![\"hatchling\"](\"https:\/\/www.shiurpoints.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/hatchling.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nRav prohibits it from being eaten whereas Shmuel and\/or Reb Yochanon permit it.<\/p>\n
The reason for Rav’s ruling is simply that it is Muktza. Shmuel and\/or Reb Yochanon rationale is based on an interesting concept:<\/p>\n
“Ho’il<\/em>” [since]. Meaning \u00a0the egg, by hatching, \u00a0causes itself to become\u00a0permitted to be eaten after Shechita, whereas before\u00a0it was hatched, it was forbidden, and of course Shechita would not help.<\/p>\n And since<\/em> it has been rectified regarding Shechita is also effectively removes the Muktza aspect.<\/p>\n 2- We spoke about the famous Reb Shmuel Strashun<\/a> and his prolific notes on the entire Sha”s! (And Berel’s family would not allow his pirush to be learned in their home).<\/p>\n We mentioned that today one would\u00a0certainly\u00a0label\u00a0him as Modern Orthodox……<\/p>\n On our topic he finds a similar Gemara in Yevamos 7a where this concept of when an item has two prohibitions and one is removed it affects the removal of the second one as well. (Kohen, Azara, Shaar Nikanor, blood and thumbs).<\/p>\n 3- Shasik Rav –\u00a0“\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u05e7 \u05e8\u05d1”.<\/p>\n Rav was asked as to why he prohibits shechting an efroach that was hatched on Yom Tov and yet permits the shechting of a newborn calf. Why are both not Muktza?<\/p>\n He\u00a0answered\u00a0that the calf was ‘edible’ prior to its own birth and its own shechita by the shechting of its mother prior to its birth. Whereas the egg was not edible in any way prior to it being hatched.<\/p>\n He was then asked by his\u00a0colleagues as to why one may shecht a newborn calf that was born to a cow that was not edible – such as a ‘\u00a0tereifa’ ?<\/p>\n And here we find an expression (as in a few other places in Sha”s); Shosik Rav’. Rav did not answer. He\u00a0remained\u00a0silent.<\/p>\n Does this mean that he agreed with them? Or did he not? If he kept his ground then why did he not respond?<\/p>\n We read the text of a note the Rebbe wrote<\/a> and printed in a few Ma’amorim. The Rebbe Rashab and the Freidiker Rebbe explain that\u00a0occasionally\u00a0one comprehends something with clarity and conviction. It is as if he ‘see the concept’.<\/p>\n And yet, despite being\u00a0convinced of its truth, he cannot explain it. His ability to\u00a0rationalize\u00a0his understanding\u00a0to others is\u00a0not developed. ‘Chochma that has not\u00a0descended\u00a0to Bina’. As an example they quote our Gemara where Rav simply did not answer the question.<\/p>\n This was not out of a lack of substance to respond. As the Rebbe notes the Halacha<\/em>, according to many is indeed like Rav, despite him being ‘apparently checkmated’ by his\u00a0colleagues. So the the truth is indeed with Rav’s ruling despite his\u00a0silence\u00a0and our lack of\u00a0understanding the rationale behind it.<\/p>\n He then quotes the Rama of Fanu\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0who writes <\/a>that Rav’s silence\u00a0was due to\u00a0totally\u00a0different reason. Rav was a\u00a0Kabbalist\u00a0and he knew the Halacha and its reasoning also based on ‘Pnimiyus Hatorah – Sod’. He thus refrained\u00a0from\u00a0revealing\u00a0the secret reasoning as was the custom in those days to keep such matters under wraps.<\/p>\n [The Seder Hadoros writes that Rav was a ‘talmid muvhak’ of Reb Shimon Bar Yochai!]<\/p>\n 4- Speaking of newborn calves we mentioned the Alter Rebbe pointing to certain Halachos that are probably never going to be encountered in a practical situation.<\/p>\n One is “ve’karkoso”. What does “ve’karkoso” mean?<\/p>\n Briefly, a child (human or animal) that passed thru the birth canal without touching the uterus! Is this child\/calve a ‘bechor’?<\/p>\n Here is from chabad.org<\/a>\u00a0Tanya with Rabbi Wineberg’s O”H explanation.<\/p>\n \u05d5\u05db\u05e8\u05db\u05ea\u05d5 \u05db\u05d5\u05f3, \u05e4\u05e8\u05e7 \u05d3\u05f3 \u05d3\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05df<\/p>\n and [detailed queries such as] \u201cIf she wrapped him…,\u201d in ch. 4 of<\/em>Chullin.9<\/sup><\/u><\/em><\/p>\n The question discussed there is whether a firstborn animal can be considered to have directly \u201copened the womb\u201d (and hence be sanctified) in either of two hypothetical cases. According to\u00a0Rashi<\/em>, it is a question of what happens if the person assisting in the birth entirely wraps up the animal as it is born. According to\u00a0Rabbeinu Tam,<\/em>\u00a0the question involves a multiple birth, with a cow being born together with the firstborn bull, and wrapping itself completely around it \u2014 something extremely unlikely to ever occur.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, all these detailed queries were given to Moses at Sinai.<\/p>\n ————-<\/p>\n We spoke about the recent medical events where a complete uterus was transplanted and the recipient conceived and gave birth.<\/p>\n see\u00a0baby born from grandmothers donated womb<\/a><\/p>\n Is this <\/em>child a ‘bechor’? He did indeed pass thru and come in contact with the uterus but not his mother’s! Is he considered his mother’s first offspring?<\/p>\n Next- assuming he is considered his mother’s first offspring, if this uterus came from a donor that had given birth already? This child may be his mother’s first but the uterus’s<\/em> second…<\/p>\n Funny stuff.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Beitzah 6a. 1- The Gemara \u00a0now focuses on the case of an ‘efroach’ [chick] that emerged from its egg on Yom Tov. Rav prohibits it from being eaten whereas Shmuel and\/or Reb Yochanon permit it. The reason for Rav’s ruling is simply that it is Muktza. Shmuel and\/or Reb Yochanon rationale is based on an … Continue reading Shiur Points 03\/15\/16 – Beitza 6a<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n