Bechoros 7

Today's is we will begin 18 lines from the bottom of the so the context is the beginning of specifically the Mishna [snorts] which discuss two a gave birth to a gave birth to a source has stating that says the Mishna. Only time you have is if both the mother and the are [snorts] if [clears throat] however the mother is a or the child is a says the then the discussed related and that is what's are you allowed to eat this animal or you're not allowed to eat this animal and contrary to conventional wisdom which would be let's look at the animal in the case where the animal is a kamar is a non-coosher animal you shouldn't be able to eat it in the case where the animal is kosher for example then you should be able to eat it says mission it's just the opposite we don't care about the animal itself what we care about is the mother of the animal similar [snorts] to knowing whether someone's a yid or not you look at who his mother is it's in that same vein if the mother of this animal is a kosher animal then we say if the mother of the animal is a non-cooser animal then we say stating that in the context of yesterday's d we saw who argues says that it's true is but at the same time a non-cooser animal that's born to a kosher animal is also going to be non-cooser as well says no is because twice the said that the guml is a non-coosher animal the guml is unique in that although it has one of the two of a kosher animal it only has one it doesn't have the other the guml the shaan the arvas and the khazer they all have one of the two simmon of a kosher animal the says you have to have both seem to be kosher. So the Torah says that the go's non kosher. The doesn't just say that the go is non-coosher once. It says it's it says it and then it says it again says the reason the Torah said guml is non-cooser twice once to teach me that a regular guml is non-cooser and then to tell me that even a guml who was born to a a kosher mother even such a guml is going to be non-coosher as well. So in the context of the Gmorra asking what do the Rabon who argue do with gum gum what emerged was that we need a pik to teach me that the milk of a non-coosher animal is not kosher and the gummor said why do I need a pik to teach me that and the garra said because really milk is always a kdesh that it's kosher because even milk of a a kosher animal to say it should be non-coosher gave two reasons number One milk of an animal such as a human being according to one mand of the garra comes from if it comes from dam is also it's then you would think that maybe milk should be as well another sor the gumar said that being that milk is you milk an animal while it's alive so maybe the milk should be viewed as an a of the that was pish from the animal as a result it would be awesome being that it's always that milk is okay so You would think that when the Tyra said the milk is okay, maybe it's going to be okay for a non-coosher animal as well. So the Gmorra said that's why I need a PL according to the G according to again in the middle of a whole shock of a T and a back and forth and a fourth and back but there's a that the milk of a non-com kosher again why is it a is not kosher and what's the because really all milk is aish that it's kosher once said milk is kosher so you would think that maybe milk of a non-coosher animal is kosher as well so in the middle of that point says how do you know in fact that milk of a kosher animal Let's go. I mean gave two reasons to think that maybe not. We said it's a what are the two reasons? Maybe it's maybe it's so at the end of the day Frankar do you have proof from anywhere that milk of a kosher animal is kosher? Maybe it's in fact not kosher says you'll become very we know that we just finished learning. It says three times in the one of the three times is to teach me that is now if milk itself is not kosher then why does the have to tell me that is not kosher milk is anyways not kosher right the doesn't have to say now let together with you he can't eat so you can't eat it with if milk was a non-coosher food then how do you understand how do you make sense of the whole of it says in Maybe that's a milk alone is but the says it's not because the maybe milk ordinarily is but it's maybe the of the is not to tell me that is alone is it's to tell me that it's also meaning maybe is the is that it's not only which in any ways is but as well. And the gar says it's going to be so mean for the fact that the gave a parish of is not a milk maybe milk is always awesome but there's other so the says the parish of is in and of itself not that bus of that alone is says maybe I'll bring you from Because there's something called mikash is an animal that's hectish that gets a where the says he can be po once you it goes but not entirely so it goes in the sense that the says if you want you can eat it that's a big usually you can't eat but at the same time you can you can't shear its wool the says you can eat it you can't drink its milk what do you see from here it's only the milk of that you're not let but ordinary milk would be but says there's no right from the maybe I'll tell you that the milk of also but it's the of this par is that the which of course is not just as well you can't have from you have to etc. So maybe the of this is that you have the as it relates to so that it's also going to be but as it relates to you don't need because maybe so even though at first glance these would seem to be of usually no it's not maybe is always not that it's the I bring you right from a different apost. So we're going from to it says the says that's milk of a goat should be food for you. It's food for the but the describing food and and it uses milk of a goat to refer to that food. So you see the milk is kosher. If it's not kosher then why is the talking about which is maybe the means that through the milk of a goat you own a goat you'll milk it. You can't eat it. You'll sell it to a nonju but at the same time have from it. Maybe you're not actually drinking the milk. Says of a different it says in that told to go send milk and cheese to the troops that were fighting the they were fighting the mitzvah. So what do you see from there? You see that they were going to eat dairy products. If milk isn't kosher, then how was he allowed to do that? Maybe he was sending it to the troops that the troops should sell it and get money. These people are on the front line. They're not doing they're not handling business now. So obviously if was going to send them this food he wasn't sending it to them so that they should have a side income. He was sending it to them. So so that must be then milk is kosher accepts that [laughter] what the says that you're not even eat. Not even kosher. What's so exciting about coming which is you can't eat the milk. So that milk is kosh buy food buy it but don't pay for it. Okay that sounds good. What are you going to buy? wine and milkshi tells the you know buy and credit and uh but [snorts] the point is you're going to eat. So you see the is kosher either way we have three from here that what that milk is kosher going back to shim shim said that a camel or any non-coosher animal for that matter that's born to a kosher mother is considered non-coosher. Why? Because says guml guml twice. What did do with gum guml twice? to teach me the of a non-coosher animal is not kosher. In other words, if you have and says what are we going to do that with that also coming to teach me the same you don't need it to have me four times and the not only right the same par that says that there's four animals that have one of the two that are noncosher the is so one of them what are you going to do with the other three I don't need four to tell me the same must be why the terra mention look at the following why the over with regards to you have it in par then you have it again in par the answer is because there's one called It's a non-coosher animal doesn't mention meaning he mentions it in par that that part of it is because of one the why over the part of par which was already mentioned in paras because there's one animal it's called which is not mentioned in parasi it is mentioned in par now if the terra just wanted to mention the shua and the ra so why the kaz are over the whole that's a rule because sometimes the will over a whole para because of one but what's the point the point is is that if the anyways was over the whole par because wanted to teach me of the and it's for that reason you can't d anything from the fact that it says then how do you have a right to it's true it's not we wouldn't have a you couldn't figure out what to do with the extra word just like it doesn't bother me that I don't know what to do with the extra word and the reason the over is the wanted to say one the sometimes will say over a whole just because of the one but at the same time if I have what to do with it if I have a from it then we and in this case I have to do with his that reason the either way more on the same note What happens that's a sheep gives birth to a goat or a goat gives birth to a sheep there's no we saw that that was the that brought not of our set a very similar in the context of which is the of which has so this is the same how this the parallel by a kosher animal which is has not kush either way. So an even though are both kosher they're both subject to the laws of but at the same time if a gives birth to an or vice versa that is that was the that in the event that there's some we said what is even a little bit a hand a feet a foot something that's already enough for there to be argues says it's not enough that it's a little bit No, if [snorts] the child is the then yeah, but if it's not going to be then now this is the second that we had in this the first we had in this was with regards to can I eat the animal or can I not eat the animal it's regards to the component so you have a kosher animal that gives birth somehow to a non-cooser animal a gave birth to a so the question is can I eat can I not eat it say you can eat it that's the says G to teach me even a GL that has a kosher. Okay, that's the first the second is with regards to where is that an gives birth to gives birth to an there's noar this is off there's noar at the same time according to says is not enough you have to have asks now could you merge these two or could you not merge the two meaning what would happen if a kosher animal gave birth to a non-coosher animal eat it. So there's no there's nothing to even discuss. You don't have to go to a room. You don't have to ask him a sh it's kosher. The mother's kosher it's kosher according to where it's not kosher. What happens if the child looks a little like the mother? See it's a non a goble came out came out. So this is the question. The question is can I eat it or can I not eat it? And does that need just like said you need here too you need or not says what's the [snorts] says and we learn from it this is one of the two basically so over there it has to be it has and if it's not it's not that it's he learned it from the extra word gum. So maybe there it's just the opposite. If it's a real full-fledged gum, then you're not allowed to eat it. But as long as it has some of a kosher animal, maybe that's enough for it to be. As long as it's a little bit like that's enough or maybe not here's going to hold there as well. bring you gave birth to not let it of course if however it's like the mother a little bit of a curle so if it's like the mother not you're allowed to eat it but the say even though the the wording of the of the took a left turn but the end of the day the B is saying twoas The price is discussing number one with regards to and then it mentions the and it says so it sounds like is the criteria both with regards to and both with regards to the law maybe is only going on and say it sounds like that way because read Right. Read the price. Period. It doesn't sound like says the it's actually more that he's going only on it's actually not going back on but the says it's not meaning you don't have a this way but you don't have a that way either because maybe I'll tell you that part of the price is going back on the first part of the B as well it's going back on why the Bryce Why are you starting to talk about let's let's stay on topic talk about because it's actually with regards to you know why maybe you think it's not even enough if enough just like is not enough maybe is not enough. So that's why we said we emphasize that it's even going on but really maybe it's going back on the is as well. The bottom line is is we have a shila. We brought a br we tried to be p we couldn't be pleased. But what's the shil? The shil is that two. The first kadesh is that a kosher animal that gives birth to a non-coosher animal. The secondish is that if a gave birth to an ace a gave birth to they're both kosher there's no according to as long as the child looks a little like the mother that's enough of it to bear. According to it's not enough has to be is what happens if a non A kosher animal gives birth to a non-cooser animal and but there's mixim do you mix is mix going to be enough or not hold you need just like you need so you need in order for it to be okay or maybe just like enough maybe even though said such a big that kosher that gives birth to a non-coosher you're not let allow you to be able to eat what's the why hold with regards to and not hold with regards to already explained that based on the on the respective but that's essentially the question according to a kosher animal gave birth to a non-cooser animal the non-cooser animal has not like the mother but has mixim can you eat it or can you not eat it says I'll bring [snorts] you a So then the Pik continues and says so this is the Pik that mentions the GL as a non-coosher animal because it only has one of the two and this is not the ini it's the one it's the one in from here that it's true you're not allowed to eat a for sure even a g that has a kosher mother you're also not allowed to But if it has a if it has one of the then is you're allowed to eat it. What's the definition? A little bit of a tricky of a child that has one or says the obviously that's what we're talking about. A non-coosher animal that's born to a kosher animal theatar. But the father of the animal was also a kosher animal. I would think that if you have a animal that's not kosher whose mother is kosher but whose father is not kosher the whole is brief here. So the father is not kosher but the and the child has him. You would think that that's also okay. You need both parents to be kosher. Both parents not kosher anyways. Not a kosher animal. There's nothing to talk about. So in the event that you had a kosher animal mother and kosher animal father gave birth to a non-cooser animal and is when it's going to be okay. says, "No, we don't need a to tell me something is that we already know is if there's a the must be coming to teach me." And being that it's posit in Yeshua in your case that it's going to be okay because in the event that the father and the mother are both kosher animals for sure this child is going to be kosher if it has mix. So I don't need this for that. Rather, you know what this is coming to teach me. We're talking about a non-coosher animal that has a kosher mother but a non-coosher father in that case is that if it has mix of kosher it's going to be okay maybe not says it says says the word once and then it says the word twice to teach me that as long as has a kosher mother that's enough for it to be considered kosher. What's the bottom line? What do we want from this bracelet to me? This bryce is for sure going coin because again what's the the the high level just a 20,000 foot view context of this bry the context is is you have a non-coosher animal that was born to a kosher mother it has mixim of the mother and now we have a question can I eat it or can I not eat it we have what would be the in the event that the father was not kosher according to Yeshua that would be you would need that the father should also be kosher according to the is kosher. It's anyways kosher. It's talking about even when the father was not kosher. So, but but the bottom line is one thing. We're going according to a kosher mother that gives birth to a non-osher child is a is so obviously we're going according because not is not even a conversation. So, we're going to if we're going to and still the discusses that if it has it would be kosher. Okay. is what what's the status of the father? But we don't need that pratt. The pratt that we need right now anyways is that we're going according to and we have a that's talking about kosher or not kosher. So you see according to mix is enough not so you see although said you need that was only with regards to but as it relates to right in a vein. So you see clearly that even accord would be enough but the says not who said the T of this price is what do you mean it's it's yeah it's maybe it's not maybe it's a different and said two the question is do the two go hand in hand or do they not go in hand in hand he said two regarding a behavior that gave birth to a different type of behavior one was regarding the other one was regarding said the question was could you merge the two kadusha You can't bring me a ride from this price because this price might not be Rim. The T of this Bryson might not hold of the other Rim. Who said he holds a R shim with regards to it's true he clearly holds a shim with regards to G the rabbi is that a guml that's born to a kosher animal is going to be non-cosher but as it relates to maybe he never said it and maybe had he held he would have said it over here as well. Either way so the Gmorra had brought this Bryce and Yeshua to try to be the shim. The Gumar brought brought it one way. Now the is going to bring the same or similar discussion albe it from a different angle. Some had it a little bit differently where you have a kosher mother that gave birth to a non-cooser child where the father wasn't a kosher animal. So essentially a non-cooser male with a kosher female gave birth to a child. And now the question is according to where the child is not kosher what's going to be but says the is this even a possibility the only you find this is the where's that the context of the or the but either way it's in that context in that conversation in the of it's a and could have a child together. But as it relates to a and a there's no such thing, it doesn't exist. So if that's the case, if it doesn't exist, what's a little confusing, but certainly very in the context of the we learning, it's not so confusing. Now the Abra you know what this case was when we say that a Tom and a Tahar together had a child. The case was with the to wasn't a real to the to mother was a to a grad came out to we're calling it to because you can't eat it. Oh, big is going to gonna say must be but it's not a real to. You're right. A regular to make can never have a child together with the that's said we have this messiah it can't have happen what's where the to and the were not a regular to the was a regular par I don't know the t was a non-coosher animal whose mother was a kosher animal so even though it itself let's say was a go but it mother was a par so mean that his mother was a par now ready they could be massabed together a par and a purr can be massabed together uh a kamur and a cannot but have to work out the par and the paras together with the par that's that is able to work out >> its parents were both >> right right and the and that's why it works out but the point is it's not a regular because regular doesn't work out we have like that from if that's the case then who we going according to if you have this non-coosher animal the child of a kosher animal and the bryce is referring to it as a to obviously we're because only according to is actually and now you have good no good we have it that you need you don't need but gives the same exact ter you have a for sure that works but you have no right at the maybe it's a different t and he held the with regards to go is that it's to say maybe didn't hold but had he held like himself held but maybe you wouldn't have this says the before we dig before we go to the to the next says the just to digress for a moment so we mentioned this in Yeshua this very every is a is a big so we have over here a shila where you had a non-coosher animal that was born to a kosher mother with a non-cosher father and it seems to be of whether this would pose an issue in the first place or this would not pose an issue in the first place sound like it's for sure going to be like there's no reason that that that should be that that should be an issue sounds like anytime you have a something in this context so the mother's kosh and the father's not kosher. So you can argue that there's a hater. So that's enough for it to be mut. But then again being that there's also that's it should be. So seems to be that is is long as the mother is kosher that was then for sure there should be a kosher animal seem to hold. We find in another place in ch that they argue just the opposite. What's that context in the child of a trad in the case over there where the mother was a traer the father wasn't a traz says you can't put it on the mbah because being that the mother is a tra even though the father is not but at the same time says you can put on the muzz because even though the mother is problematic but the father is not problematic and is there is and it's going to be mut is just the opposite in Our price you have says and over there it's says like this really is the reason in our he said it's you go back to the brid oh it's because of the that he holds really he holds yeah there's a going to say just the opposite really is The reason over here he says in other words really the is the one that holds the one that says in our comes at just the opposite. It's not related to a shil but it's more specific as it relates to the bottom line is we had a sh according to who says uh kosher animal gives birth to a non-coosher animal you're not allowed to eat it if it's like the mother for sure you'd be allowed to eat the question is what if it has if it has would you be allowed to eat it or would you not be allowed to eat it one final says White wise [snorts] says the so the continued and the Mishna said that Tommy of course argues That's just the following question. Are you eat or drink the urine of a soar says that before has even said anything? Why they only ask about a kamar? What about a or essentially the question is the glam of any non-cooser animal? You can't drink the milk of a non-cooser animal. What about the meaglam of a non-cooser animal? Right? is is a when it comes to but otherwise in the context of it sounds like a shil for all non-cultur animals. So explains the never asked a question by that question was never poster of why [snorts] because the of is is not thick it's very very clear [snorts] doesn't look like milk rather what it looks like is water so the assumption is what it is it's it's just the water it's a little recycled but it's the water that the animal ingested as a result the water was kosher so why should the mayor lime not The question was it's very thick. Looks a little like milk. Do we say that it's part of the guff of the maybe it's it's no different than the glam of a of a horse and the mayor of a camel. Rather it's it's m. If that's the case, why is it thick? is because it's hot from the but the point is is it part of the animal not part of the animal by the we assume for sure it's not part of the animal the question is what about I bring you from our said what do you see from here he didn't say mean it doesn't have to be to a part of the of the of the non-cooser animal has to come from the non-cooser animal that's enough and being that it comes from the non-cooser animal it's the so that's already enough for it to be says the some had a different explanation for why the question that was posted says was with regards to the mayor of not the in it first explanation said because there was no sh that it's here we have says it wasn't asked Pasha because no one ever woke up in the morning and said, "Am I allowed to drink the meagam of a horse?" Stating that the question that was posed was the glam of a donkey. What was the people drink it? Why? Because it's good for people that are yellow, people that have certain certain issues. But the bottom line is right and that was the meaning between the two. According to the first case, it's for according to the Amry this it's not for really had the same sh regarding the line of they just never of a just never thought to ask the question [cough] that's a real life question says that that that part of the version is the same I'll ask you meaning you're telling me this new that anything that's is and that even that anything that's is even if it's not part of the to even which is technically it's just it's the water that was ingested by the animal that it's now excreting even that is going to be if that's the case asks we know that honey is eat honey it's one of the so honey is something that you're allowed to eat and really if you think about Honey, honey is really a very big kesh because honey comes from a bee and being that it comes from a bee, why don't you say so there's a there's a price that discusses this. Why is it that the honey of a bee is the reason is the reason is because the honey comes from the nectar that the bee ingests and it's just recycling it. So it's not really part of the honey. What's the cash? If you're going to tell me this is even like said so if that's the case honey should be why is honey should also be incidentally the honey that the says you're eat yeah it's not exactly that's true we just had that it's not the same but the point is is also so is why is coin should be also so made a deac it's very had a dick's conclusion seems to come out not like who said that really should be and it's that it's meaning everybody this price said why should be it's nectar and that's all that but said just the opposite really that should be motor So who was grandson? Right. So it said it says oh we learned from this you're allowed to eat this the context over there certain grasshoppers kosher grasshoppers. So you could eat a kosher grasshopper even though a lot of people don't eat it but without but you could eat it technically but you know eat the shar you can't eat a sher means something else you're allowed to eat the kosher grasshopper you can't eat the sher however it's like a triple decker right the is saying you're allowed to eat kosher grasshoppers from there we learn that you can't eat non-coo kosher schwz I don't need that no I mean you could only not eat the non-coosher sher itself but you could eat what the non-coosher sher is what it produces okay what is that it's bottom line is it's you would think that actually says types of grasshoppers says how do you know to be to say that it's okay to eat but It's not okay to eat at these grabs says the rabbis is not usually has like a second name to it. Meaning you're not going to say if you say pass the honey you're not going to pass the you're going to pass the the comes from bees. So being that that's the regular that's probably the was coming to but the bottom line is you have white there's a price that says why should it be it's it's nectar in honey out so why should it be that's not it's but but this is not the way it works there's another says no you want you want to know it's a tremendous the In Vash's motor that Vash is the what would be anamino would be enough is also if Vash is motor because why should it be? It's just recycling something kosher that was ingested by the animal then if that's the case would also be motor. If it's a that is motor it's based on a cause in fact that vash of other animals is is and other insects is then that is it has to be going according to says who's the says of meaning it's not you're eat that you're allowed to eat it but ordinarily or something that's off limits. You're not allowed to eat. You're telling me it's not you see from here that it's not even considered that's even a bigger not only but even means it's not even right when does something not when it's not yet. So you see that it needs to make it into a or to make it into says yeah honey in its hive is even but you see from there that that's not in a hive is not okay the the gizen and the serum they don't produce honey in a hive only the bee does. [snorts] As a result those honeys are not which supports the says meaning it's only after you establish it in your mind as that it's going to be but otherwise it won't be so we're talking about so this is some that comes out of the yak is one of the one of the kosher animals so we're dealing with the rash says the female might that discharges from her womb thought that they're bim of the eat them because they're safro said that's not what they are. It's really the zera of of the ayal that tried being mishamish with the ayat of the but you find many that the of the is very narrow. So it was very difficult for the to be instead he went to this mort and the zera that of the aisle that was in the yak is what was not what came out. The point is not is if it's part of the it's not part of the as a result it's going to be said of apparently when it's born there's a membrane that covers its face why it's not part of the not part of the mother not part of the child it's not part of the time we look at it as just some that came out but it's not part of the animal it's not even it's not part of the non-cooser animal it's not part of the there's no reason you can't own a person a human being that's born with on its face. So whether it's or whether it's now what does it mean my love doesn't it mean you need oh so what do you see from here you see that it's not considered rash is for the terrorist so you see from here that it doesn't matter whether he's alive not alive the mother's alive mother's not alive meaning they could both be dead still that is that is is to meaning it's not subject to what's the reason obviously it's not part of the it's not it's because it was part of the body whether the mother or the child then would be then it would be so this is a riot again we're discussing not doesn't have so the question is we're saying it's why it's said I have a riot what's the right because The context over there is m and you see clearly that that is not subject to m that means it's not part of the child it's not part of the mother says maybe the way you have to read the brace is then when is it okay it's okay if the baby is alive and the mother's alive or if the baby's dead and the mother's alive mean really it's part of the mother and being that it's part of the mother as long as the mother's alive it's not going to have I and the way you read the BRC is whether it is alive and the mother's alive or whether it's dead and the mother's alive but what's constant in both scenarios the mother's alive as long as the mother's alive it's not you know why because it's part of the mother but if the mother would die then it would be a problem why would it be a problem because it's not we look at it as part of the mother the point is we look at that membrane as part of the mother if you look as part of the mother in case you can't eat it because it's part of the mother it's also not kosher so as a result you have no raya from this but the gummor says but we learned in another whether he's alive and the mother's dead whether he's dead and the mother's alive we covered every scenario clearly and it says mafur over here in all cases it's if that's the case then you see there's no mas part of the mother it's not part of the child says on the thing if it's a it's Bryce.