חולין קכט

0:00Okay, Daft Kufkhoff test was on the bottom of Kufkhoff Kwasawe, it's dinner about a full island so we said in the Gomorrah that Aver Minachai is Tommy, that we learned now from the Palsic of Minabehimos, even in Aver from my Kai is going to be Tommy, not even if it's the, obviously a whole Naveilis Tommy, but even with an Aver from an animal that's going through the Tommy, but we said Busser just a piece of meat is not. And we also said in the Gomorrah very clearly that the, if you have a piece of meat that comes off an existing Aver, it's even though when it was a full Aver, which whatever an Aver it is, as we define the Makhlaikir, so you guys should clearly be Kiva and Rebi Esthane, if a piece of meat comes off of that which doesn't now fulfill the criteria for being an Aver, that piece of meat which is only Busser Minachai is not going to be Tommy anymore. However, Tanerabanaan, Haqqoyteh, Kizai, Argyrsis, Kizai is Rashi changes it to Baitsup, Haqqoyteh, Kizai is Busser, Aver Minachai. So Khatkoyteh, if you cut off that piece of meat from an existing Aver which had to mo on it, Viakha Kishibala, none of the assumption is, obviously a Jewish person is not eating

1:02this at all, right? Because it's Aver Minachai, whether it's Busser Minachai, Aver Minachai, it's Kishai also meat. But then you decide, you know what? I can probably make a nice sandwich out of this and sell it to my neighbor who's a guy. So maybe I'll do that. Okay, I'll give it to my neighbor who's a guy. Good. So you decide Kishibala, you decide now that you're going to eat it now, eat it, but it will be edible by human being. So Tor. Korayi. It's a piece of Busser Minachai that came from Aver Minachai. It's no longer a full Aver, it's no longer a full Aver, even though you decided to make it edible, but it still doesn't have its own tummah. It can be the kabble tummah from something else, but it itself does that of its own tummah. However says the Kemorah, Khishibala Viakha Khatkoyteh, if before you cut off this little piece of meat from the Aver, you said, you know what? I think if I cut off some meat from this Aver, I can go ahead and make a sandwich out of it from my aver for my guy, a shawarker. You decided that it was going to be edible food before you cut it off. So then it says the gammara is going to be tummy, why the assumption is, because now that it's considered a food before you cut it off, it is touching the ebbermanachai.

2:08The ebbermanachai is itself tummy. The busser is part of it. Till now we've been saying it's not considered food yet. So fine, in itself is ebbermanachai. Once you cut it off and you make it into busser and then you decide it's food, doesn't help. So I decided it's going to be food beforehand, then I didn't get any. It's m- it's m- it's m- it's m- cabbltumma not from itself, but it's m- cabbltumma from the ebbermanachai that it was part of. So this is not so simple. R- asi lay all the baby Joshua one day he missed you. So asi, they were busy, they found them busy, they were any amela, my amur baby Joshua, did they talk about this gammara in the base of the dish? Amalai, season what it means, my cashe lah. What was your question that you're asking this question? Obviously you had an issue. So he says, Amalai, dhiktani, khisha, vaka khatva, tomay. I just said, you, then if you decide it's going to be edible food and then you cut it off, it's going to be tomay. Where is it m- cabbltumma? It's m- cabbltumma from the ebbermanachai. When did it touch the ebbermanachai? Well, it touched the ebbermanachai because it was a- it actually was part of the ebbermanachai. Oh, but that's tomas based stormy.

3:10That's a weak old tomas based stormy. Asi, we need to go on and need to learn something from a pusser. That two things which are individual that are touching each other, that's tomas. It touches something, it's m- cabbltumma. But think that you're a single unit and the touching is internal tomas based stormy, that is not called tomas. That's not called tomas. It's a tomas based stormy, it's a m- taba. And therefore this thing should not be as if it touched the ebbermanachai. So that was a very easy question. Amalai, it's a very sad thing. Absolutely casually. I had the same problem. And H- and I said, I mean, Vishal, you're the ebbermanachai. And I asked the ebbermanachai and I said, you're right. That wouldn't be a problem. This is going to go into a single shito. How many remain are he? Damar tomas based stormy, tomas. We had, Rasheed Pradesh Degmarri had earlier enough ayin bays. We had the shito by the ben- pakua. We said by the ben- pakua, if it sticks its arm out, so that ebbermanachai becomes ebbermanachai. And a mayor said when it becomes ebbermanachai, then it's remit-tam-e-back, the mother of the

4:10vl- the, not the vl- the child that it's arm is part of. Now how is that arm touching the vl- it's touching the vl- because it's touching. And yet remeer said, it works. So you see a mayor doesn't hold the tomas based storm. A mayor holds the tomas based storm is not an issue. And it is considered maga and it's mitami. Here also in our case, it's also going to be considered maga. The bus service considered maga to the ebber itself. Amr-le, he said that's a good old again sir. But, we'll have Zindens again, Amr- kamboi. Sometimes I remember hearing that answer. Viamri-le and I said that's not a good answer. There's a shinin' there, a mayor of the tomas, the boy hexher, the tomas, the boy hexher. That answer works by the ben-pakua case when you shech the the mother. And when you shech the the mother, the mother became muxshulma kabotumma, which means the ben-pakua itself became muxshulma kabotumma. So then it's touching the arm that's tom-e-f, in the ebbermanachai. So it re-is mitami, the ben-pakua, the vl- because there's already at least muxshul. In our case, look at this meat that you cut off. Still need texture.

5:12Still need texture. Remember, talking to you about ben-pakua, which chopped off was never got wet. The ebbermanachai itself is come-e-cause it's the source of tom-e-gata. But once you cut a piece off and then you make it into busser, even if you want to say the busser is considered like a touch, the ebber, but it never got wet beforehand. If it ever got wet, it was never muxshul. So I'm gonna rub it so what? My kush-y-dum-a-mish-y-y-y-y-y-y. So what? Maybe this is our case that he said in Salah or the tonar-bun-un. It was tom-e-we're talking about wet. And a kham-e-we could discuss it with got wet. As we discuss, we can discuss it with got wet. Before was muxshul, discuss it with got-e-after was muxshul. But it got wet, that's all. Says the Guamara, Amalai, rababar, rab-rav, Tanala, rab-rav, Tanala, rab-rav. See, wait a second. Now, which maybe you think about this, I actually think it's even better than you said. What do you mean? See, it's Lam-alee-hekshul. First, we said it's a problem because it's an av-hekshul. Rab-rav said we're talking about a case where was muxshul? See, the truth is, maybe you don't need Hekshul at all. Why? Hariyamat Tamaid Tumahamura Aghavav, we had said he is soied, that anything which it has a Tumahamura on it does not require heksha.

6:14The classic case was that we were talking about was by an Aventus Oftar. Then an Aventus Oftar is not Tamaid Bamaga. It's only Tamaid if you eat it, but we said since if you eat it it can make you Tamaid in itself is the source of Tumah, then it doesn't need heksha. The Apostle says, or call Zeraziru, Ajaeziraya, only Zeraziru, a require section, and we said Zeraziru can never itself have a Tumahamura. We said even if it's a food touches a mace it's not going to be an avatumah. And if the only things which require heksha are things which themselves can never be a Tumahamura. He says if that's the case over here that solves the problem, because this little piece of meat was part of the Aventus Oftar. And it was part of an avatumah, and I had it to the Kamura. And therefore it doesn't require heksha. It's not part of that halalha. And they forgive Aldik once you cut it off. If you hold a Khmer and Tamaid is a Tamaid space star, it's considering touching. So now it's touching, it doesn't. It actually attacks atami. It's a bit why don't we just put this all together beautifully.

7:15She said, what? I'm sure it is because the Kamura is going to give an answer. I'm a lake, it's a she-mish, my she-mish. And what I say is the difference is very, it is very, so I just think it's going to lead us through an exome here, which is when this piece of meat was attached to the Aventus Oftar and therefore you want to say it had a Tumahamura, it did not have a Tumahamura of Oghel. Just because it was attached to the Aventus Oftar and it was the source of a Tumah of Aventus Oftar and it was the source of a Tumah of Aventus Oftar and it doesn't mean it's a food. Remember, because Aventus Oftar includes bones, includes giddh, which are absolutely not food. But even a Khai is not a food-based Tumah. It happens to be the same piece of meat, I get it. But once you cut the piece of meat off from the Aventus, it now, or as she calls it, ponum Khadasha is boyle-khan. It now and only now doesn't become food and now it now requires action. You can't say that it was Mutamitumah Khamura. That halokham Mutamitumah Khamura is only when it was Mutamitumah Khamura as a food,

8:17because of its food-ness. But over here it wasn't Mutamitumah because of its food. It was Mutamitumah because it was part of a neighbor which could be a bone which could be anything. And therefore, when you cut it off, it still requires action. We must be talking about it that you had in mind and we'll not share it. And then you cut it off and your mayor holds to must pay a storm. It's called Maga so that in the Khanami, that would be the case of the price. So this brings us to an interesting discussion of can we go through Shaz and find other cases where food can be an avatuma. So let's see if we can find such cases. I'm going to buy. How are you? Kupas Saur, Shiahtoli, Ashiva Butler. If you have some sourdough that is really stale, maybe it's still edible, but it's stale. And instead you say, I'm going to make it into a stool. I'm going to sit on it. Okay, so the lokhas and pesa, I can suck them. We say that that thing is no longer considered a food. And if it's no longer considered a food, you know, Khayvan Khamut, some person Khanut. It's not a food.

9:17It's just a block. It's a block, a piece of it. It's like it has a lokha of a piece of wood. It is not called Khamut's ampessa anymore. Now, can it be Maga-Tumma? Look at her now. I don't know. She says, Tumma, say, love the rice. It has to be that if it could be Maga-Tumma, it's not going to be a dinner, rice. If it's not going to be a dinner, rice, it's not going to be a dinner, but it's going to be a Khamura. Right? This is an achel. Right? Just because you say it's that Khamut. But the Khayri could still be an achel. And now, it can be one of the Zom's sits on it. If a Zom's sits on it is a macabre Tumma. You just said it's a chair. So if it's a chair, Zom's sits on it's macabre Tumma and rice. Which means I have a case of food that is an avatumma. And you just said, Zom's a snake is an avatumma. And if there is such a thing of food that's an avatumma, then you're going to be back to needing hextron everything. The whole idea was, it's only there is a rule which doesn't need action. So, let's go ahead and say the answer. Because she missed Maista H. She said, it's different. This thing, even if it's a macabre Tumma, it's not macabre Tumma as a food. It's a macabre Tumma as a chair.

10:18And if it's a macabre Tumma as a chair, that is not called a Tumma Hamura on food. Amarabaya in other case. And we amrutakravis avatis kahum shul aichhanatamabaya. If someone is macrubh samdhi taram edizora, talokh is that avatisora itself, obviously, becomes also bannah. And it is now matamabaya oil. Now matamabaya. Is that a dintumma deraisa? Is that a dintumma derabana? Says abaya must be Tumma salav deraisa. Now the truth is, we know it is Tumma deraisa. Okay, it's a gmah. But a prove it to me says, if you say, these are the dintumma deraisa, if you're going to tell me that this, this little carbon from a deraisa has a Tumma deraisa, abaya, so matsinul aichhanatam ed tumma hamura. Again, you have the same thing. You have a food which has a Tumma oil of aichhanatamabaya. So, lakhairat is a raya that you would, if that would be deraisa, then again, we have a yikamachhanatam ed deraisa of Tumma hamura. So, no, it's a shim, it's a shim, it's a shim, it's a shim, it's a shim, it's a shim. It was not an abidizura because it's a food.

11:21It's not awesome, sorry, it's not awesome because it's a food, it's also because it's not an abidizura. It's only to it being a food or not being a food. That's not the issue of fulch. It's also bha'anah. And if it's also bha'anah, it's definitely not a food. If she eats some shim, it always is. When something's also bha'anah, we don't consider it to be a food at all. And therefore, it's israh-hanah. We're related, this is not an issue with our yirsaat. Amra baya, we have another case. What? It's a piece of meat. It's not a piece of meat, it's also bha'anah. And if it's also bha'anah, shim, it holds it's not a food. Amra baya, harei, amru, khibure, ahiklan, khikad, we have another case, we have another case, we have a kli that has a crack. And you want to fix the crack with a little piece of dough. Okay, so you take the piece of dough, you stick it in the crack. What is discussed over there? Obviously, the gaby hirchis. Hummits, when is it considered no longer hummits, it's now part of the kli. So you now have a kli which has a little piece of food in it. Okay, now that piece of food can become tummy because it's part of the kli, lochagrias, but it's also a piece of food. So the same thing, so must be to muscle up the rice, even though you say it's part of the kli,

12:25if the kli becomes tummy, that food becomes tummy, it cannot be a dindar isa. Because it's like a dindar isa, it's a medicinal action with tummy, tumma, hamura. Because again, you see, just like the kli can become an avatuma, the food that it's using it to stop up the crack. But also be an avatuma, so you see food can be an avatuma. So tomorrow again, and must be, it's not the rice, I love defko. Because shishimish, my shishimish, again over there, the food is that tummy because the food. The food is tummy because it's part of a kli. And therefore that is no gamy, or you say that food itself can never be an avatuma. And if it has a tumma, hamura, then it would not need a herch. My my name is Papal Arab. Hold this on your other case. We said in the Gmory yesterday, Gaeliv the velobeqfar. We said gaeliv is not normally eaten in the kfar, they don't normally eat the gaeliv because they don't need it or because they're poor and they don't know how to eat. Cook it. So gaeliv is not normally eaten. So we said, Tzachmachshava, if you decide you're going to eat it, or you're going to go to the Gamer, you're going to eat the River days. And then it has to be much more than a couple of tupukas, the hexia, it got agave. The part of that it came from israeli.

13:26So he says, Tumasai agave kuli alabdir isa. Remember, we had gaeliv that's wrapped around a kuli akidi. So it's a shaymeer or yad for that kuli alabdir. Now is that gaeliv food or not food? Gaeliv is food. And if it's wrapped around there, we say it's going to be tummy. Gaeliv that can't be dharai say because if it's going to be dharai say again we have the same thing of food which have a tumahamura. This is a taterai say, Monsinul alakish mithami tumahamura. Says Morkeshi, Mishmashmashmash, he, Mishmash again, the same point that it's when in that case it will be considered a food to be makabal tumah. It's not because it's a food. It's because it's a wrapper for the kuli alabdir. It doesn't have to be a food to be a shaymeer for the kuli alabdir. It could be a snake, it could be a bone, it could be anything. And therefore it's not a riot at this point because it doesn't have a dino, maybe has a dino food at that point. But the tumah is not because of the food. Last case, Amr of Mastra, Hari Amrubayin shesuqahu bezrayim ta-ta-ru-tarru. So if you have a house that has taras, like the doctor yesterday has with taras,

14:29and you put shibulam, you put stalks as the srach on top of the house. Okay, now there's grain in there. So that grain now is in a house of taras. We know the house of taras as we talked yesterday, the walls itself become tami-tumah soya. And the walls still become tami. So you have over here food which becoming tami-tumah soya. So you see a food as tumah hummura again. So he said, tumah, shidavdir isa, can't be derisied. He's talking about derisied. So you see the srach of tara, tumah hummura. Same exact answer again. Kish Hashimash, ma'aysh, shimash. Over there the food is not food. Yes, it's food. But it's out tummy because it's food. It's tummy because it's a ceiling. And if it's tummy because it's a ceiling, that is not an issue with our halok of tami-tumah hummura. So there's a, we brought a number of raias of cases of enachami. You could have a case where food has an avatumah on it, but never because it's a food. Always because it's had some other usage that's going on. That's when it would get its tumah hummura. Okay, now we get back to the mission.

15:31We said in the mission, remember we had three cases in the mission. We had the first case in the mission of the bussarma doldul. And we said, had a din of tumahs, oiklin, the bussarma doldul. Then we had the middle case in the mission we're talking about. Does that bussarma doldul to need hekshura or not? Is it mukhsura or not? A mayor says you, you, you, my makhsura with the shidav. And the shimans said, not me. It's six pshuttam. Why the shimans said it's not makhsura with the shidav. And then we had the last Allah on the mission was that if the animal that dies, not through shidav, so the bussar we said is not tumah. The avar we said would be a din of avar minachai. As we had said that misa, oiklin, nipul. It's as if the avar minachai, the peace fell off before him. And if the avar is an avar minachai. But then we had the last three words of the mission of shimin mitha here. And shimin says no. Now what point is shimin arguing about? That's what we can't figure out. He says the gimmar like that. The man of shah. The shimin mitha, the man of shah. I don't say what's shimin mitha. Imi so is shimin nipul. If like the tanakama help. That way the animal dies. We assume it's as if he ever fell off one second before.

16:34So then tumah shimin achai. So then it's every minachai. We looked yesterday. Every minachai is with tumah. It's a bussar. Ii aine mi so is shimin nipul. If he holds no. That mi says not always shimin nipul. It's considered like attached still to the animal. Now the animal itself became an avala. So worst case scenario, this avar is avar min an avala. So mamalabshah. Ii aine mi so is avar minachai. And it's tumikas anapasik. Or it's avar min an avala, which is just tumikas anapasik. So how can shimin say mitha'er? Shimin say it's totally tar. Mamalabshah. Ii aine mi so is avar minachai. It's naveala. What's going on? Ii aine mi so is avar min an avala. So the gimmar is going to offer a few different possibilities. First thing Moolinar says, maybe your shimin a racia koi. Maybe shimin when he said mitha'er is going all the way back to the first alaqa minish. The first alaqa minish to say that you have an avar min doldol. We consider it not naveala, but we do consider it to be alqa. And it can be macabaltumma. Maybe your shimin says it cannot be macabaltumma. Now why would shimin say it's not being macabaltumma? Pasha pasha it would be because it's still attached.

17:35Right? Anything which is still attached to a life animal is not considered an aichal. Remember we said it was a hiddish. And the mission that we consider an aichal. Maybe our shimin tako argues with that. And shimin holds since it's attached even a little bit to the parra. It's not going to be considered mitha'er. Mitha'er is going to be considered part of the parra and it's kai and it's that tummy. Says the gimmar. And shimin a aichal. The avala is mitha'er. But mitha'er is going to come and suck an aichal. And shimin is mitha'er. So that would make very good sense. However, we have a mimer about this which confuses things. I'm going to have a siyam bhi'er. My time with shimin. What's pasha'er? Why is shimin say he's tart? If shimin is going on the case of everyman doleful, he's gonna tell you why the everyman doleful is not considered a food. Because I'm a crore. The pasha'er says, because aichal a' share yaghel food that you can eat. Meaning, aichal a' at the yaghel a' ke' la ke'im ko' re' ikho. Food which other people human beings can eat alaqikli is considered a food. Aichal a' shi' at the yaghel a' ke' la ke'im. And aichal this is shimin shi' to know of shas.

18:35That food that is alaqikli assert to eat is not food. Now for us that's one alaq. But over here it's a' verman a' khai. A' verman a' khai is assert to all human beings, even goyle. And therefore shimin says it's not an alaq. If it's not an alaq, that's why the everyman doleful is not gonna be maka' ba'al tumma. M' shimin is shi' tos. It's a m' beautiful answer. But we don't need this. I'm a layer of a zero layer of acid. If you deal with time with the shimin hosum, ha'er lumu u'ra m' u'ra. Why do you have to come up with this fancy lamdushy answer? The simple reason why every shimin would say an everyman doleful is not maka' ba'al tumma is because it's attached. That's the easiest reason. You don't have to come into lamdush of its asubah. No, of its asubah, he'll end there for it but it's not considered a food. The simple reason is because it's attached. This now we have a mission before. Yigur shi' tole, if you have a branch from a te' anitri, shi' nif shi' toch, that the branch broke off, but the bark of it is still attached. Umar aba' kli' pa' Bi hur de matai' Why is it bi hur de matai' because it's still attached to the tree. It's considered a da' vermoochum alaqa. Hamim y'ach alaq' a' khai' a' star from la'af tumma. It depends if it's getting nourishment or not.

19:35For minu latham a' tabi' The way says, Why is it bi hur de sa' it's tar? Biyam alaq' a' al m' uram uram uram. So latham a' if the issue of a' pshimin is he's arguing in the case of a' m' doldul, You don't have to come up with fancy lamdush. The answer is because it's attached. If a' basi' nibir' I can come up with fancy lamdush then men they understood that pshimin was talking about something else altogether. What else could have shimin be talking about? So I'm like, you're right. I am to see him. Maybe pshimin was talking about when his retire is going in the middle case. What's the middle case of being machshire? Right? When we said it's machshire. Nishg tabi' m' hox'a' bidimaya' adi' m'e' a' m'e' air. Pshimin lam'er' Loy hox'u' And when shimin said Loy hox'a' And that, why is it Loy hox'a' Now we said yesterday, 6 reasons why your pshimin said it's Loy hox'a' I have a 7th reason. You know why your pshimin said it's Loy hox'a' Because it's not food. Anything which is not edible is not food. I'm erbia' From my time in the Upshimin, I'm erbik'a' Iko' Iko' Iko' Iko' Iko' Iko' Iko' You know why it's not mox'a' qa' s'le'fou' Says tomorrow you're right. If a d'ilma tabi' d'a' m'e' yud De'b shimin b'he' iqad'a' b'ye'

20:36Again, why do you need this fancy lam'er' We had 6 reasons yesterday. Why your pshimin said that's not macho' It's not a Yad. It's not considered part of it. If shimin holds that t'eshgita' This is not a shgita' We had plenty of reasons why we need to be able to make up another londish reason to bring this in here. It's not actually anyways. So, we've shimin kept going on the despachat'a' b'ye' iqad'a' n'y shimin Wouldn't make sense in the ratio. It wouldn't make sense in the middle case. So it only makes sense in the last case. But in the last case it doesn't make sense either. So what's going on? Where is shimin m'e' t'eshgita'a' talking about? The al-amazsa'fa. It is going on the sa'fa. Ah, so why is it why is it tar? Look how it's either na've'la or a' ver' minachai. The lava'a' a' ver. Ella abbas'a. Remember we said there's two parts in the sa'fa. The a' ver minachai and the bas' ver minachai. The a' ver minachai is for sure tar' min. It's either na've'la or it's going to be a' ver minachai. But bas'a' is not. Bas'a' if it's na've'la is tar' min. But if it's bas' ver minachai we said bas' ver minachai is not tar' min. It's on that. Al-bas'a. Mesa' be' ma'bas'a tsar'ach'a' shimin m'e' t'ehye' Why is it shimin say it's tar?

21:38And it can't be m'e' maqab'a' tomah. And shimin say it's tar' minachai is not going to be tar' min. Because it cannot, for sure, it doesn't matter its own tomah, without everybody greased. But it can't be m'e' qab'a' tomah from anything else, because it's that food since no one's allowed to eat it. It doesn't ever have dinner food. And therefore that's where shimin's going on. Because the tonic on the come and said, Busserman a Busserman a Chai Tsearchekhsir. Then we talked about Aver, then we said Dibriymehr. And then the Busserman a Tyre, so it wasn't a hundred percent clear. What the Busserman is talking about, but we can make sense that the Busserman is talking about going back on the case of Busserman a Chai, and by Busserman a Chai, and a Chai it's like, now, Da'la Huss, true. Anything that is not edible, halachically, by human beings, is not a food. So that would be true by Busserman Dool Dool as well. Busserman Dool Dool also, according to the Busserman, is not going to be able to be able to be able to become a tumble, because it's not edible by any human beings. I don't know why we didn't need that Svara for that, because it's Mura.

22:40But the matter is that the Busserman holds it, really, this is a Busserman Svara and all of Shaz. And anything that is also to be eaten by human beings is not considered a food edible. Okay, so now we've been discussing Busserman a Chai and Averman a Chai from Animals. Now we're on to Busserman a Chai, Averman a Chai from human beings, which obviously is not an eating issue. This is a tum of a Tyre. Okay, so it says the mission. Averman Busserman Dool Dool Dool, if you have a live human being and his arm gets mostly chopped off, not old chopped off, partially chopped off. And it's still a little attached. So Tyre, that would be Tyre, Rashi says, because the Pussik says, Tiyamos, the Pussik clearly says, it's only when a person dies, he has tumble. When this is still attached, like people, this is still attached, that arm is going to be Tyre. Mesa, if the person dies, so Habasser, Tyre. So if you have Busser, have a Dool Dool, so if your little person got a cut, and he has a little, not a whole Aver, just a little piece of meat hanging off.

23:40So now we say, that little piece of meat is no longer considered part of him. We say, Mesa, Isanipul, it says, if that piece of meat fell off of his body, one second before he died, and therefore it's not considered part of the dead body. It's considered just a piece of human meat, a piece of human meat. It's not necessarily going to be Tommy. No, that's the Cizajas, that's regular Dilectomo, but itself is not part of the dead body. However, Aver, if it's a full Aver, again, it doesn't say here exactly what the definition of Aver is, but a full Aver of a human being, metamishmeverna chai. If it falls off of him, totally falls off, then it will have Tomas Mace. Tomas Mace would apply to a full Aver of a human being that falls off. The Anamatamishmeverna Mace, they will be a mere. So here it's Aver, but it's not going to be Aver, but a Mace. Because we assume it's Mesa Isanipul, and this Aver is as if it fell off of him one second before he dies. You're going to ask me, what in the world's a difference between Aver, and a Mace?

24:42Aver, they're both metamishmeverna chai. Hold on, we'll explain the difference between Aver, and Aver, and a chai. It'll be Shimon Mithai. Again, we have here a cryptic, or a Shimon being Mithai. What is Shimon arguing about when he says it's Tār? So that's going to be the beginning of the discussion, and then we'll come back to explain, shiit-tā-sarmī. We have Shimon-mādapṣa. Why would Shimon say that this Aver is Tār? E-mesa Isanipul, if we consider the Aver as if it fell off one second before the person died, so Tomas Mace, and Aver, and a chai. It should be Tār-sarmī, Aver, and a chai. The Aver is Aver, and Aver is Aver, and Aver is Aver, and Aver is Aver, and Aver is Aver. It's Tār-sarmī. Now, the Gmār never actually brings the Psyukam to explain the Mākār for all these halokas at all. When do we see Aver, and a chai is metamitam, and Aver is Mace by a human, and when we see Bussar, and a chai is not, Taptis is trying to figure out how do we know the Mākār for these Psyukam, and by animals we prop-sukam. Now, human beings, we don't have the Psyukam, but the Gmār assumes that that's the case.

25:43So, this is Mā waspshātri-bshim, the Mār of Shaka-tribe-tāmī. This is Māyurā. You have shim in the al-mākoi. You have shim in the argues of something fundamental, and we just mentioned the entire Mishm. The Kāma-tāna kāma, Aver-matāmī, Mishm in Aver-matāchai. Vēn-mītāmī, shm in Aver-matāmī, Sīsē, that you have a choice. Is this Aver-tāmī, Mishm in Aver-matāchai, or is it Tāmī, shm in Aver-matāmī, Mace? Tāna kāma said, it's Tāmī, shm in Aver-matāchai, and Nāt, Mishm in Aver-matāmī. Al-mā, Aver-matāmī, Sīsē, that you have a choice. But clearly, an Aver of a Mīs would be Tāmī. An Aver of a Mīs would be Tāmī. An Aver of a Mīs would be Tāmī. The only question is, is this Aver considered Aver-matāmī, or Aver-matāchai? We'll see what the difference is in a second. If you have a choice, Shm in Aver-matāmī, and Shm in argues on that, you saw the Ghamri. Aver-matāmī, Sīsē, that you have a choice. Aver of a dead body? Nāt. That doesn't make any logical sense that Mārāk says it. Tāsānya. Amrīmī liyāsa. Shmāti, as I said in the sheer, I heard, Shmāti shāa-aver-matāchai is Mithāma.

26:46And he understood that to mean, only Aver-matāchai, not Aver-matāmīs. Amrībi ashūa. Mīnāchai, Velai-matāmīs. That can't make any sense. Kabah-chai-māchai shūtār, the body that it came from is Tār. The Aver-aparīshmīn was Tāmī. So Mīs that the body that came from is Tāmī, Lai Kholzikānī, that the Aver itself should be Tāmī. And I'll prove it to you that that such a lawful works. Cosmogilāstāinus, we have a lawful Mogilāstāinus, Peschāzeeera, Peschāchakātin, right? Peschāchak, Peschāxśraining. The lawy mispid, you know how to say a spadeh mā peschāshāni. What do you mean? Harabā mispid, a Peschāxśraining, you know how to say a spadeh mā? Obviously not. Al-Kaulṭhēd. Obviously it doesn't mean this and only this. It means this and for sure, Peschāxśraining. So Al-Kaulṭhēd. Here also when you heard that Aver mīnāchai of a human being is Tāmī, of course says Mīsū'a, it meant Avermanāmīs as well. I'm going to lay no kākṣaṭhī. No, no, no. I heard that Avermanāchai is Mītāmī. Avermanāmīs is not. Just an Aver would not be Mītāmī.

27:46And he doesn't say. More never says. Avermanāmīs is not Mītāmī. That's what it takes to struggle. So now, maybe that's what Hashimīman was talking about. When the Mīsū'a said of Hashimīman tires, because Hashimīman says, this is considered Avermanāmīs. And Avermanāmīs is not Tāmīdā. Avermanāmīs is not Tāmī. That's what's going on with Hashimīd. The fundamental he arguing, everybody agrees Avermanāchai. If it was fully chopped off, would be Tāmī. Question is, if the human being died already and then the arm falls off, do we consider it to be a Mīsū'a? Obviously if there's bones or this and that. Obviously we have to be talking about whether it's not a Kizai Subhūsir. And we have to be talking about whether it's not bones even. And also like a lip or something like that. Some small little piece that would be called an Aver that doesn't have bones or meat associated with it. And still, we hold this Avermanāmīs who'll be tummy. And Hashimīman says, no. Says the Mīsū'a, wait a second. Take a step back. The rabbādan said that this arm that fell off and it's mostly off when the human being dies,

28:46then we consider it to be Avermanāchai and not Avermanāmīs. What's the difference? So, māmā'īqa mīnāmīnāchai, Avermanāmīs. I mean, what's this? It's tāmētāmē. What's the difference? So, he says, I'll tell you the difference here. Kizai is boss of Etsim. Kizai'a purish mī Avermanāchai, iqibēnāyu. Same thing we had by an animal. If you take off a little piece of meat from this thing, if it's Avermanāchai, so when you take a little piece off of it, it's not tāmē. Because it's not an Aver. But if it's Avermanāmīs, even a Kizai's boss of Etsim or Avermanāchai, it's not going to be tāmē. So, if it's Avermanāchai, Etsim or Avermanāmīs, it's not tāmē. If it's Avermanāmīs, then it's going to be tāmē. So, big, so big enough gamina. He says this now, we have a mission. Pay attention to the sheet of this here. Kizai is boss of Etsim or Avermanāchai. If you have a little bit of Kizai's boss of Etsim or Avermanāchai, then Avermanāchai is tāmē. Because Avermanāchai is tāmē. That's the Jārā Mahmūtaун also. The most important pun is that every minute says that the Jārā Mahmūta

30:05explain over there that one says that buster is more humor because buster obviously would be by navelis and schratsum etc which bones them in a veil are nabitami the other one says no bones are more humor because but a verminachai is tummy where buster minachai is not tummy so we have not like a zekha orcs so you see an issue about buster that comes off a verminachai says my way to second hasha does I'm sorry hasha does to talk he now that you brought this conversation in which means we have three sheets we have three sheets we have a verminachai is tummy you mean she was says that buster that comes off it or at some that comes off of it is tar and the chanunyan or melezar holds only one of them is tar the other one is tummy maybe that's the key to our mission hasha is al-Qaeda bantanakamalab shimonami because I his buster of it at some case ari ke minayo maybe that's what it means what do you mean what am I talking about let's see rashi rashi explains the beauty look rashi in the bottom for five lines up al-Qaeda a Kamalar shimonami

31:05slesin that says that's a meek minayo bahap leaguey in a verminachai chaluk me a verminamase bestayem a baagas is a verminachai in a verminam is a different we mean a shoe that said that they're different in two ways that buster and etsen that comes from a verminachai a star whereas if it comes to a verminamase it's going to be tummy where's my chanunyan and melezar said only one of them oh so they're like this that's the tana kamma in a chaluk al-Qaeda rashi miniyama tanakama holds either like a blaser or like a minichanunyan tanakama sub or eke blasda metame buster a persh minami nachai ubertsam na pursh mitayar eke minachunyan damar epechaw wach ikamma hae ver tamay mischama every manachai ver buster a persh minu is tamay but the etsen is tar kibbalasar or maybe he meant the opposite the etsen is tamay in the buster is tar kibbalachunyan we'll have mischama every maname is the shnaim to maname but there'll be shimin mitayar like it'll be a shua bane bi etsen bane buster a persh minu the sub or kibbalasar so therefore there's a hit in machleikas in his mishnah everybody agrees every manachai is tamay

32:06everybody agrees that if buster comes off it or etsen comes off it both of them are not tamay maybe shua says neither one is tamay tanakama says one of them is tamay and on that it's shimin holds it can be shua maybe shimin mitayar both by a buster that comes off the embermanachai and by etsen that comes off from embermanachai and therefore that would be what a mischama mitayar we don't see it anywhere in the mishnah but that can be explaining why we should when we say it's tar without saying that he argues on the log of embermaname because to say he argues an embermaname is very very sure to say a don't log over it if it gets a lot easier from this point