Daf hayomi HOULIN page 128

Morning, end of the vigil before the Sukkah. We are finishing on a high note , if we can say it that way, chapter 9 of Hullin which speaks, it bears its name, about skin and the juices of all the flesh and all the bones and all the rules of impurity. So we are finishing this topic, and then we will have the last pages left to finish the tractate and start the next one, uh Rava, I am on the line. >> Rava there is the issue of "hechsher," so we saw that a piece of skin or flesh that has been detached, it depends on its size whether it still catches impurity or not.

And the other piece, it is still alive. The other piece, the body. Forbidden fat to eat, but he intended to make candles with it, back then used for candles. So that fat, it does not, it is not impure.

It does not , even if it gets wet now, it is not capable of catching impurity because it is not for eating. Well done. So everything depends on the intention of what he wanted. If there were vegetables that someone pulled out to give to the animals, in his mind, afterwards he changed his mind and wants to use them for humans.

So there, water is needed, when they come into contact with water, they will be able to transmit impurity, whereas if it had been for animals, even if there was water or not, it would not have changed anything. He is in agreement with It is the same problem. The same problem is when someone performs slaughter and with the blood that is on the knife, and that blood touched the piece or a piece that fell. Blood, we understood that it has a category of liquid, right ?

And it makes that piece capable of catching. Impurity. But it depends: is that blood considered the blood of the slaughter, okay? And as long as he has not finished the slaughter, there is no problem with that blood.

Or the fact that he cut one of the two signs, the trachea or the esophagus, it is already called that he performed the proper part of the slaughter, and the rest of the blood that flows is a bonus and extra, and in that case, it is called hechsher. That means it is already a liquid that can catch impurity. Heavy subject, indeed. Well, if now the animal remains alive and the limb that was detached touched water.

Okay, and after the cow is healed, is there impurity or not? Teko. What is teko? In my opinion, it means a draw in Hebrew.

>> Oh boy, now we're going to talk about plants that were planted in a pot, okay ? As long as the pot isn't holed, it doesn't have the status of ground. >> So, if it grew and expanded and came out of the pot, does what's now sticking out have the status of ground or not? Say.

If someone who is impure touches the tree that grew past the pot . Does it get transferred too? No answer is given. If someone bowed down to half a pumpkin, okay, half a pumpkin , he bowed down and said "this is my idol," for example, is the whole pumpkin now an idol?

It's always the same subjects, the same questions, half because it's large. They used the pumpkin as an example, right? Okay. So what do you think?

I'm turning the page . Bravo. No answer. All this means these are subjects.

Av will answer you. Dad, are you with me? I'm on 128 B, first line. It's a fig that was plucked , but does it hold up, does it stay alive, or does it not stay alive with the piece of soil it has?

It was touched by someone who is impure. Does it catch impurity or not? No answer. A wall or a stone between two people.

A wall, a stone, how? It caught impurity on one side. Does the impurity transmit to the other side or not? To each their own house, each their own stone.

We understood that as long as the piece that was plucked and the cow or the person is still alive, there are no rules of impurity while the person is alive. All the rules of impurity apply when >> there is death, but not the piece; it is dead. It's the person who must a limb cannot cause impurity while still alive. It is clearly marked that death is not...it remains alive.

There must be flesh, there must be veins, there must be bones all at the same time. But if you only have flesh, it's nothing at all. Are the lips, there you go, or the teeth, the teeth that were pulled out, a tooth? We know we can live with a tooth, right?

Is the second rank now dead when it comes out of the cow or the man? Is there impurity in it or not ? Okay. So here, it's a debate between Rab too.

A lizard, the lizard's tail, you know, sometimes it moves after you cut it off. If you did that when you were children, >> it still moves. And after, well there is life there and after the piece of tail, it is dead. Does this piece of tail give impurity or does it depend if the lizard is alive or not alive?

And which line are we on now? Lost the thread with the lizard tail there. We are, my dear Isaac, Rab too. 29.

Nothing. There is no There is no There is no impurity. The foot of the lizard, the tail, I would have thought there was a difference between large animals and small insects, that's why there is a difference between them. If someone cut off a piece and then intended to eat it, we don't have the right to eat the meat while the limb is alive.

So that impu not when he saw what did you study today? He said this subject, he intended to eat the limb and then it became impure. I'm moving to page 129. We're finishing the chapter.

It's in the Rosh for us now. It's not called food because you can't eat it and therefore there is no impurity. Is it good, are we in the right place or not? No no, wait.

No, I have another one before. I saw, I skipped 100 >> 15. There. Tomar, is that it or not?

Yeah, >> wait, I'll tell you right away. Yeah. Well, there, that's the end of page 128 . No, I thought we were finishing the chapter.