This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:00 Our sponsors for this morning sure to thank our sponsors for the month of Elul the Schonfeld family for dedicating all the human rushes this month nishmas Mr. Hershy Schonfeld Mayor Ben Mosha legacy of living inspires us to find joy in everyday appreciate the blessings around us and see the goodness in all that life has to 0:22 offer. Justin Rosemer dedicating all the human rushes this month with tremendous gratitude to the entire community. We will definitely miss all of you as we begin our new life in Boca Raton, Florida. May all of our be answered may his soul in recognition of the entire community and in the of continued for Ivana Bass Esther Baruch Meir and 0:45 Rena Dubin the nishmas Sarah Hana Bass Gershon Ben Mosha with tremendous gratitude to for a year of beautiful family may our prayers in Elul bring about the ultimate with the coming of Messiah. 1:01 Our film sponsors for today are Alan and Sarah Steinberg in the of continued health and for an ultimate and Ken and in gratitude to it's to dedicate in gratitude to the entire community and may we hope the opportunity that we will be able to 1:24 continue to learn together and grow together for many years to come. I say for everybody thank you for all of our sponsors thank you for all of the incredible generosity and with that let's begin another new week of learning together. Today's death is Today's death is 122. We have been learning on 1:49 and we left off two or six lines up from the bottom. So So, the following shaila of Rav Sheshes. Interesting idea over here. Mahu sh'eitan still al habal un sh'e bazora. So, what we remember again yesterday is that we're speaking all about this idea that halacha l'maaseh sh'chita has an impact even on a non-kosher animal in that it renders the animal into ochel, 2:15 into food. But yet, interestingly enough, the non-Jew is not permitted to eat the non-kosher animal until it stops convulsing. Cuz while it's convulsing, it's still considered a treifa animal. Only once it stops convulsing is he allowed to eat it. So, now Bigman asks an interesting shaila. What what is the halacha? 2:31 What is the halacha if, let's say, you have here actually take a look at Rashi. Mahu sh'eitan still al habal un sh'e bazora. It is two, four, six, seven lines up from the bottom. Yisrael b'tmei'ah b'over over b'tora umefarcheses umefarcheses ubada kelim b'chayav. Okay, so let's listen to this case. What happens if halacha l'maaseh you have this case of either an akum sh'chting a kosher animal 2:54 and a Yisrael sh'chting a non-kosher animal and what happens? Let's say the animal is inside of a of a of a home where there's tumah. Right? So, remember again, this tumah is also there's a corpse underneath the same roof with the animal. The animal swallows something. 3:12 Now, generally, when an animal swallows something, if it walks into a home where there's tumah, the animal itself protects the ingested item from contracting tumah. What happens in this particular type of case? Well, let's say again, the animal has swallowed something, right? And let's say and halacha l'maaseh, it walks into a home now. Now, in that home in that home, the Yisrael sh'chts the non-kosher 3:37 animal or the akum sh'chts the kosher animal. So, remember again, sh'chita sh'chita now converts that item into achila, but into an ochel, but l'maaseh neither of them are really consumable at that point of convulsion. Like, the Jew can't eat the kosher animal cuz it was shected by an akum. The akum can't eat the non-kosher animal because it's still convulsing. So, the shaila is in that 4:00 state when it's convulsing, does it protect the ingested item from contracting tumah or not? Okay. So, the Gemara says, "Amalei tum'ah, amalei tum'ah tumas ochlin umatzelus." How could that be? If halacha l'maaseh at that point in time when it's convulsing, otherwise it's not tumas l'eilus yet, it contracts tumas achila cuz that's what shechita does like we saw in yesterday's daf. How could something that 4:23 effectively is ochal protect an ingested item from contracting tumah? In other words, the only time that an animal normally protects something from contracting tumah is when it's a living animal. But if it contracts tumas ochlin, that means it's not an animal, it's food. And if it's food, how could it protect that which is inside of it from contracting tumah? On the other hand, amalei "Eina metzeles l'eilus v'lo tatzil." But on the other hand, 4:48 it's the it doesn't yet have tumas l'eilus. It only has tumas l'eilus once it stops convulsing, which means it's not dead dead as is brought about in yesterday's daf. All right, there's two stages of death. There is dead, which is post-shechita but still convulsing, and which at which point, for let's say a gentile, he can't eat it. And it's dead dead. Dead dead means at the point where there's shechita and there's no more 5:10 convulsing, at which point everyone agrees that it's fit for consumption. So, on one hand, yes, as much as this animal is metamei tumas ochlin, it's not metamei tumas l'eilus, which would seem to indicate that it's still alive. If it's still alive, at least in some way, shouldn't it not protect the ingested item from contracting tumah? And Rabbi Abaye says, "Eina metzeles avoda zara v'socheha, d'metamei tumas ochlin." So, 5:33 Abaye paskens, Abaye says halacha l'maaseh no, it does not protect an ingested item from being mekabel tumah. Why not? Because halacha l'maaseh because halacha l'maaseh it's metamei tumas ochlin. And once it's met tumah to masoklin, that clearly indicates that halacha l'maaseh that halacha l'maaseh, it's food. And once it's food, it can't protect ingested items from being mekabel tumah. 5:57 A baal goes on and says another another interesting halacha with this, "V'arovah chayav." Okay, so yeah, if you were to slaughter this animal in other words, if this animal had shchitah and if someone were to have relations with this animal while it was convulsing, ultimately again, you would be chayav for bestiality. Why? "D'ha einam metumah right? So, on one hand, it won't protect 6:23 an ingested item because it had shchitah and it's convulsing, therefore it's ochel, and food can't protect against other ingested [clears throat] food from contracting tumah underneath the same roof with a corpse. However, if one were to engage in an act of bestiality with it, there would be liability. Why? Because it's not yet an aveilah. So, because it's not an aveilah, it's alive in some way, right? And therefore again, it has the status of an animal, and therefore 6:47 that's an act of bestiality for which one would incur a capital liability. Incredible. Have you heard of the Omer Ha'Olah? So, again, the most remembered of the Rishonim said that the R' Yehudah said in the Mishna just to go back for a second, R' Yehudah said in the Mishna "Ha'olah hanuchanas im ish pokeiach makom echad chayav alav." If you have gathered olah. Now, the Ramah is going to say yesterday it's actually so there's machlokes exactly what does olah 7:09 mean, but let's just go with the idea that it's the pieces of meat that cling onto the hide when you go ahead and you separate off the hide. So, R' Yehudah says, "If you have a k'zayis of olah gathered in one place, there is liability for that." Says the Yemar Chayim, "Like good." All right, there's some interesting Rashi says over here in the Mishna, "Hanessa b'makom echad d'choil v'achshavei lo batel d'chashiv basar 7:33 n'veilah d'chayav alav noga v'nechnas l'mikdash o achal kodash." So, the idea over here is according according according to Rashi over here, he's saying like if you gather together a k'zayis of all of obviously again the effect that you've gathered it together has endowed it with importance, that makes it into a דבר חשוב an item and therefore again we're talking about an available over here. If it wasn't available then הלכה למעשה you would be 7:56 חייב if you touched it and it went into the בית המקדש because you went into the בית המקדש in a state of טומאה. Okay? That's the same as the Gemara. אמר רב חונה אמר רב פפא והוא דאשקיל וקנסו. This is assuming that הלכה למעשה you gathered the pieces of all together. אמר רב חונה שני חצאי זיתים שישנן על גביה עור עור מבתלן. So this is an interesting case. 8:15 If you have two half a k'zayis of of meat of all meat on or on hide, ultimately again the or the hide is מבטל them. Now what does this mean the hide is מבטל them? That they're essentially they're בטל to the or to the hide. In other words, two half זיתים of meat on one hide are בטל to the hide because the hide is חשוב and the 8:39 pieces of meat are considered to be secondary. Top of כף כף ב'. I'll leave it to the Gemara. This is one side. Hold up. Whose opinion is that reflecting? יליף רבי שמואל אמר רב נחמן מבטלן אור. According to רבי שמואל, רבי שמואל holds that הלכה למעשה and he will say this is actually Rashi points out over here that this is actually a מחלוקת in two days from now in כף כף ט'. We'll get to this. 8:58 According to רבי שמואל, according to רבי שמואל, רבי שמואל says that הלכה למעשה the hide is not מבטל the two the pieces of meat. The Gemara says יליף רבי עקיבא. According to רבי עקיבא, פשיטא הא עור מבטל אור. רבי עקיבא says רבי עקיבא says that the hide is מבטל the meat. So essentially the Gemara is saying is understand this is מחלוקת. So there's two opinions. 9:17 So so what exactly are you trying to convey? The only one who agrees with רבי שמואל in reality this is even true according to רבי שמואל. Even רבי שמואל normally says that the hide is not מבטל the possibly that expression of the hide is מבטל the or just simply means that the meat the meat is בטל to the hide. 9:35 Since any meat attached to the hide is considered to be secondary, right, non-primary, therefore halakha l'maaseh it's bottle to the hide. The Gemara says, "In reality, it refers to the Rabbi Shmuel." The Gemara says, "Rabbi Shmuel l'maaseh or when does Rabbi Shmuel say that the hide is not mevatel the meat? When is that?" The Gemara says, "Hayy minni shabbat asu khaya." That's when interestingly enough that's a case where 9:58 the meat is attached to the hide because an animal, right, another predatory animal bit the slaughtered animal. We had this case yesterday a little bit also. Well, let's say again, we have a cow, the cow is bitten by a dog. As a as a result of being bitten by a dog, some of the flesh is detached and it detached from the body but attached to the hide. 10:18 In that case, ultimately again it's not bottle. Avah paltoso sakin bottle. But halakha l'maaseh, if the meat became detached, and or I should say differently, if the meat became attached to the hide during the act of shchita, then it's bottle because in that case clearly the das of the individual was to flay the hide. If I'm flaying the hide, it means I want the hide. If I want the hide, I don't care about the pieces of 10:41 meat that are attached to it. Tashma. Rabbi Yehuda would say, "So al ah acharon acharon nas, if you have gathered all of it in one place if there's a kizayis in one place, then ultimately again there's liability." Liability means that it's it's chashuv, it's meaningful, it's significant, it's nevelah. The Gemara says, "Va amar Rav Huna who shakin tzu." That's only if he intentionally gathered it, right? 11:03 Remember, because if you intentionally gathered it, then it's achshevei, then you've endowed it with importance, and that's why again that's why it's significant. Ee amid bishlama paltoso sakin Rabbi Shmuel nami lo bottle. So, if you hold that according to Rabbi Shmuel that halakha l'maaseh even in a case where you separated the hide, right, with a knife, that it's not bottle. Rav Huna d'Rav Kahana Rabbi Shmuel. Rav Huna says Rabbi Shmuel, "Ee 11:26 amid paltoso sakin Rabbi Shmuel bottle." But if you hold that in a case where the hide was flayed, that halachah l'maaseh again, any meat that's on it is bottle according to Rebbi Shmuel. Rebbi Huna de'Amor kiman, who is Rebbi Huna espousing his opinion according to? 11:41 According to Rebbi Shmuel lo bottle. Rather, you have to say like this, in a case where you flayed the hide with a knife, and there are pieces of meat, pieces of flesh clinging to the hide, according to Rebbi Shmuel, that's not bottle. It's not bottle to the hide. Rebbi Huna de'Amor Rebbi Akiva, and Rebbi Huna ultimately holds like Rebbi Akiva. And that's why again, unless of course you went out of your way to gather the pieces of meat, in 12:05 that case you didn't die with them partners, but if you didn't do that, it's going to be bottle. Pshita, so that's obvious. Mah de'Teima, what would you have thought? Kika Amor Rebbi Akiva, hanim ilipaltaso saken. I would have thought even Rebbi Akiva where does Rebbi Akiva say his sak that mevatel or that the hide is mevatel the meat, that's a case ultimately where you're flaying the hide. Because when you're flaying the hide, your kavana is for the hide, you 12:28 don't care about the meat. Aval paltaso chayo, lo bottle. But perhaps in a case where the animal was bitten by another animal, and therefore some of the flesh was detached from the body and attached to the hide, maybe in that case it's not bottle. Kamash malon, ta'ama de'Rebbi Akiva mipnei sha'ar mevatlan. So, Rebbi Akiva's position therefore the Gemara clarifies is, Rebbi Akiva holds in general any meat attached to the hide is 12:53 always bottle. It's always bottle. Lo shna pal chayo, lo shna pal saken. And it doesn't matter how that meat got attached to the hide, whether it's because the animal that was that was that was slaughtered was initially bitten by another animal, and that bite caused some of the flesh to become detached, or halachah l'maaseh, the meat became attached to the hide because it was flayed. Either way, Rebbi Akiva 13:16 holds that halachah l'maaseh, meat attached to the hide is automatically bottle. pal chayo, lo shna pal saken. Kidei ktani seifa, mipnei mah Rebbi Akiva metayer ba'ar? Why does Rebbi Akiva Why is he big entire by the by the heart with me sha or my back one. Okay, so what says therefore again interesting now now fascinatingly enough we just referenced the that we didn't 13:40 get to but interestingly enough we will see that fundamental in the key of all about whether or not in general meat is bottle to the heart. So that the key of all holds that meat is always bottle to the heart. It doesn't make a difference how the meat got there whether it was flayed because it was flayed with a knife right the heart was flayed and the meat got attached or it 14:04 was bitten by another animal either way it says that my soul the the meat is always going to be bottle to the heart. So that's where the comes says by the way unless of course you go ahead and you gather up the strand of pieces of meat attached to the heart and you go ahead and they combine they combine the because he says the says in that case 14:28 actually you've been doubted with importance and because you've been doubted with importance therefore again takes on the identity of food. Okay, incredible. The most saying says the English all the same keep saying so what says here just interesting in the previous mission in the previous mission we are talking about the idea that a heart does not have the status of meat right remember again in the previous mission 14:54 we are trying to figure it out both for two months Oakland well for two months Oakland what what is considered to be a food item. So remember again one of the things in the mission that was not a food item ultimately again was right so the the shilo was with with the heart right so what what what is heart do. So here our mission says all of you shall all the same keep saying and now going through a 15:18 list of items where their heart is treated just like the flesh. Rashi says, "Metamin kibsalon." That the hide will be just like the flesh. Now, essentially what we're going to see is essentially is anything that has a soft hide, the hide is treated just like regular called regular skin and therefore conveys tumah or has the status, I should say, of the flesh of 15:42 the meat. So, the example of this is or ha'adam, the flesh of a person, human human skin. Or ha'chazir shaliach, again literally again a chazir. A chazir that lives yishuv means like a domestic like a domestic chazir. And he could have owned a chazir chavar, even a wild chazir, okay? For or ha'teres shel 16:04 gamal aracha, the the hide of the hump of gamal aracha means clean like like like a young camel. A young camel. Aracha literally means like soft, but a young camel. For or ha'rosh or the head, the skin of the head of a young calf. For or ha'prasos, the hide of the hooves. For or ha'beisah v'oshas, the the flesh of the genital area. For 16:28 or ha'shavil, the hide or the skin of a fetus. For or shel takhsa aliyo, and the skin from underneath the fatty part of the tail. For or ha'nakah, v'akav, v'altol, v'achomet. And again we'll say these are different types of shratzim. All of the all of the flesh of all of these items all has the status of basar. And Yehudah says how tall like hold on the the tall 16:52 ultimately again I mean we'll define what these items are is like a holda. Holda is a weasel. The kulon shaidon o shailich pan kidei avodas tahorin khutz me'or adam. Now, so now the mishna is telling me is like this, that halakha l'maiseh in general the hide of these items, right, of these entities is treated just like basar, just like flesh. And therefore halakha l'maiseh 17:15 conveys tumah. Is tumah. Now, here's what's interesting. What happens if with any of these hides, any of these skins, you tanned them. Up them means you tanned it. Or she upon or you walked on them. Now, one of the ways in which you could tan a hide is you walk all over it as well. What's In that case, it's tahor because now, since you have essentially made it into a hide, it's no longer like the basar. 17:39 It's like the ar except for human flesh. Human flesh apparently always retains the status of the human skin. Always retains the same status as human flesh. Rabbi says Shmona seems to he disagrees and he says the Shmona are the eight types of that ultimately convey tuma. So, whereas the Mishna said before that 18:04 their hide, so to speak, is just like their basar. So, Rabbi says, "No, their hide ultimately has the status of a hide, not like basar." Okay. More about that in the Gemara. Says the Gemara Amora The Torah are Adam tahor. So, says fascinating. Says in reality I saw the flesh of a person is tahor. 18:24 Star. I saw So, why did say that the flesh of a person Again, it was meant the skin now, not not not the basar. Why did they say that the skin of a person ultimately is tuma? Because Shmuel Adam of the Shmuel Adam. This is wild because they were concerned that if skin wasn't tuma, that if skin was tahor, a person 18:47 might take the skin of their deceased parents and make it make make it into something. I don't know, make it into a chair, make it into a couch, make it into some type of furniture to go out and again I will say. So, therefore, in order to ensure that a person wouldn't take the skin of his parents and make it into some type of furniture, so therefore says that said that the skin of a person is tuma. But 19:12 the The of a person is actually tar, which is actually quite interesting. And they will say this whole idea this whole idea, if you look at Rashi says over here the vartora or adam tar, the love basaru v'lo chavi b'chlal meis. 19:27 So, interestingly enough, so Rashi says over here that midoraissa, the skin of a person is not basar. It's really not flesh, it's skin. It's its own separate entity. And therefore halacha l'maaseh not really tummy like basar. And therefore again really tar. If chazal were just concerned that if it was tar a person might try to memorialize their parents in this way by making a piece of furniture out of it. Now again, 19:51 obviously Tosafos has a whole thing over here where also like again, this is a pretty wild gemara and a pretty wild assertion. But obviously what chazal were concerned about, first of all, there's a beauty to it because what it also highlights is the connection that people have to their parents and the desire that we have to keep our parents a constant part of our lives. For 20:15 ongoing, you know, our first piece of identity, it's interesting to note just as an aside, you know, in the laws of aveilus, the longest mourning period we have is the mourning period for parents. It extends a full 11 months, which is quite fascinating given the fact that in the world of loss, the loss of a parent is quote unquote the most natural and normal loss, right? We always it should always be that children bury their 20:37 parents and never v'shalom the opposite. But again, in the world of loss, it's considered to be one of the most traumatic losses, right? Aveilus, person loses chasha shalom a child, the person loses a spouse, the person loses a sibling, 30 days. 30 days. A person loses a parent, 11 months. So, there's a lot of explanations for it, but also on a basic level, parents endow us with our first piece of identity. The way we 21:01 identify first in life is I'm so-and-so's son. I'm so-and-so's daughter. Parents give us that piece of identity. So, there's always a piece of us. There's always a piece of our identity that's wrapped up in our parents. And so, therefore, when a parent passes away, there's a piece of the self that's lost. That is incredibly traumatic on a variety of different levels. So, again, obviously this is an exaggerated idea over here, but you 21:25 could see how just like obviously in somewhat a warped way, a person wants to hold onto their parents so badly. A person wants to hold on to a father, to a mother. So, apparently Hazal felt that sometimes that that intensity to hold onto a parent could go so far that quite literally, again, I'd want to physically hold onto the parent in some way. Okay? 21:49 So, this seems to be a bit of an exaggerated way to memorialize a parent, but Hazal felt strongly enough that this was enough of a concern to be gozer to move the ego to masculine and save her. Others have a different version of this. The cool and shiny are actually a little bit of the apple of the Torah and Hazal Adam. 22:04 Others explain this. Well, the statement ultimately again on the end of the Mishnah was the end of the Mishnah. Then the Mishnah was that if you take any of these skins that the Mishnah said are like flesh and you tan them or you walk on them, right? And you make it into a a hide essentially, it loses its status as bosser and it's a hide with the exception of human flesh. Human skin, sorry, human skin always retains its its 22:28 identity as flesh. Amra Ula says there's a different version. Ula said the bar Torah or Adam Shahi to tar. In reality, even if you went ahead and you tanned the skin of a human person, the skin skin of a person, ultimately it's still tar. Umat Adam on the tummy. Why did Hazal say that it's tummy? Because there is Sham Yasa Adam on those other we must take him. Ultimately again, I have a tendency that a person might make his 22:53 parents skin into furniture. Man the masculine area kosher and save her. So, the first version certainly would agree with the second one. Man the masculine area save her a violation to me the right sir. So but the one went ahead and said the second version I don't say for the Mishnah will say that on the right sir. Ultimately again there's to me the right sir. So it was a very interesting halakha over here whether or not me the right sir. Does human skin 23:17 Does human skin ultimately again go ahead and convey to my me the right sir or not? So just interesting. The idea over here is Ula saying the first version of Ula which is really seems to be the ribbing one that ultimately all of Adam taught really right sir. So the skin of a person ultimately is taught but has all said it's coming out of concern that a person may try to memorialize their parent in this fascinating way. All right, let's go 23:41 back to the Arkhazar. So next was the flesh of the Arkhazar. But I can you so again most of them again is my whole case is it is it just the the the domestic Arkhazar the wild Arkhazar? But I can you what's the whole case? My server high ocean behind my server high so just my whole case right? One says that domestic Arkhazar the skin is soft but the wild Arkhazar the skin is high therefore the skin is tough. Therefore 24:04 it says of a high and then it means is no they're both soft. Okay. Arkhazar Arkhazar shall come on Arkhazar. So this is interesting. So again the skin of the hump of a young camel is considered to be soft and therefore the skin is considered like boss or not like a hide. 24:20 The common Arkhazar. So you must say what is the definition of a of a of a of a of a young camel? What is that definition? Ula Ula Ula Ula calls much low timer. It's very interesting. If the camel did not carry a load it's young. It's young. I would say what a profound metaphor. 24:38 Right? You you pretty much you you're young in life until you have to carry a load. Once you have to carry loads in life certainly ages you and certainly matures you. So a camel that never had to carry a load that's a younger camel. But he gives my little Arkhazar my whole. So what happens says well what happens if it's old enough to carry a load, but it never carried a load? 24:59 Is Is that a still young camel? Not a young camel by a by a boy gears money to conversely, what happens if it's not old enough to carry a load, but it did carry a load? Is it a young camel or an old camel?" To which the Gamara says, "Take him." Now, this is that is an open-ended open-ended shilo. 25:18 So, Resh Lakish asked the following shilo, "How old is a camel How young is a young camel?" only because my shultana if it didn't carry a load, ultimately again it's young or relatively look at him. So, the Gamara says, "This is Now, this is just a story." So, Resh Lakish asked the shilo. Resh Lakish said again, "How old is old is a young camel?" Right? What's the 25:40 definition of a young camel? And as long as it did not carry a load, that's a young camel. So, if it's too young to carry a load, it's a young camel. So, Resh Lakish appreciated the answer. Resh Lakish said, "Oh, come sit opposite me." Now, that was very harsh. That was very harsh because Resh Lakish was actually pointing out that Resh Lakish was very careful who he associated with. Because Resh Lakish understood that if someone saw him associating with another individual, they would lend the hashiva some 26:06 importance to that person to the point that the Gamara says that they do even lend that person money without aiding cuz they would see, "Oh, Resh Lakish is speaking to that guy. He must be trustworthy." So, Resh Lakish invites him to sit opposite him. He also said to him, "Come by me." So, now another story. Abizera was sitting and asked the following shilo, "How old is a camel How young is a young camel?" He said, "How young is a young camel?" He said, "A camel that has 26:28 not carried a load, it's young." He said, "What is a camel that has not carried a load? It's young." He said, "A camel that has not carried a load, it's young." How old is a camel that has not carried a load? It's young. So, Resh Lakish said, "How old is a camel that has not carried a load? It's young." So, Resh Lakish said, "How old is a camel that has not carried a load? It's young." So, Resh Lakish said, "How old is a camel that has not carried a load? It's young." So, Resh Lakish said, "How old is a camel that has not carried a load? It's young." So, Resh Lakish said, "How old is a camel that has not carried a load? It's young." So, Resh Lakish said, "How old is a camel that has not carried a load? 26:49 It's young." So, Resh Lakish said, "How old is a camel that has not carried a load? It's young." So, Resh Lakish said, "How old is a camel that has not I'm sorry, Rabin bar Hinena said it again. He repeated it. Amar lei, "Had ya hav elach amrit?" So, Rabbi Zeira says, "What? You have one good thing to say, so you keep on repeating it?" So, this is very interesting. So, Rabbi Zeira responded Rabbi Zeira responded pretty pretty sharply to Ravin cuz right Ravin repeated it because he thought Rabbi 27:12 Zeira didn't hear it. Rabbi Zeira said, "Shkoyach. You have one piece of Torah to say, so you keep on repeating it?" So, the Gemara says is So, the Gemara says, "Tav chazi. Ma bein takifei Ar'a di Yisrael l'chasidi d'Bavel?" See, ultimately again, the difference between the sharp ones of Eretz Yisrael to the Hasidim of Bavel. So, Reish Lakish Reish Lakish was in Eretz Yisrael and ultimately again, Rabbi Zeira Rabbi 27:34 Zeira was in Bavel. Rashi says over here Rashi says, uh d- uh Reish Lakish mi takifei d'Ar'a di Yisrael hava. So, again, interestingly enough, the Gemara says, you know, the the Jews of the Rabbanan of Eretz Yisrael had this had this reputation of being like takif means strong. Right? 27:54 And And Hasid of course means pious. The Gemara is just contrasting the scholars of Eretz Yisrael with the scholars of Bavel. Reish Lakish Reish Lakish, who was considered to be a strong personality, he acted very kindly ultimately again to the person who answered his question. Versus Rabbi Zeira answered very sharply. The Rashi points out over here the reason why Rabbi Zeira also answered a little bit sharply is because he may have perceived 28:17 some type of ga'avah within Ravin. But either way, the Gemara is just contrasting the scholars of Eretz Yisrael with the scholars of Bavel. Okay? For Ar'a d'Rosha. Next, the hide of the head. Remember again, the hide of the head the hide the soft hide of the head of a young calf. So, the Gemara ego harah. How How old is a young calf? The Gemara says, "Ulla amar ben shana so." One year old. Rabbi Yochanan amar kol man shiyonek. Rabbi Yochanan said, "As long as it's 28:41 nursing." That's a young calf. E ba'i l'hu, "Heichi amar Ulla? Heichi amar Ulla?" So, what what does Ulla mean? "Ben shana so v'hu So, again, remember Ulla said within a year. So, does he mean within a year and nursing? I will say I'm a base. I'm a base. But I'm really not close to my children. He says, "No, no, no. As long as it's nursing." In other words, even if it's older than one, if it's nursing, it's still considered young. 29:05 Ulla says, "No, no, no. Maybe Ulla means like this. A young calf is one that is within a year. It doesn't matter nursing, not nursing." He says, "No, no, no. It's within a year and nursing." He says, "No, it's within a year and nursing." So, which one is this? 29:24 He says, "A calf is considered to be young as long as it is nursing." A calf is considered to be young as long as it is nursing. Then he saw But ultimately, again, if you really held that he says within a year also, the who she only should have said and it's nursing. Then then if that's the case, he would have begun to say that it has to be within a year and nursing. The fact that he just says "young calf" 29:47 indicates that he doesn't have to be within a year. According to him, as long as it is nursing, it's considered to be it's considered to be young even after even after it's born. He says, "Just to go back." So, therefore, the fundamental thesis is like this. Ulla says a young calf is within a year. He says that it's nursing. It doesn't matter a year or older. If it's still nursing, 30:10 it is a young calf. Okay? Let's go back. 122B, four lines down from the top. He says "Tashma." Um no, I'm sorry. Two five lines down from the top. Last words on the line. He says "Rish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan." Rish Lakish has a function with Rabbi Yochanan. He says, "Our show ego So, if you have the soft flesh on the top of a young 30:38 calf, does it convey to me? Does it convey to me?" Doesn't convey to me. So we're I'm going to lay in a minute to me. It does not convey to me. I'm going to leave it to our main for 1 second. So what say? So when we say it's not me that means it's not true that like flesh is true that like a hide. So I'm going to lay in a minute to our main and we're going to say keep silent. But our main Rabbi you taught us essentially what the mission says. What does the mission say? 31:02 These are the following skins of animals that are treated like flesh and one of the things in that list was the soft flesh of the head of a young calf. I'm going to lay in a minute to our main don't start up with me. But you and I are also that when I taught you that I didn't mean to teach that as a generally accepted opinion but rather I only meant to teach it as a singular opinion. 31:26 It's not so good. The song that we learned that all of the kids are also all young. If you did it all wrong to go ahead and offer up a of of of flesh from underneath the fatty part of the tail who come on. So you know what I'm saying again we're talking about now in common who come on who come on 31:49 issue bigger issue or who come on. So watch this. So I did a common and when I did so I had in mind to offer up a from the hide underneath the fatty part of the tail. And I had in mind to do it who come on outside of its permitted area. What's possible in I've seen that disqualifies common cuz that's a who come on. Anytime you have in mind to do something outside of the 32:13 permitted area that invalidates the common. But of course there's no courage for that. Who come on however again if I have in mind to do it outside of its permitted time then people that's people right? And we'll say cuz I have courage for that. Okay. 32:37 I had I had >> So now Elazar ben Yehudah ish equals same name of Rabbi Shimon whether it's the or process the the hide of the hooves or the hide of the soft hide of the head of a calf or the or the hide underneath the fatty part of the tail the whole Shimon haKhamim or 33:15 any of the hides that the haKhamim mentioned in the This is our Mishnah Shimon same as Aaron that their hide is like their flesh the heavy or shall be to include the hide but include this the hide of the skin by the genital area then what's the law all of these cases Muslim come up possible but in no cases Ultimately again if you have in mind 33:38 that the Mishna to do to offer up part of this carbon right to offer up this this flesh outside of this permitted area then it's possible that's Muslim come up but there's no cases Muslim is manner but if you have in mind to do it outside of its permitted time big old the ultimately again there is five cases The most important over here the saying is that the this ultimately is a this ultimately is 34:04 a That's your head it's an individual opinion So remember again how this whole thing started with Shimon as from Yohanan or Shimon as from Yohanan as from Yohanan Does the soft flesh on top of the head of a young calf does it have the ability to convey to my So again remember again so Shimon said no I'm sorry Yohanan responded no to which to which the then 34:27 says I'm sorry let me go back Shimon as from Yohanan does the soft flesh on top of the head of a young calf convey tumah? Rabbi Yochanan said, lo- no. So, Resh Lakish said, but rebbi, you taught us it did. And then went on to quote a Mishnah. Then Rabbi Yochanan essentially responded, you're right, I taught you the Mishnah, but the Mishnah only reflects a singular view. Right, it's a das yachid. It's not considered to be 34:52 the general view. Good. The Gemara goes right to ar bei saprasos. Furthermore, again, the the flesh by the hooves, ultimately again, that that hide has the status of flesh. My bei saprasos, what does it mean by the hooves? Rav Acha Rav Amar, bei saprasos namish. Literally again, it's the skits, the flesh by the hooves. 35:10 Rabbi Chanina Amar, revuk rekuba anin karas im harosh. So, again, Rabbi Chanina says it ultimately again refers to the lower joint. The lower joint that is normally said that is normally sold with the heads. Apparently again, it used to be in Talmudic times when you bought the head of the animal, it came for whatever the reason with the lower joint. That lower joint, essentially that lower joint down all the way to the bottom of the hoof, 35:33 that's considered to be the soft part of the hoof. All right, so we're going to stop over here for today. Apologies a little bit of a shorter shiur, but I just want to make up some more time tomorrow. Shkoyach everyone. Sorry that I couldn't be there with you in person, but it was a blessing to be able to learn with you today to start the week together. Wish you all a good week and a beautiful week. Look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow.
Expand transcript 6,778 words
