This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:00 I know. You wouldn't have a sudden shine usually, but all right. No, I think we'd get it. We'd get him a zoom in. You want a zoom in? Welcome back, Michael. Good morning. All right. All right, what are we up to? 0:31 That's a source. >> [clears throat] >> That's a source. All right, everybody say good morning. Let's begin. Let's begin. So, we are picking up today's daf is 36a. We actually have a really an incredible daf ahead of us today. It's It's magic like It's almost like a dream. It's almost like a dream. That's how good it is. So, we'll say So, let's go back there. So, we're picking up 36b. We actually We left off a little 0:54 bit in the middle of a yesterday. We left off have a deal more, which is two four two four six eight lines up from the bottom on 36b. So, remember again we were saying we were dealing with yesterday the really very interesting concept of Kodesh, which means the concept that although in order to become to me normally an item has to has to have contact with a liquid, right? But, we 1:19 see that when it comes to make some items is a concept called Kodesh literally means the love of sanctity, which essentially means when something is of such a sanctified state it becomes much more sensitive and receptive to tumor. Therefore, again even without the contact with liquid, what happens is receptive to where did this 1:44 come up? So, this came up ultimately again in the discussion or in the of Lakish cuz Lakish raised the issue of what? Raised that if I have a carbon and there is a dry clump of the that did not come in contact with the oil. So, the Reish Lakish took it for granted that the clump is mekabel tumah. We'll say, "What was his shailah again? 2:04 Remember again? What was his shailah from yesterday?" Good. The shailah was, "Does it transmit tumah?" Right? Does Good. Good. I know you just you're mamash you're internalizing the lessons of the piyus. That's now of humility. Mamash the iron through Good. Incredible. Right? So, I'll say So, the shailah is, "Does it transmit tumah or not?" So, we'll say So, the Gemara was trying to figure out Okay. So, now we'll say So, now we're trying to figure out How do we know 2:27 ultimately again going back for just a moment How is it that kodesh becomes that kodesh becomes that kodesh becomes subject to tumah? So, we'll say So, the Gemara says, "Vedelma, maybe we're dealing with the following case. Vedelma, um I'm sorry. 2:54 So, we'll say So, maybe the case over here that we're dealing with kodesh, where ultimately again the basar sacrificial meat becomes receptive to tumah, is a situation where you led the cow to the Beis Hamikdash through a river. And by the time you shecht it, it's still wet. Maybe that's why it's mekabel tumah, because ultimately there was water. Elements safer. Rather, we'll say So, the Gemara says, "Look at the end of the pasuk." What's the end of the pasuk? "V'ha basar." So, we'll say What do we learn from the word v'ha basar? 3:16 "L'rabos eitzim u'l'vonah." We'll say to teach me that what? That eitzim u'l'vonah, that both the wood as well as the frankincense, which are non-food items, ultimately again go ahead and are mekabel tumah like ochlin. Eitzim u'l'vonah b'nei achilinenu. But, we'll say Eitzim u'l'vonah items? Ela chibas kodesh machshil u'mishabeil u'ochal. Hach nami, chibas kodesh 3:40 machsharta. Rather, we'll say Just like eitzim u'l'vonah are only mekabel tumah how? Because of chibas kodesh. So, too, we'll say we see by other sacrificial items, so chibas kodesh also makes them much shalah kabel tumah. Beautiful. Top of Lamed Zayin. So the Gemara says, "Okay, but you don't have to listen to this." So we're saying now we've established is the concept of Kodesh, which means we're saying incredibly sold this concept, which means what? That 4:05 the Maisha even in the absence of contact with a liquid, a sacrificial item is Tumah. So the Gemara says, "Great, now we've established that. But understand, you have not addressed the core question of Lakish." So the top of Lamed Zayin on the Dalet. Kima Kodesh the psula di gufei aval ni be rishon v'sheini lo al dilma lo shna. But we're 4:27 saying but here's our shaila. Our shaila is when we say that something becomes that something is Tumah as a result of Kodesh, does that just mean that the item itself has the ability to receive Tumah, but not transmit, or does it have the ability to transmit as well? To which the Gemara says, "Teko." So we're saying so amazingly enough we end up with the teko. So here's what we're 4:50 saying the takeaway. The takeaway is that the Maisha there's a concept of Kodesh, which means that sacrificial items have the ability to Tumah even if what? Even if what? They do not come in contact with a liquid. Does an item which contracts Tumah through Kodesh have the ability to transmit Tumah? That is what? That's a takeaway. We're going to say that'll be 5:13 to answer. Good. Back to back to shita. Great Mishna. We're saying this is a great case. You an animal that is We're saying we'll get into definitions, but for our purposes now is an animal that is dying. Right? That is actively dying. Sakana danger. It's in danger of imminent death. 5:33 And we're saying what's the hop? So if you have a that's a Kodesh, it's in your best interest to do what? As quickly as possible. Right? Because if you it and it's still alive, then at least you have dinner. Right? If it dies, then you have an and And have an we're we'll say again, you can still get benefits from an Availa, but of course you can't eat it. 5:50 So, the kiss over here is I want to shake the Mr. Kenneth. So, we'll say, "But what's the concern?" Because this animal mummifies at death's door, the concern is how do I know that the animal didn't die until the end of Shrita? In other words, the Hashasha we'll say is maybe the animal died right when the Shrita started. Now, we'll say again, "I don't know if the animal died when the Shrita started, then what? Then what? 6:12 Then it's treif, then it's not kosher." So, we'll say So, what's interesting over here is essentially I need some type of test of vitality. Sounds strange, right? Shrita vitality. How do I know that the animal only died as a result of Shrita and not as a result of anything else? So, watch this. Hashasha of the Mr. Kenneth. 6:29 Achite Tifarchis Biadu Bragum. So, we'll say Achite Tifarchis says, "In order to know if the Shrita of a Mr. Kenneth was good, there has to be Pirchus." So, we'll say Pirchus, I don't know what the technical term is, but it's like a a jerking motion. There has to be a postmortem movement of the hind leg and the foreleg. That's called Pirchus. Right? 6:51 So, the animal's leg has to move. It has to jerk as a result of the Shrita. Reb Lozo Omer. We'll say again, I want to be clear, this is not necessarily about struggling during Shrita. That's most animals will struggle during Shrita. This is after the Shrita is complete, there's a movement of There's a movement of the Yad, which is the foreleg, and the Rega, which is the hind leg. Reb Lozo Omer. Dayo Imzinka. Reb 7:14 Lozo says, "It's enough ultimately again if the if the blood spurts out." Now, what we'll call actually just a moment, Imzinka. Kiderech Sha Behemos No Chos Be Gronum Veha Dam Mekalech Umezanek Bekoch. So, we'll say so so Rebbi Elazar, I'm sorry. Rebbi Elazar says that as long as the blood spurts out with a Koch after the Shrita, that's enough sign of vitality the animal is 7:37 kosher. Reb Shimon Reb Shimon says, "Hashoke Balayla Ulam Acharei Ishkim." So, we'll say listen to this. Reb Shimon says So, we'll say this is on the previous sheet up. I'm assuming he's building on the Eleazar. What happens if I love my son I love my son you shocked at a Mr. Kenneth at night at night. So what happens or the market is next morning you wake up and must have solid Malayan down and you 8:00 find the walls filled with blood. They will say now which walls were discussing we're going to see in the game of then Shira then ultimately again the sheet is kosher just think or committed Eleazar so we'll see what human is saying is essentially if you shocked at a Mr. Kenneth at night. 8:16 According to Eleazar who says that what then order for the sheet of Mr. Kenneth to be good what has to happen the blood has to spurt. So the problem is if you're shocking at night if shocking at night which although we've already seen my son is not ideal but if you're shocking at night how do not the blood spurted so apparently is saying is you could look the next morning if you see the blood on the walls now we'll see that we'll say that blood on the walls doesn't actually mean the blood of the 8:39 walls of the base of the slaughterhouse but it means rather the blood on the walls of the neck. We'll get into the game of ultimately the sheet is kosher. The common say I should have a will be at over a girl. So I will say the common disagree with human on the old and with human on the old says that you need pure cos you need a jerking a movement of the four legged the hind leg the common say no you don't need both rather 9:04 either or I will be at over a girl or I should take a harsh kiss business lover. I will say all you need is a movement of something either the hind leg the four leg or according to even what even the tail. See what say what what see the common denominator here between human on the old excuse me between between human on the old and the common is that they hold that in order to ensure that the animal did not die before sheet up you 9:28 need some type of post sheet up movement. In that in that they agree what scope or what degree of movement you need a subject to my colleagues as well as Rabbi Eleazar says you what you need is the blood to spurt out with some level of that's enough to show that the animal that is the result of after the ultimately again all of this is true 9:53 whether you are shocking a small animal or like a lamb or a gas or which would be like a cow but he would duck a ship yard or listen to this what happens if you have a duck a small animal that after the extended its foreleg right but it did not bring it back so it extended it out and not bring it back so what does it say says that it was 10:16 only say the will be possible because we assume that that the animal did not die of this is all in a in a case the animal didn't die of rather the animal died of something else shame says because the mission says and we'll again all align this with the respective toes that the extension of the foreleg in the case of a duck or is not is is representing 10:39 representative of the animal dying not a representation ultimately again of the animal being alive until after the the major so what say when is all of this true shall I say Mr. Kennedy will say then clarifies this entire discussion by the way of the need for some type of movement of the animal after I will say is only by when only by 11:02 a because by a say what we are concerned about is did the animal die sometime during which would make the animal unavailable right or a for I that's what so therefore again in order to show that the animal didn't die until after I need this post movement I will say if the animal has a sham has a clean 11:25 bill of health I feel I have a class hello look Skater. But, this is very important in a regular stem animal, and I will say again, remember, an animal in general, when you go to shachdit, we assume that the that what? That what? That it's healthy, right? We don't assume we don't assume the animal is a misukenet. We assume that animal is healthy. 11:45 Probably important. In a regular stem animal, none of these halachos apply. We're not worried about movement, we're not worried about extending a hind leg, a foreleg. None of that matters to us. None of that matters to us. What matters ultimately going to All of this only matters in the case of a misukenet. 12:01 Good. So, I'll say, here we go. Gemara, misukenet bimai dishai. So, I'll say, this is actually amazing. This whole discussion is predicated on the idea that a misukenet is permitted. Right? That halacha l'maaseh, you can shacht and eat a misukenet. So, I'll say, remember again, so we're going to we're going to get a definition much more in tomorrow's daf, but we'll get a definition. But, I'll say, the bottom line is a misukenet is an animal that's 12:24 what? A what? I'll say, it is on death's door. So, the Gemara says, how do you know you're allowed to eat that animal to begin with? That is, from may have a taste, we're taking it for granted that you could That the goal over here is you just have to make sure that you have proper shchita. From where do you know that you're even permitted to eat it? So, the Gemara says, "U'mi mai?" It's supposed to say, this is such a Jewish answer. "U'mi mai?" Tastes like it doesn't have zero. Well, why would you think it's assur? Right? So, I'll say, so I So, the Gemara asks, how do 12:48 you know that it's mutar? So, the Gemara says, from where do you Why would you think that it's assur? De ch'sav, cuz I will say, I'll tell you why I would think it was assur. Cuz the pasuk says, de ch'sav, "Zos chaya asher tochelu." Cuz I will say, the pasuk said, "Tochelu." This is the chaya These are the animals that you should eat. So, the Gemara says, "V'ha misukenet eina chaya." So, I'll say, what's interesting over here is as follows. The Gemara is only saying that perhaps the Torah uses 13:12 the word chaya. So, I'll say, chaya ultimately doesn't just refer to a category of animals, but rather again, chaya also perhaps could represent a certain level of vitality in animals. That what type of animal are you permitted to eat? will say chaya, an animal which possesses vitality. 13:31 The mesukenes does not possess that same level of vitality. So perhaps you know you are not permitted to eat the mesukenes. To which the says I'll tell you why you can eat the mesukenes. Because the positive says you shall not eat an aveila. 13:49 So therefore again the mesukenes so what say here we go from the fact that the Torah says that you can't eat an aveila that would seem to indicate that what that would seem to indicate that what that mesukenes is this actually very interesting argument. Meaning the fact that I'm not allowed to eat an aveila which is what the will say which is what an animal which dies without proper tells me that what that as long as the 14:12 animal had again assuming that I could assume that the animal died as a result of and not as a result of something else that that animal is permitted for consumption. I'll tell you why. Because because if you're going to tell me that a mesukenes is that's the case let's say now let's say because let's think about this is just a moment. If you're going to tell me that let's say that a mesukenes 14:39 that a mesukenes is that I will say do I have to even say that an aveila is if a mesukenes which is an animal on death's door is going to be why would the Torah even have to tell me that an animal which dies of natural or whatever unnatural cause is going to be it's obvious. 14:55 So the says so therefore again it must be that what since the Torah tells me that an aveila is it's an aveila is by the mesukenes is what I will say will ultimately be I say says the the more I know an aveila I know a mesukenes what is that actually very interesting or maybe an aveila and a mesukenes are in fact the same thing. 15:15 I will say maybe maybe the word an aveila that refers to an animal already from the time that it is a mesukenes So I was saying maybe an Avella is a much broader category and it refers to any animal that is at death's door as as well as an animal which has died. And therefore under the will say if you define if you tell me that a mister Kenneth is an Avella then in fact 15:37 mister Kenneth will be a sir. I will say the plastic says that if an animal will die and you touch its carcass. I will say what do you see? The Torah only calls an Avella when will call or I should say the Torah only describes the term Avella to what? To an animal which has died. While it is a while it is alive even if it is at death's door it is not called an Avella. 16:18 I will say maybe not. Maybe it's still an Avella is a mister Kenneth. What I'm suggesting is that maybe maybe Avella is a much more expensive term and it's not see up until this point we only thought that an Avella refers to what? Refers to an animal which has actually died as a result of non shrita causes but maybe not maybe Avella is already at from the time it's a mister Kenneth and therefore again mister Kenneth will be a sir by a killer. And what so I will say so what 16:42 so and therefore what? I will say if the animal while the animal is a mister Kenneth if you were to eat it you would be in violation of an essay a positive commandment. I will say but if you eat it after the animal dies beloved then you'll be in violation of a love. I will say from the fact that the Torah says you cannot eat a treifa therefore what? 17:10 So I will say so once again the fact that the Torah says you can't eat a treifa. I will say now what's a treifa? So again we'll see a couple of different definitions, but at least in a on a biblical level, so or at least on a possuk level, so treifa being referred to over here is an animal that's killed by something else, right? So, the fact that the Torah tells me that I can't eat a treifa, which is an animal essentially killed by non-shrita means, I will say 17:32 what I learn out from that is the misukenes sharia, that the misukenes must be permitted. These sakadait misukenes asira, cuz I'll say if you're going to tell me that a misukenes is assur, so let's analyze this treifa me boy. We'll say if a misukenes is going to be assur, we'll say if you tell me that a misukenes, which is did I skip a line? 17:56 I'm sorry. These are the misukenes asira, thank you. Hashda, sorry. These sakadait misukenes asura, asira, cuz I'll say if you're going to think that if a misukenes is assur, hashda, misukenes dilo machasura asira, treifa me boy. So, we'll say a misukenes, so we'll say now the Torah's kind of switching gears a little bit. We're switching now to the Talmudic definition of a treifa. Talmudic definition of a treifa, we'll say we'll get to this, we 18:19 have a whole perek devoted to hilchos treifus. So, a treifa, we'll say means an animal that literally is missing something. Either there's some vital organ that's missing, or as Rashi points out, Rashi's nikam krum shamoch, the membrane around the brain is deficient. So, we'll say, so if you're going to tell me that a misukenes, which is {quote} {unquote} not missing anything. We'll say we'll 18:41 say cuz remember again, a misukenes is not an animal that is dying because of a vital organ that's missing, cuz that would be then a treifa. A misukenes is just what? Told. Right? Or it's old. In other words, it's not supposed to be it's not there's nothing there's no there's nothing I will say yeah, there's there's nothing inherently wrong. It's just just old. So, we'll say so again, if you're 19:05 going to tell me a misukenes, which ultimately again is not missing anything is assur, then treifa me boy. Then I will say it goes without saying that's what? That a treif animal certainly would be usur. In other words, we'll say if Mr. Kennis is usur, I do you don't have to tell me that a treif is usur. 19:21 The dilma hino treif hino Mr. Kennis. So we'll say so maybe they're the same. Maybe a treif is really a Mr. Kennis. The lav or alav ba'asei velo sa'asei. And I will say the Torah is coming along to go ahead and tell me that what? That if I eat this animal, I'm in violation of an asei and a lo sa'asei. Imkein nevelah dekasiv rachmana alama leitz. 19:40 We'll say if that's the case, then why do I need the prohibition of nevelah? See what I will say. Once we're establishing that an animal like a Mr. Kennis is usur, then what? It goes without saying that a nevelah is certainly going to be usur. So if Mr. Kennis is really usur because Mr. Kennis treif are essentially the same thing. 19:55 What is they're just to make you higher for different things? And I will say why do I even need the pasuk by nevelah? Umami chaim chaim umami chaim chaim alav belav viasei. We'll say if you were to eat the Mr. Kennis when it's alive, you're in violation of a lav and an asei. Lagar misamei boyi. Then I will say after the death of the animal, is there anything even to say? The dilma we'll say get ready for this. The dilma 20:18 hino nevelah hino treif hino miskenes. We'll say now it's a party. We'll say so watch this. Maybe maybe these are all the same thing. Maybe nevelah treif miskenes are essentially all the same family of issur that essentially I will say are a continuum. Extend from the time that the animal is deathly ill all the way in and again, whether that illness takes form of old age, whether 20:42 that illness takes on the form of something missing in the animal through the death of the animal. And I will say so why would the Torah come up with so many terms ultimately again for the same thing? Oh, to pile on the prohibitions. The lav or alav bishnei lavin viasei. And to make you in violation I will say if you consume any of these items of two lavin and an asei. 21:03 El me achacha rather I will say the gemara says from here. Vachilu nevelah vachilu treif ya'aseh lach malacha va'achalo so cholo so. >> What's that listen to this? So the possuk says, the chelev of an aveila and the chelev of a treifa, you can get hana'ah from it. You can do whatever you want from it, but you may not eat it. So we'll say so now watch this. V'amar Mar, Mar said, "L'mai 21:27 halacha amra Torah?" Right? So ultimately again, l'mai halacha. So why is this being brought down? So we'll say let's clarify something. We know that chelev is assur, right? Forbidden fats are called forbidden fats for good reason, right? Cuz they're forbidden. So we'll say so halacha we already know the issur of chelev. If we already know the issur of chelev, why does the Torah feel the need to restate it over here? The chelev of an aveila, 21:51 the chelev of a treifa, the right? You can do whatever you want from it, but you may not eat it. So we'll say I already know that I can't eat an aveila. Why does the Torah have to restate the prohibition of an aveila consumption by an aveila and a treifa? Look at the last Rashi. We'll say I already know that I can't eat an aveila. Why does the Torah have to restate the prohibition of an aveila consumption by an aveila and a treifa? 22:15 We'll say I don't need this possuk. Why not? The possuk says, "Kol chelev v'chol dam lo Torah has already told me I'm not permitted to eat any chelev and any blood. So we'll say ultimately again, why do I need this possuk? So we'll say I don't need this possuk. 22:46 We'll Watch this. To teach me an incredible halacha. We'll say that if you have an animal which is an aveila or an animal which is a treifa and you consume the chelev of either of the consume the forbidden fats of either of those animals, we'll say you are in violation of what? Two lavim. Right? One lav for chelev and one the concept of issur chal al issur. 23:08 When you have a pre-existing state of prohibition, can another prohibition devolve upon that pre-existing prohibition? That is a machlokes. So what does it say? The Torah is coming out of its way to tell us that at least over here, at least over here, we hold issur chal al issur, that even though again the meat is already assur as a nevikha. Remember, we'll say the prohibition of cheilev pre-existed the prohibition ultimately of nevelah or 23:30 treifah. Cuz remember again, cheilev is going to be assur even during the lifetime of the animal. Nevelah or treifah only exist when when the animal develops a treifah sign or when the animal dies. So the chiddush over here of the cheilev nevelah or the cheilev treifah comes to teach me that even though the cheilev the or the issur of the of cheilev is already there, the additional issur of nevelah or treifah could devolve upon 23:54 the cheilev. So I'm going to say what I'm going to say. So the issur of treifah, here we go. The issur of treifah, treifah heinu mesukenes. [snorts] And I will say, if you want to say that treifah and mesukenes are the same thing, if that's the case, licheto v'rachmana cheilev nevelah ye'asur l'chom l'chol the cheilev treifah lo soflu. Then I will say, let the pasuk be worded differently. Let the pasuk say, 24:17 and the cheilev of the of the nevelah you could use for any melacha, and the cheilev of a treifah cannot be consumed. Va'ana ami, and I would say as follows. Uma mecha'im assi issur treifah cheilev issur cheilev. And I would say as follows, if during the lifetime of the animal the issur of treifah devolves upon the issur of cheilev, l'achar mishemi boy. So we'll say, after death would there even be a kasha? Ela mi 24:41 dekasuv rachmana nevelah michlal de treifah lav heinu mesukenes. So we'll say, from the fact that the Torah ultimately goes ahead and writes nevelah explicitly, tells me that what? That treifah is not mesukenes, but that then rather again ultimately they are two different cases. Maskifla mar bar Ravashi, the dome of the olam eima l'cha, haynu treifa haynu missukanis. So 25:05 I'll say the Gemara is not willing to give up on this. But maybe no, maybe treifa missukanis are the same thing Reb Ovadia says. V'tika amrit n'veila d'kasav Rachmana l'amli. I, but you said before why do I need need the Torah to discuss the case of n'veila? To which the Gemara says l'hach n'veila d'lo asur mikoch missukanis. Because Reb Ovadia says there are cases of n'veila. 25:25 See, the reason the hava mina of linking n'veila and treifa together, sorry, the the the the hava mina that ultimately again that treifa is missukanis. If treifa is missukanis then why would you need n'veila? Because Reb Ovadia says there is a case of n'veila that is not necessarily preceded by the case of missukanis. See, where if we lump all of these things together then 25:49 we would assume that ultimately there's a continuum. First the animal is a missukanis, then it becomes n'veila treifa. Right? So what does the Gemara say? There's a case of n'veila which is not preceded by missukanis, which is what? B'eichi dami? Sha'as gisteira. Reb Ovadia says I'll tell you the case where you cut the animal, you chop the animal in half. Reb Ovadia says if you chop the animal in half then ultimately what? The 26:12 animal is a n'veila. What was it preceded by a state of missukanis? No. Because that happens Reb Ovadia says one second it was fine, the next second it's chopped in half. There's no prior state of missukanis. Hashta nami efshar d'lo havi missukanis porta. To which the Gemara says no no no, even when you chop the animal in half Reb Ovadia says nevertheless what? There was a point in time when it was a missukanis for some 26:35 moment. Which is when Reb Ovadia says? Mikamei d'lifshik ruba. Ultimately again before you chop the majority of the animal. Reb Ovadia says see even when you chop the animal in half there must be that point where you're chopping where the animal is not dead but a missukanis. Okay? 26:53 And Reb Ovadia says another is as follows. Imkein leima cheilev neveila u'treifa. We'll say let the possuk say cheilev neveila u'treifa. Cheilev cheilev lamalei. Ultimately again, why does the possuk have to say cheilev neveila cheilev treifa? So the Gemara says, "Zohi she'ein chelba chaluk mibesara." We'll say because both of these cases are situations where what? 27:16 Where the cheilev is not is not distinct from the flesh. So we'll say, "So what does that mean?" So we'll say, "You see the the the cheilev in chei- in in a in in a neveila and treifa, I will say, is that the cheilev is no different than the flesh. What does that mean? Just as the flesh is assur, the cheilev is assur. Now obvious there are different issurim, but they're both assur. Vi'eish acheres 27:40 she'chelba chaluk mibesara. But I will say but there is another case where the cheilev is separate and distinct from the flesh. What's the other case? Ve'eizeh zuzu missukenes. I will say missukenes, see what's interesting is as as follows. In this drasha, I will say, the Torah the Gemara is focusing on the fact that the Torah says cheilev neveila and cheilev treifa, which teaches you that the common denominator in these two cases is that 28:03 the flesh and the cheilev share the same status. The status is a status of issur. Both by neveila and treifa, I will say, the meat is assur and the cheilev is going to be assur. But there's another case where the cheilev and the meat do not share the same status. Which is the case where the cheilev and the meat don't share the same status, I will say, missukenes. Why? Because what happens in the case of missukenes? Ultimately 28:26 again, the basar, the meat, is mutar and the cheilev is assur. So we'll say, "So therefore again, the Gemara has successfully proven that based on that possuk that really missukenes, I will say, is a separate category than neveila and treifa. And that's why again we could say that the meat of a missukenes ultimately is going to be mutar." So we'll say, one more piece. There's one more proof to this, which is which is really 28:50 incredible. The V by same what's in the brings another proof. This proof of what I would say is from the in So, this is really we're going to see a dramatic from a variety of levels. The So, we'll say So, the begins as follows. The So, says a a looking So, we'll say this is kind of telling to by a who his personal 29:14 piety. How he's been a good servant of all of these years. >> [clears throat] >> So, what does he has to say? He says behold my God. Not she low me to my I never allowed my soul to become defiled. 29:42 And I never eat and and a far from my youth until this day. The bus a pig or and I never ate any kind of pig or meat or whatever again was a coin. I never ate any kind of pig or meat. So, I'll say So, what does it mean? So, first of all, take a look at Rashi. He may not she um He may not she low me to my Rashi says 30:06 he has to come to the by a who. So, he has to go with saying this to God fish a higher or below. So, I'm talking now. The big lottery of time to get in the name. So, I'll say So, ultimately again, so I could have was not very pleased with the and with Israel. Right? So, he has to go was trying to go ahead and ultimately So, show I could have about his allegiance. Right? He's always 30:33 pledged his allegiance. So, it's interesting to see what he says over here. He may not show we're going to analyze each of these each of these phrases on their own. He may not show So, I'll say what when he has to say I never allowed my soul to become defiled or impure. It's amazing. Shalom here heart love lead a tumor by Lila. I never had impure thoughts by day which would 30:56 ultimately lead me to have a seminal emission at night. So I say so that's what he's saying this is so he has to stop talking about ritual impurity over here not to mental but rather again spiritual or really like cognitive purity. I never [snorts] defiled my thoughts, right? I never had impure thoughts by day so as to come to a seminal emission at night. One of treif 31:19 and to me all right so what is actually very interesting. What [snorts] does it mean when he says to say so he has to say I never ate treif. So I say so what do you say to that? Shkoyach so I don't think I've eaten the treif either right? So what's what's what's the what's the what's the great that's all I'll tell you what it is. Shkoyach basar kodesh kodesh me'olam. 31:41 What was I saying to this? I never ate kodesh kodesh meat. What's kodesh kodesh meat? Look at that she kodesh kodesh what's that kodesh kodesh means shachut shachut shalom the fish is in the Amish like I don't think I say what I say listen to this. So when he has to say he was saying I never ate when you feel if you have an animal that is a kodesh right? If you have an animal that's a 32:05 kodesh so what is everyone telling you to do? Right? They're yelling shach the shach that. I will say cuz again remember if the animal dies on its own you're in trouble. I mean you're you know you don't you can't eat it. So what he has to say he says I never eat of the meat of a kodesh. I never eat of the meat where they said kodesh kodesh quickly shach the shach that. So I say so remember again let's pause here for just a moment. This is very important for us cuz remember what is he kodesh 32:29 demonstrating? He has to say I've gone above and beyond for you. I have you I avoided impure thoughts by day. So I shouldn't come to a similar emission at night. Furthermore, again, I never ate meat of a misukenes. Then I will say, now obviously the only way that this is considered to be a maila is if what? Is if what? 32:50 Is if the meat is technically mutar and Yichezkel saying I want to bubble and beyond. So you see if you want to bubble. You see if you want that the meat of a misukenes is in fact mutar. The meat itself is in fact permitted. answer pigel and I will say what does it mean? 33:07 I never ate pigel meat. So again I will say, so remember what does that mean? So remember it can't be can't be understood literally cuz what Yichezkel is lauding the fact that he never ate something that was assur. I mean what's what's the chiddush there? To say what he says no. 33:23 Shilo achalti me beheima shehora ba chacham. So I will say that ultimately what Yichezkel means says what Yichezkel is saying is if there was a shaila about the meat, I never ate it. If you have to ask a shaila about it and a chacham had to pasken on it, I stayed away from it. Mishum Rabi Nosson omru omru shilo achalti me beheima shehora ummu matnos says. You will say here's what's interesting. As a 33:46 kohen, as a kohen, you can eat from sacrificial meat before the respective portions are removed, right? So Yichezkel says I never ate of meat before its portions were removed. So I will say, so e amrit bishlama shari ya chein Rabbu said Yichezkel. So I will say if you say that the meat of a misukenes is permitted, then that's then that's the Rabbu said that's the chiddush of Yichezkel. E ela e amrit 34:12 asira my Rabbu said Yichezkel. But ultimately again I will say if you say that that misukenes meat is mutar, then what? Then what? Then at the end of the day what does Yichezkel what what exactly is Yichezkel saying? So I will say, so bottom line halacha l'maaseh what do we see from all of these proofs? 34:28 In other words, these are all correct. But bottom line what do you see? I will say, that the meat of a mesukenes ultimately again is mutar. It would appear the will say that based on the statement of Yechezkel, so this is a very compelling statement, that Yechezkel literally says, "Kodesh Baruch Hu, I've always gone above and beyond for you. I've never eaten the nevelah or the treifoh, which we understand to mean the meat of a mesukenes, even though it's mutar. It's absolutely mutar." 34:52 Yechezkel says the will say, "Kodesh Baruch Hu, I stayed away from it. I stayed away from it even though it's mutar, I purposely did not partake of it." The will say therefore again, we've successfully proven that the meat of a mesukenes is mutar, and therefore again going back to our Mishnah, but the problem we have when shechting a mesukenes is being able to be able being 35:15 able to show with absolute certainty that the animal died of shechitah and not as a result of something else. Now we go back. So we'll say, so now we go to the next order of business for the last couple of minutes we have. Heichitami mesukenes. The will say, "What is the definition of a mesukenes?" In other words, the will say, "How An animal could be ill with a variety of different things, but what is 35:40 the definition of a mesukenes?" The will say, "This is very important, why? Cuz what we was what everyone agrees with when it comes to a mesukenes is what? What does everyone agree with? The Mishnah. Right? That it First of all, we all agree that the mesukenes is mutar, but what I also agree is, I need some type of of post-shechitah demonstration of vitality. What that demonstration is is 36:03 subject to dispute, but I need something. That's fine, but first I need a definition as to what is a mesukenes." The will say, "This is actually amazing." Al lefi devar kodesh ma'amidin o shevein o meit. So we'll say, "Any animal which cannot stand on its own strength, that's a mesukenes." Right? If it can't stand up, right? You stand it up and it can't support itself, that's a mesukenes. Rav 36:26 Chanina bar Shmuel Amar, "Afilu al chalah We'll say even if the animal literally is chewing on wood. What does it mean chewing on wood? Chewing on wood of us what does it mean? Good jaw strength. Even if you have good jaw strength, right? The animal is strong enough to chew on pieces of wood I will say if the animal can't stand up on its own, that's a Mr. Kenneth. If it can't support its own weight, that's a Mr. Kenneth. 36:51 I feel codos. I don't know about his case of Manischewitz. Even if it's eating beams. I don't know I don't know that an animal actually eats beams. These are all probably a bit hyperbolic. What it's showing is that what? That it has enough jaw strength to be able to eat through beams. I will say the over here is even if it has enough jaw jaw strength for beams, if the animal cannot stand, if it cannot 37:15 support its own weight, then how long may say the animal is a Mr. Kenneth. So the is must know so we'll say this previous discussion is how they ultimately again recorded this conversation in Sura. 37:30 Must be I will say in Pumbedisa that the following version. What's the version? Hey hey Daniel Mr. Kenneth. What is the what is the case of Mr. Kenneth? I'm going to be with him all the time. Call Shimon meeting also any animal I will say which what? Which ultimately again you stand it up on its feet but it cannot support its own weight. Cannot support its own weight. 37:53 And even though I feel all hell is back here even if what? Even if it's strong enough to say the fact that it could chew that it could chew wood indicates that what? Indicates that what? Right? That it has vitality. It has vitality. Obviously it has color. I will say but even so even if it could chew through it if it can't go ahead and support its own weight, how long is it Mr. Kenneth? 38:17 I feel all I feel all hell is codos. Ultimately again even if it can manage to go ahead and even if it can manage to go ahead and chew through bright beams of wood, still nevertheless if it cannot support its own weight, it will be a so we'll stop over here for today. 38:35 Again, we end off with this definition. We'll see further definitions in tomorrow. Shkoyach. >> The alligator is not quite
Expand transcript 7,302 words
