This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:10 Good morning. Today's daff is diml the final daff in peran. Today's daff is sponsored by our Torah sponsors for the month of Mel and Karen Ram who sponsored for as 0:33 we also thank our sponsors Ed Narris Miller and Adam and Dr. Leslie Rosen for sponsored of the month Dr. Joseph and Yseph Ben Ruin. We also thank the friends of Mayor Ben Pera who sponsor as for we also thank our week of learning sponsors Ed and Faith Wolf for sponsoring all of the week 0:56 whose yard was on. We also thank our sponsors Ayal Steinberg for sponsoring Dyomi in this for continued health for an all should have an all to the today's 103 1:26 and just a quick recap of what we talked about yesterday. So today's gumar is going to make sense. Yesterday at the bottom of the bottom the bottom of we brought a between and we are exactly the isra of comes from in other words it's clear that the isra of 1:51 comes from the the which says that's very clear tells us that the is of And everybody also agrees that the teaches me that you're not allowed to eat meat from an animal that is a tra that sustained one of the tra injuries. 2:15 The question just is is also learned from the or is learned from that's the between. So quickly just to see it inside this is again about 10 lines from the bottom of according to 2:48 comes from the disagrees and he says includes both eating a limb of a live animal as well as eating flesh from the live animal. So therefore and are both learned from exactly they're both derived from exactly the same and he says that refers to now the Gmorra goes off the next few 3:23 lines and talks about what the difference would be. Ultimately, the bottom line is if you ate a few of them, the question just would be how many depending if it's coming from the same or from a different we'll quickly read that together. So here you have the person eats a limb of a live animal and flesh from a live animal twice. Why? Because 3:52 are two separate that come from two separate You're only going to be once because it is exactly the same. You haven't done two separate. You've done exactly the same. If you eat a personal eat sorry twice because and are two separate learn from two 4:27 once because are exactly the same from the same. However, everybody agrees if you have a limb from a live animal and flesh from a twice that is because everybody agrees that and are learned from two separate the 4:51 question just is what floats between the two of them is and that's where those differences are going going to come in. Now the asks the is going going to give a number of different answers four different answers to this question of theor's contradiction is as follows. It says if a person eats an 5:15 so a person has a double whammy over here. He hits Abra limb of a live animal. That live animal also was a says twice says once everything works out. Why is that? 5:39 Because according to it's clear that and are learned from two separate. So, I perfectly understand why he's going to be twice because he ate trafe meat over here. He also ate Abram and wants to know according to why according to he say only once again 6:03 this is and everybody agrees that is learned from the of and teaches you that forbids a person from eating. So why according to is he only once if he eats this from a 6:27 answer as follows. We're talking about two different cases. One of them is talking about when you had and from exactly the same animal. when it's exactly the same animal is going to be of the opinion you only once. We'll talk about that in just going to say thank you. You only once but if it comes from two separate animals that's going to say twice is 7:02 going to explain. Now the explains when it comes to two animals twice when it's one animal that's where there's between now is going to explain what's going on here. In other words, it's a funny thing because there's no about and 7:34 this has seems to have nothing to do the previous locus. So it's an interesting thing the gumar kind of asks this as a as a steer uses the term vermin essentially the gumar is just saying clarify this for us we know that had this disagreement about and here we have a case where it's 8:00 and there's between we can't seem to figure out how we're tying and to this but a person who eats from he's fine according to there's no problem. Why? Because everyone agrees that and two separate. 8:23 So when he tells us that twice, we're not going to bother him. The question just is why did say that you're going to be only once? Soar says because we're talking about a case. I'm sorry. 8:42 We're distinguishing between a case when it's one animal and two animals. See the inside when it's one animal. What are they arguing about explains for example this animal as it was being born when the majority of the animal came out it became a traa. So there was some kind of 9:07 birth injury that happened over here and when this animal was born it became a tra. So now its entire life in other words the second that it was born it also became a tra. So typically an animal's first born and it's a good happy healthy animal and then maybe it's outside and sustain some kind of injury and it becomes a tra in this case for its entire life the second that it got 9:32 life it also became a traa. Now, one opinion says, so this is something we explained yesterday. I want to just explain it again because I may not have done the perfect job explaining this yesterday and what its relevance is to. So, I'll just try to explain it. When an animal is walking around as a live whole animal, if you're going to say 9:58 that means that there is already an of on that. Why? Because this animal is viewed as a bunch of different avaram walking around. So if you were a butcher and you saw this animal walking around, you say, "Oh, check out those flanking over there." Or, "Look at that piece of meat over there. Look at the rib steak. Look at 10:22 whatever kind of meat you're going to talk you're going to be referring to." But as the animals walking around, you just see a bunch of different pieces of meat walking around. And therefore what that means is that at that point in time the animal already has upon it a bunch of different isurum of aai. Why? Because your view of this animal is a bunch of 10:45 different aarim which happen to be fused together walking around in the form of an animal. Now the other opinion says a live animal is not just a bunch of pieces of meat fused together. It's an animal. There's no on an animal that's fully intact. The is only becomes relevant once you cut off 11:09 the limb. If you cut off the limb, now guess what? A new is falls upon this animal called which wasn't there beforehand. Now that's important to understand because in this case what happens here is you have an animal whose entire life this animal was a tra. 11:28 Let's see. One opinion says the animal has always been viewed as a bunch of different therefore. Therefore, simultaneously, the second the animal is born, guess what happens? It gets life. 11:50 The second it's born, it becomes a traa. And the second it's born, we have an iss of which devolves upon that animal. So we have two things happening exactly the same time. It's born which is the the action. But theic relevance is that the moment it's born it becomes a tra and the moment it's born it also has upon it an iser a 12:15 prohibition of a says therefore if you were to eat a from this animal you have an animal that has a simultaneous problem and and anai problem and if you eat from it you'll twice of the opinion When an animal's alive, you don't view it as a bunch of a bunch of limbs 12:39 walking around. It's a whole animal. And this animal we know became a trai it was born. But from the moment it was born until the moment this person ripped off one of its avarim, all it had was an iser of tra. Now when you rip off that a that limb what happens you says 13:07 sorry says you cannot add on you can't tack on or stack another is of upon an already existing tra so that's one explanation into this between and in other words over here is do we How do we view an animal when it walks around? Is it a bunch of and is going to 13:36 be if it's a bunch of and each a already has an existing prohibition of a and therefore when it's born as a there's a simultaneous and of that's how is going to view it or do you say it's not just a bunch of limbs walking around rather it's a whole animal and there's no prohibition of until you pull 14:02 off that limb. Therefore, first it has and then there's no room because you can't stack. You can't stack because he says applies even to a third. Everybody agrees everybody agrees the opposite that while animals walking around, how do we view it? We view it as a bunch of limbs 14:26 walking around and therefore you point to a limb and say that that limb has a prohibition of that limb has a prohibition of what's the case over here our case is talking about a case of it became later on in its life in other words according to this understanding the moment the animal is born it already 14:49 has upon it a prohibition of Abraai Then later on the animal became a soi here they're having an argument whether we say can we say that an animal that already has an existing prohibition of can now add on an oford can go ahead and add on top of 15:21 the opinion we cannot add the on top of a fourth explanation could go into he says guess what this is talking about a case where the limb that you removed was one of those limbs that causes the animal to be a tra if you remember from we said cuts off the leg of an animal 15:48 what happens is as soon as that leg comes off it is considered to be a tra so says raba That's the case over here. The case is the animal's born a good happy healthy cow and it's walking around enjoying its life like any other cow. Then this person comes along chops off its leg and then our is that second the animal becomes a and there is an is of which falls upon that 16:15 leg. One opinion says that the animals not considered to have the immediately and therefore says those two come exactly at the same time and therefore twice for eating that disagrees and he says he says it's the animal has it all the 16:44 time you cannot stack on another is of of when you cut off the leg. So therefore again a bunch of different versions how we can understand why says you're going to be twice and is going to say only once. 17:03 Ultimately it it the the main three points over here are do we say that there is an is of a which devolves upon an animal the moment it's born because it has a bunch of different aaram inside it or do we say no while the animal's a complete whole animal which is intact there's no of Abraai on that animal 17:26 because it's not ivaram it's an animal that's one another is do we say that the is of Abra is so strong that it can be stacked up on top of an isert. And the other thing that we pointed out is that maybe there's an opinion that says even the is of can be stacked on top of the is of and all those points are going to be the 17:47 subject of the between and says the name Minha person eats kalev from a live animal that is a traa. So I guess like some kind of a lipo suction was done on this animal over here and they extracted some fat from this animal while still alive. So there's potentially three problems over here. It's hidden fats which is it's from a live animal and 18:23 it's a tra. So you get three potential problems just by eating that one syringe full of from this animal. What's so what does he say? It says you only twice. We're eating this. 18:43 You only twice said to him, "Why are you saying you only twice? I say in the name of of three times because it's says actually we learned elsewhere that indeed if a person eats from a live animal which is a then the person is going to be three times. So wants to 19:20 know again what is the what is the point of contention that they're arguing about why there would be two prohibitions or three prohibitions for says for example but this is a case where this animal became a at the time that it was being born one who's of the opinion say three times Like we mentioned before, when the 19:52 animal is alive, we view it as a bunch of separate and therefore the moment that this animal is born, all three things devolved upon it at the same time. It was born. So it's soon as it's born as a live animal just like every other animal in the world it has a prohibition of kale that you can't eat those those prohibited fats 20:18 as well since it became a trai it was born it has now the status of the traa and like we said every animal is a bunch of individual limbs and therefore this animal has an isra of a so you basically stack all these three these these three things together because they develop simultaneously on this animal the is the person eats the scale of his three times. 20:42 The one who says twice an animal does not get the prohibition of until one of the are moved are removed. And therefore in our case where the animal is born as a in this case it's born as a so the second it's born it has of and it has of a but the is of doesn't come until later 21:17 and that doesn't have any more room to be stacked on. Another way of understanding this is the everybody agrees. Everybody agrees that the does not come until you remove the a why because the moment sorry at the moment but the time that the animal is alive we don't view it as 21:40 a bunch of separate and therefore there's no at that point in time. What are they arguing about? They they're actually arguing can you add on the on top of an is in other words that exactly is the can you just go ahead and add on an isra 22:05 on top of a mar one opinion says no problem you can go ahead and add on top of an animal that's a and on top of I say can't go ahead. 22:20 You can't go ahead and add on to there are those who are going ahead who who will say again getting back to this everybody agrees when an animal is alive we view it as a bunch of separate what's our case talking about he became afterwards. So again this animal the second it's born it has a problem of and it has a problem of 22:50 because it's born naturally every animal has a problem with as well because an animal is ultimately going to be caught up into a bunch of we view it while it's alive as a bunch of separate limbs as well. So therefore is there from the beginning. 23:05 Then what happened became a later on in its life. What's the arguing can you stack on the is of on top of an animal that already has a prohibition of one opinion says yes you can add it on. 23:28 That's why three times and just like you could have a problem of taught us teaches us What does this mean? The tells us of referring to at the end of the it says you shall not eat it. So now what? If you look at that itself, why is it 24:07 telling us that the of and the of a should not be eaten? You're not allowed to eat it anyway. It's a it's an aa it's a tra. Now the fact that the P tells us that there is a prohibition of on and on a traa. 24:25 So this opinion says you know what just like is relevant by and by same thing's going to be true with so let's just read that inside one opinion says can go ahead and become relevant in this case just like the Torah teaches us you can have an addition prohibition of 24:55 the veil on top of and you could have have an additional problem of and it could devolve as well. the edok the other opinion says very nice that's definitely true that when it comes to and you'll have two separate is however that's specific to the that case of why 25:22 the truth is if you look in the they change it not to but you can go ahead you could evolve together with and dol because is one of these things which has a leniency built into it which is it's not always when isn't iter it's when it comes to by it's 25:45 relevant but an undomemesticated animal it's not going to be a problem so therefore since it has a built-in leniency inv that's why you could add it on top you could add and on top of it but would be different and you can't add it onto a traa top When it comes to maybe you can't go ahead and add on a third ultimately 26:11 that's what is a person eats can you add on the iser the additional is of not and that we have several different explanations as to why it would be either two problems or three problems now goes on to a slightly different discussion over When came he said asked on the following question in other words we're going to go ahead 26:49 with the assumption that a person is not for eating unless he eats a as we mentioned in yesterday's share. So a person unless unless a person eats a of let's just call it in this case he's not. So what happens if you take this of cut it into two pieces then eat one piece at a time. What's the 27:15 if you look at Rashi Rashi explains what what his question is. In other words let's just take a step a step back from a minute. Let's say a person has has tr meat and he sits down to a to a table and he has a kazas of tray for meat in front of him and he cuts the piece of meat in half and eats the entire piece 27:38 of meat in two bites. No one's going to say that you're not for eating meat. Everybody agrees if you eat a then you're for eating. The same thing is true if it's if it's if it's law if it has any other problem with it. 27:56 's question over here is specifically about do you have to eat the entire piece of meat in one bite or will will a person be even if he cuts it in half outside of his mouth. We're going to see this the different variations of the case in this in just a sec. Let's just read. 28:19 Can you go ahead and combine those two pieces of to make like every other every other if a person eats a time is usually depend the post can vary but somewhere around seven minutes he eats a he Maybe in this case it's going to be different. Why 28:54 is the What's the novelty about a person eats bones and senu of a non-cooser animal typically he's not going to be here he is soar is saying it's not a matter of being more more strict or more lenient it's just that it's different is different. It's its own animal over here. It's own creation of an isur. So 29:24 maybe it just doesn't follow the rules of all other isurim to say that it's going to if a person eats two pieces of you can combine it together. Now going back to the person cuts this into two pieces outside of his mouth. 29:45 He said to him, if he eats these two pieces of in two separate bites, even though the sum total of what he ate is a nevertheless, he's not going to be he's not be liable for this case because he did not eat it at the same time. 30:01 Now, he asked him the same question. What happens if he put the entire piece of meat into his mouth, chewed it up, swallowed half of it, and then swallowed the second half of it? He said to him, he's going to be in that case. So again, the differentiation between whether he cut the piece of meat outside his mouth and then ate it in two separate bites or 30:24 cut it inside his mouth. He chewed it inside his mouth and then ate it or swallowed it in two separate swallowings or he cut it outside of his mouth. Raban says he's he is potter. If he if he cuts it inside his mouth, he's raven. When Raven came, he said, he said the following potter. Everybody agrees if you cut the 30:50 piece of meat outside his mouth, he's going to be potter. If it's inside his mouth, here we have says he's for eating that disagrees. He says your potter for that for eating that piece of meat even though he has a sum total of a kaz. The fact of the matter is he ate it in two 31:16 separate batches because he cut it in half inside his mouth. Now the explains and why is says he's harrono. The bottom line is his throat derived pleasure. Now it's important to understand we're going to use the term nagrono in this a few times. Negrono means his throat had pleasure. The reality though is that we have pleasure 31:39 when we eat things. It's not it's not our throat that has the pleasure. It's the expression to say the person enjoyed it. So probably a more accurate term would be his pallet enjoyed it. But again we use the term grown. So according So let's just see this again. 31:55 He says what happens. A person takes a kazayas of he's not allowed to eat that. He puts it into his mouth and he chews it up. So now says on that moment that he chews it up inside his mouth his he already enjoyed that piece of meat. The fact that he swallows it into in two separate bites is irrelevant. He enjoyed entire and therefore 32:20 so therefore he enjoyed in his mouth says no he's not going to be in that case this needs to go into his stomach at the same time there needs to be a kazas of digested meat at the same time for a person to be for eating. 32:48 You don't have that here. Why? Because it's two separate swallowings that are going on in this case. And therefore, even though at some point it'll all get into his digestive tract. The bottom line is he swallowed it in two separate two separate swallowings. It goes into his stomach in two separate times and therefore each time it's not. 33:10 Now says, "Hold on a second." Says, "When is the person going to be for eating?" He has to swallow the entire in one bite. It's a lot to fit into a person's mouth. of kahana big grooma what's he talking about he's talking about case where there's a small bone and 33:44 since it's a bone he can't really chew it up so he essentially swallows the entire thing in one bite says another opinion over here he says even if a person cuts the in half outside his mouth he's the fact that something is not close to something else doesn't actually mean there's a difference of it's actually a 34:10 fascinating concept in it comes up in a few different places one of the places is in chabas with regard to the Mishna says personif person writes one letter in another letter another place far away from each other is even though these letters are in two different towns the fact that it's not close to the 34:35 other letter, it's not a big deal. You know what you got to do? Move it together and it's going to be okay. If it requires ripping a page out of a book or a person writes one letter on one wall and another letter on another way to break the wall apart, that's considered a problem of of coming close. 34:50 So ultimately says the fact that you have one piece inside your mouth, one piece out of your mouth, what's the problem? They're not close to each other. Big deal. Bring them together. Sorry. When we're saying a person eating a does not include the meat that's stuck between his teeth says 35:19 yes you can count meat stuck between his teeth and that's in other words if you have a precise exact he's chewing the meat and a piece gets stuck between his teeth says we have over here whether that piece between his meat is me that piece of meat between his teeth counts. 35:36 Papa says, "No, no one's going to argue about meat that's stuck between your teeth. You didn't eat it. No one's going to argue there. If he got a piece of meat stuck in his pallet, one opinion says, the bottom line is he enjoyed the piece of meat. It's in his mouth. It's on his pallet. And therefore, you're right. It didn't all 35:59 go down but he enjoyed entire piece of the other opinion says no you've got to get the entire kazayas into your digestive tract if part of it stays inside your mouth you're not in other words a fundamental over here whether a person h has to enjoy a kaz of meat and in in such a case even if a tiny piece of meat gets stuck in his mouth he's still kay or no you got to 36:26 you got to actually consume the entire piece of meat. And if the entire does not enter your digestive tract, what happens? A person eats a half a zas of of and he regurgitated it. He threw it up and now he ate another halfas. So he eats the kati zas. It goes down into his digestive tract and then comes back out. 36:59 Now he eats another half of Zas and it goes down into his digestive track. But the sum total of what he consumed is only a halfas because half of it came out. What's he enjoyed the following question. 37:24 What if a person eats a half of Don't ask him any questions. He couldn't see that piece of meat go to waste. So he ate it again. Okay. He ate the regurgitated piece of meat again. Says what's his question over here? 37:48 He's asking if this food that he ate is considered digested. In other words, if a person eats digested food, it's not food. The question is, if a person eats a piece of meat and it comes out so soon or looks like a piece of meat, is it considered digested food which is not food or is it still maintained status as meat? Mar says if that's his question, whether it's considered digested or not, why are you asking 38:12 about a half a what's the relevance of half a divis? Ask him about a kaz itself. In other words, if a person eats a full of and then he regurgitates it and then eats it again is he for eating twoim or one kazayas. 38:31 Why do you have to ask? He must be asking that question of do I care specifically about his physical pleasure that he gets when he puts it in his mouth and therefore he has a kazas or do we go after his stomach at the end of the day he had two kazim that went into his mouth but he had only one kazayas that made it into digestive tract because the first one came back out so 38:58 the sum total of meat inside his dig his digestive tract is one kazayas or we say at the end of the day he had two meals over here. He ate twice says why don't we just answer this from what said earlier told us clearly what is says that the truth is what was going on over here was actually a fascinating thing forgot all of his learning 39:27 wasn't asking him a question because he didn't know the answer one of his came to him and said he was trying to help jog his memory so therefore he was asking him a bunch of provocative questions to try to get him to think about these things. 39:42 This is what he said to him. Why are you talking about a case where it's a different in other words ask the same piece that was swallowed twice. We can learn two things from there. 40:00 Number one, that a regurgitated piece of meat is not considered digested meat and a person could be eating it a second time. The point according to is long as he enjoyed it in his mouth with the even if the sum total of what he digest is less than a it's still going to be a problem twice. Still what happened over here was unfortunately 40:25 still could not remember anything. He didn't remember anything about this. didn't respond said to him, "You're the and weren't there many times that you said in front of and he said to you that is ultimately the bottom line is 40:49 you enjoyed a kaz and whether it was a kaz that was digested or there's a sum total of one kaz in your digestive tract, two kazum makes no difference. What's relevant over here is the fact that you enjoyed a kaz. So if you enjoy a kazay whether it all goes down into the digestive track or not is a person is for that 41:15 will be giving tomorrow to start off. It's been a pleasure and a covenant to learn with everybody. Have a wonderful day.
Expand transcript 5,279 words
