This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:09 All right, good morning. Let's uh let's begin. We are picking up we are picking up on daff today's daff 69 but we are picking up we are picking up which says 2 4 6 8 9 lines up from the bottom on base on 68B. 0:41 So one second just a lot of lot of good to do today also if we get a chance. Okay say let's go. We had the following version of this dispute. 1:03 Says that there is such a thing as birth for limbs. Said no there is no such thing as birth for limbs. Now what are they talking about? Take a look at Rashi. Rashi says over here first of the wide lines we'll say once the once the limb exits the mother it's as if it is born and therefore again even if the uber pulls 1:31 the limb back that pulling of the limb back does not help in any way which effectively is like the position of on the other hand that just because the limb came out does not mean it's quote unquote born and therefore even if the Uber extends its limb as long as it pulls it back in 1:57 that limb will be mut and say that limb being mut that's like the position of so say what's the between these approaches so say what's the difference between this framing of the mak and the previous framing of the we had between would be about what happens if a minority of the was left inside the 2:28 mother. Look at Rashi. Rashi says over here second wide line in Rashi say if the majority of the limb came out and only a mute of the limb was left inside the mother according to the second approach I will say a second version which uses a lion of so if the majority of the limb was born everyone would agree that 2:56 the mute inside would be asser But according to the first version ultimately again even those who a limb that comes out of the mother only actually the part of the limb that came out but the me of the limb which was left inside never exited the mother would remain. So the goes back to say according to the opinion who says 3:25 there is no such thing as birth for limbs say understand what that means if there's no such thing as birth for limbs what that means is when a limb of the animal comes out and is subsequently drawn back in that limb is mut if you hold the Uber went ahead and extended its fore leg and brought it in and then 3:54 again extended a part of the body and brought it in say to the point that if you go ahead and you look at everything it extended outside of the womb it turns out that the majority of the body of the animal actually exited the womb. You see what's happening over here is this uber is sticking out body parts right and then pulling them back in say to the point 4:17 that when you look at everything that extended outside of the womb the majority of the animal has quote unquote exited but has subsequently come back in say what is in such a situation do we say well at this point in time the majority of the animal has been born and therefore again it's as if the animal has been born Order. 4:41 Or do we say no? Once the limbs were brought back in, then what? It's as if they never left. And if you want to say that once the limbs were brought back in, they were brought back in. If the Uber stuck out a body part and you cut it off and this kept on happening until the majority of the body of the Uber had exited and was cut off. 5:14 Do we say the majority of the body has exited or do we say that you need the robe but you need the robe at once? So what's so what was the principle we learned is that if you cut off a piece of the animal inside the animal ultimately again it will be we'll say that was the case in the Mishna where I reach into the mother and I cut the spleen or I cut the kidneys. So we'll say in that case 5:45 it's going to be why because remember again that's effectively but if you reach inside the mother and cut off some part that is not part of her not part of her body what is that referring to says is that not coming to include this type of case that we just said to which the 6:10 says no in fact that coming to include the case that we mentioned yesterday of what of a non non um cloven hoofed fetus. So we'll say if the mother is carrying a child that does not have split hooves to teach me that that child when found inside the mother 6:35 is going to be motor says that if let's say for example a cow gives birth to another cow but the baby cow does not have split hooves raishim holds that the offspring is going to be when is the offspring? 6:59 That's only when it was born. However, but if you the mother, you cut it, cut her open and you find the offspring inside of the mother, even will agree that what that offspring will be motor. 7:15 So, we'll say another case. This is another very interesting case. Let's say the following situation rashi says you have a schlam right and what happens the schlam is inside of the azara of the bdash and now what happens the schlam happens to be pregnant the uber sticks its hand out of the mother while in the azara of the bikdash 7:42 say what's the shilah so the shil is what's the status of the limb that comes out of the mother why so do we say So remember again assuming that we're passing like which is that when the uber extends its limb outside of the mother that limb ultimately will be asser it's gone outside of its 8:13 say now listen to this interesting case the mother in this case is a schlam she's standing inside of the bikdash inside the aara The uber sticks its hand out of the mother. So what's the saying? Do we consider as if the limb of the uber has gone outside of its on one hand the mother's standing inside of her. So do 8:36 we say that since the mother's inside the forbanos the says I'm sorry do we say I'm sorry since again the mik is the for sacrificial animals therefore it'll also be the for the and therefore the limb that comes out will 8:58 still be or do we say no for the is Not the why because the for an is what the for an is it mother and therefore as soon as it extends its limb outside of its mother it's outside of the and therefore again the limb will beer says by the way you don't just have to ask 9:27 this question in the you could ask this question remember Again cannot be in but they can be consumed in. So you could ask the same sh about the say my time. 9:50 We'll say why don't you ask about because you understand that for an of the ultimately again is its mother. Therefore, what's we understand over here as well that the of an uber is its mother. So, what comes out over here is that sacrificial animal not sacrificial animal the 10:15 uber is its mother. And therefore whatever the circumstances if the uber extends a limb outside of its mother that limb is considered to be as if it is extended past its and therefore will beer ask another say what happens if the uber extends its fore leg in between the two will say in 10:42 this case you're actively shafting the mother and the uber goes ahead and extends its leg in between the cutting of the first and second. So what's understand of course essentially what we're asking over here is well let's see so we'll say do we say that essentially again we we we essentially combine the 11:10 processes of the cutting of the first and second as well say once you start cutting the first simmon we're start the cutting of the second sim with that as well and therefore again the p the leg that comes out is no longer an a or not. So say the essentially we're really asking over here we'll say is do we look at the act of the cunning of the 11:34 ultimately again you know what this sounds like this almost takes us back to our previous of how do you look at is one continuous act or is it an act which ultimately only culminates at the end with the cutting of the second simmon says So we'll say if we say that the cutting of the first simmon combines with the second sim so as to permit the eating of 12:06 the animal certainly again what certainly it will go ahead and work to be met that limb from the veil therefore say ultimately what we're saying over here is that in the event that the animal extended the limb in between the first and second we would view that as if what the animal extended the limb at the end of the and 12:32 therefore again would not be so another interesting case now at first we're not exactly sure what this means but we'll just translate it do we have to be for the offspring of this animal say when we say offspring of this animal we're talking about a little different case over here mother is pregnant right ubber extends its Four leg. Okay. Then what happens? Then what happens? Mother 13:00 is animal is born. Animal is born. Now this animal grows up, mates with another animal, produces offspring. Look at Rashi. Rashi is Rashi says over here. So we'll say we're asking over here is a very interesting case. You see so what you have over here say in this case. So again remember I take this Uber this Uber itself. 13:34 This Uber itself went ahead and extended its leg out of the mother. Then it was now it's totally alive right it grows up mish meets with another animal say what's interesting about this animal is what is that has a limb which is asser you understand this mean the animal we'll call it the animal has a limb that 13:57 is user why is the limb asser because it extended itself outside of the so I say so the shaita is what is the impact of this asser limb on future offspring of this animal. 14:14 So the says as follows to which the says what exactly is the case see if you want to say that we'll call it we'll call it the uber animal right the uber animal now that it's all grown up if you want to say that it's mating with a regular animal so my high my 14:43 ben say first wide lines. So say if you're talking about that as mating with a regular animal then the shila is not just on this kind of animal. The shila is in general what we call a bent paka say bent pakua is when you sh the mother open it up find a viable fetus. The fetus is alive and 15:06 starts jumping around say that animal again we already established that what that animal does not require any subsequent why because it was permitted ultimately again with the of the mother but this animal does present an interesting dilemma in terms of its offspring how so 15:29 we're going to see the later on says say ultimately again according to the opinion who says that when it comes to animals we have to look at the father not just the mother say this is amazing then say if the father is a ben pakua ben pakua means the father is this type of animal that technically speaking was permitted with 15:59 the of its mother and now father is a child. They both say the offspring of that union of a ben regular animal is stuck has no remedy. This is actually amazing because listen to this because from his father's side it doesn't require why doesn't it require because from his father's side 16:27 the father is already considered to be like from the mother's side it requires as we're going to see again rash already points out this is an eye and hay we'll see it in just a little bit say essentially what you have over here the offspring of a bent pakua And a regular animal is considered to be as if half of its sim are already cut. If half of the 16:50 sim are already cut, such an animal cannot be remedied by. So as such the animal has no remedy. See if you're telling me therefore again the game says they were talking about a ben pakua the fact that the animal went ahead and extended its limb outside of the mother is totally irrelevant in general we have bigger problems when a ben pakua fathers 17:14 an animal with a quote unquote normal animal that's the case oh say here's the shila one ben pakua goes ahead and meets with another basua right so two two bed bakua animals made say so in that case by the way it would appear that I see you got it made in the shade why say because it 17:38 would appear that the offspring of those two animals requires no but the says watch this father has another issue which is that when he was in utero he extended a leg out and pulled it back in so say now when he's born he's not only a ben pakua but what he has an a which is alot Say so the problem is we'll say 18:01 this is a very complex family tree over here right so say so what happens so father ben pakua has a limb attached to him which is assur has a limb which is assur now mates with a female bas pakua they have offspring so the offspring doesn't need what's the shila the shila is what's the impact of the father's 18:25 user limb on the offspring it's actually quite incredible So the gimmar says my so the say so I'll say do we say that essentially the forleg of the father corresponds to the forleg of the offspring and just like the forleg of the off father is assurer so to the forleg of the offspring is going to be assur and 18:52 therefore again and all you need to do is cut off the forleg of the offspring and the animal will be fine. Or do we say well say that's not exactly how it works. In other words, when we say we don't say therefore the father's legal for the offspring's leg and the father's hind leg rather again 19:17 means that what the father's seed is mixed into every part of his offspring. So he subsequently said it's obvious that the father's seed is diffused throughout his offspring if it wasn't like that then we would say then otherwise what would happen a blind 19:43 father would have blind children a crippled father would have crippled children rather it's clear that what that the seed of the father is diffused throughout out of the offspring. If that's the case, here's the cash. 20:02 Sorry. Say, so in general, watch this. A father has a child say in that father animal, that father animal has parts of him that are permitted and parts of him that are prohibited. For example, the father say has in him what? 20:21 and dam right he has forbidden fats and he has blood and what happens even though the offspring is the result of the father's and dam nevertheless what the offspring is mut therefore say even in this case where the father ba has what has >> a limb which is it shouldn't impact the 20:45 status of the offspring oh Perhaps we say no. Perhaps you know at most two is what the father could pass on to his child but more not. So the father could the father could go and pass on the is of the is of and it won't negatively impact the child but he can't pass on anymore. Therefore if 21:12 there is an of the father that will in fact impact the child. Whose opinion is this fact? Either the rabbi mayor and again we're going to see this later on is of the opinion who holds that the applies ultimately again to the child in utero as well to the placenta. So the says 21:36 mayor was going to be mayor of applies does not subscribe to the holds of the but he does not hold that applies to what to a child the prohibition applies ultimately again. 22:08 What it means is rather say what you have to say is as follows. We do not assume that the offspring is fully reflective of the kak of the father and therefore even an offspring that comes from a father which has a limb which is user will be mutable say in this specific case where again 22:43 there must be a very very specific case where a bent pua father meets with a bent pua mother but the bent pakua father happens to have what happens to have what a limb that iser als that is does not trickle down to the child and the child will be permitted and I will say really what is asking 23:07 something very different is actually asking something different look for just a moment say it's rashi in the wide lines it's a two four six eight lines up from the bottom of the lines Excuse me. Listen to this. Something different. 23:39 What happens in this case of y right? What happens if the offspring was a female, right? So what happens? The mother is carrying a child. The child extended a limb, pulled the limb back. The limb is the offspring happens to be a female. Is her milk permitted or not? 23:59 So the says what's so in general again we say you know say we're going to get to this by the way milk is an interesting idea if you think about it milk should really be milk of an animal should be why right or potential d which we're going to get to as well right so I say interesting enough it's not for reasons we'll discuss so in general milk is not consider Therefore, again, what do we say the 24:31 same thing about the milk of this bent animal that also has an do we say normally? No. The reason why milk is is permitted is because technically speaking the animal could be rendered absolutely permitted through say in this case over here of the ben paka animal the animal cannot be rendered totally muta why not so first again say the 25:04 animal doesn't need but there's a different issue over here which is what that ultimately again the limb which extended outside of the mother can ever remains so maybe therefore The milk should be as well to which the says therefore again the kind of leaves does that prohibited status of the limb 25:27 transfer to the milk or not. The does not seem to answer that particular question. If you remember again the Mishna said if you reach inside the mother and cut up cut a piece of the fetus. So the fetus remains permitted. But if you cut some internal organ of the mother ultimately again that part remains. 25:52 So where do we know this distinction? So again it says ultimately that comes to include the the animal in Euro. So if that's the case that the that the animal that the animal in Euro is considered to be a bonafide so you should be able to do with it as well. 26:29 We see that what you can't do, right? Which is an illegal exchange. You can't do tomorrow with a neighbor with an Uber said to come to include ultimately again the Uber. We say if that's the case and even if you reach into the mother and you cut off a piece of the kidneys or the spleen that should also be 26:59 why did we learn in the if you cut a piece of the child in uterero it's going to be it's but yet if you cut off a piece of the spleen of the kidneys say for that matter any internal organ of the mother it's going to be So in order for the animal to be motor it has to be means it has to be complete 27:29 and not deficient was actually interesting case if this if that's the case if you the mother and you open it up and you find inside of it we say means you find something that looks like offspring but it doesn't look like the typical offspring of the animal instead looks like a bird say in order you find some 27:54 uh what's some deformed offspring inside the mother that is that is clearly again I know it's offspring because it's growing inside the mother but it clearly does not resemble the mother in any way it should be permitted right should be with the of the mother said that if you shack the mother and you find inside of it a it's going to The answer to which why is that? 28:26 It has to have paras means that it has to have the sim of a kosher animal in order for the offspring ultimately again to be with the of the mother. It has to have the cash of the mother split hooves and chewing his cut. 28:48 If that's case say that if you have an offspring that has uncloven hooves inside of the mother it should be hot. We learned that what remember we learned this already which is what that even if you have an offspring inside of the mother that has one hoof i.e. the hooves are not split then that animal will be say that animal is 29:18 kasher when when you find it inside the mother if it's born then it will not be it will not be rather again rather said use the first we espoused I will say I the question you had For if that's the case that it's really aim, then why shouldn't you be able to do 29:47 with the Uber as well? equates to just like does not apply to limbs or to animals in so doesn't apply to what to limbs and to animals in utero. Say from where do we know this? 30:18 From where do we know this? Rabio says as follows when it comes to if a person says we've actually had this before if a person says the leg of this animal should be in say if you're mish a leg then what happens the entire animal is vested with sanctity So say what when you go ahead and you 30:54 say the leg of this animal should be a for another animal. So say so again the entire animal should become a so we'll say who is who is he responding to so we'll say do they even hold of this altogether we learned I might have thought that what that if a person says the leg of this animal 31:24 should be an ola that the entire animal becomes an They hold the says anything that you will give of it to Hashem will be keshes actually hold that you can have a case of if you're mish the leg of an animal as an ola that does not automatically make the entire animal an In fact, again, it could very well be 32:00 that what only the leg is an So if that's the case, if only the leg is an maybe the rest of the animal goes out to say the say it shall remain in its state. What does that mean? Okay, so we'll say so I don't understand. So how does this work? Here's what you do. 32:25 So say you sell the animal and the animal itself meaning the actual animal itself should preferably be used for and ultimately again the monies received from that sale are animals with the exception of what with the exception ultimately again of the one limb that you were actually 32:52 these words of say so you see rahud Behold that if you're mish one limb of an animal that heish status in fact does not spread to the rest of the animal only that one limb is kesh sell off the animal for the purpose of a carbon money becomes with the exception of the value 33:15 of that one limb raioi I'm Sorry disagree with they say that if you say the one leg of this animal should be an that the entire animal becomes an from where do you know that from say the word means that when you are makish the leg of an or say what happens the entire animal becomes becomes an 33:48 incredible the entire animal becomes an soar says so who is he responding to so say if you say they don't hold that one leg makes the entire animal rather they are responding to this says low raio I'm sorry rather will you say that they are responding to 34:16 raio rather I have to say that is ultimately holding of his own. So as I said first of all in this you should know it appears that we are holding like the first opinion that if you're Maktish the leg of an animal as an ola being Maktish the leg is not tantamount to being mish the animal in its entirety. Therefore, what do you do with an animal whose leg 34:41 has been mdash? You sell the animal for for purposes of aim or of an money becomes with the exception of the value of that one limb closing out this. So what do we do in the case of y starting with the simple case which is we already said a lot of this yesterday but just to close out the if the head of the animal comes out 35:09 right comes out of the mother then everyone agrees that what that animal is like it is born and even if it subsequently retracts the head back into the mother the animal is considered to be yolled the animal is considered to be born for our purposes is head comes out head goes back in you then she the mother what's the status of the fetus requires 35:32 its own it is not it is not permitted with the of the mother say what about the other case listen to this say you look at this on your own this is in it's an easy read in this I'll just tell you one say what about the case of y where the animal extended a limb Right? Then brought the limb back in prior to 36:00 say whatever comes out of the animal is whatever comes out like against. So again the essential I tell you this outside just because of time. So say we accept the distinction that we made yesterday which is that what that if the animal extended the limb. So everyone agrees that what that the limb 36:27 that exited the mother will be assur what is did the animal retract the limb back inside before or after the if it pulled it back in before the then what then you cut off the limb at the area that is flush with the opening of the womb. If however the animal only retracted the limb after the then what? 36:53 You have to move up the cut just a little bit. One more case say another interesting case. If ultimately again the majority of the Uber came out of the mother the majority of the Uber exits as if the Uber is born and therefore again say for our purposes even though aireita 37:23 will not be with the of the mother good there's a lot more in that sim but um like I said you'll look at it on your own well it's an interesting case a mother that is giving birth to a first born child giving birth to aar say what's so as if the watch this case the is coming out say so technically speaking you could 37:48 cut off one limb at a time right from that animal and you could throw it to the dogs say now now what now what is this talking about over here what it's saying over here is as each a comes out that animal does not yet have does not yet have firstborn sanctity because that technically speaking you could cut off limb by limb and throw it 38:13 to the dogs if you want to. However, once the majority of the animal comes out ultimately again once the majority animal comes out then if you cut off the limbs you can't throw it to the dog rather again you'd have to bury them because they have sanctity. 38:34 And the animal that comes after that first animal will be exempt from other that any subsequent animals will not have the status of so let's analyze this a little bit. An interesting case a third of the animal comes out of its mother and you sell the first third of the animal to a gentile 38:59 say the second third comes out. Now obviously at the time the second third comes out the say what happens once the second third comes out now a majority of the animal has exited the mother say so what happens is what's the status of this animal says it's says it's not what's happening over here 39:24 says says that this animal has kadushkar says the animal does not have kadushkar says the animal is kadosh why will say that ultimately again the kidush of this animal extends retroactively therefore we'll say when the second third comes out it turns out that even the first third is going to be kadosh 39:57 even though you sold it to an ically ruba we'll say once the majority of the animal exits the motherf it turns out attractively it's been clarified that this animal was really from the beginning and therefore what say that which you sold is absolutely irrelevant says the animal is not why says 40:26 actually say fundamental what's the fundamental When doesar set in? So say everyone agrees that begins when at the time that the majority of the animal exits the mother. 40:42 The sh is what happens when the majority exits the mother. So I will say will say that when the majority exits the mother that is retroactively when when to the beginning of the birth. 40:59 Rafun will say sorry that was ra will say that the kush of the only begins at the time that the majority of the animal comes out of the mother. Therefore in this case where you sold the first third of the animal to an so will say once the second third is born so the animal has 41:21 kadushkar once it has kadushkar that kadusha attractively goes back to the beginning of the birth. If it goes back to the beginning of the birth then what then what then the cell to the is totally void. The cell to the is totally void and meaningless. 41:40 will say that the only begins when when the majority comes out. The problem is by the time the majority comes out the first third has already been sold to the and therefore again the animal has no so we'll have to stop over here for today. We'll pick up with this guest
Expand transcript 5,377 words
