This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:11 All right. Good morning. Anyway, it's good. So today's daff is 104. We are beginning a new parak. Our shir this morning, this week is dedicated by Dr. and Mrs. garden house for rafu shima for pina bas we hope none of the merit on our together with cold hol we'll have a complete and enduring rafu thank you 0:36 very much for the sponsorship all right let's begin brand new par beautiful par we're going to get by the way this is very exciting because over the next little while we're going to be doing some incredible regarding of meat and milk as well as other what we call hos which are the concerning forbidden mixtures. So says the Mishna, 1:02 one is not permitted to cook any type of meat with milk with the exception of with the exception of both of the meat of fish and are literally locusts. So again, first tells me I am not permitted to cook any type of meat with milk except for the meat of fish and locust. 1:26 Furthermore, again, you're not allowed to put meat on the same table with cheese. And again, we're going to discuss the parameters of this. So say with the exception of the meat of fish and the meat of locust top of one takes a nether ultimately again not to eat meat. One takes a nether not to eat meat. So say first of all before you 1:53 go to the top of look at the last why can't I put meat and milk on the same table says together say so again we'll discuss the parameters of this as well is this a concern like saying that I'll come to eat together is it a concern that I'll come to touch them together and as a result of coming to touch them together the schmutz or the fat from both of 2:26 those items may end up getting mixed together so that we'll see different opinions good number three of if one takes a nether not to eat meat one is permitted to eat the meat of fish and of locust says say in general when it comes to we have a principle of 3:01 that when it comes to we go ahead and we follow the vernacular follow vernacular. So therefore again says the Mishna and therefore the Mishna tells me that when people say meat directly covers the flesh of any animal with the exception of fish and locust. 3:24 So we'll say three fundamental number one you cannot cook meat and milk together and that meat refers to everything except for the meat of fish and locusts. Number two, you cannot put meat and cheese on the same table. And meat in that context includes everything except for the meat of fish and locusts. 3:44 And number three, if you take a nether not to eat meat, that covers all forms of quote unquote meat with the exception of the meat of fish and locust. Beautiful says the gimar. So we'll say, what do you see from the Mishna? So we'll say the kind of jumps right into this. What do you see from here? 4:05 You see that chicken, right? Or foul poultry is say how where where do I get that from? So, it's interesting is that's false. Remember the fact that the Mishna says that you're not allowed to cook meat together with milk. And what's included in meat? What's included in meat? 4:22 Everything except except fish and locust, which tells you that foul that poultry is included in meat. So, say we jump right into it. From here you see that chicken that poultry that foul is as says the okay who does that whose opinion does that reflect so this is not in conformance with the 4:46 position of why here we go say these are very exciting because we're going to be spending a lot of time on this is on record as saying that and now both has a very interesting which we're going to discuss on Giml 132 have a little bit of time till we get to it holds that both o say and remember again means 5:14 non-domemesticated animals deer as the simplest example and are not so for our purposes now he would say oh let's say chicken and milk right is going to but not the so our Mishna clearly does not reflect the view of Raaka because our Mishna clearly indicates that chicken and milk is 5:41 the says fine so okay that's that's not a problem that doesn't bother us most times the Mishna doesn't reflect everyone's opinion so it's fine it doesn't reflect however here's the problem but if I look at the end of the Mishna the last caseer Um fine say interestingly enough what did the Mishna say that if I go ahead and I make 6:10 a ne not to eat meat. So that apparently includes everything except for the meat of the meat of fish and locusts. say we see that ultimately what we see that o right we see that that that the meat of foul or of poultry ultimately is going to be say it's included in the 6:34 nether now whose opinion does that reflect is actually very interesting we'll say this is actually quite interesting I'll translate it literally then we'll see what it means because of the opinion that in general what's included in another anything that ach what what does this mean? So take a look at Rashi for just a moment. Says, 7:05 so he says well says we're going to see for just a moment says that when it comes to how do we know what's included in your nether or not a very interesting litmus test. If you were to send the to do something and he were to go ahead and not be able to execute the as you wanted him to and he would come back to you and he would tell you I can't do this but I could do this 7:36 right I can't do A but I could do B for you if he's willing to if B comes into the course of conversation then B is included in the nether let me give you an example of that we'll say watch this is actually incredible if a person goes in and makes a nether not to eat vegetables, right? Mutiluin ultimately again he is permitted to eat 8:00 gourds. He's permitted to eat gourds, right? Why is that says that it's now watch this? So they said to tell you why you're wrong. So say listen to this case. I say to mak go out and buy some yak right now say now normally we're assuming that what does yak refer to most probably 8:28 basically refers like green leafy vegetables right go out and p and what happens now we'll say if there are no green leafy vegetables available so my is going to come back and what is going to tell me and my will say oh I'm so sorry couldn't find any go couldn't find any green leafy vegetables any only I was able to find was the now watch this. So the 8:54 Tanakama assumes, you see, because the Shalia comes back and has to tell me that I only found Duin tells me that what that Duan gourds are not part of the Mishbah and because they're not part of the that's why he's coming back to ask me because if Duan were part of the Mishbah then what? Then what? Then he 9:18 wouldn't have to ask. He would have just bought it. Now watch this. says, "No, you guys have it exactly wrong." That's exactly the point. This is amazing. When the comes back and says, "I couldn't find, but I found what is the actually saying?" What is he saying? "I couldn't find exactly what 9:49 you asked for, but what? I found something close after all says does the come back and say hey I couldn't find but I found legumes no he wouldn't say that why wouldn't he say that because they have nothing to do with each other the fact is he say when the comes back and says I couldn't find A but I was able to find B that he only comes back and says I was able to find B if B is 10:12 somehow related to A but if B is totally unrelated to A the not going to say I couldn't do A but I was able to do Bah say now watch this so therefore again Rabaka says that Incredible. Rabi Aka says let's apply this back. Rabi Aka says when it comes so a person makes a nether we want to know what is included in the scope of that nether. So 10:35 will say the easiest litmus test is what is if you were to send a shal to go ahead and get something would this item be included in the shy list of alternatives were he not able to go ahead and find the item that you requested a says if the answer is yes if the item would be included in a list of alternatives had the been unable to 11:00 comply with the original terms of the then it's included in your Nether if the would have never listed it or offered it as an alternative to that which you originally requested from the then it's not included in your nether simple illustration I make a nether not to eat meat not to eat meat so say what would happen if I sent a out to purchase some 11:24 meat for me and he couldn't find meat it would be reasonable that he would come back and say what I couldn't find meat but >> I can get you some chicken apparent I get you some chicken right that that would be apparently in Rabi Aka's model the would not come back and say what I could find fish right I could find locust meat right those apparently would not be offered up to alternatives to 11:49 buser o poultry would be offered up as an alternative to baser because of that rabbi says therefore in the Mishna's last case of habaser person takes an not to eat meat so ultimately Again, that meat includes any quote unquote meat alternative. Included in meat alternatives is poultry and fell. 12:10 Excluded from meat alternatives is going to be fish and locust. And we'll say, so this yields a very interesting idea. What that tells us says the is so remember again here. Here's just the only problem that we have which is we just got finished saying that the ra the first part of the Mishna does not reflect the view of why not 12:35 because according to the first part of the sounds like he's saying that what is right not only is that is not the view of holds is going to be so we establish that the ration does not reflect the view of Rabaka it reflects the view of others and now what we're saying is the safa that if you make a 13:01 not to eat meat that includes fowl and poultry right that does reflect the view of a say does that make sense so we'll say remember again you've seen enough kimar to know in general we don't like to set up mishnay like that right we don't ideally don't like to set up mishna as having the reflect one view in safe reflect another we generally like to have one comprehensive view 13:27 throughout to which the says it's not a problem in fact the is compiled by himself holds different ways in different situations in general holds which is when you make a nether. 13:54 So what's included in your nether? Anything that achit were he not able were he unable to comply with the original terms of your that's included in the however but in the world holds like who says that what will be 14:16 but will be I'm sorry I'm sorry he holds like who says that what both as well as will be good. That's possibility one. Possibility two. No. 14:34 In fact, the entire effects view of say I how can you say that is of the opinion that although is yet the first part of the Mishna clearly seems seems to read that what that is going to be to which the means to say in reality all forms of meat cannot be 15:02 cooked with milk And say what does all forms of meat include? What does it include? It includes and it includes I say but what the Mishna doesn't tell me or what what's what the Mishna kind of says in a nuanced fashion is everything is user but some things are some things are with the exception of course of fish and 15:29 locust which I will say will not be neither nor And say that seems to be the way at the end of the day we end up reading the Mishna. So the Mishna ultimately says what the Mishna is saying is as follows. 15:47 You are not permitted to cook any type of meat with milk. Be it actual buser or be it right although we're not going to get into right now. whether it's B or whether it's O parenthesis sometimes the prohibition is biblical like and sometimes the prohibition is rabbitic like and say with the exception of the meat of fish the meat of locust which is 16:11 never neither nor and say now the beauty is that the last part of the isa now again therefore if you take another not to eat and eat what's included in that was included in that nether. O why again it's raka throughout the entire Mishna Raba telling me because when it comes to anything that would substitute 16:36 cannot find the item that you originally asked for is included in your nether. So therefore again the teaching me all meat is going to be with sometimes sometimes as will be explained further. Beautiful. Second part. 16:50 Remember again the second was you cannot put cheese and right you cannot put meat and cheese on the table together once again with the exception of the meat of fish and the meat of and the meat of locust. 17:09 So I'm gonna be safe. So says as follows so we'll say again we're coming back to the same ideal now we say now what you have now remember again based on what we just said is refers to aller all types of meat including foul so based on this what you're telling me now is not only can I not put milk and meat on the same table but I also can't put milk and 17:34 chicken on the same table so what do I see here says you see from It must be that the prohibition of here we go because if you think that is only so now watch this the problem is if you hold that was now we have a double right so we'll say so remember again if you 18:08 hold that the act of cooking or consuming. So now you're going to tell me and I also can't put them on the same table lest you come to eat them together. So we say in general we don't do that with rabbitic law right in general rabbitic law has one layer not multiple layers. 18:28 So again with I understand you can't put milk and meat on the same table because if you put milk and meat on the same table may come to eat them together and that's an isida. So the prohibition of putting them on this table together is an to keep you from transgressing. 18:44 But if you hold that ultimately foul if you hold that poultry chicken and meat chicken and milk is you're going to put another that I can't put them on the same table together. That's a we normally wouldn't do that. But yet we know that's what chicken is included in this prohibition. You can't put chicken and milk on the same table. 19:05 That's what means. must be what? It must be that chicken is so chicken and it's gonna be so that's why again prohibition of putting them on the same table applies. So the say first how do you know how do you know is what we call that we don't make one rabbitic law to safeguard another rabbitic law in other words we don't pile on two levels of 19:29 rabbitic law where do you know that from here we go actually quite interesting if you have take a look at rash for just a moment last on the dutar So we'll say if you separate out outside of so remember again that that which is 19:53 the portion of the is only to really only applies init. So therefore again obviously but if you separate out it is not it's only okay outside the land of Israel say listen to 20:31 The coin is permitted to eat his at the same table with the noncoin. Take a look at says listen to this. So if you're a coin in a coin, you are permitted to eat your at the same table at I'm sorry. If you're a coin and you're eating your you could eat your at the same table as a 21:03 nonen and we're not concerned that what that the nonen is going to come to go ahead and eat of your why not because again the to begin with as for non so we're not going to be go there that the coin eating his can't eat it at the same table as because that'll be aux 21:27 to which the gimar says furthermore again you could go ahead and give to any coin you want points out over here this is very important because in if you're going to give your to a coin you cannot give your to a coin who is in why because you have to be concerned that he is not vigilant with of in give it to anyone why because 21:56 in Anyway the is only say so now what so now why isar bringing up this case is bringing up this case because we we we think that this case proves that you do not make you don't go to make a on a so for example again said would be which is only a can't eat that at the 22:22 same table as is less the is eat the but yet we say we don't say that we allow a coin to eat his at the same table as a and we are not concerned that the is will partake ultimately of that so from here you see what from here you see 22:46 we do not make a double to say I'll tell you why it's not a good comparison so we'll say so like this you're you're wrong. If you would have told me if you want to make a case that you could eat in at the same table, right? Then that case would have been comparable. Why? 23:15 So would have told me that you could eat in at the same table as that would have been a good comparison. Why? Because then what would I tell you? Even though there'd be a concern that if we allow you to eat in at the same table as an you may come to what? You may come to eat at the same table as an So then that 23:40 would be a good proof to say. So say but here again the issue over here is of course we're going to let you eat at the same table as an say what's the concern what's the concern there is no possibility that if we allow the cohen to eat his at the same table as an there's no concern that they may come to transgress something biblical why not 24:13 say why not because there's no biblical prohibition to discuss there there is no possibility remember again all we're dealing with over here At most it's an if we allow the coen to eat at the same table as the there is no possibility of a biblical infraction but that's different than the case of chicken and milk. 24:41 if we allow you to bring foul poultry and cheese to the table say what's the concern over here this is not a trade on what we're concern say we thought this entire time that what the concern was what that if we allow you to go ahead and put let's say chicken and milk on the table, what's going to end up happening? You're going to come to 25:11 eat chicken and milk. So our problem was, okay, but even if you eat chicken and milk, we'll say, "What's the nature of that prohibition?" It's did I have bun on? At least for now, it's did I have bun on? So we're going to make did I b on? Someone else says, "No, no, no. The concern is if we allow you to go ahead and eat put poultry with milk on the same table." What's going to end up happening? You're going to go ahead and put meat and milk on the same table. And 25:35 that ultimately leads to an potentially to anis. See what we're going to see the ongoing theme over here. And this goes back to idea is that chicken and meat are often interchangeable. Often interchangeable. So therefore the will say is we're not at the end of the day what's interesting over here is we're going to tell you you can't put chicken and milk on the same table not because we're worried about 25:59 chicken and milk. I mean we're worried about chicken and milk but that's not the primary concern. The primary concern is actually what? Meat and milk. So the says, so I say, watch this. Here we go. Now the Gimra is going to advance a number of concepts that we're only going to learn later on, but it's very exciting. So so what? So what? 26:25 Let's say someone does put milk and meat on the same table. And both say again let's say they go ahead and they even end up eating the milk and meat together say even if you eat milk and meat together that's son as we're going to see the isb of is only when there is bish only when they're cooked together technically speaking if you take a piece of cheese and a cold piece of cheese and 26:49 a cold piece of meat and you eat them together that is an that is not an iso. So again, what am I concerned about over here? I'm concerned that somebody's going to bring milk and or I should say cheese and meat to the table and eat them together. That's still only a to which no the concern is that they're going to bring up the milk and the meat together 27:15 in a pot. Means like a frying pan in a pot. Other words, they're going to heat it up. says this is actually a pretty wild says but even so that's only a we're assuming again that what you're bring if you're bringing a pot to the table that's not going to be a it's going to be a cliche and apparently again which say is an incredible incredible which we'll get to when we get to these 27:41 we'll discuss it in greater depth and ultimately again doesn't cook again we borrow this a little bit to which says no no rather the concern of say is that what is that you may come to go ahead and put the together in an actual cooking pot and therefore I'll have isid bottom line bottom line 28:07 is what the gimar is saying over here is that you cannot go ahead and bring chicken and cheese on the same table not because we're concerned you're going to go ahead head and eat poultry and cheese because that's a and if we're going to be go say that would be the concern ultimately is because of the interchangeability between poultry and meat and the concern 28:31 is if we allow chicken and cheese on the same table one will come to go ahead and transgress the of that's what's happening over here so we'll say so the takeaways from these is number one nothing to do with that anything that would be anything that would come back and substitute if he can't fulfill the initial request is 28:58 included in and that's ultimately that includes all types of number two we said the is in alignment with and when the Mishna tells us that all forms of meat are what that's telling us is that what some types of meat are some types of meat And ultimately again, one is not permitted to go ahead and put any kind 29:23 of meat on the table with cheese lest you come to transgress the beautiful says in the here we go. Now what's interesting now is as follows. We're going to revisit one of the concepts that we just spoke about in the previous Mishna and we're going to see that it's subject to dispute. 29:45 You could put You could put foul together on with cheese on the table sounds very strange considering that we just said before that you can't. So you're going to see it's so ultimately again chicken right chicken understand I'm going to use chicken but you understand chicken doesn't mean chicken it means foul poultry. So chicken can be placed on the table with cheese 30:07 but you can't eat it together. So we'll say B is an interesting ka. You can't eat you can't eat poultry together with milk, but you can place them on the same table together. So we'll say obviously opinion is not reflected in the previous Mishna. He argues on that. So I'm sorry says no, you cannot put them on the same 30:33 table together and of course you cannot eat them. focus. The good news is everyone is agreeing that you cannot eat these items together. What they're disagreeing about say is what can you place them on the table together telling me I can telling me I cannot. So these says says this is among the leniencies 31:02 of and the stringencies of what exactly is adding to this of party we're not exactly sure we'll see in the listen to this what type of table are we referring to other words when B hill says well what type of table are we referring to look at Rashi which is Not yet. 31:25 Dealing with the table that you're eating at a prep table. It's actually interesting. A prep table. No, you could place one by the side of the other and we are not worried. So we'll say what's happening over here. Look at So say interestingly enough the concern over here about about 31:58 and on the same table is referring to a table that you eat at since I'm eating my hands are all over the place. So that that's where the concern comes up. We're going to see what exactly the nature of the concern is but that's where the concern on a prep table. So say so there apparently the Mishna is saying there's no concern of putting each one by the side of the other. Why? Because the assumption is on a prep table you prep 32:20 one thing at a time. So because you prep one thing at a time therefore there's no concern ultimately of any interchangeability between these items. Very interesting. So the says as follows. So we'll say so remember again the Mishna the Mishna is Bash and then so remember again B is me says you can't 32:44 eat together with but you can put them on the same table says you can't eat them you can't eat it and you can't place on the same table and Rabiosi said oh what do you see from here this is from the lenencies of the stringencies of okay so what what does Rabiosi seems to be saying the same thing as a tanakamo Maybe that in fact is coming to add something 33:13 regarding the consumption of chicken and milk. So the maybe the is saying are arguing regarding putting them on the same table. But when it comes to consumption agree that you cannot consume together with maybe is coming to say wow maybe is actually coming to say what 33:45 no is not just by but what is actually saying that you can actually eat to which the says that can't be true I'll tell you why We learned there are six things that are considered to be of the lenencies of and the stringencies of and this is one of them which is one of 34:13 them. You can put chicken on the table with milk but you cannot eat them together. These are the words of says says you can't put it on the table nor can you go ahead and eat it. So says you see from here that's what Rabio does not say that B sh says that you could eat 34:41 is limited to what to placing it on the table together rather what does coming to teach me say who is the raiosi that's the list who the is how beautiful this is to teach meola the teaching that whenever you say something over in the name of the person 35:08 who initially said it say you bring redemption to the world say this incredible timing so say isn't that incredible that Esther ultimately tells what is this referring to this is referring to the assassination plot right so Esther tells Akash veros that it was Morai who discovered the assassination plot And I want to say as a result what akaj 35:36 records Morai's name in his sacronos. And as a result of Morai's name being recorded in sacronos later on when can't sleep and he's reading his sacronos he remembers Morai. So what do you see from here? When you say something over in someone's name maybe now this this is literal right the came about Esther 36:00 could have just said hey king someone's trying to kill you here the guys go take care of it but she says it over in because of that ultimately what he is recorded say on a deeper level what this also means is as follows say sometimes a person says over a piece of Torah there's yeets in everything and there's in Torah Also, the itahara in Torah is self aggrandisement, right? 36:23 Theara of Torah is is fueling your own ego. So, if you want to say something and I'd like to take credit for it, I leave out who actually said it. I'll make it look like mine. Like, I had this beautiful idea. When you say something in Torah and you attribute it, what you're really showing is that you're learning for the sake of learning. 36:41 You're learning for the sake of growth. You're learning for the sake of hashem. And when a Jew learns Torah, that brings an incredible redemptive spirit to the world. That's therefore again is teaching me this concept by telling me ultimately the Rabio say here we go. These are incredible incredible. 37:05 So listen to this. The father-in-law Rabba said as follows. Chicken and cheese can be eaten. That's the shortfar. Other words, you don't have to take any can't eat chicken and meat together or excuse me, you can't eat chicken and cheese, chicken and milk together, but you do not need to take the normal precautions between chicken and milk like you have 37:40 to do between meat and milk. That's what it calls. You could eat it, right? No precautions. What what does that mean? No precautions. So, say again, I want to be clear. No one's suggesting here that you can eat them together. That's why why you can't eat them together. But the precautions which are in place between meat and milk or even milk and meat as 38:04 we'll see do not apply between chicken and milk. So say what does that mean? You don't need to wash your hands nor do you need to wipe out your mouth. Now both say these kinds. So, so I understand right is washing my hands. 38:23 What does mean look at just a moment? It changes it over here in the ghost. So we'll say we're going to speak about this concept of kin does not just simply mean a washing out of the mouth. But as we're going to see actually means chewing on something which cleanses the pallet and takes out that which may be embedded in the teeth. We're going to see this tomorrow. That's the process of 39:05 we'll say so what the is saying over here is between chicken and milk there is no and therefore again you don't have to wash your hands nor do you have to clean out your mouth with the process we call so let's listen to this the son of went to the house of 39:29 they brought him cheese he ate it isra They brought him meat and he ate it and he didn't wash his hands. Now both say now the story you'll see from the narrative here that the story presupposes that between cheese and meat you have to wash your hands. Now why do you have to wash your hands in between cheese and meat? Apparently they're cheesesai 39:54 were a bit greasier right? So therefore, again, this is just a d in making sure you have no cheesemutz on your hands. Right? So yet he ate he ate he ate the cheese. He didn't wash his hands. So said to him said, "It's true. You could eat chicken and cheese together, but that's only that's only foul, right? 40:24 That's only chicken and cheese that you could eat without. But when it comes to when it comes to you at least go ahead and say this is actually amazing. So what what happens said when do you need between say when is that? 40:47 >> That's at night. Why? By daytime you can see if there right. So at night ultimately again when you can't see if there what that's when you have to wash your hands but by day apparently physical inspection is enough said I'm able to said I was able to look at my hands 41:11 there was no and therefore again is not necessary. We'll stop over here for today. We're going to continue with this tomorrow.
Expand transcript 5,808 words
