This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:00 We'll say it is a great to be able to begin the new perk with everyone tomorrow. Um I'm sorry I'm seem to be having some technical difficulties on my end with the video. My apologies for that. But Hashem will make it up with additional excitement in the audio. 0:15 begin by thanking all of our all of our sponsors for today's daff our our sponsors for the month of Ala Melon Karen Ram for dedicating all the sherman this month for Alzar and Iris Miller Adam and Leslie Rosenish Dr. Joseph Miller Yseph Ben Ruin, friends of Mayor Ben Pera for dedicating 0:40 all the dr this month and the week of learning sponsors Ed and Faith Wolf for dedicating all the dr this week sponsors and Sarah Steinberg and the continued help and for an ultimate with that let us begin. Thank you to Josh Arez to all of the midashem who have been giving over the past couple of 1:07 days. Really there's a great to begin the new per with you today and truly looking forward to seeing everyone in person on Thursday morning. So today's 104 we are picking up at the base 103b. The Mishna says as follows. 1:26 You are not allowed to cook any meat with milk. with the exception of the meat of fish and grasshoppers. So again, the Rashi points out over here. Remember, even though when the Torah speaks about the prohibition of milk and meat, it says a kid, right? A goat, a lamb. 1:48 Nevertheless, but again what the Mish is going to teach me is although the prohibition of meat is phrased as referring to an animal but again it applies to the saying applies to and to of the only thing it doesn't apply to is to fish and to grasshoppers. 2:11 Furthermore, you can't even put milk and meat on the same table together. And the only pro the only thing that doesn't apply to is the meat of fish and grasshoppers. So once again the Mishna seems to indicate that animals not domesticated animals oo foul are all prohibited to be mixed or to be consumed with milk. And not only that he can't even put them on the same table 2:35 together. Top of 104. One more illustration of this. If a person makes a nether not to eat from ultimately again he is permitted to go ahead and eat from the meat of fish and fish and grasshoppers. So once again this is a different application but it's saying over here is as follows. Now Rashi points out in when a person makes a is defined by 3:04 the colloquial use of different terms. So for example, a person says, "I'm not eating baser." What does buster include? Say Mishna tells us buster includes behemoth and ofos. What doesn't that include? It doesn't include fish and grasshoppers. 3:20 Incredible. So say interestingly enough, focusing on the first that you're not allowed to cook milk and meat together. And from the Mishna's perspective, what does this apply to? It applies to all types of meat, i.e. with the exception of fish and grasshopper. So says the interesting. 3:39 So it sounds like over here that the prohibition of eating foul together with milk chicken and milk let's say foul with milk is whose opinion is this? Why is of the opinion that although there is a prohibition to eat foul os with milk it's only it's not it's not. So therefore again it must be 4:03 that our Mishna is not like here's the problem because again what the is assuming over here is that when the Mishna says that there's a pro a bit of a prohibition of and that it must be talking about that that does not with the opinion of to which the says yet look at the end of the yet the end of the if a person goes 4:28 ahead and makes a not to eat from not to eat from meat He's allowed to go ahead and eat from now what do you see from that seem to indicate to us that ultimately again foul is going to be prohibited. Now once again the says whose opinion does that reflect? So the Mishna says that would seem to reflect the opinion of 4:55 now interestingly enough why holds like this although holds that the prohibition of foul and milk is he holds that really o is included in baser just again it's included in baser [clears throat] it's just not biblical baser because kiba says something interesting enough says what's what's the metric How do you know if something is categorized as part 5:18 of a particular group? If you were to send the to go ahead and take care of something. Let's say I ask the to purchase A, item A, and the comes back and he says, you know what, I couldn't find A, but I could find B. The fact that B, right, is a logical substitution indicates that B is in the same category as A. So for example, the says anything that an agent would ask about 5:44 by definition is considered to be in the same category. Listen to this example. If a person goes ahead and makes a not to eat vegetables, he is permitted to eat gourds. The gimmar says but also apparently holds that a gourd colloquially is not known as a and says that it's nothing to 6:13 if a person were to say to his agent agent go buy me vegetables the agent would come back and he would say and he would say you know what I couldn't find but I found duin I found gourds Now in the Tanakama's view, the fact that the agent comes back and says that I couldn't find I couldn't find vegetables, but I could find gourds indicates that gourds are clearly 6:38 categorically different. Says no, no, that's exactly my point. So he gives just the opposite. you know the the agent would never come back and saying you know I couldn't find vegetables but I found lentils right why because lentils have no to vegetables but if he can't find vegetables and he comes back and he says I can't find but I found duin that's because duin ultimately again are 7:10 that's because duin that's because gourds ultimately again are still in the vegetable family so the point over here is that according to it makes sense that ultimately again that if a person makes a nether not to eat that he's also not allowed to eat o he's also not allowed to eat foul why because colloquially people would go ahead if I were to send my agent out and say agent go buy me some meat let's say couldn't 7:33 find meat it would be logical too soon that he would come back and say you know I can't find any meat but I could find chicken and that would be a logical substitution because so they're categorically similar that's the case so then it's strange because then that would seem to indicate that the first part of the ultimately again reflects the view who say that is 7:55 and the second part of the refs of who holds that is that's just strange that's just strange says it's not so strange he is the compiler of these and what part part of the advantage that rebi had as the codifier of the Mishna is that he was able to a certain degree to kind of pick and choose different 8:18 opinions and therefore when it comes to hea that anything that a would say I couldn't find a but I could find B that indicates thus that B is included categorically in A therefore because if a couldn't find meat he would easily come back and say to his to his the principle I couldn't find meat but I was able to find chicken therefore it makes sense that when you make a not to 8:43 eat meat it includes chicken ultimately again when it comes to like that namely not Not only is but as well that's gives a different say no no in fact the entire how you have to read the you're not allowed to cook any form of 9:06 meat together with milk but some of the prohibitions are biblical and some of them are rabbitic so for example beheima right an animal or a non-domemesticated animal. Those are biblical. But ultimately again, everything else everything else is going to be foul will be. 9:34 But the one thing everybody seemly agrees on is fish and grasshoppers have no toer at all. And therefore again there is no prohibition to go ahead and cook them with milk. So say what comes out of here is as follows. a fundamental yes fundamental about whether or not foul is included in the biblical prohibition of says yes says no again we'll discuss a 9:58 little bit more later on everyone seems to agree that if you make a nether not to eater that by definition includes of that by definition includes that by definition includes uh foul as well everyone also agrees that the prohibition of bhalab does not apply to grasshoppers and does not apply to fish. 10:17 Incredible. So goes so remember again the Mishna said you're also not allowed to put on the same table any form of meat. And when they say any form of meat, it means and on the same table together with milk to which so it must be that according to the the prohibition of of because if you think it was just so 10:51 this will be what we call making on Right? One decree on top of another decree. Because think about this for just a moment. If you hold that that oath with is is then that would mean itself consumption itself is now you're going to put another bon on top of that first and say that's what that you can't even go ahead and put them on the same table together. 11:13 That would seem to be a bit excessive. Seem to be a bit excessive. So says that's what we call engra we do not decree. We do not make one decree on top of another. Where do we know that? That we don't pile one type of decree on top of another. 11:35 This is actually very interesting. If you have remember the portion of the dough that you separate for the coin. If you have so is only to nonohanimal is normally a portion for the so is treated like and therefore it's but ultimately again is only 12:08 to a noncoin so watch this if you have you're allowed to eat it now normally the is like this a coin is not supposed to eat his at the same table as is. What are we concerned about? Very simply, what we're concerned about is the coin's going to be eating his food. The Israel is going to be eating his food. People's hands wander while they're eating and the is may come to partake of the but 12:35 when it comes to right again that's only and therefore because the actual consumption of it is only therefore there's no problem to eat it at the same table together. 12:51 Furthermore, you're also allowed to give to any coin. Whereas in you have to be careful that you only give your to a coin who's vigilant with which is only to begin with. You could give it to any coin you want. So point over here is you see that we don't make one gizer on top of another otherwise I would have said even though the consumption of 13:16 perhaps the coin shouldn't eat it at the same table as one second. So if you would have told me a case of where the coin is eating then I could see then I could see ultimately again where we should be goes there. You know, I would have thought maybe we should be go there lest the coin come 13:47 at the same table as so then I would say if we don't make that shows that we don't make a on top of another but again but in you're right there's no reason to make that wouldn't make any sense because at most remember again all you have is watches when it comes If you allow people to have right 14:16 chicken and milk at the same table. So it's very simple in this case over here. The concern the concern you're right is not that we're not concerned that if you have chicken and milk on the table together you can come to eat chicken and milk because remember that's also the concern over here is that if you go and you have chicken and milk at the at the at the table together people will come to do at the table together and come to eat that which is going to 14:44 be so you hear the difference in other words we were going at this that the prohibition to put chicken and milk on the same table is exer lest you come to consume it but one second consumption of o and to begin with is only so now you're going to make it on says you're right you're right the issue of bringing chicken and milk to the table is not one of consuming chicken and milk it's the 15:08 concern that if we allow chicken and milk at the table together one may come to consume which is okay worst case scenario let's say a person does bring meat and milk to the table together and they consume them so as we're going to see the prohibition of is only biblical if you cook the meat and the milk together. But if we're just talking about I have a piece of cheese, I have a piece of salami at the table 15:34 together and even I put them together on a sandwich, I eat them together, certainly not good. But that's only in that's rabbitic because in order to have biblical ultimately again there needs to be a cooking process that that is occurring together. 15:51 Incredible. To which the So we're concerned we're concerned that if you go ahead and you have it at the table together that perhaps perhaps you'll actually come to put it in a hot pot. You'll have a pan. If this is like it's like a pan you'll put it in a hot pot together. M says okay even so so if so that's not a or if presumably if you're having a pot on the table that's a 16:15 secondary utensil. Even so that's not primary bishel. Primary bishop only occurs in a cleish and the first utensil which is the utensil on fire. We assume that a secondary cleave does not cook says you're right. We are concerned actually that you may actually come to I don't know you'll set up you set up your little bunson burner your little burner you know your little electric hot plate and 16:41 you might come to cook it at the table together. So bottom line bottom line what the Gimar says is as follows that you can so step stage one of the Mishna was that you're not allowed to cook any type of milk and meat together and included in that is and is whether or not is or what's not included fishim 17:03 grasshoppers. Fine number two you also can't put meat and milk on the same table together. Now, interestingly enough, the Gimar says, "But one second, but I don't say isn't that gazer on top of a let's say I put chicken and milk on the table together." So, I mean, not so what, but so what? At worst even if I consume them make on top of no we're 17:27 actually concerned that if you come to go ahead and we allow chicken and milk on the table together you may actually come to cook milk and meat on the table together and that would be so therefore because of that all types of and cannot and milk cannot go on the same table together so these are going to be very we're going to get into this more but 17:50 again this is where this comes up let's say again I'm having dinner with my family. I want to have fleshik. Other people want to have milkakes. Can we sit at the same table together and have different types of food? The answer, of course, is going to be yes. But there has to be some type of recognizable hecker. There has to be some type of visible reminder so that we don't end up inadvertently sharing food with one another. Incredible. The only thing that this does not apply to, of course, once 18:14 again, is fish and grasshoppers. Incredible. Okay, so now let's get into this a little bit more. Says the Mishna So says actually you can put chicken, you can put fowl and milk on the same table together. You just can't eat them together. These words says no. 18:35 Yes, I agree. Not only can you not eat it together, but you can't even put them on the same table together. says this ultimately again is one of the is one of the leniencies of and the stringencies of right because is the one that says you can't put fowl and milk together on the same table and ultimately again says you 18:59 can interesting by the way when we talk about a table what table are we talking about this is talking about again the table at which you eat This is very interesting. This concern about coming to eat milk and meat together only applies in a situation where where you're act the table where you eat at. 19:28 But let's say on a prep table, there's no problem with having fowl and milk on the same table together. Again, we'll discuss that distinction a little bit more a little bit more in the Gimar. Good. So, says the Gimaran said isn't saying, right? Because remember started by saying that you're not allowed to eat foul and milk together, but you could put them on 19:52 the same table together says no, you can't even put them on the same table together. He says, "Oh, this is an example ultimately again of the lenencies of so essentially you're stating the obvious." To which maybe is ultimately again about consumption itself says 20:21 both and agree that you can't eat foul and milk together. What's the answer is about putting on the same table together comes along and says no maybe not is adding on over here maybe even ultimately again is amongst the other maybe saying you're even allowed 20:46 to eat foul and milk together says no there are six things that are of the of and what is one of them ultimately again what's the both and agree that you can't eat foul and milk together but says you could put them on the same table together says no you can't and this says is one of the kulas one of the leniencies that bes had over 21:23 basil so what do you see Ra. So, so what is Rabio coming to add right? Why did Rebi include the statement of Rabiosi? To which answers, Reb is coming to teach us who is the Tanakama? Who is the Tanakama? It's Rabio. Why is this an important piece of information? Because says because whoever goes ahead and literally says something over in the name of the 21:52 person who said it brings redemption to the world. Brings redemption to the world. Now sayar where do we know that concept from? That if you tell over some piece of information in the name of the person who said it ultimately you bring redemption to the world. Where does that come from? 22:09 Ultimately again because Esther remember this is the beginning of Miguel Esther right where Morai uncovered the assassination plot against that was being that was being um orchestrated by big son and Esther relays the information to but she says it over in the name of Morai now the fact that she said it over in the name of Morai what did that result in 22:33 that resulted in the fact that a little while later right so I'm sorry the king recorded that in his in his book remembrances and a little while later when the king couldn't sleep and right this was the whole story they had they read to him from the book of remembrance the savioros and what happened they read about the fall assassination plot what did we ever do for Morai we never did anything for morai hammon is out there 22:56 preparing the gallows that's where ham was summoned in and that's in that moment in that moment when the king was reminded of the incredible thing that Morai did for him that's where the gula that's really where the that's where the salvation really began Again, that was a very pivotal moment. That's the moment in the migill where really the king turns his favor towards Morai and away from Hammon. And had all of this happen, it all happened ultimately because of 23:19 Esther. It all happened because of Queen Esther. So quite literally says that when you say something over in the name of someone, it is as if you bring not not as if says you bring maybe ultimately again you bring redemption, you bring salvation to the world. But perhaps also on a deeper level but the more teaching is as follows that especially when it comes to Torah you know there is a with everything with 23:44 everything so I will say what's the when it comes to Torah the when it comes to Torah is that sometimes you know why do I learn because I want cover what I want recognition I want likes I want followers whatever whatever the reasons we do things and so this with everything now granted okay should be the worst so therefore again if I hear an idea and it's an incredible idea It's very 24:07 tempting for me to say it over without attribution. Why? Because if I just say it over without attribution, people automatically assume it's my idea. And especially if it's a beautiful idea, moving idea, how incredible is that for that to be attributed to me? When a person goes ahead and sets aside their ego and sends over an idea with proper attribution, giving attribution to the person who said it, what the person is ultimately doing is saying the Torah is 24:31 not about me, but it's about what I could do for the cl. It's about what I could do for the world. It's about what I could do for the other. If it's about me, I'm going to say over every single great idea with that attribution, everybody's going to think I'm the biggest in the world, the most incredible dash in the world and fantastic. My stock rises, my ego is inflated, everything is fantastic. But when I d no, I heard something beautiful. It's not mine. It's not mine. 24:55 I'm going to tell you whose it is. And I give proper attribution in that very moment. What I'm saying is this tora is not about me. It's not about my ego. It's not about my reputation. It's not about my covet. It's about bringing more light to the world. It's about bringing more light to Jews. It's about uplifting. 25:14 And the moment you defy the to make Torah about you and one's own self agrandisement and use it as the vehicle to uplift the clown that brings gula to the world that brings redemption and quite literally in the case of it brought about the physical right the material salvation of cloud is but on a deeper level when we learn when we learn 25:38 and we we kind of suppress that that desire for inflated ego and covet which we're human beings, it's normal and natural and we give proper attribution. It shows that the Torah we're learning all we're doing is for the greater good of and whenever you do something for the greater good of there is there's a promise what's the promise when you do things for the team when you 26:04 do things for the when you put yourself on the side and figure out what do I need to do for that's when you become the very vehicle of all for today looking forward to seeing everyone in on Thursday morning in Shikoya.
Expand transcript 4,124 words
