Hezekiah

So what do we need Shmuel's statement for? And the answer is, over there is referring to Eretz Yisrael itself, whereas over here, we're talking about where the anyway is only Midrash Banon.

We go back to the discussion of Eretz Yisrael again, when E.C. Barhini went up to Eretz Yisrael, really the gear says, Rabbi Yechanan encountered Hezekiah, him, he was teaching his son, meaning when he was talking about, he was quoting the Mishnah, saying, you should use Lashon of Reche Lois, because that's Lashon of the Mishnah, not Reche Lim, but Reche Lois, so I'm really easy to respond to him, the Pasuk tells us, and so that's why I'm using Lashon Reche Lim, the Pasuk says that, the Torah uses one Lashon, with a They use a different Lashon, they use the Lashon of R'chei Lois, so that's what you should use.

They continue talking.

So we see respond to him.

This way he will have some kind of break.

So the Gemara says that Hezekiah said, then not everybody would agree to what it says in the Mishnah.

The Mishnah is going like Rav Shimon, that a person, when he says something that's not clear, he'll enter a scenario where the Suffolk is more Chomer than Avadai.

For instance, if a guy says, I'm a Nozar on condition that this Kree should have Mea Kar, if somebody says, I'm a nazar on condition that this pile has meyakar, and then he came back, and it was stolen, it was lost, so Rav Shimon says that he's aser, because Safik Nazir is l'hachman, Rav Yehuda is mater.

So what do we need Shmuel's statement for? And the answer is, over there is referring to Eretz Yisrael itself, whereas over here, we're talking about where the anyway is only Midrash Banon.

We go back to the discussion of Eretz Yisrael again, when E.C. Barhini went up to Eretz Yisrael, really the gear says, Rabbi Yechanan encountered Hezekiah, him, he was teaching his son, meaning when he was talking about, he was quoting the Mishnah, saying, you should use Lashon of Reche Lois, because that's Lashon of the Mishnah, not Reche Lim, but Reche Lois, so I'm really easy to respond to him, the Pasuk tells us, and so that's why I'm using Lashon Reche Lim, the Pasuk says that, the Torah uses one Lashon, with a They use a different Lashon, they use the Lashon of R'chei Lois, so that's what you should use.

They continue talking.

So we see respond to him.

That's why he brought from Rumiachin and saying that a kvi is chayiv in all of Matanus, in the entire, 100% of the Matanus.

Hezekiah said, okay, I understand very good.

But for Rebbe Lezer, hayim, lomeli.

So now what is Rebbe Lezer going to do? Rebbe Lezer clearly said only half.

If it's less than that, it's not metameh.

In the verse of Hezekiah, when this animal is shechted, but it's not yet dead, so it's not yet nevelah, in order for it to be metameh, it requires hakshur.

That's because it might not ever reach the stage where it's metameh to mechamurah, because if he quickly scrapes it down and breaks up all the meat into little pieces so that they're all less than a zayas, none of this is going to be metameh to mechamurah.

We'll never have it because zayas have a nevelah, because he did this before it fully died.

Therefore, after Shechita, since it's not considered alive anymore, so its limbs are not Aser as Avram and Achai, because it's not Chai, it's not alive.

However, since it's not fully dead, it's not considered Nevelah, and therefore it's talking about Tameh as Nevelah.

And that's how we have this in-between Shechita and Hezekiah.

Now we continue discussing what we just mentioned.

And the animal stops moving.

So the Gemara is asking that according to Hezekiah, since the animal is legally dead, calls manas being mefarcheses, l'cheira, it should already have a din neveila, and therefore it should already have its tomah hamura, while it's being mefarcheses.

There is this kind of purgatory for the animal over here, where it's being mefarcheses, and it's no longer alive, but it's not quite dead.

So therefore it's not going to have the yisra'i verman achai, but it's not yet tamay tomas neveila.