This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:01 will say good morning. I'm sorry that I can't be there with you in person to uh to New Jersey this morning. Grateful spark at least to be with you virtually. Begin by thanking our sponsors for this morning's shar. 0:19 Our sponsors for this morning shar to thank our sponsors for the month of dedicating this monthly Mr. Mayor's legacy of living. 0:35 Inspire us to find joy in every day. Appreciate the blessings around us and see the goodness in all that life has to offer. Justin Rose dedicating this with tremendous gratitude to the entire Kilo. We definitely miss all of you as we begin our new life poker to Florida. May all of our tilos be answered. Soul in recognition of the entire 1:00 team may gratitude to for a year of beautiful family bring about the ultimate sponsors for today and Sarah Steinberg disclosive continued in gratitude to gratitude to the entire 1:40 with hope the opportunity that we will be to continue to learn together and grow together for many years to come. For everybody, thank you for all of our sponsors. Thank you for all the incredible generosity. With that, let let's begin another new week of schooling together. Today's is today's 2:03 122. We are picking up on and we left off 2 4 six lines up from the bottom. So as the following the interesting idea over here. 2:22 So we'll say remember again yesterday we're speaking all about this idea that has an impact even on a non-coosher animal and that it renders the animal into into food. Yet, interestingly enough, the non-Jew is not permitted to eat the nonosha animal until it stops convulsing. as well as convulsing when he once he stops convulsing his 2:46 interest in what what is what is if let's say you have it is 2 4 6 seven lines from the bottom case listen to this case what happens you have this case of either an awking a kosher animal, a a shafting a non-coosher animal. What 3:19 happens? Let's say the animal is inside of a of a of a home where there's remember again the also has a corpse underneath the same roof with the animal. The animal swallows something. Now generally when an animal swallows something if it walks into a home there's tuma the animal itself protects the ingested item from contracting tuma. 3:42 What happens in this particular type of case where let's say again the animal swallows something right and let's say it walks into a home. Now now in that home in that home the non-coosher animal or the kosher animal. 3:58 So remember again now converts that item into a but into anal but neither of them are really consumable at that point of convulsion right the Jew can't eat the kosher animal the can't eat the nonosh because it's still convulsing so the is in that state when it's convulsing does it protect the 4:23 ingested item from contracting tuma or not okay says How could that be? If at that point in time when it's convulsing, although it's not yet, it contracts because that's what does like yesterday's. How could something that effectively is protecting item from contracting tum? In other words, the only time that an animal 4:49 normally protects something from contracting tum is when it's a living animal. But if it contracts tumas, 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? On the other hand, but on the other hand, it's it doesn't yet have it only has once it stops 5:11 convulsing, which means it's not dead dead as we spoke about in yesterday's, right? There's two stages of death. There's dead, which is postita, but still convulsing in which at which point for let's say a gentile, you can't eat it. And it's dead. Dead. Dead. That means at the point where there's and there's no more convulsing at which point everyone agrees that it's fits for consumption. So on one hand yes as much 5:34 as this animal it's not which would seem to indicate that it's still alive. If it's still alive, at least in some way, should it not protect the ingested item from contracting to say no? It does not protect an ingested item from being. Why not? Because 6:03 because it's and once it's that clearly indicates that it's food and once it's food it can't protect ingested items from goes on he says another another interesting this so yet if you were to sodomize this animal in other words if this animal had someone to have relations with this 6:30 animal while it was convulsing. Ultimately, again, you would be foriality. Why? Because it's not an it's interesting, right? So, on one hand, it won't protect an ingested item because it hatch and is convulsing. Therefore, it's and food can protect against other ingested food from contracting tumath the same roof with the corpse. However, if one were to 6:54 engage in active beastiality with it, there would be liability. Why? because it's not yet an AVA. So because it's not a it's alive in some way, right? And therefore again has a status of an animal and therefore that's an act of beiality for which one would incur a capital liability. Incredible. 7:11 So again, just to go back for a second, if you have gathered all yesterday exactly what does mean, but let's just go with the idea that it's the pieces of meat that cling on to the hide. You go ahead and you separate off the hide. 7:35 This says if you have a of Allah gathered in one place, there is liability for that. That's the right. Good. All right. There's some interesting Rashi says over here in the so the idea over here is according to this. You gathered together a kaz of obviously again the fact that you gathered it together has endowed it with 8:07 importance that makes it into and therefore again we're talking about over here if it was then you would be if you touched it then it went into because you went in a state of okay says this is assuming that you gather the pieces of together. 8:33 So this is an interesting case. If you have two ethicization of of meat of all meat on R on hide ultimately again the R the hide is now mean the height is that the essentially they're bottle to the R to the hide whereas two half zim of meat on one hide are ble to the hide because the 8:57 hide is and the pieces of meat are considered to be secondary Whose opinion is that reflecting are holds and this is actually points out over here that this is actually in two days from now we'll get to this according to says that the hide is not the two the pieces of 9:24 meat says that the hide is the meat. So essentially what I'm saying is understand so there's two opinions. So, so what exactly are you trying to convey? This is normally says that the hide is not that expression of the hide is the art just simply means that the meat the meat 9:52 is bottled to the hide. Since any meat attached to the hide is considered to be secondary, right? Non- primary. Therefore, say it's bottled to the height. In reality, When does that is not the meat? When is that? 10:14 That's when interestingly enough that's a case where 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. But let's say again we have a cow. The cow is bitten by a dog. 10:30 as as a result of being bitten by a dog some of the flesh is detached and detached from the body but attached to the hide in that case ultimately again it's not bottle bottle but if the meat became detached and oh I should say differently if the meat became attached to the hide during the act of then it's bottle because in that case clearly the das of the 10:53 individual was to fle 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 meat that are attached to it says if you have gathered if there's in one place then ultimately again there's liability liability means that it's it's meaningful it's significant it's only if he intentionally gathered it 11:22 right remember because if you intentionally gathered it then it's then you've been doubted with importance and that's why again that's why it's significant So if you hold that according to even in a case where you separated the hide right with a knife that it's not but if you hold that in a case where that was flayed that again any meat 11:53 that's on it is who is ra espousing his opinion according to rather you have to say like this in a case where you inflate the hide with a knife and there are pieces of meat pieces of flesh clinging to the hide according to that's not bottle it's not ble to the hide ultimately holds like and that's why again unless of course you went out of 12:22 your way to gather the pieces of meat in that case you didn't part but if you didn't do that it's going to be bottle so that's obvious I would have thought even what does say is that or that the hide is the meat? 12:43 That's a case ultimately where you're flinging the hide because when you're fling the hide, your covenant is for the hide. You don't care about the meat. 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. 13:05 So raikiba's position there clarifies is raika holds in general any meat attached to the hide is always bottle it's always bottle 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 13:32 the meat became attached to the hide because it was flayed. Either way, meat attached to the heart is automatically by the heart. Okay. So say therefore again interesting now now fascinatingly enough we just referenced that we didn't get to but interestingly enough we will see that 14:06 about whether or not in general meat is bled to the hide holds that meat is always bled to the hide doesn't make a difference how the meat got there but it was flayed it was flayed with a knife right the hide flavor and the meat got attached or it was bitten by another animal. Either way says that the the meat is always going to be 14:30 bundled to the hide. That's where Huna comes. Huna says, "By the way, unless of course you go ahead and you gather up the strand, the pieces of meat attached to the hide and you go ahead and combine the combined with importance and because you've endowed it with importance, therefore again it takes on the identity of food." Okay, incredible. 14:56 Says, "Here's what's interesting. In the previous Mishna, in the previous Mishna, we were talking about the idea that a hide does not have the status of meat. Right? Remember again in the previous Mishna, we're trying to figure out Oakland what what is considered to be a food item. So remember again one of the things in the Mishna that was not a food 15:24 item ultimately again was right. So the Shiloh was with with the R, right? So what what what does hide do? Here our Mishna says now we're going through a list of items where their hide is treated just like the flesh. Rashi says that the hide will be just like the flesh. Now essentially what we're going 15:48 to see is essentially is anything that has a soft hide. The hide is treated just like regular what calls regular skin and therefore conveys tuma or or has the status I should say of the flesh of the meat. So you might give examples of this or the flesh of a person human skin or again literally again 16:13 that lives means like a domestic like a domestic even a wilder okay the the hide of the hump of means like like like a young camel. The young camel literally means like soft. 16:34 The young camel or the head, the skin of the head of a young calf, the hide of the hoofs, the the flesh of the genital area, the hide, the skin of a fetus. 16:54 And the skin from underneath the fatty part of the tail. Again, we'll say these are different types of all of the all of the flesh of all of these items all has a status of says the ultimately again and we'll define what these items are is like a weasel. 17:20 Now, now the is telling you is like this that in general the height of these items right of these entities is treated just like bosser just like flesh and therefore conveys tum. 17:36 Now here's what's interesting. What happens if with any of these hides any of these skins you tanned them means you tanned it 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 that? In that case, it's because now since you've essentially made it into a hide, it's no longer like the bus or it's like the 18:00 except for human flesh. Human flesh apparently always retains the status of just a human skin. always retains the fle same status as human flesh. says seems to he he disagrees and he said are the eight types of that ultimately convey to so whereas the Mishna said before that 18:23 their hide so to speak it's just like their baser so says no their hide ultimately has a status of a hide not like okay more about that in says fasting so says in reality the flesh of a person. 18:46 So why did say that the flesh of a person again was talking about the skin now not not the buser? Why did they say that the skin of a person ultimately is this is wild? Because they were concerned that if skin wasn't that a person might take the skin of their deceased parents and make it make make 19:11 it into something make it into a chair make it into a couch make it into some type of furniture to go ahead. Now 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 said that the skin of a person is but the skin of a person is actually which is actually quite interesting 19:35 this whole idea this whole idea if you look says over here. So interestingly enough so says over here the skin of a person is not baser it's really not flesh it's skin it's its own separate entity and therefore not really tummy like baser and therefore again really tar 20:03 we're just concerned that if it was a person might try to memorialize their parents in this way by making a piece of furniture out of it native you see has a whole thing over here where also like again This is a pretty wild gimmar and a pretty wild assertion. But obviously what we're concerned about first of all there's a beauty to it because what it also highlights is the connection that 20:26 people have to their parents and the desire that we have to keep our parents a constant part of our lives. You know our first piece of identity it's interesting to note just as an aside you know in the laws of aos the longest morning period we have is the morning 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 20:49 quote unquote natural and normal loss right we always it should always be that children bury their parents in the opposite again in the world of loss it's considered to be one of the most traumatic losses person loses a child the person loses a spouse a person loses a sibling 30 days 30 days a person loses a parent 11 months There's a lot of explanations for 21:14 it, but also on a basic level, parents endow us with our first piece of identity. The way we 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 21:38 traumatic on a variety of different levels. So again, obviously this is an exaggerated idea over here, but you can see how just like a somewhat worked way a person wants to hold on so badly. So wants to hold to a father to a mother. 21:55 So apparently Kazal felt that sometimes that that tendency to hold on to a parent can go so far that quite literally again I'd want to physically hold on to the parent in some way. Okay, so this seems to be a bit of an exaggerated way to memorialize a parent, but felt strongly enough that this was enough of a concern to be goer. 22:17 Others have a different version of this. Others explain this statement ultimately again on the end of the end of the end of the was that if you take any of these skins that the Mishna said are like flesh and you tan them or you walk on them right and you make it into a hide essentially it loses its status as baser and it's a hide with the exception of human flesh human skin sorry human skin 22:45 always retains it its identity as flesh so there's a conversion said in reality even if you went ahead and you tanned the skin of a human person skin of a person ultimately it's still why did say that it's ultimately concerned that a person might 23:12 make his parents skin into furniture so the first version certainly would agree the second But the one who went ahead and said the second version would say that ultimately again is there was this interesting over here whether or not does human skin does human skin ultimately again go ahead and convey 23:41 or not. Just interesting the idea over here is saying first version of it really seems to be the riveting one that ultimately really so the skin of a person ultimately is but said it's tummy out of concern that a person may try to memorialize their parent in this fascinating way. All right, let's go back to So next was the flesh of the so 24:05 remember again is it is it just the the the domestic the right one says that domestic the skin is soft but the wilder the skin is high therefore the skin is tough therefore instead of and the other says no they're both soft Okay, this is interesting. So again, the skin of the hump of a young camel is considered to be soft and therefore the 24:37 skin is considered like buser, not like a height. Say what is the definition of a of a of a of a young? What is that definition is very interesting. If the camel did not carry a load, it's young. It's young. I said what a profound metaphor, right? Pretty much you're young in life until you have to carry once you have to 25:01 carry loads in life certainly ages you certainly matures you. So a camel that never had to carry a load that's a young camel he gives. So what happens says what happens if it's old enough to carry a load but it never carried a load that is still young. 25:24 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? which says an open-ended open-ended sha they didn't carry a load ultimately again it's young just a story asked said again how old is a young camel right what's 25:59 definition of a young camel As long as it did not carry a load, that's the young camel. If it's too car, that's young. Appreciated the answer. Oh, come sit opposite me. Now that was very that was very because points out was very careful who he associated with because understood that if someone saw him associating with another individual they would lend the importance to that person 26:26 to the point that the says that they even lend that person money without aid because they would say oh is speaking to that guy he must be trustworthy initially. So now another story was sitting as the following. 26:45 How young is a young camel? If the animal does not carry the load, it's young. Remember again asking is asking and gave him the answer. Now after gave the answer didn't respond. Therefore went ahead and I'm sorry 27:14 said it again. He repeated it. So says what you have one good thing to say so you keep on repeating it. So this is very interesting. So responded responded pretty pretty sharply to Robin right. Robin repeated it because he thought didn't hear it said you have one piece of Torah to say keep on repeating it. So see ultimately again the difference 27:44 between the sharp ones was ultimately again was in says over here she says uh so again interestingly enough says you know v The Jews of the Israel had this had this reputation of being like pocket means strong right and of course means 28:15 pious contrasting the scholars of Israel the scholars of Bishakish who was considered to be a strong personality he acted very kindly ultimately again to the person who answered his question versus Rabi answered very sharply points out here the reason raiser also answered a little bit sharply is because he may perceived some type of ga within rabid. But either 28:39 way, the emerg is contracting the stance of skulls of okay. Next, the height of the head. Remember again, the height of the the height, the soft height of the head of a young calf. How old is a young calf? 28:56 One year old said, "As long as it's nursing, that's a young cal. So what what does mean? So remember said within a year. So does he mean within a year and nursing? No, no, no. As long as it's nursing. 29:19 Other words, even if it's older than one, if it's nursing, it's still considered young. Maybe means like this, a young calf is one that is within a year. It doesn't matter. nursing not nursing says no it's within a year and nursing so which one is it says a calf is considered to be young as long 29:47 as it is nursing then but ultimately again if he really held that says within a year also by it should have said and it's nursing then then if that's the case would have been understood that has to do in a year and nursing. The fact that he just says y indicates that it doesn't have to be within a year according to as long that 30:10 it's nursing it's considered to be it's considered to be young even after even after just to go back. So therefore the fundament is like this says a young calf is within a year says that it's nursing doesn't matter a year or older if it's still nursing say it is a young cal. 30:31 Okay, let's go back. We are in Kovk 122B. Four lines down from the top. No, I'm sorry. Um, two, five lines down from the top. Last two words on the line. If you have a soft flesh on the top of a young calf doesn't convey to doesn't it does not convey to 31:08 say so when we say it's not that means it's not treated like flesh it's treated like a hideab taught us essentially The Mishna says, what does the Mishna say? 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. 31:32 Don't start up with me. I 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. the we learned to go ahead and offer up a of of flesh from underneath the fatty part of the tail. 32:04 Remember again we're talking about now insue issue or watch this. So I carbon and when I did so I had in mind to offer from the hide underneath the fatty part of the tail to do outside of it permitted area obviously that disqualifies the carbon 32:29 because that's anytime you have in mind to do something outside of the permitted area that invalidates the carbon but of course there's noises for that. However, again, if I have in mind to do it outside of its permitted time, then pickle. That's pigle, right? 32:48 Okay. Now this individual comes along right now whether it's the arpos the the hide of the hofs or the hide of the the soft hide of the head of a calf or the aras or the hide underneath the fatty part of the tail. 33:34 Or any of the hides that their hide is like their flesh to include the hide to include this the hide the skin by the genital area. Then what's in all of these cases ultimately again if you have in mind that the dude to offer up part of this right to offer up this this flesh outside of this permitted area then it's 34:06 possible but there's no but if you had mind to do it outside of this peritted time pickle again so point over here the is saying is that this ultimately is a this ultimately is a it's an individual opinion. So remember again how this whole started 34:33 does the soft flesh on top of the head of a young calf does it have the ability to convey? So again remember again soakish said no I'm sorry responded no to which to which the then says I'm sorryish asked does the soft flesh on top of the head of a young cat convey to said no 34:58 soak said but you taught us it did and then went on to Mishna and Rabok essentially responded you're right I taught you the Mishna but the Mishna only reflects a singular view right it's a das It's not considered to be the general view. Good further again the flesh by the ultimately again that that hide has the status of flesh. My what does it mean by 35:22 the hoof literally again it's the it's the flesh by the hofs. So again says it ultimately again refers to the lower joint the lower joint that is normally said that is normally sold with the head. So apparently again it used to be in Tamura 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 35:51 down all the way to the bottom of the hoof. That's considered to be the soft part of the hoof. All right. So we're going to step over here for today. Apolog will make up some more time tomorrow everyone. Sorry that I couldn't be there with you in person, but a graceful us to be able to learn with you today to start the week together. 36:07 Have a beautiful week. I look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow.
Expand transcript 4,761 words
