This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:01 All right, so I'll say good morning good morning. Such as close to continue to take a school and begin by thanking all of our sponsors for this morning share to thank our time and Torah sponsors for for dedicating all of Shimon and Joshua's this month in school for a full shalom before and call holy Israel as well as for a life and a shalom of Esther and Brown Yona Shishi Aaronfeld for dedicating all 0:40 of Shimon and Joshua's this month in loving memory of grandfather Yosef ben Shmuel Aaron Week of learning sponsors Seth and Rachel Rotenberg commission of the year sites of Seth's father ben Chaim Shmuel and Seth's sister Naomi Tova bas Zev. Our week of learning sponsors Mark and Nicole Hoffman of South Africa the nishmas 1:04 bas Moshe for upcoming second year site second year site sorry upcoming year site on the second of Sivan and in recognition of her loving and tireless dedication to all South African Holocaust survivors and their legacies. Our daily yomi sponsors for today Ayala and Sarah Steinberg in the school continued health for Shulamit Chana bas Sosho and for an ultimate we hope that in the merit of our time and Torah all of the nishamas will have 1:27 an aliyah all of the families in the shalom all those in Eretz Israel we need a full and and safety upon our brothers and sisters in Eretz Israel and our holy soldiers should be successful with all But so with that let us begin we have a lot to do today but an incredible daf ahead of us. Today's daf is daf dalet four we are picking up in Eretz Israel 1:52 on gimmel amud base Ravina Ravina which is two four six eight 10 12 4 about 17 lines up from the bottom. So, if we go back and remember again what we really did over the course of both Shabbos and and yesterday was to go through a variety of interpretations in the Mishnah. Right? So, a number of different interpretations about how to 2:15 reconcile the Hakol Shogtin as well as the Shchitas Shaira. So, now we're going to say now what we're going to do just for a few moments is to just quickly explain why each position does not hold like the other. So, the Gemara says The Gemara says Ravina of Rava bar Ulla K'vaya d'Rava bar Ashi lo amri. So, Ravina, Rava bar Ulla, right, do not write don't do not hold like Abaye and Rabban Rabbanan Ashi 2:40 lo amri mishum d'kashya l'hu d'kulan. Because again, remember the first three opinions were unable to figure out how to fit in that last phrase into their interpretation of the Mishnah. Kula k'Rava bar k'Rava bar Ulla lo amri. The other opinions do not hold like Rava bar Ulla. Why? So, the Gemara says lo amri d'ha chlishna d'ka amri ha ekar. So, again, we're going to remember again this was the discussion about the individual who 3:04 is tamei and shochtin chulin she'na'asu b'ta'aras kodash. I, but we learned that concept elsewhere. So, according to the approach that says that here in chulin is the primary source of this discussion. Adraba, hasam ekar d'katchin k'vi. It's just the opposite. The sugiyan d'zvachim is the ekar because there is actually dealing with katchin. D'ha chlishna d'ka amri hasam ekar. According to the opinion that says that over there was 3:27 the primary sugiyan. D'ha ha ha I d'tani tamei b'chulin tani nami tamei b'katchin. And over here in chulin, the only reason we brought it up is because once we brought up tamei in chulin, we also brought up tamei b'mum katchin. Tamei b'chulin gufei lo itztri chavei. Ultimately, again, the ability that someone who is tamei to shochat chulin she'na'asu b'ta'aras kodash wasn't really a necessary statement. Chulin she'na'asu b'ta'aras kodash lav k'kodash 3:51 tamei. Why? Because again, this opinion holds that chulin the cycle dish are not considered to be like coaching. Fine. Cool I'll say again. We're just going through this quickly because he's just highlighting why each one doesn't hold like the other. Cool Ravi know I'm ready. All of the opinions did not agree with Ravi know. Why? So the Gamara says the mission of the armor monkey in shame monkey love. The opinion that says the 4:15 approach that said the version that said that only if the show is a monkey and it is not a monkey that would not work. We say both between eight cheetah. Monkey name. That was the way that I discussed this concept more but there is a principle and the principle is that the majority of people who go ahead and do cheetah are considered to be monkey. 4:36 There's a sucker that people who don't know what they're doing by cheetah don't get involved in cheetah. The half mission of the armor monkey in shame monkey but according to the opinion that says it's not about really monkey but rather what is it about? Monkey. What's monkey? Monkey means you've done cheetah three times without fainting. 4:56 Then the Gamara says we're not concerned that people faint. It's not our concern. And not that's not our concern. We are not concerned that that occurs to people. Ravi armor so Ravi doesn't hold like a buyer. Why? Question. Because the questions that he brought up. I buy the armor Ravi. I buy the Ravi. Why? Awesome love Naga haha Naga. 5:19 Because again in the previous case there was not contact. Remember this was the case of where the of where the guy was watching the wine store of the Jew. Haha Naga but over here again there's contact between the show and the animal. Ravi and Ravi and Ravi didn't hold like either of these opinions. Why? Sara get it all right saying. He held that in general again are not legitimate converts. I buy the 5:41 Ravi and I buy the Ravi. Why? So the Gamara says haha Naga. Because ultimately again he did not to say to the idea of rubber and rubber. My time of my shmate, why didn't rubber ultimately hold the kabashi? The drive that by I'm going to lay low still like cuz rubber was ultimately again discussing the matter of through the lens of a by the rubber himself did not hold that way. Okay, 6:05 incredible. So we'll say so again, we went through that by design quickly. All this just talking about is why each opinion doesn't look like the other, but bottom line is remember we are still left with six different versions of the Mishnah. So again, we have to come back still circle back to how what the Mishnah is actually teaching us. But again, interestingly enough what we did over the course of that journey is we picked up a number of different pieces 6:28 of information along the way, all of which are going to be relevant for future Sugyas. Now let's dig in. up from the bottom, three B. 10 rubber on shritas kusi mutaras. So let's go back for just a moment cuz one of the interesting topics that we delve into was the concept of the shrita of the kusi. Right? Is it what what is the status of the shrita of the kusi? So now the brice says shritas kusi mutaras. 6:52 The shrita of a kusi is muter to be consumed. So rubber says okay, but then what what are we talking about over here? Kishi saw only that is only if there is a Jew supervising the shrita. Ava ball or muscle shishak. So we'll say what happens in the following case? 7:12 So the ideal, if you're going to have a kusi shat, so you have to have a mashgiach. You have to have someone standing on top of the kusi. What happens if you come and you find that the kusi already went ahead and shat it? What do you do then? So again rubber says hotay kiza yes the no single. 7:30 You cut off a piece of the meat and you give it to the kusi. So what's the law? A blow muter mishkita so. If not also mishkita so. If the kusi eats it, then you can eat it. If the kusi doesn't eat it, then you can't eat it. So, we're going to both remember we spoke about this yesterday. 7:46 What's the svara? The svara is the following. The svara is Kusim are careful with shchita cuz remember again, the one thing that's interesting about this is Kusim are generally careful with mitzvahs that are written in the Torah. What Kusim aren't careful with are well not we'll see not all mitzvahs but most mitzvahs. What Kusim aren't careful with is any tarshis achsaf. So, remember again we go back to yesterday's daf, when the Kusim see the pasuk lifnei iver 8:09 lo sit din michshol, don't place a stumbling block in front of a blind person. Why? They literally understand that as don't place a stumbling block in front of a blind person. So, therefore again while Kusim are careful with their own religious observance, they do not care about the religious observance of others. So, therefore a Kusi will be very careful with shchita for himself, but he will not be careful with shchita 8:32 being done for someone else. So, therefore again ideally, if I'm going to have a Kusi chef, I should supervise him. If I didn't supervise him, then ex post facto I should see if he'll eat from the meat. If it's good enough for him, then ultimately again it's good enough for me. Kiyotzei b'os simli again, kiyotzei b'os matza b'yado. 8:51 What is a type of that? Listen to this. Matza b'yado, dikurya shel tziporim. Let's say I see a Kusi and the Kusi is holding dikurya. Like again it's actually interesting, Rashi and Tosfos have a machlokes over here. Rashi says dikurya is like a string, a string of birds. You have a bunch of slaughtered birds that are on a string. Tosfos says it's a basket. Okay, I I I it doesn't doesn't impact the sugia, just interesting. So, you find the Kusi has a 9:15 basket of slaughtered birds or a string of birds. So, what does he say now? What happened? He slaughtered it, I wasn't there. I would like to eat it. So, what's halacha? Koteiach rosho shel echad m'habeino simlo. Cut cut off the heads of one of the birds and give it to the Kusi. If he pops it in his mouth, right? Then we know it's like a chicken popper, right? You know, if they I if if if if we know, right? If he eats it if he eats it, then we're good to go. Then 9:39 we're good to go. Then love he says no thank you. Then then I know that I can't eat it. Okay, so it's a very interesting Sabba Ye. So I was just going to point out over here. So two different cases in the two different cases in the brice saw. Brice saw case number one is again ideally this idea that I should be watching over a I should be watching over a coozie. 10:05 Right? And if he did the shleeta without me then I give him a piece to eat. Again yesterday Kizzaya is love that guy. Kizzaya is just an expression. Give him a piece. If he'll eat a piece of his meat and then I can eat it. If he won't I can't eat it. Similar case with the birds. He shucked a whole bunch of birds. There's a bunch of slaughtered birds on a string. Cut off one of the heads, give it to the coozie. If he'll eat it good I can eat it. If he won't eat it I can't eat it. Sabba Ye diet 10:30 rubber diet and I got to both say remember we had a Abba Ye and Robbie yesterday about how much supervision does a coozie require. So remember again Abba Ye said Abba Ye said Yosef and even going in and out. Right? You don't need you don't need as little again a Jew sitting on top of the coozie the whole time but rather even Yosef and a Jew going in and out that's going to be 10:53 fine. Rubber on the other hand said no you absolutely need you need somebody sitting on top of the coozie. So rubber diet Abba Ye diet time of these all the reason ultimately again why the shleeta is good by coozie is because a straw is literally again what is that he straw is there from beginning to 11:18 end. Not just beginning to end but but if a Jew is just going in and out that is not enough supervision. Rubber diet rubber is from the safer case. Time of the bar muscle shishak Abba Ye shabbier than me. The reason ultimately again that you have to give the goosi to eat is why because the Jew only shows up 11:41 this on the scene exposed factor after the shrita was done. However, again you'll save me if the Jew was in and out ultimately again that would have been enough. I will buy a cashier say for so what does a buyer do with the second case and you'll save me dummy ball master coordinator according to a buyer he says there's no difference is very interesting. There's no 12:05 difference with being in and out versus coming after the shrita is done in a buyer's world those are both equivalent. The only type of that's proper for a goosi is literally all made out of God above. I will rather cashier ratio what does rather do ultimately again with the ratio and rather you'll save me dummy dummy call made out of God above dummy 12:28 according to rather literally again you'll save me dummy going out is the equivalent ultimately again of all made out of God above. So what say so by the way just as in a side just as in a side keep in mind that interesting because it's not only by a goosi remember again the same the same would apply if you had a gentile worker right to working with food. What level of 12:52 do you need ultimately again when somebody who's not Jewish right or bonafide Jewish is working with some type of food items. Is it just enough to be dummy in and out that's rather or do you need all made out of God above do you literally need a consistent and ongoing Jewish presence that's a buyer. So just file that away we're not going to we're not dealing with that now but just appreciate that 13:15 dummy. So what say another example of this master of the rest of the master of the rest of the master of the master of the master of the if I come across the goosi and I find that he has a string of slaughtered birds, called "tail or show". >> [clears throat] >> So, you know what I'm going to say? I showed up after the Kusi already slaughtered the birds. So, what do I do? 13:36 I chop off the heads of one of the the head of one of the birds, give it to the Kusi. If the Kusi eats it, then I can eat it. So, the Mar says, "But why should this work? Am I?" Lechush dilma hai chuda hava shochet chappier. Maybe the In other words, in other words, say for example, there's there's five birds. Let's say one of them he slaughtered properly, the other ones he did not. So, maybe the head that 14:00 I gave him is from the bird that was slaughtered properly. In other words, how does eating the head of one go ahead and necessarily ascertain the kashrus status of the rest of them? Maybe he slaughtered one of them properly, the rest of them improperly, and I gave him the head of the one that was slaughtered properly. 14:19 Amra of Nasha, of Nasha said, "Dimachnisen tachas kinofav." So, what I say, what do I do? I don't let the Kusi see which head I'm taking. Rather, what do I do? Literally translated, I put the birds, you know, underneath my cloak, right? I go ahead and I cut off the head when the Kusi can't see it, right? And give him that, right? Wala, right? 14:38 Magic, right? Wala, and here it is. And now, again, you don't have to put it under your clothing, right? The idea over here is that the mice are the Kusi's not seeing which head I'm taking. Okay, I vidilma simna hava yavli bigavei. So, maybe the Kusi made a siman, in other words, the Kusi knows which bird is the one that is slaughtered properly, and again, therefore, maybe that happens to be the 15:02 head that I'm giving him. And halacha l'maaseh, again, that's why he's going to eat it. But once again, why does that tell me anything about the kashrus status of anything else? Amra Amra of Mashasha, "Dimasmes lemasmusei." Okay? So, what I say, the case over here is where I crush the head. All right, really getting really we're really into this now. All right, to say case over here is where I crush the head. 15:22 Therefore, again, any simon that would have been on the head is now unrecognizable. So, either the coos is eating it or he's not eating it. If he's eating it, then that is indicative that it is kosher. And again, because he doesn't know which one ultimately again he is eating, then that would that would really mean that all of them are kosher. 15:42 Or he's not going to eat it, in which case that clearly tells me that it's not kosher. Kosher. I You know what's very interesting about this is very interesting. Ain shchita l'of min ha'torah. Maybe there's a difference over here. Maybe coos him hold that birds do not have a biblical obligation of shchita. 15:59 Now, watch this. Take a look at Rashi. Rashi's a little bit further up from where we are in the Gemara. Rashi's right across from Tosafos and Nachmanides. Ain shchita l'of min ha'torah. Listen to this. Look at my notes. So, this is actually very interesting. The Torah does not mention shchita explicitly by birds. 16:29 Shchita is mentioned explicitly by animals. Right? Literally ain bakar and tzon. Cattle and sheep. Now, we're going to discuss Rashi quotes over here. This is Gemara Chullin 7. A couple of weeks from now we'll discuss how we learn our shchita from birds. But that's the point. It's a limud. It's a drasha. It's not stated explicitly. So, one second. 16:48 Maybe maybe coos him do not hold that birds require shchita min d'oraita. Now again, if that's the case, then all bets are off. Right? Because again, at the end of the day, remember, coos him are vigilant and diligent in something that is written in the Torah. But something that is not explicit, coos him are not makpid on. So, maybe birds they don't 17:11 even hold of shchita by birds at all. If that's the case, then there's absolutely no way for me to trust the shrita of Kuthim at all. To which the Gemara says, "Well, I got to say taking it a step further, sh'hiyah, d'rasah, chaladah, hag'ramah, v'ikur mikas nan." Like I said, remember there's a different issue. What's the different issue? All of the psulim of 17:35 sh'hitah in general, those aren't explicit. Right, those aren't explicit. Those are learned out from different limudim. So, one second, how can you trust Well, we're we're we're working we're working under the premise over here that a Kuthi is going to be careful with things that are written in the Torah. 17:52 But, anything that is not explicit, you can't trust the Kuthi. So, again, all of the things which invalidate sh'hitah, like I said again, we haven't really done it we haven't done a deep dive into these things at all. But, all of these things that invalidate sh'hitah, they're not written in the Torah. They're learned out from Chazal. So, if that's the case, how can you ever rely on the sh'hitah of a Kuthi? Because after all, again, the halachos which govern proper 18:15 sh'hitah are not explicit. To which the Gemara says, "Elo, keivan d'achziku b'achziku, hachanami keivan d'achziku achziku." So, this is what I said, this is actually very interesting. So, here's the way it works with Kuthim. So, this is the way it works with Kuthim is like this. We originally thought that Kuthim essentially made this line of demarcation between mitzvos which are written and mitzvos which are not written. It's not true, it's a bit more 18:39 nuanced. There are certain mitzvos which Kuthim took on. The stuff they took on, they're absolutely vigilant with. The stuff they did not take on, they could care less about. And I know what you're thinking. That's me, right? Yeah, yeah. 18:56 I kind of live like that. I guess I guess I guess I finally found where I fit in, right? In the spectrum of Yiddishkeit. See, what I was saying is to no, no, because we we do it a little bit differently. I care about everything. Just some things I do, some things I don't do. But even the stuff that I don't do, it's not that I don't care about it. It's just I don't do it. Okay, so that that's all of us. 19:18 That's all of us. Right? But the nice the cool thing is is really just a din of what I do, I accept. What I don't do, I categorically reject. So that's not us. So you know what it says? Now this is very interesting. This is not as much about what's written, what's not written. But it's much more about what they accepted versus what they didn't accept. Now what it sounds like is more often than not, those two categories 19:42 align. In other words, what they accepted are things that are explicit, and what they didn't accept are things that are not explicit. But as we're going to see, there are things that don't fit into those categories. Interestingly enough, it sounds like shrita is one of those things. The Kusim were very makpid on the halachos of shrita. Even though again, the iker halachos of shrita are not written. Are not written, right? Or I should say, the 20:04 invalidations of shrita are not written. I will say even the notion, by the way, of that has to be the majority of the two pipes, the windpipe and the esophagus. We're going to see that it's not explicitly written. But apparently Kusim, for whatever the reason, Kusim took this on. So therefore, the Gemara take a look at Rashi. Rashi says over here, actually, sorry, not yet. Not yet. First let's just read a little bit more. So the Gemara says, 20:29 since the Kusim took it on, they took it on with the sense of vigilance. Now listen, now watch this. Now listen, so now what we're going to see is there's a fundamental tannaim about what the Kusim took on and what the Kusim didn't take on, specifically when it comes to things that are not explicit in the Torah. Take a look at Rashi now for just a moment. Rashi 20:58 actually, actually, actually, actually So the Rashi says, so when you have a mitzvah that's not explicitly in the Torah, there are even Shaksikuba, but we see the Kusim do it. Now, what we're going to say is as follows. When you have So, apparently what the Mishna is saying is like this. 21:34 When there is a mitzvah that is explicitly written in the Torah, that we're pretty confident that Kusim take it on, and they are careful with it. What about when you have a mitzvah that is not explicit in the Torah, but I see that the Kusim are doing it. I see the Kusim are doing it. So, can I say that since the Kusim are vigilant in it for themselves, therefore I can rely on that 21:57 as well, or not? That is a machlokes Tanaim. Watch this. So, the Mishna says, the sign of Here we go. Matzos Kusi. They will say, "Watch this. A Kusi makes matzah." So, what's the halakha? Muteres. It's muter. Now, what does it mean? It's muter, but ultimately by Yedei Halacha Beisach. But, if a Kusi says, right, Kusi puts out his own shmura matzah, ultimately again, you can use it for the Pesach Seder. Incredible. Rabbonon Oser. 22:23 Rabbonon Oser says, "Absolutely not. The fish and became a dikdukei mitzvos Yisrael." Rabbonon Oser says, "No, you cannot rely on the matzah of a Kusi because Halacha LeBeisach, he is not careful with mitzvos like a Yid." Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, "Kol mitzvah she ansigu ba Kusim harbei medakdekin ba Yosmei Yisrael." Wow. 22:40 That's a pretty strong statement. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, "When the Kusim are vigilant about a particular mitzvah, they're even more vigilant than regular Jews." Wow. So, we'll say, so essentially, it sounds like three-way machlokes, but it doesn't sound like it's machlokes so much. It really sounds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbonon are saying the same thing. But again, let's go through it. Can you use the matzah of a Kusi on on Pesach. Now again, the will 23:03 say, see here here's an excellent well, let's see. So Tanna Kamma says yes, Rebbe Elazar says no, Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai says any mitzvah that Kusim take on they're even more madakdik than Jews. So the Gemara asks, matzas Kusim muteres v'od miyazi b'dei chavaso? 23:20 So the matzah of a Kusi is muter and you can use it on Pesach. So the Gemara says pshita, this seems to be obvious. Again, the will say, now what it means is obvious is the statement seems to be redundant. Right? If you hold that the matzah of a Kusi is muter, right? Muter means what? It's not chametz. If it's not chametz, then I should be able to use it at the Seder. So the Gemara says mad d'teima, lo b'ki b'shimar. So the Gemara says this is very interesting. I 23:45 might have thought that halacha l'maaseh, remember again the will say, in order to use matzah for the Seder, what do you need? Now remember, matzah for the Seder is a little bit different than matzah for the rest of Pesach, right? Because for matzah for Pesach, what do I need? Oh sorry, for matzah for the Seder, I need shmura matzah. The will say, remember again, what's the difference shmura matzah and regular matzah? It's all in the name, right? 24:06 Shmura means it's shmura mishas k'tzira. It is guarded from the time that it's harvested. Regular matzah is what we call shmura mishas tchina. It is guarded from the time that the flour is ground is ground up. 24:23 So therefore again, you must like this, I might have thought that maybe a Kusi is good enough to make what we call kosher Pesach matzah, but a Kusi is not trusted enough to make shmura matzah. K'mashma Tanna Kamma says, yes he is. Yes he is, absolutely. Rebbe Elazar holds that fishy became madakdik b'mitzvos. 24:41 Rebbe Elazar says no, you can't rely on a Kusi, why? Because a Kusi is not madakdik with mitzvos. So the Gemara says why? K'sabra lo b'ki b'shimar. Rebbe Elazar holds that no, because halacha l'maaseh, I could trust a Kusi to avoid chametz, but a Kusi is not trustworthy enough for shmura matzah cuz remember again shmura matzah is an extra detail. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says, 25:05 "Kumitz sh'eich zigu ba Kusim harbei midakdik mi Yisrael." Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says, "Any mitzvah that the Kusim have taken on ultimately going to be even more midakdik than a Yid." Now both sides now what that sounds like they're saying is "And Kusim are midakdik with shmura matzah. Therefore, you can use the shmura matzah of Yitzchak." Oh, one second. "Hai hu Tanna Kamma." So Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is saying the same exact thing as the Tanna Kamma. "Ika 25:28 beinaihu." Now both sides third white line, what's the nafka mina between them? "Dikhsiva v'lo achziku bah." Now again both sides, remember here is the difference. The difference is The difference is that remember when it comes to shmura matzah shmura matzah actually is written. The Torah says, "Ushmartem es hamatzos." So that actually is written in the Torah. 25:51 So both sides So watch this. So what is the point of contention between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai? Listen to this. "Dikhsiva v'lo achziku bah." What happens if you have a mitzvah in the Torah that is written but we don't know that the Kusim are actually performing it well. Tanna Kamma savar, "Keivan dikhsiva ava gav d'lo achziku bah." So Tanna Kamma holds if it's written in the Torah, Kusim do it. 26:14 That's it. That's it. If it's written, we know that Kusim do it. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai savar, "Im achzik in ilo achzik lo." So what's the difference? Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says no. If we know Kusim do it, then they do it. But if we do not know that Kusim are midakdik, then ultimately again we cannot assume that they are midakdik. 26:35 E achi, if that's the case, "Kumitz sh'eich zigu ba Kusim." If that's the case, then why does Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai say any mitzvah that the Kusim do it should It should say "Im achzik ummi ba'ei leih." It should be if if there's a chazaka that they do it, then we can rely on them. If there's not a chazaka, then we don't rely on them. And he came in and said, "What's the point of contention between the Tanna Kamma and Shimon bar Yochai?" The looks 26:59 like he was saying, "What happens if something is not written in the Torah, but we see that the Kusim perform it?" Tanna Kamma said, "Given the looks CV of Nami bar Shimon bar Yochai, came with the So he was saying, "Here's the point of contention. The point of contention is what happens if you have a mitzvah that is not explicitly written in the Torah, 27:22 but we see that the Kusim do in fact perform it." Perform it. The Tanna Kamma says, "No, you can't rely on Kusim. Kusim only do stuff that is explicitly written in the Torah. Even if you see them doing other stuff, you can't rely on them for that." Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says, "Not true. We look at their behavior." Right? Even Shimon bar Yochai says, "Yes, true. Everything that is written in the Torah they do. But even stuff that's not written in the Torah, 27:47 if we see them being vigilant about it, you can in fact rely on them for that mitzvah. That is the point of contention." As Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, "So circle back. This is very much material to our discussion about shrita because remember, although the Torah discusses the construct of shrita, but how you perform shrita, right? How shrita is actually done, what makes a 28:11 valid shrita versus an invalid shrita, all of that is derabanan, right? All of that is learned out by Chazal. So but yet so but yet we see that Kusim are makpid on shrita. So can you rely on them or not? That is a fundamental machlokes." So again, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai it comes So what it sounds like it comes down to is like this. 28:32 Anything that is explicitly written in the Torah, the Kusim are madakdik on, and you can rely on them for. Anything that's not written in the Torah and you don't see them doing it, you can't rely on them for. What's the machlokes case? Something that's not written in the Torah, but what? I see that they are vigilant with it. Can they be relied upon for that mitzvah? That's 28:56 R. Shimon bar Yochai. Okay, so what did we not finish? Gufo. Amar Rabbah, Yisrael mumar al devar issura detyavoh. Listen to this. If you have Yisrael mumar, this is what we saw yesterday. Ochel devar issura detyavoh. What is this? This is a Jew who eats treif. But why does he eat treif? Just because again he enjoys it. And if you give him if you give him the choice between kosher and treif, of course he'll choose 29:20 kosher, right? And if he could do the right thing, he'll do the right thing. But if at the end of the day it's just too inconvenient to do the right thing, then he will go ahead and do the wrong thing. So Yisrael mumar ochel devar issura detyavoh. Boded shakin v'lo shakin lo umutzal m'shita'osav. So what does it say? What do you do? If you want to have this Jew shochet, what do you do? Give him a checked knife. Just give him a 29:43 knife that's checked. Give him a knife that's certified. And then you can rely on his shechitah. Why? So the Gemara says, "Mai ta'ama? Keivan de'ika heter v'issur, lo shavkinan heter b'ochlei issur." Because I will say for this Jew, for this Jew, again, since there is the opportunity to do right have issur and heter, he will not set aside heter in order to consume issur. Now what does it 30:07 say? So this is a Jew who ultimately again has a weakness for treif. He has a weakness for treifos. Okay. So everybody has their weaknesses. But again, at the end of the day he's still a person who desires to do the right thing. So as long as doing the right thing is easy, he'll do the right thing. The moment it becomes challenging, that's the moment that you can't necessarily rely on him. 30:31 So therefore again, if I give him a checked knife, I can rely on the fact that he's going to do a proper shechitah. Why? Because he also wants to eat from shochted meat. At the end of the day, given a choice between shacked and not shacked, he's going to choose shacked. He So the master says, "If that's the case, kilo butter nami, even if I didn't check the knife ahead of time, why can't I rely on a shita?" I'll tell you why. The 30:54 master says, "Mitch rock low tarak." Cuz he will say, "Here's the difference. Mitch rock low tarak means is he'll do the right thing as long as what? As long as what? As long as there's no effort involved. As long as it's easy." But the moment that there's any effort involved, you cannot rely on him to do the right thing. So therefore, if I go ahead and I give him the checked knife, I could have confidence that he's going to do the 31:18 right thing. But the moment that he's got to get the knife checked, I can't rely on him for any check. What the master say? He's such a profound and beautiful musar haskel about the power of a Jew. You know, given a Jew, our default setting is to do the right thing. It's always our default setting. 31:34 It's just So what does it really come down to? How much effort am I willing to engage in to do the right thing. Right? All of us, if there's no effort involved, of course I'm going to do the right thing. It's not a shaila. The real litmus test is when there is effort, when there is tircha, when it's not easy, how far am I willing to push myself to do the right thing. That's ultimately again that categorizes people 31:58 in different in different categories. That that's what draws the line sometimes between the mummer and the tzaddik. How much effort you're willing to put in. Incredible. So the master says, "I'm really rather I'm really rather rather rather time to say that." This is that's the first two. Listen to this. Chametz over aveda achara Pesach. So the master says is very interesting. Let's say you have a Jew. 32:18 You have a Jew who kept his chametz over Pesach. Now again, what does he say? What's the case over here? We know that on Pesach you can't go ahead and own chametz. And in fact, if you own chametz after Pesach, that chametz is really not usable. It's called chametz over a love a Pesach. Let's say you have a Yid who did not want to destroy his chametz. 32:37 right? Why not? Because it's very valuable. Now again, he didn't eat it, right? He didn't eat it. But he also didn't sell it. He didn't destroy it because he just wanted cuz it's very valuable chametz. He didn't want to destroy it. So what does it say? So remember again, now his chametz after Pesach is assur. You can't eat that chametz. But what look what the bris says, right? Chametz over the other Pesach, what's the other days? Other days, listen to this. Mutar miyad. Wow. 33:02 You are allowed to go ahead and consume or buy the chametz of a Jew who did not who did not get rid of his chametz over Pesach. Why? Because he believes cuz ultimately it's incredible. Because we can assume that the Jew exchanged his chametz with someone else's chametz. 33:22 Rashi says chametz over the second line of Rashi. The other chametz the chametz over the other Pesach the chametz the chametz over the other Pesach the chametz mutar. The other chametz the other Pesach what say this is wild. So I have a Jew, watch this. I have a Jew who did not get rid of his chametz over Pesach, right? So now what happens? He just didn't want to. It's too valuable. After Pesach now 33:44 his chametz is assur. Now the bris says, I can go if he invites me over for a post Pesach chametz party, I can go over and enjoy. Why? Cuz what can I assume he did? He swapped his chametz for a gentile's chametz, right? Now again, remember, what's the status of a gentile's chametz after Pesach? Status totally mutar. So I can assume that this 34:06 Jew this whole Jew went ahead and exchanged his chametz for an akum's chametz. And therefore again, the chametz that he has in his possession is totally mutar, right? Why? Because since this Jew, now this is a mummer, since this Jew easily could create a what we call a permissible path forward for chametz consumption, he chooses that path. And therefore again, I can operate 34:30 under that assumption. Incredible. Absolutely incredible. So the says, "Sabra, how money? Whose opinion is that?" Rabbi Yehudah. It's Rabbi Yehudah the Amar. Chametz after Pesach d'oraisa. Cuz again I will say it's Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yehudah holds that chametz after Pesach is an issur d'oraisa. The Katani mitnayshin machliffin. And again I will say I can eat the the the the chametz of this 34:54 Yisrael mumar immediately after. Why? Because I can operate under the assumption that he exchanged this chametz with the chametz of a guy. Amma, lo shavik iteila v'acharei issura. What do you see from here? The Rebbe will say, "Listen to this. Even a Yisrael mumar, if [clears throat] you give him a permitted path forward, he'll take it." He'll take it. So since again it's relatively easy for him to exchange his 35:20 chametz after Pesach with an Akum's chametz, which is totally mutar, we absolutely unequivocally assume that that's what he does. Incredible. So the Gemara says, "I don't understand the Gemara. How do you know that this is Rabbi Yehudah?" The Gemara says, "Rabbi Shimon the Amar chametz after Pesach d'rabbanan." He'll say, "Maybe not. 35:37 Maybe it's not Rabbi Yehudah. Maybe rather it's Rabbi Shimon who holds chametz after Pesach is only quote unquote only an issur d'rabbanan. V'chi magdilinon b'd'rabbanan b'd'oraisa lo magdilinon." And the only reason we allow you to go ahead and eat of the mumar's chametz after Pesach is because it's only an issur d'rabbanan. And perhaps he could have rectified it. But 35:59 if he would actually hold that chametz after Pesach is a d'oraisa, you would not be permitted to eat the chametz of this mumar after Pesach. But they have it on Rabbi Shimon. And further the Gemara will say the Gemara says, "Okay, even with Rabbi Shimon, mikatoni shani omrei achlifu. Does it say Does the braisa say that I I I I I say that he exchanged his chametz? 36:22 Rather no. Mitnayshin machliffin katoni." In other words, the Rebbe will say it's very interesting. the writes almost makes like an authoritative statement, "We know for sure that the mummer exchanged his chametz with the chametz of Yacum." The vadai machliffin. We know for sure that he exchanges his chametz. And if that's the case, "Umami d'Rabbanan lo shavya k'dei d'Oraisa lo kasha kein." The writes says, "It's incredible. That 36:47 is all the more so if he holds all the more so if you hold that chametz she'avar al ha'Pesach is only a d'Rabbanan." And yet even in that case, what happens? The mummer exchanges his chametz for a guy's chametz just for it is a d'Rabbanan. If that's what he does to remedy it, it is a d'Ra- excuse me, it is [clears throat] a d'Rabbanan. 37:08 Then all the more so we can be confident that he's going to do the work to remedy in a d'Oraisa. Incredible. Incredible. So the writes says, "But again, all of this points in the same direction. That when you have what we call a mummer l'te'avon." So as a mummer l'te'avon, this is a Jew who habitually transgresses in order to satisfy his own desire. Right? Remember as we said yesterday, there's no 37:31 theological rebellion. He's not trying to advance some new ism. Right? That's that's not what's happening over here. He's just simply a ba'al ta'avah, right? Who can't control his ta'avos and indulges them all the time. Even such an individual like that, if he has an easy way to do things correctly, he'll do it correctly. 37:52 That's it. And therefore I can almost say, and you see over here even in a d'Rabbanan, if he has a chance to do things correctly, and all of a sudden here's a guy who kept his chametz over Pesach. He kept Right? Again, kept not not not because he doesn't care about the halacha. He cares about the halacha, but he cares about his chametz more. 38:09 Right? So because he cares about his chametz more, therefore he kept his chametz over Pesach. Even according to the opinion that says it's d'Rabbanan, if there's an easy way for him to remedy this, he'll do that. He'll do that. Therefore, you know, the writes says, "This is very important for us because what it tells us is any case where it's easy for these strong moment to do the right thing, we can rely on him. So, therefore again, he invites you over for hummus right after Pesach, right? He's 38:32 the only guy in town that got pizza. He got pizza. On right on on motzei Pesach, ultimately again, you could which I have to I have to just say is a cloudy so practice that I can never understand. Right? The the the that that Okay, not for now. Not for now. 38:48 Not for now. It goes with dogs. It goes with dogs. Right? Right? It goes with dogs. Right? Right? Right? Right? Yeah, pizza after pizza. Right? It is. It is. No. No. You've been eating for for eight days straight. Eight days straight. And it's not like we lack for anything on Pesach, right? Baruch Hashem we live in that We lack for nothing. It's almost as if 39:13 davka motzei Pesach is the one time where a Yid should say "Kedoshim tiyu. Kadesh es atzmecha b'musha mutar lach." Right? I know that I can have the pizza. You know what? This might davka be that moment where I could say both from a caloric perspective, a waistline perspective, a gluttonous perspective, a middas perspective, I'm going to pass. 39:35 But okay, but I digress. I digress. No, not for now. Not for now. Anyway, the point over here is the Gemara says that halacha l'maaseh, halacha l'maaseh, you could rely on the Yisrael mumar when it's easy. To which the Gemara says "Never say alei." So, let's say the finds of a Yisrael What's in this? I kosher this was to say. 39:51 Remember again, for our purposes, this is very important. Why? Because what we're trying to figure out is is a Yisrael mumar lechol neveilah u'treifah, which is a Jew who habitually eats non-kosher to because he likes it. 40:07 Because he likes it, right? But again, not as a theological rebellion, can I rely on him for shechitah? That's the fundamental question we're dealing with. The Gemara says "Al kol shoftecha." "L'meimei seya alei." "Al kol shoftecha." "V'afilu kuzin." "V'afilu oral, the fellow is a woman. Listen to this. Everyone could chat. This is fascinating. Even a cuisine a cuisine and oral. Oral is someone who's uncircumcised and he is a woman. 40:31 So he must have height oral and he dummy. Someone say what's the case of an oral? Say I have to watch the actual quite fascinating. If it's a case of where a guy, let's say let's call him right Shimon, right? Levi. Levi doesn't have a bris milah. Why doesn't Levi have a bris milah? 40:47 Because his brothers Reuven and Shimon died as a result of a bris milah. Like you know what I say, the mother talks about this case. Contemporarily we know what this is. We know what this is. What is this? It's hemophilia. Like so you had cases like this of never of children who died as a result of bris milah. So interestingly enough, even before Chazal understood what the disease was, they 41:09 understood that if two children died as a result of this, there's something genetic in the family. Such a person like that does not get a bris milah. Like you know what I say, but I want to point out something very interesting. So this is actually watch this. So if it's a case of where his brothers died as a result of bris milah, he's not called an oral. He's not called an oral. Isn't that fascinating? So this third kid Levi, who's not going to get a bris 41:33 milah, he's not called an oral. He's not called uncircumcised. Why? Because I was saying uncircumcised and oral is the status you have when you are supposed to have milah, but you didn't get milah. But in any case where the halacha says do not get milah, like this case, you're not an oral. You're a bonafide Jew. 41:51 You're bonafide Jew. You know what I'm saying? So that would almost be the case. We're allowed to do this. We're talking about a person no who does not get a bris milah. Why? Because he didn't want to get a bris milah. Didn't want to get a bris milah. He's a mummer. He's not a mummer. He didn't want to get a bris milah. The guy suffered. And what do you say? What do you see from here? 42:08 The guy suffered. Mummer a little hobby mummer Torah law. So I was saying this this is a fascinating. What do you see from here? That just because someone is a moment for one area of Halacha does not make them a moment for color Torah cooler. So this guy might be a moment for this moment meaning that Allah my son he doesn't want to breathe. He doesn't believe in breathing. He doesn't want to breathe. The breathing is too painful. 42:32 Whatever might be whatever might be but just because he is a moment for one area of Halacha does not make him a moment of Halacha Torah cooler. Which was said by the way is something we spoke about so many times over the years and one of the most profound those in Yiddishkite. Just because I'm profoundly broken in one area does not mean that my broken kite spreads to all areas. The biggest 42:56 mistake we make in Yiddishkite is we think that all [clears throat] or nothing game or all or nothing cosmetic game. All or nothing Mahalakha life and that if I know what I'm saying we all have areas in life where I know I'm broken. I I I know and by the way not only do I know that I'm broken I know that I'm not doing anything to fix it. Not only am I know that I'm not doing anything to fix it but I'm actively making it worse each 43:20 and every day. I know it. I actively know it and deep down we feel such a sense of spiritual shame and we often feel that because this area is broken and I know that I'm not doing anything about it all the rest of the other stuff that I do is meaningless. Hashem is nothing further from the truth. We all have areas in which we are deficient. We all have areas in which we are broken but just because I'm broken profoundly 43:44 broken in one area does not mean the good that I do in all of my other areas is not meaningful profound and beloved by this park the all of them never asks for perfection. He just asks for effort. Now my ability in the area that I'm broken is to identify the broken kite and at some point in time summon up the courage to 44:07 address it, but even before I get that courage, the rest of the good in my life is good, is beautiful, and holy. Never think that because you have areas that are broken, you can't develop the other pockets of good within yourself. People miss out on so much because they think that because something's broken, I'm not fixing it, everything else is worthless. 44:28 Trust Shalom. Do the good. Focus on the good. Recognize your broken kite. Work on your broken kite. But even if person says, "I know it's broken and I'm not ready to address it." That doesn't diminish on all the other areas of good that are being done. The Gemara says, "Just because you are a mumar l'davar echad, does not make you a mumar l'chol ha'Torah kulah." The will say, "This is 44:53 probably one of the most profound statements in all of Shas because this statement, that line, this is what gives us hope. This is what says to me that even though there are so many areas of my life that are in a state of disrepair, and I know I have to repair them, but I'm not ready to. I'm not ready to. And that's a hard thing to say, but sometimes I have to be honest with myself. I'm just not ready to do the work. I know I have to be ready to do the work, but until I'm 45:18 ready to do the work, it doesn't mean that all of the other good is meaningless. All the good is meaningful even before I'm ready to address the stuff that's broken. Incredible. Im osei fal. We got to look at the seifa. The Gemara says, "Mumar l'chol seifa, a mumar l'chol was also good for shchita." So the Gemara says, "Hai mumar heichi dami?" What's the case of a mumar? "Im omer l'davar echad," right? If it's the case of a mumar for one thing, "Hai mumar d'arailos," that's the same thing 45:41 as an orel, right? An orel is a person who is a mumar l'davar echad. "Ela l'lav mumar l'osa davar." Rather, it must be talking about a case of a person who is a mumar for that one thing. "U'k' Rava." And they're ultimately again holding like Rava. "V'lo d'olam einam mumar l'osa davar lo." So the Gemara says, "No, no, no. That that's not true." In other words, the will say, "If a person is a mumar for a particular thing, you 46:04 cannot rely on him in that area." So, for example, for our purposes, if a person is a mumar to eat treif, you can't rely on his shchita. You can't. Why? May tima? Kayvan didash bay k'tayra d'amulay. Cuz they will say, "If a person habitually transgresses an aveira" - they will say, "This is also very important." What's the psychology of habitual violation? Right? It becomes 46:28 like mutar. You know always think about it. We have We have this, right? What What a person when a kayvan shinnuy sh'mo, when a person does an aveira and habitually does it, nas aslo k'heter. It becomes like it's permitted. Once it becomes like it's permitted, ultimately, again, I can't rely on that person for that. So, Reuven is a good guy, but if Reuven constantly eats non-kosher, eats treifos, that means for him, 46:51 unfortunately, there are things that he needs to work on, but it's like it's mutar for him. If it's mutar for him, I cannot rely on him for shchita. Elo, mumar l'avodas kochavim. Rather, we're talking about a case over here of a guy who's a mumar for avodas zara. Wow. U k'd'ravanan. D'ravanan, am a shmu Yisrael mumar l'avodas kochavim. 47:09 Ultimately, again, if a Yisrael is a mumar for avodas zara, mutar l'echol mishchita so. You are allowed to eat a mishchita. Again, they will say, "That is a wild statement. That is an absolutely wild statement. That if a guy is a mumar for avodas zara, ultimately, again, you are allowed to eat from a shchita." So, they will say, "So, again, we're going to leave you on a cliffhanger. We're going to stop over here for today. What that statement 47:31 means, how that works, and whether or not halacha l'maaseh is actually true, to be continued tomorrow." They will say, "Shkoyach."
Expand transcript 9,070 words
