This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:09 All right, the most say good morning. Good morning. Let us begin begin by thanking all of our sponsors for this morning share to thank our time with our responses for the month of Thomas Yona and Abby round for dedicating all the Sherman Russians this month as a source for for Sherman for and we as a man Ali Sheva. Daniel and Bashara Pavel a very successful dedicating all the Sherman Russians this month. The third 0:31 guard said to have Shamble they Shamble been Yehuda Ari and the problem that only sponsors I am and Sarah Steinberg in the source of continued health for Shulamis Hana bus social for ultimate referral Shelim of Shmuly and Hindi Abramson as a source for for Sherman for Shamble's father Haim Mordecai Ben Hava and Steve and Jordan a glass of yellow in Nishmas. 0:56 Jordan's grandfather Reb Shawl Ben Reb Yalls Zusman in America of our time and Torah. All of the Nishmas are in all of the families in the home and all those in Jewish war should happen together with call holy Israel and all the merits of our Sham Sham. Continue to look after our brothers and sisters in our strong give our holy soldiers at Sloka be called my say you damn. And with that let us begin today's Daffy and Gimmel 1:18 53. We are picking up on noon base noon base. Let's just back up a tiny little bit and let's begin with Amara of Amram Amara of Kista. Which is three lines up from before it gets wide on the bottom of 52B. We actually just read these couple of lines but let's just reorient ourselves a little bit. Amara of Amram Kista supposed to remember again the Mishna was talking about the idea of Drusas Zev 1:41 that if a if a wolf goes ahead and claws an animal, that animal becomes a treifa. We're trying to figure out now in the Gemara is it only a wolf? Is it only a wolf? Is it potentially other animals as well? Some of Amram Amram Amram Amram Amram Kista. 1:58 Drusas Hatul or an amia big idea with lion. So again, if you have a cat or an amia, an amia is another small animal that goes ahead and claws the demon to lion, which means like a small sheep, small lion. Jews as hold up a wolf, and ultimately again, a whole the weasel has the ability to inflict moral damage upon birds, fowl with its clawing. So may say so I say so 2:21 this it seems to indicate now we're we're going to be hyper-focused on cats for a little while, but it seems to indicate that a cat in fact does have the ability to inflict moral damage through clawing. May say no to the cat. Jews as a tool needs an amia. If a cat and needs we're going to see this particular type of bird. 2:40 And the amia is another small animal in the small cat family. Again, Martin something in that archery target the hollow. So again, if these animals claw another animal until they open up the abdominal cavity, then that makes the animal into a treifa. About Jews as a less than a tool. But simple clawing, remember again that the whole crap with the wolf is that simple act of clawing 3:02 goes ahead and renders the victim a a treifa. That does not seem to be the case by a cat tool by a cat. So you have a contradiction. Does a cat have the ability to make something into a treifa through clawing or not? Find out what this is this is wrong. Nate solo Doris according to this logic you tell me that the Nate's bird doesn't have the ability to make something into a treifa. Is that true? The most of all tonight and there is to clawing. That's 3:25 not what we learned. Jews as a Nate. The mission itself talks about a a Nate that claws another bird and makes it into a treifa. To which the most of all the casio can both of those can be good deal with the lion. To which the most of all says no no no, you're right. You're right, it's two different things. A Nate, which is a type of bird, has the ability to make other birds into a treifa. However, again, it does not have the ability to make other animals like a 3:49 sheep or a lion into a treifa. Mika Magom the of his the kasha the serbo say again according to his with love a kasha right because remember again the Krista said that a hatul that ultimately again a cat does have the ability at least to make a small sheep a small lamb into a treif, yet the braces seem to indicate that it does not work. Who don't work yet on so he told me the following time in the sun 4:13 young. The Rebbe only Rebbe says well I'm real in a dress a little bit more machine machine so what is this is very interesting. When do we say for example that let's say a cat right that a cat doesn't have the ability to make something into a treif through clawing. When is that true? This is very interesting. When there's no one or nothing trying to save the prey. This is very interesting. So apparently under 4:36 normal circumstances a cat with the claws will not make something into a treif. However, if the cat essentially if the cat gets angry right so how the cat get angry the cat is running after it's prey and someone or something else is trying to save the prey. That apparently antagonizes the cat and it's apparently when the cat gets antagonized that's when it's clawing becomes fatal. 5:00 Okay. I've a welcome she smash healing yes true so I'm also saying or welcome she must healing injuries is that true when there's no one trying to save the prey the cat doesn't get antagonized to the point that it's clawing becomes fatal. Well listen to this. Well he turned a go list my cousin's story. 5:16 There was a chicken the hobby bear of karma that was that was in the house of karma the right hatul basra there was a cat running after the chicken mom is like a haggadah over here right there was a cat right there was a cat running after the chicken but all the injury now the is ya hit the shower by day. What happened? The cat went sorry the the chicken ran into a room the door closed 5:39 behind the chicken or my here the dash of the sikufe and the cat swiped his claw against the door the shatach all the hamisha court of dama and they found five drops of poison. Five drops of poison on the cat's scratch on the door. 5:55 So, what is he saying here? So, obviously again, the chicken was saved not by someone, but the chicken was at the door and yet that antagonized the cat enough to go ahead and produce some type of Remember we'll say Gamarra operating under this idea of the venom. We saw in yesterday's daf again that it's not venom, it's bacteria, but again, we're just going to go with the lotion of the Gamarra. Which Gamarra says, "No, no, no. Hat sal us manami hat 6:18 sal aharim dami." The antagonism of the cat doesn't stand the same from someone else saving its prey, but rather it's from the prey being saved from the cat. So, whether it's the prey saving itself or whether it's or whether it's or whether it's someone or something else saving the prey, when the cat gets frustrated, that that's when it becomes antagonized and when it becomes antagonized, ultimately again, that's 6:41 when it produces its quote unquote venom. Okay, incredible. So, Gamarra says the idea over here is as follows. So, what Gamarra is suggesting is that the clawing of a cat can be fatal on cat can make its prey into a treifa under certain circumstances. The circumstance that Gamarra is advancing right now is essentially when the cat becomes antagonized because something is standing in between the cat and its 7:05 prey. Incredible. So, Gamarra goes like this. Rabbanan zihira is lay follow color zihira. Rabbanan will say in that case where it becomes antagonized, it's true. The cat can't produce some type of venom, but literally again, the venom doesn't burn. The venom's not fatal. It's not fatal. Okay. So, what does it say? Sfund mahlo kes about the nature or the ability of a cat to make its victim into a treifa through clawing. Eiged ami 7:29 alternate version of this. How many whose opinion is this? Rabbi B. So, what does it say? This is an alternate version of the previous conversation. Whose opinion is this? Rabbi B. The sign of Rabbi Meir says, "Lo amri is true so al makom shish masilin." When do we say that a cat has the ability to make something into a tray for through its clawing? Only when something is standing in the way of the cat. Literally, someone is saving the prey from the cat. 7:53 That's when the cat becomes officially antagonized. And when it becomes antagonized, that's when it produces the venom. I but ultimately again, where there is no one or nothing saving the cat, there's no tray for issue. What about the chicken? In Jerusalem, that's true. What about the chicken? There was a chicken in the house of Rav Kahana. 8:14 The cat was running after the chicken. A cat was running after the chicken. The chicken ran into a room. The door slammed behind the chicken. The same same story. The cat went ahead and swiped its claw against the door and they found five five five droplets of venom by the cat's scratch. 8:40 So see from here again, the cat produced venom even though there was no matzeal. To which the cat tells us that the cat is not small. Not me. Cat also here and there could ultimately again be chicken saving itself is the equivalent of someone else saving the chicken. So what am I saying? So therefore, what the cat seems to end up over here is in this moment is that a cat does have the ability to make something into a tray 9:04 for through clawing, but there has to be apparently some type of some type of feline antagonization process that happens over here. That's correct. Right. Right. Feline antagonization. Right, which is okay. If you've never heard of it, it's fine. Don't worry about it. Don't don't don't beat yourself up. Right. I was saying it's right. Quite quite fascinating over here. That's when it produces a probably what ends up happening just 9:28 using the science that we know and I guess it's possible that maybe when it gets antagonized, its claws extend even more exposing more of the bacteria going ahead and creating this fatal situation. Okay, last line nun base Ahmad base. By way of camera. So I've kind of asked from Rav a final question given with the other 53A. 9:47 Yesh drusa l'chatul o ein drusa l'chatul. So what is Rav saying now? Rav asks it again. Does a cat have the ability to make something into a treifa by clawing its victim or not? Amar lei Ah, so what's he saying now? Here's what's happening over here. Rav Kahana is asked going to ask a series of questions of Rav. Rav is going to give a series of answers and the answers are 10:11 going to appear to be inherently contradictory. Okay, so just so if it sounds contradictory, you're not missing anything. We're going to see that it is. So yesh drusa l'chatul o ein drusa l'chatul. Number one, can a cat go ahead and if a cat claws its prey, does it make it into a treifa or not? Amar lei Ah, afla chuldi yesh drusa. To which Rav responded, even a weasel can make something into a treifa. Okay, yesh 10:34 drusa l'chulda o ein drusa l'chulda. Tell me, does a weasel through clawing its prey have the ability to make it its prey into a treifa or not? Amar lei Ah, afla chatul ein drusa. He said, well, even a cat cannot make a treifa with its claw. 10:49 Contradiction. L'chatul o l'chuldi yesh drusa o ein drusa. Tell me, do a cat and a weasel have the ability if they claw its prey to make its prey into a treifa or not? Amar lei L'chatul yesh drusa l'chulda ein drusa. A cat does have the ability to make its prey into a treifa, but a chulda a weasel does not. Okay, so what's he saying now? Obviously, multiple contradictory answers. But Rav 11:13 Kahana says it's not a contradiction. Listen to this. Chada al lei afla chuldi yesh drusa. When we said that a chulda that even a weasel through through clawing has the ability to make its prey into a treifa, when is that? B'ofos. Very interesting, birds. With birds. With So I don't know what I'm going to say. Just to understand, the model that Rav is going to advance is like this. An animal 11:37 can make another animal that is smaller than it into a treifa through clawing. So, for example, a weasel a weasel can make birds into a treifa through clawing because again birds are smaller than a weasel. When we said before that a a cat doesn't have the ability to make its prey into a treifa through clawing, when is that? 11:59 Large sheep because again those will be larger than the cat. So, cat also has the ability to make its prey into a treifa through clawing when the prey is smaller than the cat. When we said that a a cat has the ability to go ahead and make something into a treifa and a when we said that a a cat has the ability to go ahead and make something into a treifa and a does not, what is 12:22 that talking about? Small sheep, small lamb, which again a cat can do but a weasel cannot do. Incredible. So, this is Rav's model. Essentially, an animal can make another animal into a treifa through its clawing if the clawing animal is at least as big if not bigger than the prey animal. Okay. When we said that a a cat has the ability to go ahead and make something into a treifa and a does not, what is that talking about? 12:45 Remember the Mishnah spoke about a neitz bird that a neitz bird has the ability through clawing to make other birds into a treifa. So, the shailah is is this like by the neitz are there any other birds any other non-kosher birds? Now again, what is the asking right now non-kosher birds because remember we're saying there are no there's no such thing as a kosher bird of prey. Birds of prey are 13:08 always treif. So, therefore again, the that's why the says are there any other non-kosher birds that also have the ability to make their prey into a treifa through clawing. So, the I'm really a when we're in the of has a a other non-kosher birds other non-kosher birds also have the ability to make their prey into a treif through clawing. I have a hundred and 13:32 nine drusas on nates. But one second, but the Mishnah just mentioned one type of bird, the nates bird, that's it. To which the Gemara says but of hadak drusas are nates because of the nakh but there's a trust say minaku. So what's this to this? So the Gemara answers, so the Gemara says but right by the of a nates ultimately again it has the ability to go ahead and make it into 13:55 a treif an animal that is the same size. But ultimately again other ones other birds have the ability to make a treif into prey animals that are smaller than them. Okay, like kind of like what I said before big and dominant. Others explain drusas are nates because of the minae. Others explain no but the nates has the ability to make even larger animals into a treif through clawing. Whereas other treif birds only 14:20 have the ability to make animals that are at least the same size if not smaller than them into a treif. Incredible. I'm going to have to mention this to my son. Angels of the Shual. What about a fox? What about a fox? Does a fox have the ability to make another animal into a treif through clawing? So comes along with kind of I've seen but I actually says no a fox does not have the ability to make another animal into a treif through 14:43 clawing. Eating is that so? Vahaki also of Dimi Amar. So what's this to this? You have to review me came along. Dimi told the story. Listen to this story. Misa the daras shual of shual rochel the macha of shual baseini. One time it happened that a fox clawed a sheep in the bathhouse of baseini. 15:04 Okay. U by myself they have a column and the whole episode came before the column. Vah amru yesh drusa. And they said that a fox has the ability to make another animal into a drusa. Incredible. I'm going to say after I hear tool over. No no it wasn't a fox it was a cat. It was a cat. You got your information wrong. Right? 15:30 So I said there's an alternate version of this. In this alternate version, this alternate version, Rav Kahana said that he had seen by Rashi that a fox does have the ability to make another animal into a drusa. The Gemara says, "The clawing in it, is that so?" "Mice of Adara Shual Rachav Bevei Shamai." Beis Shamai. One time a fox came along and clawed 15:55 a sheep in the Beis house of Beis Shamai. The bottom mice of Beis Shamai and the episode came over the Amru in drusa. And ultimately again the Amru said that it's not a drusa. So from here you see that a fox doesn't have the ability to make an animal into a treifa through clawing. So what's going on? 16:11 Amru of Saifra, "How Kelev Hava." It was a dog. It wasn't a dog. It was It wasn't a fox. It was a dog. Okay. Amru of Yosef Nakhtinan. "Ein drusa Kelev." So this is actually interesting. Rav Yosef said that dogs It's fascinating. There's no drusa by a dog. Right? That every It seems to say everyone agrees that Halakha Maiseh, if Calm down. Calm down, dog lobby. We're not We're not finished yet. We're not 16:35 finished yet. So the Gemara says So the Gemara says over here, interestingly enough, that apparently not that a dog doesn't claw. Remember we're going both sides. We're not focusing if the animal clawed. What's the shailo over here? Is the clawing considered to be a treifa, right? Is the clawing considered to be something fatal that would render its prey into treifa? It's interesting that the Gemara seems to say over here that a dog does not produce treifa through clawing. Amru of Abaye, Abaye says, 16:59 "Nakhtinan." So okay. So what I say there And interestingly enough, by the way, no one argues on that, which is which is quite fascinating. Amru of Abaye, "Nakhtinan." "Ein drusa El Biya Lufgei Rega De Lox." So what I say another interesting factor over here. Abaye says, When we talk about if an animal claws, it makes it makes the victim into a into a treif that's only if the clawing takes place 17:26 with the foreleg. The foreleg, not the hindleg. And furthermore, Furthermore, an animal only goes ahead and makes another animal into a treif through clawing with with and see part with nails and not fuki shame the law as opposed to teeth. As opposed to other words, a bite a bite does not make an animal into the status of a treif or I should say a bite doesn't fall under the 17:55 category of drusoe. It's something again which makes sense. All of them are based on what we saw yesterday that this is the bacteria that gathers inside of the claws. It makes a lot of sense that this whole thing of drusoe is dafka by clawing with a nail and not with a bite. 18:11 Furthermore, it's actually interesting. below. Furthermore, again, when we see that clawing makes the victim animal into a treif, that is only if the aggressor animal if the clawing animal does so intentionally. But if the clawing animal goes in and does so unintentionally, that does not produce the treif status. Furthermore, in drusoe and fuki akamisa the law. Furthermore, this whole issue with clawing and making 18:36 the victim into a treif is only if the clawing animal does so while it's alive, but not after death. [clears throat] We'll see exactly what that means in just a moment. One more second. I'm going to show you guys I'm going to show you guys one second. Those last few statements seem to be a bit redundant. If you tell me that in that indeed that my saw, it is only premeditated clawing that poses 18:59 a problem, then obviously any clawing done after death, right then after death is not going to cause problems. So what I say Bobby, just give you can imagine how do you have clawing after death? If you can imagine if you have an animal that's dying, right? And let's say again in its death throes, this has its uh it has its uh front leg, you know, its four leg extended, and then it dies. And then it dies. And the four leg comes down like that. As it dies, that could be a case 19:22 of clawing after death. But again, the Gemara says, "Hello my son, if you tell me it has to be premeditated, then I obviously again it can't occur after death." To which the Gemara says, "Let's see how this actually interesting the Doris who possibly a day." This is very interesting. Let's say you have an animal an animal that clawed another animal. And as the clawing animal is doing so, what happens? It's paw, right? 19:46 It's its four leg is chopped off. So therefore again, its four leg is embedded ultimately again in the victim animal. Now that him I would have thought like this, but how did the Doris shot is the hero? I would have thought like this, that's called an act of flowing because the again where was America using the notion of venom. The venom the venom is released at the time of the clawing itself. To which the one says, "Come on 20:09 but how did the shot of shot is the hero?" Actually interestingly enough, apparently the fatal part of the clawing is when the animal actually retracts its claw. That's actually what makes the act of clawing into a fatal act of aggression. It's not the insertion of the claw, but rather it's the withdrawal of the claw. So therefore, if the animal claws, then it's paw not paw animal. I 20:32 guess it's paw, right? The four leg is chopped off, right? Then the mice interestingly enough, that that would be that would not actually go ahead and be a fatal act of flowing. Okay. I'm not about to follow up. I'm a rab I'm a rab. We'll say first wild line. This is interesting case. I wish you make this a bit of a shower in the midst of the people in the garage and I listen to this. If a lion went 20:54 into let's say again, went into went into a habra of of of cows of oxen. Of oxen, right? It's inside there's a there's a ox pen and ox yeah, ox pen. So they hang out, Right? So there was a I like right? So there was when he went he went between the oxen and what happens? Never an incident see probably then we find afterwards a lion nail a 21:18 lion nail in the back of one of the oxen. So what's the in Shema are you so we don't have to be concerned that that ox was was clawed by a lion. Now again we remember again going back to the mission a lion also has the ability through clawing to render the victim into a treif. So now let's say look what we have over here. 21:41 We've got a group of oxen. A lion walks in into that and then and then leaves and then leaves. Afterwards we find a lion nail in the back of one of the oxen. You might have thought oh that is clear that that particular ox is now a treif because it was clawed by it was clawed by an it was clawed by an by a by a lion. So you must say we don't say that. Second why my time huh? 22:06 And that's very interesting. The majority of lions do claw. But there is a more tame there's also a there's a minority of them that don't claw. The majority of lions do claw. Now generally when a lion claws it does not lose its nail. 22:27 Right? So the loss of the nail in the act of clawing is not the common occurrence. The results will be pouring your Now this ox has a lion nail embedded in its back. I could just as easily say because of this perhaps what ended up happening over here is as follows. The lion went ahead and swiped his paw swiped his foot against the wall. It's nail got 22:49 dislodged in the wall. The ox afterwards came to scrub its scratch its back against the wall and what ended up happening the lion nail got embedded in the ox's back like that. I can I could construct a narrative like that. Now, why could I construct a narrative like that? Because I didn't see what happened. So, here's what I have. I know that most lions claw. Some 23:12 lions don't claw. So, I have that mute. I have that mute. I also know that generally when lions claw, the nail does not does not become detached from the paw. So, therefore again, I could just as easily say that this nail got embedded in the wall. The ox scratched his back against the wall. 23:29 And that's how the nail got into the ox's back. I don't know if I want to say just the opposite. Both of them are the same. I can say yes, the majority of oxen in fact rub their backs against the wall, but a minority do not. The majority in New York generally when oxen go ahead and scratch their back against the wall, lion nails don't get embedded in their back. 23:53 Okay. The zoo hold the and this ox once a nail got embedded in his back. I would say that a lot most probably a lion scratched him. A lion clawed him. I have seen point is you have two competing narratives about what may have happened. 24:13 The writing margin has put forward two possibilities as to what may have been folded over here. To which the says what do you do? Therefore, I will say again, what's the good news? The good news is the ox itself has a What's the of the ox? What's the That it's a It's a non-clawed animal. Right? That's the The is that it was fine. That it was fine. Therefore, because I don't know 24:41 what happened, establish this ox based on its That's what? That it is not a Or I should say it's a Or I should say something something of whether or not it was clawed by the lion. Because of the holds in general, we're not worried about something Drusa. Only time we're worried about Drusa is when we know definitively the animal was clawed. But, if we don't know the animal was clawed, you do not have to be 25:08 Hoshish for a Trayfa situation. Amar by So, by says, "The Amar and Ella Siporan, about Makum Siporan Hoshishin." So, let's say this is very interesting. So, by says, "By the way, why why in this case could we make all?" Only because it's the nail itself that's embedded in the back of the ox. That's strange, cuz that doesn't normally happen. But, if you see the ox, and you see that it was 25:32 clawed, what we call Makum Siporan, then that's a Drusa. Then that's going to be a Drusa because again we know the lion was in there, and we now see the claw marks on the back of the animal. That'll be a Drusa case. The Siporan Amar and Ella Lacha. Furthermore, again, even by the nail case, cuz all I talked about a moist nail, a value sharp, but a dry nail of the the Mishtamta. 25:54 So, when I was wondering, when would it be uncommon for the for the ox to have a lion nail in its back? That's only when it's a moist nail, right? Because a moist nail wouldn't become detached, but a dry nail would. The Lacha Nami Amar and Ella Chada. And furthermore, again, even a even a a moist nail, we only talked about one. 26:11 About 30 plus Chashinon. Ultimately, again, but if there are two or three nails embedded in the back back of the ox, you have to be Hoshish for something Drusa. The who the Chima the Dar the Sichufa. And that's assuming that the nails themselves are arranged like in a row, like they would look like on the lion's paw. Incredible. It's my So, we'll say this then yields another very fascinating conversation, same conversation. Rav Amar in Hoshishin the 26:36 something Drusa Drusa, Ushmal Amar Hoshishin the something Drusa. So, we'll say this is very interesting. So, here's the argument of Rav and Ushmal. Do we have to be Hoshish? Do we have to be concerned for a case of something Drusa? In other words, we we we didn't see we didn't see animal A claw animal B. We did not see that. 26:57 But, there's a suffocate that something happened over here. So, do I render the victim animal a treif based on the fact that there's a suffocate that it was clawed by an aggressor animal. Rav says, "No." Shmuel says, "Yes." Now, let's analyze this a bit more. The holy alma suffocate all suffocate low all animal low all. Now, 27:20 let's say let's go back. What kind of stuff are we talking about? If it's a suffocate that the animal go in Let's say for example, let's just use our case we're using before. I have a group of oxen and there was a lion roaming around. I don't know, did the lion enter into the oxen or not? Everyone will agree in that case, no suffocate that we we do not render any of the animals ossur based on the fact that maybe the maybe the lion was in there. 27:44 So, the Gemara says, "Suffocate a calba suffocate shundra ima calba." Similarly again, if let's say again it's a suffocate, was it the clawing animal a dog or was it a cat? What will we go with? We'll go with it was a dog. It was a dog. Now, what would I say? What's what's the benefit of that? What's the benefit? Cuz everyone agrees that a clawing dog doesn't create treif. So again, suffocate cat, suffocate dog, 28:07 we'll go with suffocate dog. Next. All shussing the ace of ben ayo. Ema shalom avi. Furthermore, if we saw the lion go in, let's say amongst the oxen, but we didn't hear any cries. Whatever No, no, no, no, no, no roaring, no crying, nothing. So, then in that case, we assume nothing happened. Why? What occurred? They made shalom. 28:29 They made shalom. Like the oxen and the lion made shalom. It's possible. So, the Gemara says next, "Cotta reisha de chamin ayo nachman bar assucha." Similarly again, if the lion beheaded one of the oxen, we assume that he did not harm any of the other ones. 28:45 Why? Whatever aggressive tendencies the lion had, he got out. Right? It's therapeutic. Baruch Hashem, he feels better about himself. Right? And now And now he's And now he's good to go. You know, sometimes you just need an outlet. Right? So So he just went ahead, lopped off the head of one of them, and he's good to go. Eegu kama avivi inu kama ka ka makarkarun bosi kama vasi. Listen to this. This is fascinating. If the lion 29:08 is yelling, roaring, and the oxen are yelling out, this is fascinating. What's happening over here? Everyone's scared. Everyone's scared. Rather, the lion's intimidated by the oxen, and the oxen are intimidated by the lion. Again, I will say, but again, we don't have to assume anything happened. If you look at Rashi before you turn the page, look at Rashi. Makarkarun goes to Lashon Sakhar, Lashon Sakhar is called Lashon So I will say So by the way, this 29:33 is incredible. If you hear the lion roaring and the oxen and the oxen and the oxen I don't know what the right word is crying out. So the mice say that's just everyone is scared. Which I will say such a tremendous mussar haskil. In general, when you see people yelling at each other, yelling at each other, that is often symptomatic of insecurity. 29:54 Secure people who are confident in their positions do not have to yell at other people. They do not have to shout them down. They do not have to go ahead and drown them out. They're secure enough in their positions to know I'm going to state my opinion. You want to listen, you don't want to listen, that's fine. 30:13 But in general, when you have to go ahead and yell at someone, shout them out, that is usually indicative of fear, usually indicative of insecurity. Incredible. Let's go back there. All right, I'm in base. So keep ligi keep ligi. Ultimately, again, the Gemara says So So again, and by the way, obviously, when everybody's afraid of each other, you don't have to be worried about any kind of drusa case. 30:34 Keep ligi. So where does it say where does the machlokes come up? The eegu kasha saki v'inu kama karkarun. Listen to this. The way this comes up is What what happens in a case where the lion is quiet, but the oxen are crying out. So, right? One opinion is, "Oh, clearly the lion did something, right? The lion's quiet, he did something. The oxen are crying out." Omar And others say ultimately, "I again know 31:00 it's a result of the result of the fear that's that this is unfolding over here." Okay. Omar says "Hoshi and the safi drusa." Omar says "We are hoshi for safi drusa." And again I will say "We will have to clarify the parameters of this." But essentially what Omar says is that halacha l'maaseh if you have safi drusa, the possibility that halacha l'maaseh the animal was was 31:24 clawed by another animal, you have to be hoshi. You have to take that into account. We'll see what that means just a moment. We'll see halacha l'maaseh how that how that actually takes form. Omar "High d'rav mai?" So, she said to Omar, "What what would you say about this statement of Rav Safra?" You know, let's remember again, this all started out with the machlokes Rav and Shmuel. Rav Rav said "Ein hoshi for safi drusa." You need not be 31:48 concerned about a case of safi drusa. Shmuel says "Hoshi, we are hoshi." So, this was the fundamental machlokes. So, the says "High d'rav mai?" Omar So, again I will say bottom line, do we pasken like Rav or not? So, the says "Omar lo shmiali." So, I didn't hear anything about this. 32:07 "Lo sfira li." Then again I don't hold of Rav. Then again I will say remember again, Rav says that we are not hoshi for safi drusa. Now, he seems to reject that position of Rav, align himself with Shmuel, and therefore say "We pasken that there is safi drusa." The other possibility is, listen to this, "Hoder Rav l'gabei Shmuel." Rav in fact retracted his own position and 32:32 pasken like Shmuel. What do we say about this? Listen to this. "Dahu shakafta the safi drusa." So, this is actually interesting case here. There was once a sharkafer. What's sharkafer? What's a second second line from the top of Rashi? Sharkafer sol mallei ovos shiniknas hanisbinis There was once a basket filled with birds. 32:55 Now what happened in this basket filled with birds? A nates bird Now again I'm going to say again in the Mishnah the nates is one of the birds that has the ability to make other birds into a treifa. So you had a basket of birds, live birds. A nates kind of swooped in there. 33:11 And what happens? Obviously clawed clawed stuff up. Clawed stuff up. And what happened? They said and it came before Rav. Shajur came before Shmuel. Rav sent the basket of birds before Shmuel. What did Shmuel do? Hankinu vishadinubinarah. 33:29 Okay, so this is pretty intense over here. So Shmuel went ahead and essentially suffocated the birds, shook the birds, and killed them, and threw them into the river. Okay. Don't be so judgemental. Let's let's Let's see what the rest of the story is. The Gemara says the Eisav the the bay lishaynu. So again I'm going to say again what does what does Rav say? 33:50 What did Rav pasken on with the aleph? Rav said ein safek treifa. Now again we're talking about a case where the nates bird flew in, kind of clearly ruffled around stuff, right? But it's not like we saw we It's not like we saw where the nates came in and like clawed at the bird. And obviously it was in there and obviously clawing did occur because otherwise you don't even have a safek. 34:11 So so the Gemara says if Rav did not retract his position then the birds should be mutar. El mai chazabei? Rather again I'm going to say what do you see from here? That Rav retracted his position, paskened like Shmuel, and held yesh safek treifa. That's really the case of safek treifa. To which the Gemara says so what's going on over here? And the Gemara says lishaynu. If that's the case, then why didn't Rav 34:34 himself answer the birds? Why did he send the basket of birds to Shmuel the basket on it? To which the Gemara says, "Ask Shmuel Hava." Because the story occurred in Shmuel's locale. So what they say Rav felt it would have been inappropriate for him to passkin on a shaila when he was in Shmuel's city. 34:53 There are others. So the Gemara says what they say. Rav Shmuel goes back to this. By the way, Shmuel, "Lama dimacha kimhu?" Why are you Why Why are you choking the birds? Just seems a little intense. Right? Why are you choking the birds? "Lishdinucha even ara." So obviously, again, Shmuel felt the birds were treif. Fine. Throw them in the river. Well, why why why do you have to choke them? To which the Gemara says, "Mifarkam lesal." Shmuel was concerned 35:15 that the birds would fly away. And what would happen? A Yid would find the birds and end up eating them when in fact they were treifus. "Ay, Shmuel Shkhenu, shnei masar chodesh." So again, so fine. By the way, I say we've never seen this explicitly, but it's actually very important. The way to know if something is a treif or not is if it survives for 12 months. 35:36 To which the Gemara says, "Why don't you just put the basket of birds on the side? Hold it for 12 months. Hold it for 12 months. If they survive, great. It's not a treif. If they don't survive, it's a treif." To which the Gemara says, "Asi be Rav was concerned that Shmuel was concerned that al achas maissa, holding on to these birds for 12 months, something's going to happen. Someone's going to inadvertently eat it or something's going to occur. "Veliz ben 36:01 hu l'olam deikol havim." Why not sell it to a Sell to the gentiles? Right? In other words, why Why do you have to kill it? Don't kill it at all. Just sell it off to a non-Jew and they can eat the birds. To which the Gemara says, "Asur lesabli esu." We're concerned that what's going to happen? The non-Jew is going to buy the birds and then what is he going to do? He's going to resell it to a Jew. "Ay, veli cha kimhu veli shadin al ashpa." So again, why not Okay, so Shmuel, I understand now why 36:25 Shmuel felt that he had to end the life of the birds, right? Because he felt that if they were alive, there'd be too much of a potential obstacle, a stumbling block over here. So, why not just go ahead and kill them and throw them into the garbage dump? Why are you throwing it into the river? Right? You know, there's Schmuel seems to be very premeditated in what he's doing over here. He's killing them. I understand because he doesn't want it to be a stumbling block for a Jew. And he's throwing it so why don't you throw it 36:48 into the garbage dump? Well, if I may add, according to his logic, Mishnah didn't allow the club him. Give it to your birds. Feed it to your dogs. Feed it to the dogs. In other words, just I understand. You don't want to hold on to it for 12 months because it could be a stumbling block. You don't want to leave You don't want to just kind of like let them go because a Jew may end up eating it. Fine. Feed it to your dogs. Feed it to your own animals. 37:09 Hello, the first mate melts at the issue. Rather again, Schmuel was doing this because he wanted to create publicity around this whole event. So, what he wanted to do something that would cause a rush. So, again, when Schmuel gets a basket of birds, he kills them and he throws them into the river. 37:25 People are going to be like, "What?" Right? Which which makes sense. People are going to ask about it. "Oh, what happened over here?" It was a case of a mate's bird that flew into this other basket. Suffolk drew some. And what do you see from here? Suffolk drew some is awesome. Okay, that's how Schmuel wanted to make a rush. Incredible. Mar tells another story. Who by Abza, David and Abza listen to this fascinating case as 37:49 well. There was a a goose. There was a goose in the house of Abza. All the guy all the baby Kanye. What happened? The goose was meandering around the reeds. Now, you know what I'm going to say, "What happened?" No a suck in a mask with a llama. When it came out of the reeds, its neck was bloodied. His neck is bloodied. Now, you know what I'm going to say, "There's a couple of possibilities what happened 38:13 over here." What happened? Possibility one is that it was clawed by another animal. Possibility two, it got caught on a reed. And that's why it's bloody. Am Rabbah bar bar Shabba says, "Lo amrinan safeq karba, safeq shunra." Um I'm sorry. So Am Rabbah bar Shabba, "Lo amrinan safeq karba, safeq shunra. 38:33 Ema karba, ha hanami safeq kanya, safeq shunra. Ema kanya mahi." So Rabbah said, "Just like before Rabbah said, we said that if it's a safeq, was the animal was the animal clawed by a dog or a cat? What do we go with? What do we go with? We go with a dog. That does not create a type of situation. So too, if it's a safeq, if it was a cat or if it was or if it was a reed, what's what we go with? What's what we go with? 38:57 We'll go with the reed. We'll go which which makes sense. What why would we assume it's an animal that clawed the the the duck when you could just as easily say that it was a reed. Amri bei Amri benei Rebi Hiyya. So what they say again all right, so so just want to point out something very interesting. So to begin to see in this conversation is that halakha l'maaseh, even if you pasken safeq d'rusa is 39:22 assurah, right? That ultimately again, if it's possible that the animal was was um clawed, that that would make it into a d'rusa, you see from here, you begin to see from here that halakha l'maaseh, whenever you could go ahead and attribute the clawing to some non-lethal treifa source, we're always going to do that. So we know that the animal was clawed by another animal, we know it was 39:45 it a dog or a cat, we'll go with the dog. The case of the goose that's right walking or the duck that's walking around the reeds, again, was it an animal, was it the reed? We'll ultimately again go with the reeds. Amri benei Rebi Hiyya. D'rusa she'amda tzei d'iga, kein amrinan parah basar. 40:01 When you have it's actually very interesting. When you have an animal that when you have an animal that was clawed by another animal, so we say the animal is a treifa. Now really again, you don't know for sure that it's a treifa until when? Until you shecht it and you open it up. When you check by the kishkes, by the by the stomach, by the intestines, that's when you'll be able to see if it was a Jerusa or not. 40:23 If you look at Rashi, Rashi says Rashi's right across, right to the left. The whole checking I give the name of you have to check all the areas that are kind of surrounding the intestines. If the head of the animal had been off the animal was ultimately again impacted by the clawing, if the insides of the animal by the intestinal area, the surrounding area are red. If they're 40:49 red, that would indicate again the lesson of the Gemara is the venom. Right, for our purposes, that would be indicative of the bacterial infection that has spread throughout the body. I'm going to give you a save heart of the mirror of connect it to pure sham. Connect it to pure sham. So again, so I'm sorry, pure sham shamol. So I'm saying this thing with the son of here, shamol already explained this before. 41:13 You lose the shamol to the connect it to I am. The Jerusa that we speak about over here, it requires an inspection again connect it to I am means by the intestines, by the stomach. Boy of all, yes Jerusa I want to Jerusa I'll fast another kasha. So I'll say what happens? Imagine the following case. What happens if an animal was clawed on the back of the neck? Right, what we call opposite the simanim, right? Normally again, an animal is 41:38 shacked on the front of the neck. What happens if an animal was clawed on the back of the neck? What does that do? Rashi says yes Jerusa I am in connect it to I am. May have a treifa may I mean on kasha it's Jerusa I am. Now what's the shyla? Tells that remember again, the back of the neck is a little bit of a we'll call it a tougher part of the body, right? You've got the neck bone there. So do we say 42:02 so maybe maybe the the name of Jerusa is only when the animal was clawed on what we'll call like a softer part of the body. But if it's clawed on the back of the neck, does that create a potential treifa situation or not? Are we zero hard to buy you rubber? So question was already answered by the Jerusalem 42:26 three can I get base a hollow cool when an animal ultimately again was was was was clawed by another animal ultimately I get can I get base a hollow it requires in the entire internal cavity where it works is you check the animal you open it up. What am I looking for? I'm looking ultimately again for a red and 42:51 area on the interior of the animal and that is true I feel obese him on him even if the animal was clawed on the back of its neck it still requires this internal examination so you see from here that even clawing on the back of the neck which is a sturdier or tougher part of the of the animal's body still could create a potential treif situation. Incredible. 43:12 So that's the final similar double blue become on. I was saying that we're going to stop over here for today but great great job today. Now again I was saying that what what I want to do point out is what I owe you as it follows they want seem to come to the conclusion that juice is also if it's a ultimately again if the animal was clawed or not then ultimately again the 43:35 animal will be a treif. Now we have to define the parameters of that suffolk case. What what is that? What was obviously what's enough of a circumstantial evidence threshold to tell me that something happened over here we're going to see an incredible and random tomorrow coming attractions about sign sky. 44:07 >> Because we want to check. I'll do bedikah. And then what am I supposed to find You want to do this? No, but if you didn't do bedikah. Sabbath was Sabbath it's awesome. Only if you say Sabbath it's awesome. That's what I'm saying. 44:24 If if it's awesome, what am I doing bedikah for? What do you do bedikah for? It's awesome. Sabbath truth is awesome. >> Right. >> But I I I hear you Mark. >> Oh, oh. >> Because the truth is >> That's what it sounds like. No, no, because again, Sabbath truth is [clears throat] awesome unless a person dispels the Sabbath. The way you would dispel is if it's not read on the inside. 44:47 >> It's not Sabbath. >> I'm sorry. It's not Sabbath. >> I hear you Mark. You see, my checking Do Do we spoil the Sabbath? Well, why did they need to come out? You didn't check it. What happens if you didn't check this? 45:04 Check Check it. You didn't check it. And then that would be a case of Sabbath truth is awesome. The might of the offer. You killed him, don't kill him. You check Oh, so that's why the Gemara says he wanted to make a public after all this, you know. That Sabbath truth is awesome. He was teaching the lesson. 45:23 That's awesome. It's about passion that it serves a purpose. Not passion that is only wasteful. It wasn't wasteful since that's what it sounds like. Even though the purpose of seeking it would have done is open up to see that could have worked. And then again another month. 45:41 And that's what it is. >> Hey.
Expand transcript 8,662 words
