Chulin 136

Today's daf is and we are 20 lines from the bottom of so in yesterday's the gor shifted its attention from the mitzvah of to the mitzvah of hag. So raises hag is another one of the matuna. It too is mentioned in a tucked away says line. So the Tyra says that you're supposed to give raises to which of course is another way of saying and then the Tyra says if you have sheep and you shear the wool of the sheep you have to take the ratious of the wool of the sheep that you shear and give it to a incidentally this p that mentions a is the immediately follows the mitzvah of so for the entire week we've been learning The very next say it's for that reason that in the sequence of you have and then the next is the so again the whole par of is not even a full it's the first half of the racial is the issue [clears throat] right in the beginning mentions the all the of a some of which we'll revisit in today's d but the primary focus of today's daf is going to be with regards to a mention on the bottom of I think it's to see that because again inside it's five lines from the bottom of and that will segue into today's brings a B of if you have a an animal that is owned by partners say that just because two own it is not a reason that it shouldn't be if one of the partners is a non-Jew so that the price is going to address but to the extent that Ruven and Shim together two own this animal there's no reason there shouldn't be However says you're going to be my time and my brother says the gay what hold that even how did they dish in the word [laughter] coming to exclude if one of the partners is a non-Jew but to the extent that both partners are you're going to be know that if you have a non-Jewish partner that you're going to be partnered meaning to the extent that he uses to be even if you have a that's aid it must imply that he knew is part from somewhere else because if he didn't know that a is part from somewhere else he would have used like so says you knew that from the ratio of the because the beginning of the like we said was says racial and so once I know that by Truma is that if you have a non-Jewish partner you're partner from Truma now I could be Makish the ratio of the Pik and the S of the Pik just like Truma there's uh an exemption if you have a non-Jewish partner so too when it comes to racial gay there's going to be an exemption if you have a non-Jewish partner if that's the case I know already that if you have a non-Jewish partner your potter from the heckish to so why the have to say must be it's even if you have a what about why don't say that I know that it's potter if you have a non-Jewish partner from the heckish to why do I need gays to be the said and then it over what it could have said was why the T mentioned the word raous in between it's to be and to say that even though it's one and there's a ra and a and at first glance it would look like you have the building blocks to make a classic heckish at the same time it's not something you're allowed to do so is one para gay son is another para just because you're from truma when you have a non-Jewish partner doesn't mean you're going to be from when you have a non-Jewish partner as a result I need a to tell me that you're from when you have a non-Jewish partner what's that ra if I need to be a non-Jewish partner I don't have to be a Jewish partner the bottom line is that what emerges from this bracelet and this is critical as an introduction for today's the entire daf revolves around these two points and that is this between and the in this number one are you in or are you not in two yidden together own sheep is there an obligation of or not according to the there is according to there is not and the reason according to there is not is because it says in the voracious gaze is coming to be a second a derivative that comes out of this that's also critical and that is whether there's a heckish in this between or not according to the in the same mention also known as and gay also known as to be the two par to tell that there's some connection between the mitzvah of and between the mitzvah of according to there is no in this between the two parach lines from the bottom of the to tell me that if two partners together own sheep they're going to be part of and again how does he know that because in the word the gun is in the singular it's to tell me you if one person owns the sheep he has an obligation of but if would own the sheep they would not have an obligation of stating that by even though they are two you find the uses singular theory uses the still going to be meaning would have been to make the same and to tell emphasis on you see it's only a that's obligated. So you would think that maybe should be popular still why why would ra and not the answer is because it also says in the par of the true thus even though on the one hand you have the You have the word is trumps the word and as a result the is even not going to be if that's the case why did the mislead us why the use the word to tell me that are going to be exact but as it relates to a Jewish partner in that case you're going to be continued and said the same is going to be true That's the as it relates to uses the word ra would have been mocking to think the rail would say that if two partners together own dough they have a bakery they're going to be potter from why because maybe we should learn racial ra that the terror says by kala to the ra that the terra says by and say I'm going to be potter stating that said even though they'd be mocked to think that would hold his same that he said you're going to be why because he says and that takes precedent says all the time says I don't agree with your whole premise over here you needed according to tell me that because without I would learn rightous from a gay and rabb shouldn't you learn from what was the first thing said that even though holds that from but agrees that so once I know that and it says byum we've mentioned this already several times so what's the premise of the to say learn from tell me maybe learn from the ra that it says byum to tell me that you're so what do I need before says you're right true good point holds you don't need a for it because once we know that in racious racist you're always right that's how you saw it every time you can be mak or you can be you're always so of course he'd be makra and tell me that not going to be if That's the case. Why the mention that teaches me the whole purpose of it is to teach me what the is incidentally what is the it's 42.2 Bim and the way to remember that says the sh is it's the gimatri of kala is gimatri 42 the hey is the fifth thus it's 42.2 to but either way is not coming to teach me any with regards to but rather what is coming to teach me continued and said as it relates it says the word and you would think just like you would think that two partners own a field maybe that part they're from is the takes precedence over the that's going to be one of the consistent themes in this. So you see overrides is even according to that partners will be if that's the case why didn't use the word if it's not to be tell me if you have a non-Jewish partner that yeah but a Jewish partner that's from continued he said as it relates to the mitzvah of and Again, you would have thought according to law just like he gracious. Let's be over here too over there and again takes precedence over the if that's the case. Why mention it's going to be? What about it sounds like if that's the case then partners that own a house together should be part from the mitzvah according to just like said wouldn't it seem reasonable to the rabbin of that's coming to be that even going to be why then does it say look at the famously says how do you know that you're supposed to put on the right side of the door how do you know not on the left side it's because most people are righties and they walk so when you walk into your house it's your right foot first the is supposed to be on your right side the bottom line is not coming to be a house that's owned Ra is coming to teach me where exactly the is supposed to be. Ra continued and said again that says that partners a partner from why it says it's coming to partners even if both partners are so you would have thought that maybe two partners that own a field together should be partner from giving all the ma the reason it's not is because in other places the ter uses a lian again takes present says, "Why then did the ever use the law to tell me that if you have a non-Jewish party, if you have a Jewish party, you're going to be continued and he said, "What about the what's deal?" Okay, what does mean? And you would have had a mock to think let's learn it says so there certainly would have been to say that according to should be from even though there's no in the par itself of but via the you would think that if partners are potter then partner should be part why they both have the wrote the teachers says I have a problem with this time I need to tell me that partners because otherwise you would have learned from we said right at the beginning the first thing said in today's was that even though he holds that part he holds now by the also uses incidentally the same is going back on it's also going back in the beginning of the So the whole premise that I need a to tell me not to be like I would anyways know that you have to be from the says you're right you don't need this you don't need to teach me that part I would know it anyways I maybe learn from yeah the truma for example the so if anything would be the truth. If that's the case, why then did the use the word? We thought the Tyra mentioned to be part is it going to be but if we don't need this boy widened it say look I'm a we saw that last in the in the previous bar to teach me that who's responsible for the so if the ising somebody else's animals the is somehow the he's on the hook for and he can be summoned to court etc etc but the point is it's a whole different that's learned out from that I in fact don't need it for this ra continued And said be cool again said that partners are from racial are why it says gay said based on that you could have had a shall then maybe partners that own a field together should be you know why that's not true because the also says to tell me that even partners Why didn't the terrorist say the word to tell me that there's no it's a we may not all know all know the but we all know the and that is only that are not right what doesn't by definition mean it means it's a mitzvah that's related to the ground any mitzvah that's related to the ground it means the ground of it means of of but as it relates to a mitzvah always so why do I need your land the the Jewish land is init to tell me that you're of course you're asks And an unbelievable ter says second from the top because two out of the three times that mentions the mitzvah of it juxtaposes it with the mitzvah of so when we learn we were looking at it from the perspective that why did the Tory mention next to so you have to look at it from the perspective but you also have to look at it from the perspective it says from the perspective you know what it sounds like just like is not only right you can't eat a cheeseburger even so maybe it should be so even though it's a still it could have been to think it's included Regardless continued and said I can hear that if two partners own a bag maybe that part from the reason it's not that way that's already lush around the use misleading word tell me only your but if for 30 days anyways you're going to be part of Maka by Mak as well there would have been a muck to think according to but if two partners own a house together they should be part of why which is and that's why even why didn't the mention the word is that medish that's different over there there's no to put a maka regardless if you do the math ra just mentioned 10 cases in the where based on our ra would have been a that if there's a partnership if you formed an LLC so now somehow you're going to be put from all these mitzvah whether it's truma whether it's miser whether it's whether it's muza ma really spanning Why? Because said that is a from because it says vious gay. So if you're going to darish in the word to mean only a it has to be owned by an individual but if it's owned by a rabb it's not that way what all these other parishes in the said ra stating that he went through methodically and systematically one by one why even though you find in the stating that is that even is going to agree that is going to be stating that I disagree with what said so usually you have arguing with What said this is not this is son this is had a son and was arguing with what said we learn to said that if two partners you're going to be part and So it's going to be Frank the fox according to that ra said that if you have a lian and a that was the theme in that the Russian rabb always takes precedence over the so how come you don't say rather you say so you see not that way if that's true that the really takes precedence over Now we have to go back and revisit everything said and knocks out. So told he say it's not true because I have that's shows that the even when you have a in the same you have to say rab would disagree would say that it's true you proved that holds that is because it says It must be because he felt you can't meaning the reason to say that would hold that is because there must have been a particular reason why he felt you couldn't because he hold doesn't mean two partners but it means the buck and the of all of Israel that's what it means but as it relates to as it relates to all the other if you have a len and a lenim it's still the lenim that's going to take precedence. Incidentally, even though the garra answered on behalf of still upke as it relates to because one of the 10 cases that said would be with regards to lawy said. So that part of rava would seem to be mu. But what the Gar is answering is it doesn't mean everything said is mu because if you're going to walk away from this and say that holds if there's a l and a lim it's the l that takes precedence now we just knocked out the whole ra the point is you can't knock out the whole that one of the 10 things said maybe but as it relates to everything else said must be he didn't because he felt that just meant all of but to the extent you could darish in the lim and you could dish in the l then we'll dish the over the continues. I have a robot. He learned a very simple. What's the cash? Now if Ra is right, what was the first thing Ra said? That Truma is even if two partners own the field. If so, let's make the made already a few times in today's D. Why am I saying that? Because I'm learning it from like and see and this the doesn't refute. So said that even though Ra made a very nice and he said that from this don't get excited and start applying it cutting and pasting it throughout you can't do that said but I'll tell you 10 other times where you would have maybe thought you could apply that you really can't apply that whole is you know why as it relates to says despite the fact that said maybe you're really going to be and if said you're by or you must be you're also by because to the extent that by you would never know you're part of because the basis to you by is to learn it from what's the basis to learn that because by both of them it says if you the bottom line Either way, there's a sh now how to make this next turn in the garra. The way he explains it at least in one show is the gumar is now going back to the original bry that we started with but the second part of it. So we said there were two in the original that mentioned the very straightforward between where the or the said you're part why you what we saw what we very often see in that one ends up evolving into several as derivatives of the original and in this case there's a And that is could you be mishuma and a or not? The beginning of the pix says also known as truma. The second part of the Pik says voracious gay also known as a rail felt that there's a heckage in the between the mitzvah of Truma and the mitzvah of a said voracious there is no what's the connection between this and the original helac not to be but to be your non-Jewish partner I don't need to be if you have a non-Jewish partner cuz I know that from the heckish to Truma say there is no hesish to Truma. So you have a mus whether there's a heckage between racial and truma or whe there's not a heckage between and truma and that's vital to the primary of the which is whether is or is not either way from here until the end of the is going to discuss that derivative and that is is there a is there a heish between true man or not according to there is According to Rabi there is according to Rabi that there's a heckish between Truma and if that's the case if Truma is only everybody knows that then the should be that should also only be and not and had gaze is only in and not then the mat of this royal and should also only be init and not in because are going to be learned out either from Truma or from va and to the extent that both Truma and are only and Then does also have to only be meaning you would think at first glance is only that we know right it's only is not from the even though it's from the mountain but has nothing to do with it's sheep it's not also not so you would the way you would set it up is you would say truma is is is not is not is going to be the is going to be the same thing. And even though there's a heckish in theory, you have this that link the three, but at the end of the day, what you're going to end up with is being as it relates to the relationship and say that even though maybe you can be Makish, one of the two to Truma and say that just like Truma is only so so should only be but if anything you'll be you'll be and say that if the other one's this one has to be as well if that makes sense. What the bottom line is is what the Gumar is saying is that if there's a heckish now between Truma and Raay then what has to happen is very simple Truma's only know should only be if and Truma only know and you have between the so there's nothing to be so then should also only be so what should emerge from which started off as a as a very subtle which is this should really be a revol in the because what came out was that there's a heckish between Truma and Raay who wa if there's a heckish between Truma and Raay that's going to impact a tremendously how many there are with regards to Truma that you wouldn't have thought are necessarily applicable to Raar's gonna go through all of them right now >> [laughter] >> now would also get thrown into the mix. That's the it's a good and there's nothing wrong with saying that in fact that is that both and are only they're not just getting excited. What's again going along this same theme which is that according to that there's a heckish between the mitzvah of truma and the mitzvah of why don't we say that just like as it relates to truma if somebody eats from his pis his tu without being malfa It's going to be so there should be as well. And even though we saw in we'll revisit this soon it's with the ra that there is a out there that holds that if somebody eats it's as if he's eating but of course it's not the and it's with relates to nobody ever heard anything about there being a concept of so again if this this so why do we say that just like there's a concept of gay also concept told him gaz said The whole concept of racial aes goes into effect when it's racial when you mish it that's when we have to have the conversation about raay but before there's the racial aes you don't even have to be concerned with racial aes it doesn't exist until you're maf in other words there is no idea of te would imply that the concept exists before you mafet it exists so much so that it it creates the rumbus is is that there is no until As a result, there's not going to be another somebody eats. Somebody eats he has to repay the and he has to pay a search charge. He has to add which is not 20% more it's 25% more. So one you would say based on this between if somebody is from it there should be if somebody does he should be the says with regards to someone that eats and it says with regards to somebody that does so we have mutant reach against the one is just like after then there's there's my maybe after you have the same idea. So maybe there's a concept of etc etc as it relates to races you have but there's nothing after the why don't we say that just like as it relates to truma there's that you can't be maf meaning there's a fiscal year as it relates to truma you can't be maf your 2019 truma on behalf of things that grew in 2018, right? There's that each year's gets boxed in and you have to be you can't do it. So perhaps the same thing should be true when it comes to action and why don't you say the same concept in yeah maybe that is the case and I'll prove it to you if somebody had two sheep and he sheared it in you know two over two or three years and he had now the shear of a and the reason it's not is because in the Mishna the first mission of the how many sheep you have to shear in order to had been rich. Basil said five. We pass like B. So being that over here it was two sheep even though you did it over several years. You sheared it five times but it doesn't matter at the end of the day you need five sheep. But what does it sound like? Let's say you would have five sheep and you would shear it over two to three years. They would bear. The issue is you only had two sheep. You didn't have enough sheep in order to be says two sheep. Basil says no it has to be five. IF YOU DIDN'T shear five sheep, you're not going to be raises like this. When the the braist therefore emphasizing the fact that we pos says if you had two sheep and you sheared it even five times meaning you did it over three years. So you had multiple shearings of each sheep because it's it sounds like what what's the issue cuz only two sheep but the fact that it happened over three years that in doesn't bother me. Meaning if you'd have five sheep over five years or over two years or over three years it sounds like that would be another says it's not oh no you know what the terrorists must be it must be the of whether or not you can do it from one year to another year is would say it's okay would say it's not okay why would say it's not okay because of this hish because of the hish between you can't be mafish So too when it comes to continues why do we say that is that if you buy from somebody who himself wasn't until you buy from a non-Jew so is whatever grew in the non-Jews possession you're apart from giving it was so maybe you should say the same thing so first of all how do you know that by such the buy a field in was this very tricky place in as it relates to the conquered surya also known as it was a maybe what exactly the definition of is but the point is is that this is this tricky place if you bought before it already grew aish meaning that's the at which point the is already and so it grew aish in the possession of the that's easy let's say it grew already says you're going to be in the extra once it grew aish in the possession of a non-Jew you're always going to be what do you see from here everybody agrees there's an idea that if something grows in a non-Jew's possession that beetle is going to be pot once it grows aish by a non-Jew it's always pot and v up to the you're going to be potter according to you'll be in the pot that grew in the Jew possession you're going to be but there's a concept of potter why do you say the same thing say that says why do you know if somebody buys the gaze the wool from a What does it sound like? It sounds like if you buy the wool, meaning this non-Jew, the gentile sells you the wool on his sheep because you don't have to give it implied very obvious is if you would sell the actual sheep to you, then you would be right if he sells the wool, you why? Because it's not gay. You don't own the sheep. But let's say he would sell the sheep to you. Now I own the sheep. The fact that it was once it the the property of a non-Jew and the wool that you're sharing now grew when this non-Jew owned it wouldn't make you potter according to you should be potter why say based on the between soar says you're right you have no choice but to say that our mission is not like going in that case you'd Another cash. Why do we say that just like you can't be mafish from one to another? So too the same thing says for you can't be somebody had two different types of black figs and white figs. Two different types of wheat. bottom line is you see there's an idea that you can't be malfun says in fact that is who said it's not is that true look at our said that if you had two different types of sheep you had sheep and sheep two different types of two colors And you had a now who sells to he doesn't sell the sheep and each have to give from the sheep that they have. The has to give from the sheep that he retained has to give from what he bought. What do you see from here? That you can't be mafish says the it's very good. Meaning what was the kasha? The kasha was that if we're being against the truma say that just like you can't be mafar says you're right before the says we learned in the safe of the what did it say what happens if somebody sells his male sheep but he doesn't sell his female sheep and the mission says the same he has to give his and he has to give his meaning you be mafish ra from what you retain You retain voice from you're going to tell me that this Mishna is because it they're two different meaning they're not two different is not considered two as it relates to this idea you're not being so what do you have to say that when the Mishna says that if I have the you'll be from the vice versa it's not telling me that I need to be mafish from mine and you have to be mafish on from yours because they're two separate minim and the must somehow distinct just like they are by the must be telling me a different may explains to that really what the Mishna is saying is that the is the one that's responsible for the so if I own sheep and I sell some of my sheep I'm responsible even from the sheep that I sold to you and what the is saying is to that let's say I sold you the inferior sheep I should try the final to keep some of the wool or maybe buy back some of the wool that I sold you on that sheep. So I should be maf from that not because I have to cuz otherwise there'll be a problem of but more simply practically because I have an obligation now to give from what I have and from what I sold to you and I sold you inferior stuff. So why should I take from the better to be on behalf of the inferior stuff that I sold you? This is all in the bottom line of so you can't prove anything from this Mishna that when the Mishna said that if there two different colors of wool and I sold one color I maintain the other color we're each for our own respective because otherwise it has nothing to do with just like the line of has nothing this has nothing to do with rather what the is saying is is that the being that he retained some of his sheep has an obligation for all the riches like despite the fact that he sold some of it and it's a type of being that you're going to have to be mafish on something that you sold to the extent you sold inferior stuff. Hold back some of that wool because otherwise you're going to be being mafish from the better on behalf of the the the lesser. The bottom line is the question is that it's really a cash now because if you're going to tell me that is that there's a heckish between and it's [clears throat] just like by you can't be also and after further review it sounds like from the really you could be all the saying is there's this concept of but otherwise there's no problem it doesn't work says you can't ask a from this we already established that the is one more and that is just like that somebody decides he wants to be a big he wants to be a mmer so he decides I want my whole field to be trum doesn't work racial means only the racist he has to be a that has to be so maybe say the same thing says good yeah good point. In fact, it's a whole certainly sounds like it's as reling it doesn't work. What's the terror nowadays? So we had a whole block back and forth forth and back with says the nowadays the scroll is like these three is like as it relates to only know that only Because held as a heckish that was the second thing takeaway of the heishum and only despite the fact that it's not from the parts is also only so nowadays the is only the is to go like with regards to referring to whom should not be able to stating that said meaning practically is the ministers to follow as relates to the only time if you take a and a grape seed that's in one shot you put it into the ground if you don't sew it in that way you're not going to be either way. So the Gmorra concluded this really fested with as it relates to sounds like he's a in today's for sure but and the one that we need is and there's a very important rashi in this every rash is important but this rashi is critical it's a very short rashi it's a two-word rashi So a man said meaning even though the said that we like or the not that the like that we're not it meant not only with regards to it meant with regards to the and the cave is say the because if you cup with the it was really all because to the extent that there's a heckish between a and then there has to be now from this to the point is that so once I know that is only in so what will come out is that this would be the same thing if that's the case the way learns the said that even though the first stating that concludes this discussion by saying that this is not it's stating that if you take a look at the Rambam the Rambam in says throughout you find the word he says This is what it means. It means says very clear in the beginning of that that is that stating that if you look at the beginning of doesn't say it's but it's not going to be That means the distinguished between the he didn't say matos. He said rashi said but that was rashi. The garra never said that the ram can argued with rashi and he held that the gummor only meant rage. The Gmorra did not mean the mat. It's interesting the rush in brings. You see that to do it. This is Rashi said it in two words in our but it's only that's not the said it about if you're talking about that's already was resolved on the level we don't need for that but as it relates never said that and the way that brings it right here very he said what he said in Incidentally, Rashi says it also in this is but the Ram argued and other argued as well. What's the bottom line? What's the take a look in says it's are those that say that it's not says the but the bottom line is so these two are brought down and then the concludes and he says what's the meaning is to follow rashi the ministral is to follow places not like So the bottom line is the Mishnah says there's a and it's everybody's been bothered since we started learning better that why is it not going on the answer is no it's very simple says that really it's two it comes down to when Nothing is mentioned. He said it with regards to said that the rabbel it's the same reason we have to sit down first then try to figure out why the minist was like this over here and like that over there. But as it relates to the but are not that way and says that the is like but if you look right after this there's a parenthesis it's not very often that quotes the so he sends you to the so what does he refer to says like this regarding The right shot says meaning he says today unfortunately we have no way to get the butchers to agree to this royal cave. and says it's for that reason that we don't do meaning the said that really I think we should be and should be so why not it's because we don't have the name we should have the but unfortunately it's not something that we have today in other words it's the butchers union that are too powerful and as a result we wouldn't be able overcome it. But the bottom line is as it relates to the M is that we do not give but but stating that Rashi is blushing and was that meaning even Rashi was masking that there's a concept of that's we spoke at earlier in the week with said that he had avug of we think that he used to give his and gave it to which was number one it was only and number two he did it he gave it to his who was married to Abas who he himself was so that was a really there's a lot more to talk about as it relates to number one is is there a concept of right we said right we had the over and over and over again that as as it relates to the mitzvah even said that it's as if he ate but the lion was so just a sneak preview to some of the ram we'll talk about on Sunday and that is so where in the world does this come into that's that's a good punch line in itself the are like They asked why were you told they used to ask people he said I was always the first one he said that if I was ever sitting at a there was a present I wouldn't say I would let the the be the one and he said I would never eat What does it mean to say? What it means to say is that even though is not like meaning is not like that there is no you don't have to be and would always give and he felt that he was a school that was because he was mafisha or he wouldn't eat from his meat. before he was he treated it as meaning when we talk about yeah no butcher's union and all this rate are we dealing with so we're not dealing with because even though it's as if you stating that what we are dealing with is a school of that and much much more the Sunday's stuff.