פלפול ליישב קושיית רעק״א בענין שחיטה בסומא

Going back one more time to the raid of the last few days and specifically Reb Akiva Eiger's kasha that we mentioned yesterday. And that is the Mishnah on daf Yud Gimel amud Bet said, "Ha shocheit ba'lailah v'chen ha'sumah she'shachat sh'chitasah k'sheirah." The Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Sh'chitah perek siman aleph halach sif tet says, "Sumah lo yishchat l'chatchilah elah im kein acherim lo yuchlin lishchot." V'im shachat sh'chitasah k'sheirah. The sh'chitah is going to be kosher. Reb Akiva Eiger, why is it so possible in Halacha that if a sumah shachat, the sh'chitah is going to be kosher? We know there's a shitas Rebbi Yehudah in Shas that holds that a sumah is patur min ha'mitzvot. And even though we don't pasken like Rebbi Yehudah, but there's a shitas Rabbeinu Yerucham that says that we do pasken like Rebbi Yehudah. And the poskim say, "Meichash mi ba'i d'vei chayeish l'chumrah like the shita of Rabbeinu Yerucham that a sumah is patur min ha'mitzvot." Now, on the side that a sumah is patur min ha'mitzvot, it means he's not chayev in the laws of sh'chitah. If that's the case, he's not a bar zvicha. If that's the case, Reb Akiva Eiger, just like the Mishnah says on daf Yud Gimel amud Aleph that sh'chitah l'vei chayevim is n'veilah. And Tosfos and the Rosh and other Rishonim said on daf Gimel amud Bet, that why is it that sh'chitah l'vei chayevim is n'veilah? Well, because it says "V'zavachta v'achalta." And only someone that's a bar zvicha is able to shachat. But someone that the Torah did not say you need to shachat in order to be able to eat does not someone that's allowed to shachat. A bein d'rabbanan chayevim is not chayev in the laws of sh'chitah and the issur n'veilah. So, it's for that reason he is not kosher to shachat. Well, sumah l'vei Rebbi Yehudah that's patur min ha'mitzvot should also not be a bar zvicha. And if he's not a bar as we go, then then we should have to be highest uncle upon him that maybe his is not going to be a good so how could the say that if I know so and he shed the what happened to the sheet of the that was part of the not about he's not about should not be a sheet of the maker from this is that even though the holds that part of the is only for I say that he's going to be part of but for which means that is obligated to observe the negative commandment in the Torah of thou shall not EAT IN A VEIL SO IF he's not letting in a veil that means he needs in order to be he's about to buy that's why this is not an issue and he says it's a right good at the void to this idea even who holds part of the only for I say it's not for I say we mentioned as we mentioned over the years says says there's a lot of good all had but in the world of this was a right of truth from the fact that we allow to share and we're not for this I say there is no when it comes to I is not about the Torah says he's only excluded from he's included in I say says this is an available I say hence there's no question he's going to be a bar as we go. Now yesterday we spoke a little bit about this from the maker and we wondered out loud that the maker had a similar should not be a bar as we go. Every with is that if I in the video the is the is going to be a sheet of the maker are also part of the like similar and I feel like >> The teretz is whatever the teretz is. So what's similar to Rabihuda? Why is it different than a teretz of a katan? Whatever the teretz is going to be for a teretz of a katan, why would we view him as a teretz of a katan? That's why we would view a teretz of a katan as well. So we said yesterday and maybe it's emes and maybe it's even poshit that could be Rabihuda understood that the reason teretz of a katan are considered teretz of a katan even though they're teretz of a katan is like the Rabihuda said in his first teretz of a katan and Rabihuda and Rabihuda understanding And that is because even though the teretz of a katan is not obligated to keep the laws of teretz but at the same time And being that the katan is included in the teretz of a katan from the standpoint that the katan in his teretz of a katan was told that this relates to the katan as well because you're not allowed to be a teretz you can't be teretz the katan unless you are GOING TO TERETZ THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH to make him into a a teretz of a katan that's the case Rabihuda that this that is could be that's only by a teretz of a katan who are teretz of a katan but the reason that teretz of a katan they don't know how to BE BY THEMSELVES SO YOU BE CAREFUL FOR THEM BUT IT'S SIMILAR TO Rabihuda that's teretz of a katan is not teretz of a katan because he has no teretz a similar teretz OF A KATAN HE'S TERETZ OF A KATAN AND IF THAT'S THE CASE despite the fact that he has teretz the teretz says DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT YOU CAN teretz or the teretz told him he can teretz so why would the teretz now be the katan or somebody else and tell him you make sure he's allowed to eat it himself what I have to be more careful for him than he needs to be careful for himself if that's the case Rabihuda wasn't bothered with teretz of a katan all the stuff that he has IN THIS WORLD, HE DOESN'T PASS BY AND IT DOESN'T PASS BY SO IF THAT'S THE CASE HE'S NOT CUZ HE'S NOT HE'S NOT ME YOU DON'T HAVE YOU DON'T HAVE THE so if that's the case what's that is considered music music that the music is this is the that but as it relates to the music show of maybe we can say I'll people based on that we actually spoke about not so long ago we mentioned this that [snorts] music show it was music for the ages from a guy in Google the music show music show music show the same music show >> [snorts] >> and that is as follows the music show in music show music show brings that he may show only one of the London asked him music show music show that is we know that music show has a music show that music show music show according to many when we say music show music show music show only from music show but from music show music show he's going to be one of those music show music show but I'll this London told the music show that we know that music show music show music show music show according to many many music shows is from music show music show but not from music show music show so music show music show music show he's not part of mitzvah that's the case he said I have a a bummer kasha why the Rambam in the beginning of says that if somebody violates the Torah he gets malcus says the Rambam you get malcus isn't it a love by mitzvah Torah something that's done by so after Rambam that yes it is but the Torah says in different places that ordinarily you don't get malcus for love by mitzvah who's been remember this is one of the exceptions that's where you get malcus but the Rambam says I have another problem isn't Torah always a love by mitzvah and the reason is because if somebody violates Torah the Torah says and being that that's called mitzvah and if that's the case break the Rambam why do you get malcus for the love of Torah why is it not a love by mitzvah and the Rambam was yes you say says the Rambam the only time you say love by mitzvah is if the love and say are shovel if they're 100% equal if however the and say are not shovel so the is more inclusive than say then you don't say love by mitzvah says the Rambam if a >> [laughter] >> or would be over the Torah they would violate the love of Torah but the value of Torah based on the Torah says the Torah itself wouldn't be come to the love of Torah is more inclusive than the of Torah and anytime you have a love and that are not shovel because one is more inclusive than the other you don't say love by mitzvah this is the so the love went and he told the mitzvah he said if that's the case according to every love and are not shovel because every love in the world includes and every does not include and if that's the case how could you ever have a love BY MITZVAH THE RAMBAM SAYS THE ONLY TIME YOU say love by mitzvah is if the love and are one and the same BUT IF IT'S NOT ONE AND THE SAME like in the case of Torah you DON'T HAVE IT THE LOVE BY MITZVAH THE RAMBAM SAYS IS NOT SURE that because the say is more closer than THE ESSAY THE ALL 365 INCLUDE so but the essay IS ALL 248 DON'T INCLUDE THE AND IF THAT'S THE CASE how could it be that something called and he WENT HE SAID I DON'T tell me maybe doesn't know of because it's shots that if someone's over the noise see him there's no and it's why and says that you want to know why there's no by the love of because it's because the says that whatever is left over in the morning go ahead AND BURN SO BEING THAT IT'S FOR THAT REASON AND WHO SAID SO WE KNOW ALL SOMETHING CALLED SO WE KNOW ALL SOMETHING CALLED MEANS ONLY FOR FROM SO IF THAT'S THE CASE SO NOT LIKE THE THIS IS THE SHOW SAID THE SAME THE HL M WHO hacked them Twisters in the asks the other brings a that can't do so what do I need a to tell me that a woman can't do the says take off the which means had to happen right before so it's not beyond the office government had to be done during the day if had to be done during the day that means also had to be done during the day couldn't be done at night if that's the case the message from the women are from all so why do we need a to tell me that women are excluded from typically it's the truth is and that and asks an expanded version of this mission over there brings a whole bunch of different that women are excluded from and the brings up again each one of those avoid. Free [snorts] choices, why do I need a mccarthy this and a mccarthy that and a mccarthy the third thing and the fourth and the fifth. Take a clay, all avoiders had to be done during the day and women are parted from all mitzvahs as such as mangarama. So the same paper that brings a terrorist that we've mentioned many times over the years. The Malbim says it in his arts of life and the minor hawk says it in his classic period on safer mitzvahs and that is what's the mccarthy women are parted from mitzvahs as such as mangarama. The Gamorah says in the sacristy of the flood of the flood. It's because we know women are parted from Talmud Torah. Talmud Torah is is kish with filling. Thus women are parted from filling. Filling is is kish the color of the color. So we say that any mitzvah that is dominant filling women also going to be parted from. Filling is a mitzvah as such as mangarama cuz filling is only known by I am and it's not known by Chavez beyond that. So based on that, based on that the Gamorah says we know that women are parted from all mitzvahs as such as mangarama. Said the Malbim the minor hawk. What emerges is that the mccarthy women are parted from mitzvahs as such as mangarama is a dover halom made by kish that's being closer to Malbim by kish. We know from kish that when it comes to kish there's a rule. Dover halom made by kish is in a closer to Malbim by kish. So these two going and said that Malbim even though it's true women are always parted from mitzvahs as such as mangarama BUT MALBIM SAID KISH SHINY. You know why? Because the whole mccarthy the mitzvahs as such as mangarama is a dover halom made by kish being closer to Malbim by kish and by kish we know we can't and based on the fact that by kish WE CAN'T SO BY KISH WE CAN'T APPLY THAT MALBIM MITZVAHS AS SUCH AS MANGARAMA. That's a little bit of kish cuz normally you would say that this that dover halom made by kish is in a closer to Malbim by kish by kish that's when it's a kish the kish. So I have a kish the kish so it doesn't work in the kish of kish. BUT IF I HAVE A GLOBAL KISH THAT'S NOT KISH it's color of the color day that already I've established you kish right like the flood at the end of the first paragraph of kish that we spoke about earlier in the week. But when I have a collateral cooler digger hectic that works for everything, and I want to now apply it to kochim, YOU WOULD THINK YOU COULD. BUT THE MALBUM AND THE MAIN TWO epic 19th century both were into the same vibe. And they said to be then no, that means not only were it's an exclusive hectic for kochim, but even if it's a global like this, I can't even apply it. I can't even it to when it comes to the world of kochim. And if that's THE CASE, THE ANSWER IS NOT BY KOCHIM cuz kochim doesn't have my grandma cuz my kochim so St. Peter said a double niflon a double he said what's the shita of Yehuda that part of what is the the shita of Yehuda that the same of my time of Yehuda it says and we learn from there kochim someone that's included in the of return he's included in but someone that's excluded from the of Yehuda is excluded from a is excluded from the of and it means someone who usually could see not he didn't say being that a can never see so for that reason he's excluded but the goes fighter and the says okay so I know from there that a part of them but how do I know that a from cuz there's another it says someone that's included in is included IN BUT IF NOT NOT SAID THE SAME PAINTER, "YOU KNOW WHAT THE SHE DOES YOU DO? I ASSUME IT'S A DOG THAT'S GOING TO I LEARN MISS BUTTON FROM a car and then I learn miss BUTTON FROM MISS BUTTON. THE FEED THE MOUTH THAT WHATEVER you have a double it can't be even where it's not exclusively a culture even where it's a color COOLER BUT I CAN'T EVEN APPLY IT AND relate it and still to the culture application. If that's the case, what would emerge is is that even though the whole that is possible but the culture shiny when it comes to culture over there would already be different. So said the same painter, "What was the culture?" London asked the nation shall not >> [laughter] >> be asked him. He said, I don't understand. He said the whole that is and the say that it's only from essay is not from essay which emerges then as meaning that according to every essay the includes the where is that doesn't include the if that's the case I live with how could that ever be the that whatever that is you don't say that every and I say the that doesn't hold of cuz himself said with regards TO THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE YOU KNOW WHY? CUZ IT'S THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the the matter of the MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of [laughter] the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER MATTER of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter of the matter OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER WHEN IT COMES to kosher over there it's going to be different. So maybe maybe I'll pee this pill pole. We could just add one more enough and that is could they get asked a blitz of the kosher. He said assume as a lot of halacha. What happened TO RABBI YEHUDA? RABBI YEHUDA ASSUME AS A LOT OF RABBI YEHUDA. HE SHOULDN'T BE A AND DON'T TELL ME TO BE A KOSHER AS A LOT OF LIKE THE SAID. THERE IS A LOT OF LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT went up in THE SHACK. I ASSUME IT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF SO IF THERE'S NO LOT OF HE'S NOT A YOU KNOW WHAT THE IS? HE IS A KOSHER. HE'S A KOSHER. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I assume as you mean a lot of I don't mean a lot of he's a kosher. Where is a kosher? You know he's a kosher in kosher. That's where he's a kosher. HE'S A KOSHER. THE FIFTH IN THE TORAH is the to kosher. That's where he's A KOSHER. THE HAS BEEN A THAT'S WHERE HE'S A KOSHER. If you going to tell me that the whole is not true when it comes to kosher. Mommy you should give you want to know where you find he's a kosher. You find he's a kosher when it comes to kosher because like the said to answer and like the St. Peter said to answer the kosher and maybe we could also say to answer kosher that kosher shani.