the problem Mahlufas Shita. But what do you see from Reb Yochanan that that's how he understands Shitas Reb Mayor. If your Oichas back cotton the godel oil in my Harayu Kamayu. And that will work with a bias Mahluf between Shitas Reb Mayor and Reb Shimon. Practically tomorrow my Kushya. But what was really the steer in the Shitas Reb Mayor to begin with? There's two different contexts. The Dilma Shani L'Reb Mayor between Tuvlium and Shaktumis. The Mishnah in Tuvlium was talking talking about that's Tuvlium the guy who already went to the Mikvah. And you're just waiting for Har of Shemesh. That's a different kind of category. But the Gemara says you can't make the distinction based on the context because Tanya Rebbi Omer Echad Tuvlium Echad Shaktumis it's the same din. The Gemara says maybe Dilma L'Rebbi Shani Lei but L'Reb Mayor Shani Lei. Just because you found a Shita of Reb Mayor that's not Mahluf between Tuvlium and the other kinds of Tumah but maybe Reb Mayor is Mahluf. Omer Reb Ashiya Hachi Omer Reb Yochanan L'Divrei Rebbi Reb Mahlufas Shita. Like Shitas Rebbi we'll have to swap around Reb Mayor's Shita. But Enachahami he was only saying this in Shitas Rebbi. But okay that's going to be the end of a bias. Second Mahluf. And now we're up to the third Mahluf of the Mahlikas of Reb Mayor and Reb Shimon. Rav Omer B'Yad Yadla Tumah V'Ein Yadla Hechsher Kamiflugi. A much broader question. When we have a Yad which we know can be M'tameh for the Ikar thing but can it also take care of its Hechsher? That if the Yad becomes wet does it actually work to be Machsher the thing that it's attached to? That's a Mahlikas. And therefore Mar Zutra Yadla Tumah V'Ein Yadla Hechsher that would be Reb Shimon's Shita. Omer Zutra Yadla Tumah U'L'Hechsher. Now and Reb Mayor would argue and say it's the same Yad. The fourth Mahalik rough papa be extra kind of mash over commodity. We know that some things are automatically considered food. Pay rise our food whether you like it or not, but animals are not necessarily food. It requires mash over I intend to eat them. So let's say I have the extra and it's royal a couple of times, but it's before I made it into food with my mash over and that could be a and we'll illustrate this is a subject of a the Tanya Kahlo China that Shula back forum mash over. If you have the of the shotgun animal in the fire the in the villages which would not be considered food unless you intend it to be food. So it would be mash over, but why should because the larger animal that the came from was already whole couple of times all you did the damn street and there you have extra taking place before the intention to actually eat the that's extra kind of mash over and I said to her be a giver of the matter you taught us that ocean that he gave him of so you gathered together these ocean whatever that herb is and you washed it in order to be able to feed it to an animal then the land law that when you decide for a person to eat it so we can shine it now needs a new extra because the first extra when you washed it you didn't want to feed it to a person at that point you wanted to give it to an animal so it didn't have a dinner of an so how can you tell us that the of the in the which does require a mash over doesn't require extra for two because it was already extra from the time of the street I the street that took place before the mash over because we are shining to be a Buddha. So as a result of this we can take a change his mind. What do you see there's a shallow whether or not to make and proceed mash over and that's the mission of my server law Romero will hold like originally held to my server law as opposed to who will hold like the subsequent version of after he was that could be the Lakers. And now beer number five of eco armor being a scam a dumb being similar to you know what they're arguing about if you wipe away the dumb from that ever middle dolls one similar to the other semen. A very unique machlokes about the shchita being machshir l'kabel tumah. Mar savar yesh l'shchita michlal v'atzaif, v'hai dam shchita, and therefore the dam that goes onto the ever middle dolls when that first semen was cut is considered dam shchita, and therefore it will make it much shir l'kabel tumah. U'mar savar ain l'shchita l'vatzif, it only happens at the end, and therefore v'hai dam is makhu, and it's not going to be considered dam shchita, and therefore it's not machshir that ever l'kabel tumah. And the sixth and final machlach in this machlokes tonight name is Rav Ashi omer, b'shchita machshir v'lo dam k'miflig. Maybe it's not about the dam at all, it's the action of shchita. That's what's machshir l'kabel tumah. According to Rav Meir, that dam shchita has the ability to be machshir l'kabel tumah, and therefore it will be machshir even that ever middle dolls. But according to Rav Shimon, it's only a proper shchita, and when we say proper shchita, a shchita that will be matter basar. But here, the shchita is not being matter the basar, cuz the l'maisa it's an ever middle dolls, you're not allowed to eat it, and therefore it's not the kind of shchita that would allow achila, u'm'meila it will not be machshir l'kabel tumah according to Rav Shimon. And that is the end of the sixth machlachim for the machlokes. But now we have a couple other shailos. Boy rabba, b'heima b'chayaha, during an animal's living, ma ushitei asa yad l'ever? Can it be a yad? Because remember, while it's alive, it can't be m'kabel tumah at all. So maybe it's not shaiach to becoming a yad in the first place. To which the Gemara just says, teiku. Omer Abaye, hare omru, the Mishna in the second perek of Uktzin says, kishais sh'natla b'otzis, let's say you have a cucumber in a pot, so it's not connected to the ground. V'egdil v'yosis chutza l'otzis, and it overgrows outside that pot. The halacha is t'hara, because the leaves that are extending over the ground draw nutrients from the ground via the air, and therefore that which is inside the otzis now takes nutrients from those protruding leaves. So we look at the whole plant like it's connected to the ground. The Chashukei Chemed discusses a shaila about putting your hand underneath the overgrown leaves that are out that are in the avir. Is there a problem on Shabbos of somehow being koitzer? It's a bit but But interesting to think about. But the halacha that Mishna in Uktzin is saying is since those leaves are considered like they're beginning from the ground, it's now like the whole plant is much over and therefore it is not going to be tamei. That's why he says it's tahor. But Rabbi Shimon, "Why should I say that it's tahor?" Why should I say that these kishuyot are going to be tahor? It's not totally attached to the ground. The tamei part which is inside the pot is inside the otsit is still shaiach to kabbalah tumah. The tahor part and the tahor part meaning the part that's outside that it is beginning from is going to stay tahor. So Rabbi Shimon is maskim that the protruding part, the leaves that are drawing nourishment from the ground is considered like it's much over and therefore not going to be tamei. But that's not going to go back into the what's in the pot. So boy Abaya and Abaya ask me this Mishnah. According to Rabbi Shimon that holds that that which is still inside the otsit is not going to be tamei. What's going to be the halacha about the outside part which is shaiach to tumah? Can it be a yad for the inside part? And to that we're going to say teiku. Next shailah. "How are you going to say let's say if you bow down to half of a dalas?" You decide to make half of the watermelon into your deity. So now it's according to Rabbi Shimon that the ones that are not shaiach to tumah we're going to actually learn about that on tomorrow's daf. So therefore half of this dalas is not shaiach to tumah because half is so I've done by Rabbi Yermiya turning over tumah base. Can it become a yad because the other because the half of the dalas is shaiach to tumah and to that is a teiku. Next shailah. "How are you going to say the Mishnah in the third perek of Uktzin says that it shall not be tahor because it's not shaiach to tumah." Let's say you have a branch of a fig tree that is cracked but it's still connected to the tree just by the bark. So it's not really beginning from the tree properly anymore and there's fruit on that branch. So Rabbi Yehudah is because it's not shaiach to tumah because he considers that this branch is still attached to the tree. The Mishnah says if you can regrow the tree by connecting it back to the trunk of the tree then the fruit is going to be tahor because it's considered like it's attached and if you can't reconnect it and regrow it back to the tree then it'll be tamei because it's considered like detached and not mechubar. Boi Reb Papa, ma she asi yad l'chavero in such a matzah, can it actually be a yad, this cracked branch? To that is teiku. And the fourth and final shaila, omer Rebbi Zeira, harei omru, the Mishnah in the 13th paragraph of Negaim says, even shebe tzaviv, let's say you have two walls of the house, but the corner stone, which is connected to both walls of the house, has a nega tzara'as on it. So, k'shu chailits, when the owner has to take away that stone, that the Torah demands you got to take it away, chailits it's kulah, even the part of the stone that belongs to his neighbor's wall, he also has to take away, cuz the pasuk says mashma you got to take away the stone in its entirety. U'kshu naisits, when the Torah demands you got to break down the whole house, naisits esh shelo im neiyach shelo l'chavero, you smash your side of the stone, and you leave your neighbor's side of that stone standing, cuz your neighbor's side of the house will stay tahor and can be left there. So, it's another example of one of these kinds of chatzi chatzi tum'os. So, now, as you can imagine, boi Rebbi Zeira, ma she asi yad l'chavero, can this non-tzara'as area of the stone become a yad for the tzara'as area of the stone, to which is teiku. Okay, the Mishnah had said meisa ha'beheima, if the animal just becomes a neveila, and now you still have this eiver min ha'dolles, the eiver itself will be tamei as eiver min ha'chai and not as an eiver neveila. That is Shittas Rebbi Meir. So, we're making this distinction whether or not it's considered like an eiver from a living animal or if it's from a neveila. But, prak tei Gemara, mai eika bein eiver min ha'chai l'eiver min ha'neveila? Cuz both eiver min ha'chai and an eiver from a neveila are both an av tum'ah. So, what's an af kamina? Which the Gemara says, well, eika beinaihu basar The basar that comes off of that eiver, dil basar paresh min eiver min ha'chai, lo metamei. If you have classic eiver min ha'chai and the basar comes off of that, it will not be tamei, cuz it only can be metamei if it has a halacha of an eiver. It's got to have all the parts, the basar, the gidim, the atzamos, but the basar itself is not going to be metamei. But, mei eiver min ha'neveila metamei. If it has a status of a neveila, it doesn't need to be an eiver to be metamei. Prak tei Gemara, eiver min ha'chai d'metamei mai kra? What's the pasuk that tells us that eiver min ha'chai itself is going to be metamei? Omer Rebbi Yehuda Marav, v'chi yamus min ha'beheima, from the animal, even part of the animal. therefore even an aver that comes from an animal will be metame. A different halacha we needed for it. D'amar Rebbi Yehuda Marav. Which implies from the animal from the animals that miksas behema metama, there are some animals that are metama things when they die. But there are some animals that are not metame. Which is the one that's not going to be metame when it dies? Because the halacha is a treifa that gets k'shachted, even though you're not allowed to eat the animal, it doesn't have tumas neveila. So I needed a halacha of min habahema in order to teach me this din. So since it's used up, it's not available to teach us the halacha that an aver min hachai is going to be metame. Frekta d'mara, im kein, if you're telling me that the two words of min habahema only there to tell us that a shchita of a treifa is not going to be metame b'tumas neveila, my min habahema? But if that's the case, we're going to learn tuma from aver min hachai from the pasuk of min habahema, then af ilu basar min hachai. Then why is it only about an aver? It should be any basar should be metame. To which the Gemara says, no, it's not shayaich that basar min hachai should be tamei because the tanya the braisa says tamei l'eimar and we learn out just like just like there's a finality to death, that there's no way to swap it, there's ein zeh chalipin. Af kol she'ein zeh chalipin, which is m'mamei basar, because basar could regenerate. It is zeh chalipin. That's Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Akiva imer, behema. The pasuk says behema. Something that comes off of a living animal can be metame, but it has to have the same tzura of a behema. That m'mamei behema gidin v'atzamos, af kol gidin v'atzamos, as opposed to basar, which doesn't have gidin v'atzamos. And Rebbi imer, behema. It has to be just like a behema that m'mamei behema basar gidin v'atzamos, af kol basar v'gidin v'atzamos. Frekta d'mara, mai echa bein Rebbi Yehuda Rebbi Akiva? They sound like they're saying exactly the same thing. Everybody's maskim that aver min hachai is tamei and basar min hachai is tahor. To which the Gemara says, echa beinayu? Arkuva. That particular part of the animal's leg, because according to Rebbi Akiva, that lower part of that leg, if it's severed from a chai, it will be metame because it has aver and atzamos. But according to Rebbe, it doesn't have any basar on it at all and therefore it's only the gidim and the atzamos and therefore it will not be matama. What's the difference between Rebbe Akiva and Rebbe Asi Aguli? They seem like they're saying the same thing. Amar Rebbe Papa, The difference between them is the lugabi the kidneys and the upper lip. According to Rebbe Asi Aguli, since they're not going to be muchlaf as they are not going to regenerate when they come off of a living animal, they can be matame. But according to Rebbe Akiva, since they don't have atzamos, they can't be matame. that there is a din of aver min hachai even by Because yochlos are parush min hashrotzim may eat tame. I might think that even basar min hachai shrotzim would be tame. Tame b'maisam. That's the Rebbe Asi Aguli. The characteristic of a sheretz that it has gidim and atzamos af kol gidim and atzamos. Rebbe Akiva sheretz my sheretz basar gidim and atzamos has to also have basar in it. Af kol basar gidim and atzamos has to all three qualifications. Akiva because according to Rebbe Akiva, it's going to be matama because it has gidim and atzamos but according to Rebbe it doesn't because it doesn't have any basar. According to Rebbe Akiva and because they don't regenerate but but they also don't have bones. The treifa and I need to have the same machlokes tonight both by animals and by shratzim. If you ask me in behemos, if the Torah only told me by an animal, I would have said tame The reason why when it's alive it's not matama and therefore basar is not going to be matama. because when it was dead it wasn't matama the size of a adasha but only a zayis. And therefore because you need to have a zayis, it's more makel than a sheretz. Because a sheretz is going to be more machmir that even ka'adasha is matama. But aval sheretz the matama b'ka'adasha eima l'tamei b'chaim. So therefore because of the chomer of a sheretz, I would think it could even be matama basar b'chaim. If you ask me in shratzim, if we only knew the halacha of shratzim, It has a different kula by shratzim that you can't be matama b'masa, only through negia. Only through tumas maga. And therefore lo matama b'chaim. Aval behema matama b'masa, eima t'tamei b'chaim there's special homework by Thomas Behema and therefore I need both. And we are almost finished with this paragraph folks. Hang in there a little longer. We'll stop now and pick it up with an on Sunday.